Karaoke Forums

You're coming in on the middle of this, so I can understand why you might be confused.

There is a difference between (1) seeing someone clearly playing from a hard drive and asking to see discs and (2) seeing a sign that says "we play from discs--ask to see" and asking to see discs. The first one doesn't work; the question is too nosy, and it significantly raises the likelihood that the investigator will be "made." If that happens, that investigator will lose his/her effectiveness in that area. In the second situation, there's an affirmative claim from the KJ that he/she uses original discs, along with an invitation to check. That lowers the likelihood that the investigator will get "made"--he/she might just be a curious patron--but, more importantly, if the KJ is using original discs, there is very little chance that he/she will go tell all the pirates in the area that an enforcement action is afoot and they better get square.

Very few people play from discs anymore, and even fewer do so in a way that makes it difficult for the investigator to pick them out. I've been on five separate investigations where the KJ was using original discs exclusively. Most of the time, they're easy to pick out, but there are some exceptions. birdofsong's situation falls into one of those exceptions--an integrated player that's perhaps not readily visible from outside the booth.

Maybe it's a difference in the laws of different states, but I can tell you that in North Carolina, the owner of a vehicle involved in an accident is frequently sued if the at-fault driver had the owner's permission to drive, regardless of whether he was in the car or not. Likewise, businesses that own vehicles that are involved in accidents are routinely sued.

It really is not our intention to make it hard on the people who are good customers. The problem is that you're outnumbered 19-to-1 by pirates. Going strictly on percentages, the chances that you are a fully legitimate operator are very, very slim, so of course we need to verify that before we leave you alone. We're not busting down your door--we save that for the hard drive sellers.

We can't abandon this project because it will be the end of the company if we do. Yes, it's inconvenient, but you make it more inconvenient for yourself by adopting a militant attitude. Why on earth would you *worry* that a patron is really an investigator, and that the result of that trip is going to be the end of your company? If you're going to be that paranoid, why not simply assume that all of your patrons are investigators? If you're doing things the right way, it shouldn't matter.

There are a few people on this board whom I assume are legal, or mostly so, but who bristle at the thought of cooperation. I think those people are making a mistake by adopting an unreasonably risk-averse outlook.

If you get sued, and you are a 1:1 correspondence operator, the lawsuit will be resolved in a matter of days. Getting sued is not like a criminal charge. It doesn't stain some pristine record. It doesn't affect your credit or your standing in the community. It just means that there is a dispute between you and somebody else, and that person has asked the court to sort it out. If a lawsuit is filed, and the plaintiff dismisses within a few days after some discussions, nobody cares.

And if you're running only from original discs, and by some huge cosmic misalignment you happen to get sued by mistake, we will move heaven and earth to get that resolved and get you back to where you were.

If you can give me a workable way to be more efficient at suing the pirates and leaving the 1:1ers alone, I will make sure it gets implemented. But I'm not going to scrap a very effective method and replace it with "nothing."

Not at all. But I find it odd that you would ask me to do something, then criticize me when I do it.



I assure you, I was and am 100% percent serious about it.



I have said many times that I don't read every post. I don't even read every post in the threads that I respond in. I have not seen what you described on this board. I saw it on another board and I asked that it stop immediately.



I have no idea who or what you're talking about. I am a relative newcomer to this board; I don't follow all of the squabbling (or worse), and when I see it, my eyes are apt to glaze over, regardless of the source. I'm here to identify questions I can answer and false statements I can correct. If somebody steps over your line, you should take it up with them or with management instead of assuming that my silence means I agree. On the other hand, as a rule, I agree that we don't need any of that here on either side. If we can't have reasonable discussions without devolving into threats and cyberstalking, then the plug needs to be pulled, at least on the offending parties.



Let me make you an offer. I am going to assume that this is not a problem of having too-thin skin and that you know the difference between disagreement and a personal attack. If somebody whom you perceive to be a "cheerleader" for SC says something on here that you regard as an attack, you should report it to the moderator first, then send me a personal message with the details. Since I get notified of those in my email, I will be a lot more likely to see it and respond. I am quite serious about my position on personal attacks.



I'm trying to reach out here, hoping that we can meet in the middle. I really don't think we're as far apart as you make it seem. I do think there is an emotional gulf between the two sides of this debate. Reminds me of the Butter Battle Book.

Yes, owners are sued. You're splitting hairs. I'm sure you understood my point. An unrelated person is not sued by mistake for causing the accident. Likewise, a KJ that is not infringing never should be sued, either. I think it's important enough to be VERY CAREFUL.

