Karaoke Forums

In order to tell whether you are using original discs or not, my investigator has to be able to see the discs. If the investigator can see that you're using a computer system to play karaoke tracks but can't see your disc player or any original discs, how on earth can you expect him to know that you're using discs? My investigators are smart, clever, and experienced, but they can't read minds and they don't have x-ray vision.



You're not reading what I'm writing. I'm not backpedaling in the slightest.

There is a difference between "You can play from original discs without fearing that you will be sued over it" and "There is no possibility that you will ever be sued if you play from original discs."

The first one is perfectly reasonable and rational while accounting for the possibility of human error. The second is a litigation trap, because it is impossible to eliminate all sources of human error.

Even so, it would not be your fault, and I've never implied otherwise. It might be the investigator's fault, or it might just be a mistake that was inevitable despite due care. I agree that suing someone who plays only from original discs is a mistake, and that an immediate dismissal should be the only result of that once the fact of playing only from originals is established. I just can't guarantee that they won't make a mistake, and that's what you're asking me to do.

You think you're entitled to perfection, but you're not. Nobody is. You're entitled to good faith and reasonableness.



There is no inherent hazard associated with the use of karaoke discs to put on a karaoke show. I am telling you today, and I have told you consistently every time before when it has come up: You do not have a reasonable apprehension of suit. You have a greater chance of being struck by lightning in your lifetime than you, personally, have of being sued because you played original SC discs. I'm trying to think of ways that we can deal with your unreasonable apprehension of suit.



I would expect any lawyer responsible for Michigan to be aware of your operation and to avoid suing you without an iron-clad, open-and-shut case. But I can't guarantee that.

We have never sued ANYONE for using the product in the manner intended. We have sued people for using the product outside the scope of the intended use, and on exactly two occasions of hundreds if not thousands, we were wrong, and it turned out that they were using it precisely as intended. In both of those occasions, dismissal was swift and final.

For some reason, you're a lot more exercised about those two defendants than either of them have ever been.



Actually it did stop more people from being wrongfully sued. It just didn't stop everybody from being wrongfully sued.

But it doesn't matter whether I find those mistakes acceptable or not. (For the record, I don't find them acceptable, so if they occur, I take swift action to correct them.) Mistakes are going to happen. It is an immutable law of nature: Humans make mistakes.



Are you going to turn over the revenue you made from using the discs?

There seems to be an assumption that I'm somehow intending on hiding my use. Just because I don't put up posters and announce it between songs doesn't mean I'm hiding anything. Anybody who came up to speak to me would be able to actually see the discs. Now you want to give me new parameters that are necessary in order to make sure that I help your investigator. But you're not willing to have him walk up to me and ask? Why? Because you're afraid I'll broadcast his presence? Fine. If you give him parameters that don't allow him to do an effective investigation, then he isn't going to be able to do an effective investigation. Again, you're creating a more difficult situation. Not me.



You and I know that there have been more than two. There are only two that can be publically referred to. The rest are privy to confidentiality agreements, but we can agree that they exist.

Then, there are the other issues. Pavkovich. Joe's friend in New Jersey. There have been issues with incorrect names on lawsuits....claims that multiple systems were used when only one was. A claim that someone was working a club that hadn't been there in quite a long time. Oh - and in a post of yours from March 4th, you said there were 3-5 incorrect incidents. Sounds like backpedaling to me. Would you like an oar?

With regard to swiftness...your definition and mine are seriously different. Rodney was sued on October 6, 2011. He was not released until January 18, 2012. In addition, he WAS using the product in the manner intended, and the investigator never bothered to even walk into the club. If it were my office, I could have had a dismissal order out the same day. I don't care if you weren't notified until December -- that's still almost a month that went by before the case was actively dismissed.



You know, I spoke with a number of attorneys in my office today about this, and not one of them thought this was an acceptable practice.





I worked hard for the money to pay for those discs, as well as others discs that helped generate revenue. I worked hard for the revenue (discs didn't play themselves). I paid for these discs and carried them around. SC is the one that is making it difficult for me to use them. And SC is also refusing to indemnify me for using them in the manner in which they are intended. Now why exactly are you entitled to revenue???

_________________
Birdofsong

Smooth, how many times do you have to be told that the GEM series is a lease, it is not bought, just like a car or an apartment. You pay for the lease. If or when the lease ends, the product goes back to the lessor. Leasing is done all the time and I'm not sure why you don't get the concept.

Bird, you know better. The Rodney case was dealth in just over three months, which in the legal world is lightning fast. Further I doubt ANY attorney in your firm or anywhere else is going to give an ironclad guarntee on ANY case.

As for contingency cases, an attorney doesn't even offer one unless he or she has a pretty reasonable idea that they will win or settle and the vast majority of these are in insurance claims worth a heck of a lot of money. Even with those, they will not guarantee results.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

We sign "ironclad" agreements every day. And 3 months is an eternity to fix a mistake against a non-investigated, CDG playing KJ. It's a shameful amount of time. Really.

