Karaoke Forums

I have a dilemma, Mr. Harrington, and perhaps you can provide me with a solution. As Chip and I have stated many times before, we are 100% legal. And as we have also stated, we have pulled all of our Sound Choice discs from our system due to the fact that we are not interested in getting pulled into a lawsuit, or having our establishment sued, either. We do not believe that Sound Choice has a right to audit us, so we are not interested in going through the audit process. The fact remains that we have spent a great deal of money on Sound Choice products. You have stated many times that if a person who owns original Sound Choice media opts to run them off of a player as original discs, then the will not be sued. However, as we have seen, that is not always the case. Rodney is one example, but I know there are more. In addition, we run the rest of our music off of a computer, so there is one in the room.

My question here is -- what exactly is our assurance, as valued Sound Choice customers of thousands of dollars of their products, that we will not be "mistakenly" sued if we decide to play our discs. Again, the answer cannot include an audit. We are getting very frustrated that we are not allowed to use music that we legally purchased.

Thank you for your assistance.

_________________
Birdofsong

What...
You are asking questions from a person that doesn't even know what reverb is.
Say after me.
I am feeling sleepy.

Jerry, I know what reverb is.

So that being established, do you have an answer to my question?

_________________
Birdofsong

Yes, but it's a long one, and perhaps it pushes us off topic a bit. I think it ties it all together, though.



I'm only aware of Rodney, but I don't monitor every suit. If you'd like to give me some other names, I will check them out. We do not want to sue anyone who plays only from original media.



If what you are looking for is an iron-clad guarantee that you won't be sued, I don't think I can give that to you. Obviously we know who you are, and I personally wouldn't sign off on a lawsuit against you (or anyone) without much stronger proof than "I saw a logo" and "there was a computer in the room," but there are lots of suits filed without my involvement, as there are other attorneys.

That's a terribly unhelpful answer, but I hope you recognize that it's an honest one. Here are a couple of other honest statements:

1. We want you to use the product. I know you like the product even if you have some problems with our enforcement project. I want you to feel free to use the original media in your shows. You paid for those discs; you should be able to use them. And as far as we're concerned, you can and should. We aren't standing in your way.

2. The degree to which the two of you have been vocal opponents of our project makes it more likely that we would sue you if we had grounds. That's just human nature. Of course, my involvement in such a case would require that we be even more sure of our case than usual. But I think you know this, and that's why you've been so cautious about it. That shows intelligence, which makes this easier.

Now, none of that helps you with your present problem. I do have some suggestions. First, if you're going to play from discs, you must have a player--and my advice is easy: don't hide the player. In other words, make it easy for an investigator to pick out the fact that your SC material is being played from discs. If you're hiding out in a booth and your player is hidden from view, then my investigator is much more likely to conclude that you're playing SC from that computer. Also, don't hide your discs.

Second, you've made it clear with the sign on your kiosk (and elsewhere) that you don't play SC. If you're going to start playing it again, I would suggest that you post a sign equally prominently that says that you only play SC from original discs, and not from your hard drive. Basically what we're trying to do is to give my investigator a reasonable prompting to question the conclusion that you've conducted a media-shift.

I'll reiterate what I said above, but perhaps phrase it a bit differently. If an investigator filed a report with me on his field review of your show that said you were playing SC from a hard drive, I would question the heck out of it. I don't believe we need conclusive evidence of wrongdoing before we bring a suit--just a good faith, reasonable basis to believe the facts we allege. But in your case, I would want to be even more sure than I already am. (In fact, I would be hesitant to sue you without witnessing it with my own eyes.) That's not because you've been vocal. It's because you've been careful. I know that despite whatever differences we have about what rights SC does and doesn't have, you and I both operate with at least a partial cloud of uncertainty. I don't think you want to bet your business, and maybe your livelihood, on whether your interpretation of the law is right.

I think that over the next few months you are going to see some important changes to the project that are going to make the project both more effective and less burdensome on legit KJs. There are also some exciting things afoot on the non-litigation side of things. Personally, I'm excited to see this question from you. Chip and I have had our round-and-rounds on here, and that obscures the fact that if you're being honest about how you feel about piracy--and I'm willing to believe that you are--we're on the same side of most of the issues.

Where we differ, though, I'm starting to think that the root isn't so much a difference of opinion as a distrust of the other's motives. You see some of the mistakes we've made and conclude that they're the result of either malice or indifference. We read some of your positions and conclude that you're just trying to accelerate SC's demise so as to avoid being sued. As much as I enjoy sparring with Chip, I'd rather we were on the same side, and I think we could be if we could let our frosty relationship thaw out enough to begin to build some trust. Or, at a minimum, if we have to be on opposite sides, I want it to be over a genuinely intractable disagreement about how things ought to be, not distrust.

