Karaoke Forums

Speaking of RICO...

If the problem is caused by the same entity that wants money to solve the problem, especially payments on an ongoing basis, then that entity's actions have met the classical definition of criminal racketeering.

In this case, the problem is venues and KJ's getting sued for using the Sound Choice brand. But the same entity that's causing the problem is offering the solutions, HELP or GEM, in exchange for payments and/or ongoing "licensing".

Hey, I'm just sayin', there actually are laws against this sort of thing.

In all honesty I have several discs (SC and other brands) that would skip and garble graphics over the years of service, in several different players - but ripped perfectly to computer. The quality of those discs actually increased because there are no longer any graphic artifacts and skips while playing.
I can also guarantee no one ever thought that by me playing a Sound Choice disc thought that I was ever in any way affiliated with SC (other than buying the discs to play) - just like any other kj or me playing any other brand, they (the singers) do not think i'm affiliated with them either. I run a show and purchase music from whomever has it.

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

Even Prime "Members" aren't restricted to only SC/CB tracks, even though they would be working for PEP at those national bookings.

As there has been nothing new from SC/CB/PEP for a while now, Prime members would HAVE to display other karaoke companies logos (Such as Zoom, Karaoke Versions, etc.) that have been making current tracks, unless they can ONLY play from the PEP catalog.

So using PEP logic here: Maybe other karaoke companies will sue PEP and Prime members because THEY are being mis-represented as "part of" the PEP brand (You know, like PEP bought the karaoke company). Other current karaoke manufactures may not have authorized PEP to use their trade dress/logo for the financial gain of PEP/Prime members.

PEP can't have it both ways: You can't sue KJs for the same exact thing your Prime/national booking business will be doing: using a company logo/trade dress during a show that you don't have the rights to for financial gain. Either PEP has to restrict the catalog to what they own, produce new product under the SC/CB banners, or obtain the rights and pay fees for companies that are NOT PEP owned/operated to use at Prime shows.

Are you accusing us of a criminal act?

Let's be very clear about what you mean.



No, they are getting sued for using the Sound Choice brand without making any purchase that would reasonably justify that use. Period.

Ah, but once again you use the slippery technicality of using the term "without making any purchase" and not specifying what that purchase would be... whether it's discs or just purchase a contractual agreement for you not to sue them.

This week, you're suing "disc pirates" who didn't buy a disc, and last week you were suing "technical infringers" who purchased all their discs but didn't sign a contract and and every week, you're suing "vicarious venues"....

Anyway it's viewed, your whole business operation just appears underhanded. But whether what you do is "technically illegal" or not will be decided ultimately by the very court system I believe you've been abusing. Your recent attempts at appeals and reconsideration that have failed, not to mention your dismissing a KJ but keeping the venues on your lawsuit hook underscore that your methods and ethics are shall we say; "far less than honorable."

God knows you can't possibly actually supply this business with new, legal and usable product even after years of false promises.

You've done a terrific job of trashing your own credibility but continue to dump poison into your own (practically dead) well.

Carry on....

It's not a "slippery technicality." People who buy the product they use, in the amount they use, and who follow the clearly stated rules for that use, have no need to worry about being sued.

People who don't buy the product, who buy less than they use, or who can't be bothered to follow the clearly stated rules for that use--those people do have to worry about being sued. As EVERY COMPANY IN THE WORLD that owns intellectual property requires.



We aren't currently suing anyone who purchased all their discs, nor were we doing so last week...so another lie in your column.

We most definitely sue the venues who hire pirates to provide karaoke services to them as a marketing tool, after we've warned those venues about what they are doing and provided them with a free, easy method of having zero liability.



It appears underhanded to pirates and those who sympathize with them. Which explains your view 100%.

Ah, but here you single out a single class of cases for which Sound Choice did not cause the problem. In these cases pirates, the operators who did not purchase the content they are using, are the instigators of the problem, and you're more than entitled to legally demand payment for that.

But what of the other class of cases, when the operator did purchase your product? They are no longer the cause of the problem -- any problem. You got paid already. Now the problem becomes any legal actions being taken against them and/or the venues for which they work. There is no other problem in those cases. And now the instigator of the problem is the same entity that's demanding compensation to make this problem go away.

If circular logic isn't a crime, maybe it should be.

1. They may have purchased the product, but they didn't follow the clearly stated rules printed on the front of every disc.

2. Even so, we will drop them at no charge if they will simply fix their noncompliance.

3. This has applied to fewer than 10 operators we've sued over the last seven years.

And what is Kevin Cable then? Is he or is he not a Pirate? He has all his SC discs (he said that came out in Discovery when you were suing him). Apparently, you dismissed his case (albeit, without prejudice), but continued to sue the venues he was working for... even tho they fired him.