I know you think if it ever happened, that we were mistakenly sued, that it would go away quietly with a little discussion and clarification. I don't know if you understand the level of ardor people like Thunder and Wall of Sound tend to pursue us with...Chip is often the topic of conversation over at the "other forum." Probably more than piracy, itself. It's actually pretty creepy. Thunder researches the lawsuits like they are a religion. And Wall of Sound has actively stalked Chip over on Facebook to the point of creating a fake page for him which included a great deal of personal information. The second SC mistakenly files a lawsuit against us (and it would be mistakenly because we do own our discs and would be playing off of them), one of them would immediately contact our establishment to let them know how "dishonest" we were, and how we should be fired. They probably wouldn't stop there. I believe at least one of them knows which firm I work at, as well.

In short...you have some pretty seedy followers, who would love to use anything they can to take us down. Diafel wasn't kidding. It's weird and creepy. These people seem to have little else to do.

Beyond that, I am absolutely sure we are not Kurt's favorite people. As you said, we have been very vocal. I think there is at least a small chance that this might not go away as quickly as it might for someone like Rodney. Of course Rodney didn't have the legal resources I do, but that may not matter.

I know you think I'm a bit paranoid, but I am still not comfortable with this situation. And I know you think that there is an acceptable risk here, but again, it's my risk. Like I said before -- I'm looking to keep the drama and stress out of my life. I'm raising teenagers. I have enough to worry about.

Smoothedge had a point. There isn't any other product you can purchase out there that puts you in line for the possibility of being sued just for purchasing it and using it in the way it was intended. You should fix that. That's not a good marketing technique.

_________________
Birdofsong

I would say that if SC doesn't want to work with KJs and figure out a better way to run their anti-piracy crusade, then you and the rest of us that are against their tactics should dump them. Let the cheerleaders have fun with lawsuits and audits. they want 'em they can have 'em. I am finding Sunfly online that have some pretty good versions of songs I never knew were on karaoke, and they are downloadable as MP3+G and are usable by KJs with not problems. They audit like Itunes. You play the songs, they know it's yours. No hassle to you, and no expense, other than buying the songs, which is as it should be. Were I in your position, I would call SC, try to get the owner on the line, and tell HIM your concerns. If there is no resolution from him, tell him you want all your money back on the disks you have. He has to get the message that legit KJs don't want to be harassed and watched over.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

To Harringtonlaw:

I would like to know just how you know if a KJ is playing off a disc or not?

There are KJ programs out there run on computers that will play off of discs and HD's.

So a KJ takes a disc and puts it into the computer drive. Just how do you know if the computer is playing off the disc or the HD?

The investigator sees someone place a disc into the drive and he can only assume that it is the correct disc and that he is playing it when in fact he could be using the computers hard drive to play the song!

Also I have read where there is/was a disc player that used removable holders of multiple discs how would an investigator tell what discs the KJ is using if he never sees a KJ changing discs because they are all enclosed in the holder?

I'm pretty sure that Chip and Bird have one, if not more, of these players.

Nothing is hidden it's all out in the open except you can't see the discs!

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

[quote="Lone Wolf"]

Also I have read where there is/was a disc player that used removable holders of multiple discs how would an e KJ is using if he never sees a KJ changing discs because they are all enclosed in the holder?

I'm pretty sure that Chip and Bird have one, if not more, of these players. [/quote]

I love how you guys keep reaching for possibilities to help SC, so they don't have to honor their word that disc users won't be sued. I haven't used a cartridge system in 10 years. I have one player which requires you to press a button which opens the tray, put the disc in the tray, and then push a button to close the tray. When the song is done, you get to witnesses the entire process again. Anyone honestly walking into the bar for the purpose of verifying disc use of SC tracks can see exactly what's going on. If, that is, they actually come into the club and want to see. This is not rocket science, Lone. Unless you've hired the Keystone Cops, you'll see everything you need to.

_________________
Birdofsong

birdofsong I don't think lonewolf was reaching for a way to help SC, but rather show that there are other ways to legally play SC discs without it being obvious original discs were being used.

The player I have at home is Siglos and will in fact allow you to play discs from the cd-rom drive. If I were doing a show you may or may not even see that a disc was inserted into the cd rom. Siglos doesn't display it any differently that than a song played from an HD and there would be no interruption to the graphics, scrolling next singers, etc...

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

I was trying to be on your side Bird.
I know you want to try and play SC's stuff and you are looking for an easy way to do it without getting caught in the "NET".

I too want what you want also and I'm sure there lots of others here want it.

I saw a post where JerryKaraoke received a letter saying that he was legal without being audited just because SC had visited his show and saw that he was disc based. Why can't the rest of us get that?

Also he could shift in the future if he wanted to.

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

Supposedly they are working on a system for disc host verification. I have emailed them about it and am awaiting word on what the process will be. I really don't mind showing them that I have each one, even if there is a fee to cover their time involved. I know I already paid for them, etc. but if I can be on their website as a certified host then I will just include that in the advertising budget. Others may feel differently about that but I really enjoy playing our SCs without fear.