This is already "too long, didn't read, " for my taste, but there is a bit more to say. I wish there were a way that I could prove to you that the mistakes we've made were honest ones, that we do genuinely care about how those mistakes affect people, and that we own our mistakes rather than running from them. A big part of my presence here over the last few months has been to implement that policy. This project has been a learning experience for everybody at SC and at my office. We are genuinely trying to get better at what we do, not just to make the investment in the project pay off, but also to create a space for SC in the future of this industry that allows KJs to view us as a respected partner. That means a lot of things--it means getting back to making music, and managing our lawsuits more effectively, and listening to the industry for new ideas and reactions to old ideas, to name a few examples.

One of my favorite quotes comes from Ben Franklin around the second Continental Congress--the one where the Declaration of Independence was signed. "We must all hang together," Dr. Franklin said, "or surely we'll all hang separately." I don't think our situation is that dire, of course, but the people who are firmly on the anti-piracy side (regardless of their views of tactics) are a tiny minority compared to the pirates. Like it or not, we are all players in an industry that is beset by piracy. You might survive piracy in way that others cannot, but your patrons will eventually want some new music. The quality of that new music is likely to be lower, because who will put all the energy and dedication and money that goes into producing the very best, when most of the people who want your music will just steal it?

The industry needs SC, and CB, and other companies; it needs scrupulous operators and properly educated venue owners and patrons; it needs a better economy; it needs more structure and certainty. I think we can get those things by working together when we agree and working it out when we don't.

Sorry again for the long answer to a simple question, but they did send me to a special school to learn how to do that. I hope it helps in any event.

Hey Johnny,,, he's onto you.

McLeods was another, and I know they and Rodney are not the only ones.



Here's the biggest problem with that. When we dropped your brand, we assured our club that we were protecting them, and we were. Now, if we go back and add your product back into the mix and we and they get sued, even if it's for an instant and can be cleared up and dropped, I am positive that our club would drop us for bringing this down on them. That is a chance I'm not willing to take. Of course, if that scenario did occur, under the circumstances, I see possible legal action against Sound Choice, as well, but frankly, I'd rather be able to use the discs I paid for and keep my job.

What makes it more difficult for us is that in addition to not being able to use our discs, we also had to purchase additional music to fill the holes that were made when we removed the discs from our collection to keep our patrons happy. So the money we spent on the Sound Choice discs wasn't all this cost us.



Except....well...you might still sue me for doing it. Can't blame me if I don't get all warm and fuzzy over it. Believe it or not, I try to keep stress and drama OUT of my life. Having to worry every time your trademark showed up on the screen that someone would misinterpret the source of it would not do anything to help my serenity. As I get older, that gets more and more important to me.



I have no doubt about that, which is why if we weren't honest in the first place, we wouldn't have been as vocal as we have been. We feel strongly about our position, and our position doesn't come from the fear of being "caught doing something wrong." I don't know why you say I've been "cautious." We didn't pull the brand because I knew SC might be gunning for us. We pulled it because it felt like the right thing to do.



Our player is integrated into our system. It is not visible from the patrons' standpoint. Believe me when I say that if you think the idea of lugging around a bunch of discs again is not exciting to me, the idea of lugging around and setting up an additional player along with them and holding up each disc I play before I put it in the player to make sure that everyone in the audience caught a glimpse of my original media is even less palatable. And even then -- if we have the same caliber of investigator that Rodney did, that wouldn't even make any difference.

I'm pretty sure you're not going to personally come out to check us out in order to verify that we are playing discs, although I think it probably would be pretty interesting to meet you face-to-face. I think we'd have a lot to talk about. Might even have a few laughs on a personal level. But I don't see this as a workable situation as you have presented it.



I don't think the trust issue can be helped. Considering the fact that we have been so vocal, and that there are several other people outside of your control in the mix, we have a real reason for concern. I don't distrust you personally. I just think this is a terrible situation that has poisoned the well as much as piracy has.

Although I appreciate your time, I was hoping for a more workable situation. At this point, I feel like SC should either guarantee that we won't be sued, or buy back our product for the original retail price. Anything else seems unfair since it puts us and our club in jeopardy. If I can't safely use the product, then I don't see the point in owning it. If the product inserts had said, "Buy our product, but one day we may sue you if you use it," I assure you I would have taken a pass in the first place. And I also don't see any reason why I should sell it at half the retail price to others because SC has made it impossible for me to use it. I think the entire situation as it relates to us would definitely fall under unfair business practices.

