|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
Author |
Message |
diafel
|
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 10:48 am |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:27 am Posts: 2444 Been Liked: 46 times
|
This was posted on another forum and I find it be quite informative and well thought out. I'm posting it here without "proper" credit because I didn't ask the original poster first. If he steps up, and claims it, then fine. I just find it too good not to share. The thread title is also his.
Quote: Doing a little research I've discovered the scheme employed by SC is a recent and now fairly widespread practice. There are numerous companies and law firms who specialize in this legal (although ethically challenged) practice of intimidating people with little understanding of legal due process.
These copyright "legal teams" at the very large firms tend to be comprised of college students and novice law students with an interest in intellectual property law. They are hired through work study programs and internships paying on average $15 /hr. You can find these job postings in the campus work study offices and sometimes online.
The procedure as prescribed includes the following recommendations. Letters that presume the guilt of the recipient, carefully crafted and to include a demand for payment as settlement of a predetermined amount including unspecified "damages" for the alleged infringement.
The "settlement" amounts are specifically set to be low enough that the recipient will be unable to hire a competent attorney. The settlement amount should be set such that it quickly appears "generous" when compared to the hourly fees of the competent expert legal counsel required to reply or defend.
Letters should contain a "deadline" for reply in order to accelerate the sense of urgency and evoke a more immediate emotional response while minimizing the window in which the recipient may obtain relevent public counsel or advice.
The "settlement" or complaint is often presented as a bill or "debt" that must be paid and subsequent phone and written communications address it from that perspective. It deflects attention away from the yet unsubstantiated "complaint" - and on to the perception of this as the collection of a debt already owed.
The entire scheme is designed to elicit a quick financial response through advantage of the recipients anxiety and lack of adequate knowledge of the legal process.
Few cases actually go to court, save for the opportunity for summary judgement against recipients unlikley to contest a case. The statutory damages often cited in the letters tend to be off base. Even in the event of a deafult judgement (meaning you did not contest a case) the plaintiff still has to substantiate these damages in separate heraing. Statutory damages are at the discretion of the court and are supposed to have a correlation to "actual damages." In practice, these amounts have often been less than plaintiff's were seeking.
In cases that do go to court - it is the attorneys who tend too make more money than the plaintiffs. Reasonable Legal fees granted to the prevailing party are actually a bigger concern to a defendant than the actual damage awards.
|
|
Top |
|
|
Wall Of Sound
|
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 11:02 am |
|
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:35 am Posts: 691 Location: Carson City, NV Been Liked: 0 time
|
What, you can't debate it on the other forum?
|
|
Top |
|
|
diafel
|
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 11:04 am |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:27 am Posts: 2444 Been Liked: 46 times
|
I'm perfectly able to "debate it" on the other forum. Why would you think otherwise and why do you ask?
I really don't have much to say about it, other than I find it well thought out and informative. Do I need to say anything else?
|
|
Top |
|
|
Alan B
|
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 12:27 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:24 pm Posts: 4466 Been Liked: 1052 times
|
This is why I am not worried and do not care if I get a letter of intent from a manufacturer. I would never voluntarily agree to an audit. I know that I am legal and can prove it so if you think I'm guilty, you'll have to prove it in court. But you better be right and win your case because once you don't, I'm going to counter-sue for damages.
|
|
Top |
|
|
Alan B
|
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 12:52 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:24 pm Posts: 4466 Been Liked: 1052 times
|
diafel @ Fri Sep 24, 2010 11:04 am wrote: I'm perfectly able to "debate it" on the other forum. Why would you think otherwise and why do you ask? I really don't have much to say about it, other than I find it well thought out and informative. Do I need to say anything else?
diafel...I nominate you to be our spokesperson.
Since you are well spoken, informed, inquisitive and like most of us, against the way SC is intimidating innocent, honest KJ's with their unscrupulous methonds, I think that you should be our spokesperson. First order of business is to talk to Kurt Slep regarding why SC is going about it the way they are, and give us a full report. Like you said, just because an investigator sees the SC logo, doesn't make you illegal.
So diafel, you have my vote!
|
|
Top |
|
|
Cueball
|
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 3:31 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:55 pm Posts: 4433 Location: New York City Been Liked: 757 times
|
Wall Of Sound @ Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:02 pm wrote: What, you can't debate it on the other forum?
And where's the debate (other than from your little snide comment just now)???? All I see is a post that quoted some unknown person's point of view. I did not see one single word from Diafel that debated the post. All she did was repost it from some other (unknown) forum, and then stated that she felt it was well thought out and informative.
|
|
Top |
|
|
DannyG2006
|
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 3:33 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:31 am Posts: 5395 Location: Watebrury, CT Been Liked: 406 times
|
Coming from a Person who failed miserably in the karaoke arena and spends his time berating those that still offer it.