_________________
Birdofsong

I get the concept, and I don't like it. Why would I pay all that money to lease something?? I won't even do that for cars. The ONLY thing I would lease is a house. If I am paying that kind of money, it will be for for an asset to my business, not just spending money on nothing. I don't lease my sound system, why would I lease the music??

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Signing an ironclad agreements get signed everyday but very few, unless very simple take longer to prepare to get into the ironclad state.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Is this thread about a real question or just an excuse to keep the SC hating going? If it's a desire for a solution, maybe the negotiations could be taken up via PM or direct contact with SC. It is just going around in circles with every offer being rejected and then used as a reason to dredge up the same stuff. At least that is how it is beginning to appear.

Rodney's situation came to my attention on 12/22. Even though I was on vacation, I was on the phone to Kurt that day. We spent two weeks trying to get the investigator to give us a copy of his report, but he refused to do so. I flew to California on 1/8 and was at one of Rodney's venues on 1/9. I made my recommendation for dismissal that same day, and Kurt's instructions to dismiss him went to the attorney on 1/10. Unfortunately, the lawyer refused at first to accept Kurt's instructions, which flabbergasted me. He was dismissed on 1/18.

So it wasn't three months. It was less than one month, and if the investigator and the attorney had not delayed us, it would have been shorter. From the verification of original disc usage to the instructions to dismiss it was one day.

Didn't you fly in to California to make an appearance on the CAVS suit? Not specifically to come to Rodney's rescue. You didn't get a report because the investigator told Rodney that there was no report to give. And don't these people work for Kurt?

I can see that there will be a justification at every turn, so Leopard Lizard has one thing right (and only one)-- there really is no point in continuing this.

Suffice it to say that the company is not willing to idemnify their customers for using their original product in the manner intended. The rationalization for this appears to be that they are at the mercy of the incompetent investigators and renegade attorneys they hire, and have no control over their own project.

It's looking like I will have to investigate other options in order to get the protection that any reasonable consumer who purchases in good faith is due.

_________________
Birdofsong

IMHO, the "hating" SHOULD go on. SC needs to make amends for insulting their customers and treating them like potential criminals. If the government were doing the things that SC is doing, you people would be all up in arms talking about how the government is taking over. It's not the government, it's a VENDOR. That is all SC is. They are a VENDOR of karaoke disks. They shouldn't be wielding all this power over their customers, their customers shouldn't have to deal with these issues. You want to be a cheerleader for SC, be my guest, but don't expect everyone to fall in line like a bunch of sheep. They are compact disks. They aren't made of gold.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

I wish people were half as much up in arms about some of the things the govt. is doing as they are on Sound Choice.

SC isn't just a vendor, they are a rights holder and we are using a product that has rights attached to it. It is just the nature of intellectual property.

It's not an assumption. You said it outright.



No, I want to give you parameters that will help you deal with your irrational fear of being sued so that you can use the product you paid for. My investigators would very likely come up to speak to you because that's how we get a lot of information to make the necessary assessments.



I am not willing for my investigator to roll up like a cop and ask to see your license and registration, so to speak, no. I am perfectly happy for my investigator to act like a normal, if interested, patron, asking you questions about your show and observing how you operate. But I am specifically not going to let him ask to see your discs when you are running your show solely from a hard drive. As you indicated, that would not be the issue, because you would be playing your SC from discs.

Of course, this is all assuming that I would send an investigator to your show without telling him who you are and what the history of your relationship with SC is. And to be perfectly honest, if it were my case, I wouldn't leave it to an investigator. I'd go myself and bring a specialist who works for SC, and maybe even a second team. But I'm not doing Michigan, and I don't know whether it has been assigned to someone else.



To the contrary, I'm giving him parameters that allow him to do a very effective investigation. You're asking him to be perfect, and I'm telling you that it's impossible.



Actually we can't agree that they exist. For one thing, we have never entered into a settlement agreement with anyone who was an originals-only KJ or venue. Not Rodney, not McLeod's. Since all of my confidentiality agreements state that I can acknowledge the fact of the agreement, there would be no restriction on my doing so. I'm telling you that they don't exist.



I said that you keep bringing up the same 3-5 incidents, endlessly repeating them so that they seem more significant than they actually are. No back-pedaling.



Actually, I have proof that the investigator did go into the club. But you wouldn't know about that because that case has absolutely nothing to do with you. Your "information" is based on conjecture.

You do realize that Rodney's case was not my case. I can't just go and file a dismissal in a case I'm not involved in. If it had been my case, it would never have been filed, because I insist on seeing my investigators' full written reports before I even start writing the complaint.



I don't think it's an acceptable practice either, which is why I changed it.