With others roping off their booths, putting big signs up around their rigs, only having a monitor for the singer and pretty much trying to hide their operations, I don't mind easily distinguishing ourselves as one of the good guys. It is an intrusion but an intrusion with benefits and one could get it done in a day or spend 3 years arguing about it. If I am going to worry about giving up freedom or rights, I'd rather save my fight for some of the things the government does.

Believe it or not, other vendors do put restrictions on how their products are used be it how things are displayed at grocery stores or makers of non-prescription products who still want to control who sells them--like only selling through veterinary hospitals and not feed stores. The latter keeps track of serial numbers to figure out who broke the terms of the sale and sold to the non-authorized places. I don't agree with all of it ( such as a vendor witholding their product from a distributor if they sell another brand of the product) but it IS done. In any case, intellectual property has rights reserved to it which makes it a different type of product, anyway, and those rights would appear to govern what can be done by the end user.

I came into this thread prepared to get into a tussle, but there's no need. Things have pretty much been stated clearly:

Whether disc based or even "certified" PC host, Mr. Harrington cannot guarantee that you won't get sued.

Bird has re-iterated the reasons why the SC brand/label is fact becoming a fading memory in my area. Of course some may claim the piracy connection as the cause. OK. It really doesn't matter- the fact remains that SC's name is starting to self-destruct.

Some interesting points, though:

1) From Chrisavis- "I am under no guarantee that I will not be sued and I am triple certified. The audit in and of itself does not prevent me from being sued. It is my actions that are attached the the before, during, and after of the audit that give me faith that I will not be sued."


With all due respect to you, Chris, I admire your faith. On the other hand, shelling out all of that time, money, and energy with no guarantee of any return may not be the very best of business decisions. What other product would a businessman pay for with absolutely no guarantee of delivery? Faith is a good thing, but business is business.

2) Jerry Karaoke has posted that he may well be the first "certified" disc based host on SC's site. I'm happy if he is, but I'm not sure if he knows of the above.


3) Bird, I've read the covenant not to sue. Someone please correct me if I misinterpreted, but it seems like the signor agrees that the actual owner of his SC discs is Sound Choice- not the person who paid for them. IF ( and only if) this is interpreted correctly, why would anyone who has a decent investment in said discs want to sign it?

As for my own over-vocal self:

I guess I do the "right" things just because of my hosting style. I stand in FRONT of my equipment because I want to make sure there is no illusion of inaccessability for my singers. This means that my open binders are in full view at all times, as well as the discs that are lined up on the felt witing to be played. I am also aware that this has been witnessed by at least one SC employee, as well as at least one investigator. That and the fact that I use an extemely small amount of SC product.

So yeah, I get a little vocal myself...

On the other hand, if I didn't work in that manner, I most certainly would not be waving discs about or putting up signs with SC's name them.

A Karaoke Host is paid to be a good Karaoke Host. An investigator is paid to investigate- not stand there and look stupid. Can't see something from your position? Get off you a$$ and go look! Still can't see? So, not knowing, are you going to fabricate a report? Hope not.

Once again- A Trademark Infringement suit ( as weak as I believe it may be) can only be brought forth if someone actually witnesses the display of the trademark on the PUBLIC screen from A NON-ORIGINAL MEDIA SOURCE.. It either happened or it didn't- no gray area.

This means that an "investigator" must KNOW whether the show is PC based. No guessing allowed. Sorry. To sue without this information is frivolous.

Unfortunately for both the investigator and SC, it is not a host's responsibility or duty to run around like a chicken waving discs, or advertise SC's name on signage. It is up to the "investigator" to simply their job.
Having seen absolutely nothing to indicate wrongdoing, the "investigator's" only options are to move on to a different host, or try again at another time. Ethically, suing for no known reason is not an option.




It is my belief that many of the folks that participate are working on contingincy. If this is true, it may well have the effect of fabrication creation / guessing in hopes of more income. Name a whole bunch and hope some stick..

I am not privy to all of SC's doings, so keep in mind that the last paragraph is speculation on my part- but I believe it strongly.


Mr. Harrington stated that being sued does not "stain a pristine" reputation. We disagree. Not only on that point, but probably on the point that the handling of this situation has, and will continue to, stain SC's reputation and credibility.

Admittedly, doing it properly the first time may not have reaped what it has for SC in the beginning, but it would have saved legit KJs AND SC a lot of grief, added credibility to SC's case and program, and left their label with a whole lot more marketability than it has now- assuming they actually did want to re-enter their original market again. They would probably have made back more money that they will be able to keep in the long run as well.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

You're right, Joe...I don't want to sign their current Covenant. I want them to write a document specifically that says they will honor their word not to sue me for using original media. It would take about 30 second to draft something. Hell, I'd even write it for them.