It's unfortunate, but we cannot "hang together" under these circumstances. I'm not willing to put the noose around my own neck.

_________________
Birdofsong

McLeods was from the first group of defendants we sued using an "outside" investigator--i.e., somebody who was not a direct employee of my firm or SC. Unfortunately, that investigator got it wrong, but she was also working before we developed the full protocols. She also got the owner of that system wrong. It was actually a KJ-owned system. I don't know whether we ever resolved whether they were running all original discs or not, because getting the ownership wrong was enough for us to dismiss.

If you know there were more, then give me a list.



We are not going to sue your venues first. The order is: (1) sue KJ and wait, (2) if not settled, notify venues of the problem and wait, (3) if the KJ continues to play SC there, sue the venue. Even though those things happen over a short period, it is still ample to avoid getting your venues sued (or even having your venues know about the suit).



I think you are significantly overestimating the danger that you will be wrongfully sued.



"Cautious" is not a bad thing; it's a quality of good business people (and lawyers). You perceived a risk arising from your running SC, so you moved to eliminate the risk. That's a perfectly rational decision. It has nothing to do with, for example, having your hand in the cookie jar late one night, hearing your mother get out of bed, putting the cookies back, and getting a glass of water instead.

I will say we have some real questions about your operations before we started this project, but my view on that is the same as it is for everybody. I don't know or care how straight and narrow was the path you walked before. If you had to take steps to get straight, or if you already were, it's the same to me. What matters is what you're doing now.



You won't have the same caliber of investigator that went to Rodney's show.



I might very well come out personally to investigate you. I go on investigations all the time. If I did, you would not know I was there. Or, rather, you would not know it was me. We would probably talk. If I found nothing of concern, I *might* let you know I was there...the next day.



Thus the reason I'm here. I don't like the "poisoned the well" analogy because that implies that we can't ever make this up. I'm not willing to give up on you.

The major segment of this project that was outside my control is being revised. I don't want to get ahead of myself, but the source of a lot of the negativity toward this project has been identified and is being removed.



Don't give up yet. I'm still thinking about the problem and how to solve it. You've given me a tough set of parameters to work with, but I think there's a way to get everybody to the same place.



No, the pirates are more than happy to do that for you.

You're the attorney for Sound Choice. Surely that information must be readily accessible to you. I can't believe you need me to provide that information for you.



First, the operative word here is sue. If I'm using original media, there is no excuse for that mistake. Especially if your investigative techniques have been revamped to ensure this doesn't happen. Also - I have no reason to "settle." Secondly -- look at this forum. You have a handful of cheerleaders scouring the court system looking for lawsuits so they can discredit those who are sued. They aren't the only ones. You don't think that someone would IMMEDIATELY notify my venue in order to get my gig? I do.





Perhaps, but history, as well as your own statements in this thread prove there is still a risk, and the risk isn't yours. It's mine.



No, there is no cookie jar involved here, and Sound Choice is most certainly not my mother. I buy my DJ subscription discs and I buy my Karaoke discs. The decision was based on my experience with lawyers. I, like you, have a full-time day job in a law firm. I've done this for 16 years. I know full well that when you are sued, it it a costly endeavor whether you are right or wrong.



Pinky swear?




Then you, and SC, will have to do better than this. Again, I have no problems with the product, but at this point, under these circumstances, it is a definite liability. I can't use a brand that provides even a remote chance that I will be accidentally sued. Again, at this point, I'm happy to have SC buy the product back. If I can't safely use it, I don't want it, but I'm not going to give it away for practically nothing when I purchased it in good faith.




The pirates have never taken my gigs. The pirates have never threatened to sue me, and the pirates haven't turned thousands of dollars of discs into useless pieces of plastic in my garage.

I look forward to seeing what you can come up with to rectify this situation in the future. Here's to better days.

_________________
Birdofsong

I know for me, it's certainly the case. I'll explain below.


I find it hard to accept that SC doesn't condone some of the things that have gone on.
As you are aware, I haven't been around much lately. No, I haven't been banned. It's been by choice.
I'll be honest here and maybe it will get me a ban or maybe not. I don't know. The main reason I haven't been around is because of the cheerleaders. I was cyber stalked and even threatened by some of them. Why? Because I, like Chip and Bird do not agree with SC tactics and have been vocal about it. Cheerleaders don't like that, apparently.
It's hard not believe that SC doesn't condone such things when the cheerleaders are so vocal about it and SC or their actual reps don't refute it. It tends to make one think that they actually encourage it.
And the way they talk, it makes it sound like they and SC and their reps are a group of best buddies.
My father always said, right or wrong, that you will be judged by the people you hang out with. If you hang out with mean, nasty, horrible, people who cannot be trusted, you will be judged as one of them with no difference between you or them. He called it human nature. He was right.
You say you want to build trust with some of us? You might want to start there.
Just my take on some of this.