Are we sure on that? Because I can recall when the "clearly stated rule" was one copy allowed, for use at the show, provided the original disc was retained and kept home safe. Now that's a slippery slope for anyone who, after spending what could easily amount to many hundreds of hours modernizing their systems putting those single allowed copies on their hard drive, are told to dump all that (uncompensated) work or be labeled a "technical infringer".

Well, in three States that is no longer a problem, thanks to the courts. May it soon be all 50.

Unfortunately Kevin Cable isn't in one of those three States. And as Cue just rightly pointed out, what good does it do when you drop the suit against a technical infringer AFTER you sue all his workplaces, costing him 4 jobs, two venues of which you're still suing?

and sadly a couple of those venues stated they will never do karaoke again. Wasn't the point of lawsuits to recover money from pirates not shut down venues karaoke. That kind of hurts everyone, including SC I would think.

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

something just hit me with this....
Kevin is NOT a pirate, he has all of his discs and PEP let him go for it. but they still sued and settled with the venues. what did the venues do wrong to deserve paying PEP if their host was not a pirate and was let go? their only offence was not hiring SCE to do their shows at this point.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

Bull POOP!!! You sue anyone and everyone you see using SC without a disc!! That is regardless on if those discs are owned or not. There has even been a mistake or two where a KJ WITH discs has been named.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Smootedge69... you missed the key words in his statement (highlighted in red). In Harrington's statement, that purchase would not be the one made for the original discs. It would be for the media-shifting, and that purchase would be for either their Audit (proving you are 1:1), or their HELP license (for all others who either can't prove 1:1, or are multi-rigging with the use of just one set of originals).




I don't think it hurts SC at all. After all, the discs they had produced have already been sold. They got their money there. Now, they're trying to make money off the people who:
A. Stole the content through several methods (file-sharing sites, trading with other KJs, buying illegally loaded hard drives, etc...).
or
B. Make people purchase their HELP license or pay for an Audit for media-shifted content (to prove 1:1).

Yes, protection money, A.K.A. extortion.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Didn't mean so much the disc sales so much, but if they sue venues & turn them off to karaoke altogether, even their new 'entertainment' plan can't work there either along with no other company.

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

Mr. Cable admitted in his discovery responses:

(1) that he owns and possesses 251 Sound Choice discs;
(2) that his computers and external hard drive contain a total of 19,297 Sound Choice-branded tracks, including duplicates; and
(3) that he downloaded Sound Choice tracks from the internet.

Our analysis of the 251 discs he identified indicates that they contain no more than about 3,500 tracks, which leaves a deficit of almost 15,800 tracks for which he owns no disc and which he apparently downloaded from the internet.

The venues that hired Mr. Cable were warned prior to our final investigations that they are responsible for the conduct of the service providers they hire, if those service providers infringe our intellectual property. They were given the opportunity to avoid being sued if they simply signed up for our free Safe Harbor program and agreed to follow the requirements of that program. Despite the warning and despite the offer, they continued to allow Mr. Cable to perform on their premises. It was only after they were sued that they decided to take any action at all.

Since it is clear that these venues weren't interested in playing by the rules until they were forced to do so, how on earth can you fault us for forcing them to do so?

If that means they don't have karaoke anymore, fine. If you can't do it legally, you shouldn't do it.

I have seen a lot of support on this board for Mr. Cable. Some of you may have even given him money to help in his legal defense. That support appears to be premised on the idea that we (meaning Phoenix) are coming down hard on someone who did nothing wrong other than media-shifting. That idea is absolutely, flat-out wrong. Mr. Cable pirated the wide majority of the Sound Choice-branded karaoke tracks he was using. If you support him, you are supporting a pirate, period.

I was actually referring to the purchase of discs, not to certification or a HELP license.

Even though 1:1 operation without our permission is against our policy, we at least understand it and make special provisions for it when there's a suit.

The issue is that it's just really rare that we sue someone who does have 1:1 correspondence. It happens about once or twice a year. We work hard to avoid it when we can, and when it happens, we make it really quick and easy on the person involved to get the permission needed.

Many of you have made comments that suggest that we somehow target people who own 1:1 discs (we go out of our way NOT to target them), or that we somehow make money off people who own discs (we lose money on certifications, and we lose a lot more when we sue somebody who does have 1:1 correspondence).

Hasn't a federal court already decided that whatever Kevin Cable was doing is not an actionable offense? Didn't you drop his case to avoid that same decision from being rendered in his federal district as well? I really do enjoy watching you spin your wheels in these efforts to scare people into paying you money to just go away. Where's the damn popcorn?

I stand corrected.