_________________ The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.
|
|
Top |
|
|
Jian
|
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 4:08 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 10:18 pm Posts: 4080 Location: Serian Been Liked: 0 time
|
Anti-piracy is big business in itself. I hope SC and other manu. are not in it and forget about the production aspect of karaoke music.
for further reading on the subject of anti-piracy as a form of business Google the following names: DigiProtect, and ACS Law.
Is SC following the foot steps of DigiProtect?
_________________ I can neither confirm nor deny ever having or knowing anything about nothing.... mrscott
|
|
Top |
|
|
Cueball
|
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 8:39 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:55 pm Posts: 4433 Location: New York City Been Liked: 757 times
|
DannyG2006 @ Fri Sep 24, 2010 6:33 pm wrote: Coming from a Person who failed miserably in the karaoke arena and spends his time berating those that still offer it.
Since you didn't quote anyone, I am assuming that that was not directed at me (since you posted 2 minutes behind me).
|
|
Top |
|
|
DannyG2006
|
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:12 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:31 am Posts: 5395 Location: Watebrury, CT Been Liked: 406 times
|
cueball @ Fri Sep 24, 2010 11:39 pm wrote: DannyG2006 @ Fri Sep 24, 2010 6:33 pm wrote: Coming from a Person who failed miserably in the karaoke arena and spends his time berating those that still offer it. Since you didn't quote anyone, I am assuming that that was not directed at me (since you posted 2 minutes behind me).
No cueball I was referring to the author of the OP quote.
In fact he advocates that we just ignore the pirate and they will have zero effect on our bottom line.
_________________ The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.
|
|
Top |
|
|
lehidude
|
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 11:45 pm |
|
|
Major Poster |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:34 am Posts: 69 Been Liked: 0 time
|
Alan B @ Fri Sep 24, 2010 3:27 pm wrote: I'm going to counter-sue for damages.
|
|
Top |
|
|
diafel
|
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:14 am |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:27 am Posts: 2444 Been Liked: 46 times
|
Alan B @ Fri Sep 24, 2010 1:52 pm wrote: diafel...I nominate you to be our spokesperson. Thanks, but no thanks. Alan B @ Fri Sep 24, 2010 1:52 pm wrote: First order of business is to talk to Kurt Slep regarding why SC is going about it the way they are, and give us a full report.
Again, thanks, but no thanks. I really don't feel like banging my head against a wall.
|
|
Top |
|
|
karaokegod73
|
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:26 pm |
|
|
Senior Poster |
|
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:53 pm Posts: 187 Been Liked: 5 times
|
I'm taking Alan's course if I am ever approached. I paid for my disks, therefore I owe SC or any other manu nothing more. That includes time out of my life for an audit.
|
|
Top |
|
|
lehidude
|
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:37 pm |
|
|
Major Poster |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:34 am Posts: 69 Been Liked: 0 time
|
karaokegod73 @ Sat Sep 25, 2010 4:26 pm wrote: I'm taking Alan's course if I am ever approached. I paid for my disks, therefore I owe SC or any other manu nothing more. That includes time out of my life for an audit.
I think what you, Alan, and the others who intend on fighting back don't understand is that you have ALREADY demonstrated probable cause for legal action by having your computer rig in the first place. The disk manufacturer has EVERY right to believe that your computer rig is chock full of bootlegged, pirated, etc. material, because they have NEVER either explicitly or implicitly given the right to you to "media shift" in the first place.
So for all of you wannabe lawyers out there, good luck proving "damages."
|
|
Top |
|
|
diafel
|
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:44 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:27 am Posts: 2444 Been Liked: 46 times
|
lehidude @ Sat Sep 25, 2010 2:37 pm wrote: So for all of you wannabe lawyers out there, good luck proving "damages."
And good luck to Sc if they ever hit a real courtroom, (which will probably never happen since they KNOW they will lose) on proving "probable cause" (it actually doesn't apply in civil cases, but I'll use your choice of words here) and good luck on them getting a judge to allow them to probe further in their fishing expedition, just because they saw a logo on a screen. Judges are not stupid and they can see fishing trips miles away. They don't have much patience for them, either. Damages, or at the very least costs, should be a drop in the hat to prove.
Easy-peasy, as they say.
|
|
Top |
|
|
lehidude
|
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:52 pm |
|
|
Major Poster |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:34 am Posts: 69 Been Liked: 0 time
|
diafel @ Sat Sep 25, 2010 4:44 pm wrote: And good luck to Sc if they ever hit a real courtroom, (which will probably never happen since they KNOW they will lose) on proving "probable cause" (it actually doesn't apply in civil cases, but I'll use your choice of words here)
http://www.answers.com/topic/probable-cause
You might wanna hone up on your internet lawyer skills, Matlock. To summarize, in civil court a plaintiff MUST possess probable cause to levy a claim against a defendant.
I'll let you catch up on the lesson for the day. Feel free to respond as you normally deem necessary.
|
|
Top |
|
|
Alan B
|
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 2:42 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:24 pm Posts: 4466 Been Liked: 1052 times
|
lehidude @ Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:37 pm wrote: So for all of you wannabe lawyers out there, good luck proving "damages."
Here's the bottom line.
1. I have legally purchased, own, and have reciepts for all of my Sound Choice disc.
2. I have format shifted these to a single {1} laptop
3. I am following the one to one ratio.
4. Sound Choice has authorized format shifting. I have it in writing:
"Slep-Tone only sells its recordings in CD+G format. Slep-Tone authorizes its customers to “format shift” and transfer the contents of a genuine SOUND CHOICE
CD+G recording to a single computer or MP3 player, provided that the customer keeps the original copy of the CD+G in his possession as an archival copy that is not used."
So, since I'm following the guidelines set forth by Sound Choice, and am operating legally, if this ever went to court, the judge would have to laugh at this.
Like I said, after all is said and done, SC would have to prove in court that I'm guilty. And that's unlikely to happen.
|
|
Top |
|
|
diafel
|
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:00 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:27 am Posts: 2444 Been Liked: 46 times
|
lehidude @ Sat Sep 25, 2010 2:52 pm wrote: http://www.answers.com/topic/probable-causeYou might wanna hone up on your internet lawyer skills, Matlock. To summarize, in civil court a plaintiff MUST possess probable cause to levy a claim against a defendant. I'll let you catch up on the lesson for the day. Feel free to respond as you normally deem necessary. Well, here in Canada it's different. We generally don't refer to probable cause except in criminal cases. And the weight that the equivalent for civil cases is given is next to nothing. You better have more going before a judge here, and I suspect it's not much different in the US. Oh, and from your own link (Answers.com, I find is a generally lacking website, BTW): Quote: If the plaintiff does not have probable cause for the claim, she may later face a malicious prosecution suit brought by the defendant. Furthermore, lack of probable cause to support a claim means that the plaintiff does not have sufficient evidence to support the claim, and the court will likely dismiss it.
As Alan just pointed out, SC better have more proof than just seeing a computer and a logo on a screen. That, in and of itself, is NOT "probable cause", especially given their statement that Alan quoted.
As any judge will tell them: "You can't have your cake and eat it too".
Then they would send them packing.
|
|
Top |
|
|
Cueball
|
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:05 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:55 pm Posts: 4433 Location: New York City Been Liked: 757 times
|
Alan B @ Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:42 pm wrote: lehidude @ Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:37 pm wrote: So for all of you wannabe lawyers out there, good luck proving "damages." Here's the bottom line. 1. I have legally purchased, own, and have reciepts for all of my Sound Choice disc. 2. I have format shifted these to a single {1} laptop 3. I am following the one to one ratio. 4. Sound Choice has authorized format shifting. I have it in writing: "Slep-Tone only sells its recordings in CD+G format. Slep-Tone authorizes its customers to “format shift” and transfer the contents of a genuine SOUND CHOICE CD+G recording to a single computer or MP3 player, provided that the customer keeps the original copy of the CD+G in his possession as an archival copy that is not used." So, since I'm following the guidelines set forth by Sound Choice, and am operating legally, if this ever went to court, the judge would have to laugh at this. Like I said, after all is said and done, SC would have to prove in court that I'm guilty. And that's unlikely to happen.
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SC has NOT authorized format shifting. They have even stated that they do NOT have the authorization to do so. They have ONLY STATED that they will not go after KJs who are 1:1. That doesn't mean they still won't go after you (as they have already done with others... take KJAthena as an example), to make you show proof of that (by having your system audited).
If I am incorrect with the above statement, then show me where SC has stated this on their website.
What they are selling now is a GEM Series, which is NOT in CDG format.
|
|
Top |
|
|
lehidude
|
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:16 pm |
|
|
Major Poster |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:34 am Posts: 69 Been Liked: 0 time
|
Alan B @ Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:42 pm wrote: "Slep-Tone only sells its recordings in CD+G format. Slep-Tone authorizes its customers to “format shift” and transfer the contents of a genuine SOUND CHOICE CD+G recording to a single computer or MP3 player, provided that the customer keeps the original copy of the CD+G in his possession as an archival copy that is not used."
Yes, the language you present is consistent with the Karaoke Kandy Store lawsuit. But even in that authorization, there is the stipulation that you own the orginal copy. Since you intend on not providing proof of the original copy, Sound Choice is well within their right to sue you. You have the burden to prove ownership of the original copy, as they have sufficient evidence to prove you're using their trademarks.
|
|
Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 191 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|