We're not making it difficult for you to use them at all. You should feel free to use your original discs in your shows without fear of being sued. That goes for you and for everybody. If that's not good enough, well, we're not the ones standing in your way.

That most of the other companies don't seem to care about, as they offer their music for download. Tricerasoft even licenses their music for KJ use. SC needs to get on the ball.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

I was there on the first day my schedule allowed it. I returned to Charlotte from my vacation on 1/4. I had a mediation conference in Charlotte on 1/6 that required my physical presence. The fact that I already had to be in California on 1/9 made it easier to do that as well, but it could not have been done sooner anyway.



The investigator told Rodney that he does not turn over his reports to defendants, which is true. I don't know whether one exists. As for whether these people work for Kurt, the answer is, not anymore.



With one exception--McLeod's, which happened more than two years ago--every one of the incidents you refer to incessantly can be traced to that investigator. The arrangement was to give him a free hand to manage the project in the geographic areas of his responsibility. That proved to be problematic, and despite Kurt's efforts over a period of a year to fix that problem, it remained unfixed until a few weeks ago.

Based on your usage, I don't think you understand what the word "indemnify" means. Or maybe you do, but you've launched this new attack because the old ones were wearing thin. I really don't understand the mentality of the contrarian. No reasonable person would refuse to use their original SC discs on the theory that lightning will strike them and they will get named in a lawsuit that will get dropped with no repercussions in a day or two. Which means either that you're irrational, which is possible, or that you're just looking for something to complain about.



You've already got the protection that any reasonable consumer is due. If you want to make an issue of it, I'm sure that Kurt would be happy to oblige you.

I'm not going to keep quoting this crap.

The bottom line is this is not an attack. It's a valid question from a customer.

To summarize: I simply wanted an assurance I would not be sued. You said no. I said I believe I'm due that. You said you couldn't do that because people make mistakes (Oops! A lawsuit!).

I don't care if it's one. It's too many. I've stated some valid concerns about what could happen if a lawsuit is mistakenly filed. Whether one is mistakenly filed is within your control. I'm not an unknown here. You know who I am. Probably know where I work. And based on what transpired earlier with Smoothedge, probably what kind of car I drive. Nobody has to walk into a club blindly. They can be told what, and who, to look for specifically. What you don't have control of is what your Cheerleaders might do if a suit is mistakenly filed. None of this is anything I'm willing to subject myself to. That doesn't make me paranoid. That makes me reasonable. Whether you think I am or not. Weren't you the one that called me intelligent for being "cautious?"

When I said that the attorneys at my office said this was not an acceptable practice, what I meant was that they did not think subjecting their customers to the risk of a lawsuit for using their product was an acceptable practice. Just to be fair, I let them read the entire thread, so they weren't just taking my word for it. Why is this so difficult to understand, and why am I being vilified for having a reasonable reaction to what I consider to be an unreasonable stance from a manufacturer? Calling me irrational is neither accurate nor constructive.

You've made your position clear. We are clearly not going to meet in the middle on this.

_________________
Birdofsong

So your law firm has won every lawsuit and have never made a mistake or sued someone by mistake? Or that everyone they defended were acquitted? Again, why are you holding SC and its attorneys to a higher standard than your or ANY OTHER law firm out there. It's time for you to take a dose of reality.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

WOW!



*oops, minimum number of characters is 10* That cover it?

_________________
SoundChoice Certification coming soon!

I actually despise answers within quotes, but I could not think of a more clear way to reply to the same in this instance. Apologies.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

SC is dwindling down here, too. It's funny, because at 30 SC disks, that I ended up buying for my own amusement, I have more of their stuff than most of the KJs down here. SGB is popular around here as is All Star and CB. Around here I think it's just an expense issue. Nobody seems to know anything about the piracy issue. I'm the only one I know who has any PHM, and the two that I have are from '04.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

I've been at this for decades, and I only have a few more SC discs than you- still 30-something.

These I keep because:

1) Even I think that SOME of their tracks are too good to toss. SC8119, a good duet disc, and their version of "Kind Of A Drag on SC8218 are a couple.

2) Can't find a replacement- The Spiderman cartoon theme on SC8438 comes to mind.

3) Single disc location. Most of the SC stuff I own isn't Spotlight, but rather the Star Series single artist discs. They were cheaper ( though now price-gauging material for whoever still sells SC discs) at the time, and the title selection per artist on these discs made them convenient to use.

(Note: Though I sometimes use Karaoke Party multiplexes for filler using both channels mono, and CBs are useable in right side mono, SC multiplexes are completely useless for this purpose. They sound horrible).


Those that fit the descriptions above will be kept, others will be replaced.

If I visit another KJ's show here, even though they will take customer discs, they no longer will even play a customers original SC- even mine for Kind Of A Drag. They just don't want it on screen.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."