Well said Diafel . That is exactly how I feel about the Entire SC handling of the entire ordeal.

I would argue that is exactly what the pirates have done. Were it not for people stealing the music, the industry would not be in a position where the same level of scrutiny is required. That is not to say that SC would not still pursue suing for the illegal use of their material, but I suspect it would not take place at the level it does now.

Because of things being the way they are, SC is suing and you have chosen to let your discs collect dust. I see that as a direct consequence of pirates stealing the music.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

You've got it all wrong, Chris. Under the circumstances, the industry requires MORE scrutiny in order to protect its customers and stop the indiscriminately filed lawsuits. Until I have an iron-clad assurance of that, then it is indeed SC and not the pirates that are creating this situation for me. The onus is still on them to protect their customers. If they can't assure my protection in using their original media, then the system isn't working. You can't blame the pirates for that.

_________________
Birdofsong

I agree there is more scrutiny required, but I don't think it should be aimed at SC under the guise of indiscriminant lawsuits. It has been mentioned before that the number of suits brought against KJ's that should not have is in the low single digits percentage wise (like <1%). You are more likely to be killed in a random car accident or die from cancer than you are to get falsely sued by Sound Choice.

Anyway....

I respect you choice to not do an audit, but I still don't understand why. I believe you are making things difficult for yourself and nothing I have seen you or Chip post TRULY justifies why. An audit is the simplest solution. It is simple, easy, and there are benefits that myself and others have proven.

My discs are collecting dust in a closet now as well, but their digital equivalents are alive and well. Sound Choice is fully aware of this and I am not concerned in the least.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

You've got it all wrong Chris.

Piracy has no effect on honest Hosts/KJ's. Only SC.

Truth is, several of us who disagree with their stance on this have actually offered to cover the cost of the audit for 1 of their working systems.

That offer was scorned.

The situation as it stands is clearly of their own making.

This is not born of reason, it is born of emotional reaction.

That is why you've got it all wrong. You're simply not afraid enough.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

This is inflammatory. Please refrain.

_________________
Birdofsong

I can't criticize or condone what I don't know about, but now that I know about it, I can fix that problem.

I hope that the number of people who would do what you say they are doing is very small. But if it is greater than zero, the following needs to be said.

To anyone who is a SC supporter: If you have cyberstalked, harassed, or threatened any person because of their opinions of SC's activities, please stop doing so immediately. That kind of "help" is neither necessary nor helpful. We do the things we do because, in our considered opinion, they are the right things to do. Our project can stand on its own merits. Your enthusiastic support of the project is greatly appreciated, and your efforts to convince others to join in are helpful. But attacking people like c.staley, birdofsong, diafel, and others for opposing our efforts doesn't help our project--it just generates ill will that ultimately makes it harder to accomplish our goals.



Done. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Did buying those other branded songs cost more than the $125 audit fee?



Would the $125 audit fee and time to go through an audit cause more stress in your life?



If Sound Choice did an audit and waived the $125 fee, would that settle your concern?

I'm going to disagree with you about the phrase "indiscriminately filed lawsuits." "Indiscriminate" implies both randomness and recklessness. The lawsuits are not random and in my view they aren't reckless.

What you seem to be asking for is for our investigators to be perfect when by your admission you make it difficult on them. All of us are human beings who are capable of making mistakes despite our best intentions. The fact that any given person was sued does not mean they were randomly selected from a list, or that there wasn't care taken to be sure before filing. Sometimes, despite our best intentions and a lot of effort, we make a mistake.

For those who are asking why I simply don't go forward with an audit, the answer is simple. I don't believe that requiring an audit from a paying customer in order to keep them from being sued is reasonable. I don't believe in the audit system, nor do I believe that the manufacturers have a right to conduct one in order for me to use a product I purchased in good faith.

It has been stated many times on this forum that an audit is not required, nor necessary, if a KJ uses the original media. I have posed the question regarding doing just that, and have been told that there are no guarantees I won't be sued anyway. There is historical evidence that this is true. But you still want to put this on me as my problem to fix. I'm not creating it, and if I take SC at their word, I shouldn't have to.

Please stop suggesting that I go against my principles in order to fix a system that is flawed.

As for MtnKaraoke -- you asked me (in a post that disappeared very quickly) to ignore you. You can hardly expect that to happen if you continue to be antagonistic. Leave me alone and I will do the same for you. Please see Mr. Harrington's post above.

_________________
Birdofsong