Karaoke Forums

It seems to me the people who scream the loudest about having an audit, have the most to hide. I've read post after post on several web sites, and still can't figure out what's the big deal.

I went through the SC audit, and am dam*ed proud that I passed 100%. It was no inconvenience. It was am honor to show my stuff to a company I fully support. My experience with the SC auditor was similar to Athena. They didn't ask for the particular songs sung on any particular night at my show. They looked for songs in my book, and wanted to see the corosponding disk. The auditor also asked for songs on out of print disks to see if I actually had them. It was quick, painless, and actually kinda fun.

Using the police car example, say there was a kidnaping. Someone got a description of the car, but not the license number. Unfortunately you drive a blue Mazda crossover (the same as the kidnapper). If the police pull you over and you refuse to have your car searched, heaven help your a$$. You are suspect simply because of the car you drive.

Same with karaoke. You are suspect simply because you use a computer. Just let the man search (do an audit), and clear yourself.

_________________
My first choice IS Sound Choice.

Don't be silly.
Far too sensible.

and i assume you did not have to sign anything for the audit and it was done by Skype like KJAthena? is that correct?

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

So everybody that uses a computer is a pirate, that's like saying everybody with a (@$%&#!) is a rapist. SC's "audit" is nothing but pretrial discovery done without actually filing suit. You went through the audit, and you have the right to waive your rights as you did, but there are others who fought for you to have that right to waive. I still contend that if SC ever actually had the cojones to file a suit, it would be summarily dismissed.

As for using a computer, I have a bad back and do not want to lug a couple thousand discs to each show. That doesn't make me a pirate, that makes me a cripple. If SC and any other manu for that matter were serious about stopping piracy, they could encode each disc just like film companies do with advance copies or discs they send out for Oscar consideration. Then when they find a file on a file sharing site, they can download it, find out who the original purchaser was and sue accordingly.

_________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

So just what the hell are you saying? You better be careful what you say, my friend.

You went through an audit and passed. Good for you. But if I choose not to subject myself to one, for whatever reason, does that make me any less legal than you are?

Not only do I own all of my discs but can also provide all of the reciepts, can you?

Just worry about yourself. It's not yours or anyone elses concern what anyone else does. Got it?

It is the easiest way of pirating the songs. But no, you are not necessarily a pirate just because you use a computer. It is just easier to spot eh pirate when they run a system or several systems with 100,000 songs and just came into business overnight .

Using the cop scenario, you aren't aware that the cops can search your car if say you drove through a drug neighborhood and stopped at a house that has known drug dealers living in one of the apartments. That's probable cause right there. You might have entered a legit friend's apartment but if the doors aren't visible to the outside then they have no clue that you exited the non drug dealer's place. The police don't need a search warrant to search your vehicle if they think drugs are involved. Now you can make things easy and say yes, but one way or the other the cop is searching your car.

By the way, the SC lawsuits have nothing to do with copyright but the showing of their trademark when they haven't given you their permission to do so. You go to court, you lose whether or not you're 1:1. I'd rather go through the audit and pass it and get their permission to continue using the computer than to lose in court.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Sorry if I ruffled your feathers Alan. IF you or anyone is caught up in this pirate thing, just show the man your disks, and save a whole lot of headaches. It is my experience from many KJ's in my area, that MOST of them don't have any disks, or they are using burned disks. Your response makes me wonder if you are one of those KJ's that take all the SC music off their hard drives just to show your displeasure with the company.

"MY FRIEND"

_________________
My first choice IS Sound Choice.

One thing has nothing to do with the other. No, I have not stopped using Sound Choice. I still believe they have some of the best tracks out there. In fact, I own both foundation sets and several Spotlight and other discs from them. There are some songs that no one can do as good as them.

They do not know how long you have been in business or how many systems you have as only one is present, they just ASSUME you are a pirate because of the use of a computer.


Apples and oranges as you are talking about criminal law whereas the lawsuits are a civil matter.


You are right, I misspoke. The fact that it is about trademark infringement makes it even more improbable for any Manu to win a case in court. As a matter of fact I am almost 100% positive that a case would not make it to court. I hate to empower the thieves but I hate the extortion that SC is perpetrating just as much. The answer is in their cryptic response of "We cannot approve copying to a hard drive but we will not pursue action if you prove 1:1" or words to that effect. Can anyone guess why they would say that? Because here is what their trademark covers "IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: pre-recorded magnetic audio cassette tapes and compact discs containing musical compositions and compact discs containing video related to musical compositions." doesn't say anything about computer files. In other words, they do not currently possess a copyright to the phrase 'sound choice' pertaining to anything computer related.

_________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Which is interesting when you consider that SC ATTACHED their trademark to hundreds and hundreds of tracks without ANY PERMISSION OR LICENSING to do so- just like they claim others have done. Besides the pot calling the kettle, if one were to note and bring a list of these tracks to court, and show this practice as habitual by SC, One would walk out no longer a person of interest, and with grounds for a counter suit.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Under what authority? No, little lamb, I don't pull my pants down just because someone making tough noises says so.

Of course, as previously stated, if they would like to pay my standard hourly rate - up front- for an audit, instead of attempting coercion to use my valuable time for nothing..

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Joe get paid for being audited, surely you jest. Businesses do not get paid when they are audited and when was the last time the government paid you for being audited for income tax or any other purpose. Yes, you can refuse them but be prepared to use up a lot of time (and money) to go through the courts and/or discovery for what will amount to the same thing. If one has their discs already organized (and why wouldn't you), I can't see it taking any more than an hour, if that.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Why do people insist on comparing SC with the government and the police? They are neither and don't have the authority like the government and the police do. Come on people! Stop comparing apples and oranges. They are NOT the same!

Hmmm
Similar to the British government.
They both screw up and get away with it.

Last time I checked the courts are an arm of the government. Discoveries are a part of the court system. So like I said sooner or later an audit will be done. The choice is yours.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Problem is, the 'audit' isn't part of the discovery process. Discovery can only happen AFTER a suit has been filed. Actually what SC is doing is committing blackmail by sending a letter threatening legal action if you do not comply with their demands.

_________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I still suspect this is all smoke and mirrors.

If their position is that you infringed on their trademark by displaying it without permission, i'd think simply owning a single SoundChoice CD would be enough 'permission' to display their logo.

Unless they used a unique, copyrighted logo for each and every song they caught the pirate playing in public.

And even then, wouldn't they have to show damages? How does one financially damage a company by publicly displaying their logo?

Unless you're KJ'ing a Ku Klux Klan rally or a NAMBLA convention (North American Man/Boy Love Association) how would displaying a companies logo in public damage them?

I dunno, man.. it all seems kind of flimsy.

Any instances where SC has actually made it into a courtroom with one of these cases? What were the results?

Amazing how many people on BOTH sides of the argument simply ignored this.

"Screw the facts, we just wanna FIGHT!"

Ok, popcorns done. I'm just gonna kick back and laugh on out.

_________________
Dave's not here.

Alright Skid, let's not leave out some key facts here: YOU WERE GIVEN CLEARANCE BY SOUND CHOICE WITHOUT AN AUDIT.... you "requested an audit" afterwards to assist them in "marketing their audits." You recieved an intent letter, so did a KIAA member... The audit was NOT "required" by SC, you had received your "hall pass" from SC.

If you're going to act like it's "no big deal" then please post ALL of the story, not just the part(s) that makes SC look good. But then again, you are a self-professed "cheerleader for SC."

How did I know that you'd later use the whole (requested) audit experience to tell the world "it was no big deal" when the audit was NOT required by SC at all.