_________________
Birdofsong

So did the little old lady who bought coffee from a certained arched take out place and spilled it on herself then sued and won, did that ruin the reputation or sales afterward? Maybe a bit but the arch is continuing to grow. That also goes for makers of automobiles (I don't think there's one out there that hasn't been sued), soft drinks and a myriad of others.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

"3) Bird, I've read the covenant not to sue. Someone please correct me if I misinterpreted, but it seems like the signor agrees that the actual owner of his SC discs is Sound Choice- not the person who paid for them. IF ( and only if) this is interpreted correctly, why would anyone who has a decent investment in said discs want to sign it?" quoted from JoeChartreuse.

If this is the case, why would anyone want to buy their products in the first place?? If I pay for something, I expect to own it. If I don't own it, it's a lease not ownership. I would NEVER agree to something like that.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Never saw anything about the actual owner of the discs being SC. I saw where they do own the trademarks, their own copyright & the IP associated with the 'content', not anywhere does it state, SC owns the discs.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

Sorry, Lone.

_________________
Birdofsong

I know you've misinterpreted that language unless you are referring to the CNS that is part of the GEM license agreement. As has been discussed here ad nauseam, ownership of the GEM discs remains with SC; the KJ has a license and the right to possess and use the GEM discs.

Ordinary CDGs that are the subject of a CNS are the property of the KJ, not SC. I have never seen a SC CNS that required the beneficiary to turn over ownership of the discs to SC.

Now, I could get huffy here and complain that you've maliciously put out false information designed to discredit SC, and HOW DARE YOU do that, and talk about how it undermines your credibility, and are you going to reimburse me for the time I had to spend correcting you? except...I know that it's just a simple mistake, made in good faith, and that it's not that you're trying to get it wrong, or not trying to get it right.




None of the investigators that are working under my supervision or of the other attorneys that are directly employed by SC are working on a contingent-fee basis. They are paid a fee per investigation that is the same whether that investigation results in revenue or not.

There are areas that have, until now, been handled by a private investigative firm--and one of those areas, Joe, is your area--with which SC contracted. I do not know how their investigators were getting paid. They made their operations completely opaque to me and to Kurt. (That is being handled now.) So I suppose it's possible that you're right about some of the investigations. For my part, I think anything other than a fee-for-service or wage/salary arrangement with investigators is asking for trouble, for precisely the reason you suggest.



The bottom line is that year-over-year sales are up, not including settlements. I think that's a function of an improving economy, but I think your view about damage to SC's reputation and credibility in the marketplace is wishful thinking. As for the legal side of things, last week, for the fifth or sixth time in as many cases, a district judge declined to throw out one of our lawsuits. This time it was in New Jersey. The judge's opinion rather explicitly endorses our theory regarding trademark counterfeiting. There has yet to be an on-merits dismissal, despite several tries by defendants who were ably represented by experienced counsel.

I just went back and read this, Mr. Harrington. Are you saying that your trained investigators can't the tell the difference between someone who is playing music off a computer and one who is playing music off a disc? Really? Isn't that what they're already supposed to be able to do now?

Bottom line here -- I'm actually started to get pretty irritated. You stated several times in this forum that I (and anyone else) could play their original discs without fear of being sued. Now you're backpedaling, saying it's my fault if I don't advertise your company all over the bar and make announcements so people will come and inspect my discs. Basically, you're saying that if you accidentally sue me, then it's somehow my fault. All for using your product in the manner intended.

This is unacceptable. SC has created a product that comes with an inherent hazard that I was not made aware of at the time of purchase. This is not a motorcycle. If I buy a motorcycle, I take a risk of having an accident because there is an inherent danger in using the product. A Karaoke disc? No. There is not supposed to be an inherent danger there. Most especially not from the people I bought it from. The way I see it, you have two options to make this right. (1) Buy back the discs. You don't believe I have them? Try me. The're sitting in my garage right now and since I can't safely use them, I want my money back; or (2) Indemnify me.

I believe selling consumers a product and then suing them for using it in the manner intended -- and marketed -- is a violation of the Federal Trade Commission with regard to Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices. You think I should be more forgiving about the possibility of a mistake. Not when I've told you in no uncertain terms, many times over, that I own your discs and asked you to take an active part in indemnifying me.

As Joe said previously -- it is my job to host. It is your investigator's job to investigate. You keep shrugging your shoulders and saying there have been problems with the investigative methods, and that they have improved. I heard that one after McLeod's, but it didn't stop more people from being wrongfully sued. You think a handful of mistakes is acceptable. Not to me.

So is Sound Choice going to buy my discs back at my purchase price?

_________________
Birdofsong

Why?? If we have to pay $4500 or even $3000 why does SC still own the discs?? As a KJ, why would I pay all that money to not own the discs?? There is no value for me. That's like paying $3000 for a car and he dealership keeps the title. That's pretty screwed up.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE