http://dockets.justia.com/docket/alabama/alsdce/1:2011cv00301/49961/

Claim to be a CB / SC cheerleader but you link a (youtube pirated) cb song.

Claim to be a CB / SC cheerleader but you link a (youtube pirated) cb song.

Stay classy guys.

And use the youtube bbcode next time like this.

That's my point. YouTube is full of pirated songs too. I am hoping CB will see it & do something.

I recall a while back that you linked to a bunch of SC videos on YouTube to do the same thing. Have they been removed?

I did use the bbcode & it didn't seem to work.

Claiming to be trying to help quash pirating by promoting pirated videos.
Now that's rich!

Nice try at a back-paddle. Think you may need to dip a little deeper, though!

Is this deep enough for you?

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=20963&p=296934#p296934

Is this deep enough for you?

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=20963&p=296934#p296934

Yah but the difference is, I'm not a cheerleader. I look silly wearing a mini skirt and pom poms (not to mention, sort of too old to be one)

Deep enough, why does that sound like a veiled sexual reference? Trying to assert male dominance through sexual intimidation?

I noticed in the comments that "Ride On" by AC/DC was posted. It is a Sound Choice track. It displays the Sound Choice logo and swipe and music track with their trippy background.

Not wise by the poster, but if that track wasn't licensed by SC, yet displays the SC logo, then SC would have no actionable position, and could face action themselves if that were the case .

If they would come after me (and there's a good chance, being here in Florida) I would definitely take this to court. Point out the fact that the whole introduction points towards copyright infringement, point out the fact that I am 1:1 by bringing all my original CD+G's to court and also bring a copy of the public statement made by Kurt from Slep Tone, that 1:1 is "OK". I will be damned if a judge founds me guilty.

Well if you wanted to do that, you most certainly can. It would be educational to see what would happen if you did.

Joe, I would assume that SC licensed any & all tracks that they would stake their suit upon.

It seems that you would assume that SC did not license some/any/all of the tracks that they would stake their suit upon.

IF the moon was made of green cheese...

Please do not quote me in order to promote your speculation.

Do you have any evidence or tangible information that would indicate that SC didn't license ACDC's "Ride On"?

I merely posted a factual observation. I saw what I saw on their site.

I usually stay out of the legal discussions, but out of curiosity I read the attached PDF file of the suit filed by SC.

It might be me, but when I read the introduction, everything in it is pointed towards illegal copying/distributing/sharing of MP3+G files, which clearly is copyright infringement. And then they start the "Jurisdiction & Venue" part with trademark infringement. (Say what??)

I'm not a lawyer nor a law expert, but I claim to have common sense. If they would come after me (and there's a good chance, being here in Florida) I would definitely take this to court. Point out the fact that the whole introduction points towards copyright infringement, point out the fact that I am 1:1 by bringing all my original CD+G's to court and also bring a copy of the public statement made by Kurt from Slep Tone, that 1:1 is "OK". I will be damned if a judge founds me guilty.

You can say or tell me now, what you want (@cheerleaders), but everything that is being said here in the forums is purely speculation at this point. That's why I usually stay out of these discussions.