Karaoke Forums

We'll play patrons discs, however we don't play patron's SC tracks whether they are on original, burned or even flashdrives:







I'm out to make my life simpler, not more difficult by demanding personal information from club patrons, requiring signatures, keeping logs, waving discs in the air, or even taking and filing cellphone photos of discs. Operating under the above constraints is like an unwanted wart.... Would you like to keep trying to hide it or simply remove it and be on your merry way?

I will play their original disc and go on my merry way. No waving, no pictures, no signatures, no logs, no warts and most importantly.....no worries.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

HarringtonLaw's suggestion applies to all KJ's... not just "certified" KJs. Unless you feel that you are somehow above this and completely "protected" by having purchased a certification.... in which case, it truly is nothing more than "protection money" whether or not you or HarringtonLaw wants to call a duck something other than a duck.

Sorry, but I won't pay anyone protection money to operate my business... your mileage may vary.

Or a simple announcement on the mic "Here's Johnny singing a song off his own disc". Now isn't that simple?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

This is yet another fringe case scenario. No one has been sued specifically for playing customer discs. If that day ever comes then something is drastically wrong with the industry. I also believe that Harrington is covering all the bases. The operative word here is "should". I am hardly above it, and certification has nothing to do with my actions in this case. I played a handful of customer discs when I first started and well before I was certified.

With respect to Harrington, I am not going to maintain a log sheet for customer discs for several reasons 1) I believe I am capable of determining if the disc is counterfeit or not; 2) it is a rare occurence in my venue for folks to bring in their own discs; 3) I think it is somewhat silly to expect us to log that kind of information based upon #1

Of course I reserve the right to change my mind and start logging if I feel the need to do so. I won't feel the need to do so until Sound Choice starts targeting KJ solely because they played customer discs. Again, if that day ever comes, then things have gone sideways and it is time to do something else for a living/hobby.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Hardly. What percentage of "certified KJ's" have paid their protection...... err... I mean; "audit fees?"

Greater than 75% and growing now to 100%? Your assertion that it is a "fringe case" grows smaller every day.... not because no one has been sued for it, but that in order to prevent the threat of suit, you now have to pay for it and operate your business according to your vendor's brand new "rules" - just as you have.

A duck is still a duck...

Anyone can walk into your gig and claim you played a song you don't own in order to get you to submit to an audit (via a small "fee") or the threat of a lawsuit (a much larger "fee"). Take off your rose-colored glasses anytime.

Mr. Harrington has also stated that there is a small percentage of leeway as far as passing an audit. So if you had the perfect storm of being checked out on a day you played a customer's disc and you couldn't account for a few songs, then you could still pass. The one show that might have a problem is our friend's who mostly plays just singer's own discs. That one is a unique situation, though.

I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree... the point is, it still requires "payment" to prove your own innocence with no real evidence other than a "he said, she said" which has always been the common denominator.

I really don't understand your duck obsession other than most everything you say is fowl. (that would be a pun)



You used an out of context quote and a fringe case (with a subtle twist) to support your fringe case.

First - the quote should be -

"This is yet another fringe case scenario. No one has been sued specifically for playing customer discs."

Second - In your reply, you changed context from "customer discs" to "a song you don't own".

Third - (and fact) SC has never sued anyone for playing a legitimate customer disc.

You have stated many times that SC sells fear when it is in fact YOU selling and promoting the fear of something that has never happened. No one should be fearful of SC coming after them if they play a customer's legitimate disc. Yet you are telling everyone they should feel threatened because there is a remote possibility that someone could claim you played an counterfeit disc from a customer. Again, something that to date, has never happened and will likely never happen.

That, by definition, is FUD and fearmongering.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Please keep the legal BS (thanks Lonnie, great name ) in the Karaoke Legalities forum!

If a thread was NOT opened in the Karaoke Legalities forum the OP is NOT interested in any legalities.

If you want to express anything about the legalities involved with any subject, open up a new thread IN the Karaoke Legalities Forum and speak your mind, but DON'T hijack another thread! Thanks!

Wanna bet?.... Keep reading....


What's the difference? If you don't own the disc, you don't have the song right? ... You're splitting hairs.

Does SC sue people because they "played a disc" or "displayed a trademark?"
Using HarringtonLaw's caveat of the "human element" how would anyone know? (oh, right... you either wave the disc in the air, or announce it every time.... )



Really? I would have to disagree:



Print your new "log sheets/legal releases" anytime... you just might need them.



Wrong again... see above.



Back to the name-calling I see?.... (when you run out of air, it's hard to resist ain't it?)

We now return you to our thread already in progress......

Actually, the real situation is appears to be hard for you to resist for you to wrongly accuse someone of name calling and personal attacks.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

This whole thread is out of context.

Were there posts before mine that were deleted? According to the forum index page, it says I started this thread and I don't think so.... The first post here is a response of mine to a previous post that must have been deleted....

Did it get split and moved?

(mckyj57: Just pointing out that if I were to accuse someone of lying -- it's the same as calling them a liar... A liar tells lies... consequently, this is a passive way of calling someone a liar. The same is true with "fearmongering" which is done by a "fearmonger." It's not just a description of behavior.)

He wasn't sued for playing from customer discs. His explanation, after he was caught, was that he must have been playing customer discs that night. But he didn't have a disc player at his show. My investigator took photos of his rig while some of these songs were being played, and no discs were visible. My investigator reported that not a single person approached the KJ with a disc while he was there. But the KJ claimed that 75% of the SC tracks he played that night were from discs. I offered him the chance to prove it by getting even one person to come forward, and he couldn't do it. I even gave him 3 months to do it, and he still couldn't.

The problem here is that you have such an irrational fear of being sued that you're looking for the most obscure theoretical ways that you could be sued but not actually be culpable, in order to justify your fear. If you ask me if something's possible, however unlikely, I'm going to tell you that it's possible. It's possible that you'll win the lottery. It's possible that the Republicans will ditch Mitt Romney and nominate you instead. It's possible that an asteroid will strike Earth and wipe us all out in 6 months.

And all of those things are more likely than you getting sued because you played your original SC discs at a show.

I've even offered you an iron-clad guarantee: You will never be sued by SC for playing your original SC discs at a show.

But has that stopped you from pursuing your vendetta against SC? Of course not.

Honestly, what did SC ever do to you?

Yes, for the reason I stated previously.

Yes split & moved to legal area. The rest of the original topic remains in the regular karaoke section. Since you were the one that brought up the legal issues (again), it technically IS your thread as far as this part goes!

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

That's utterly ridiculous. "Fearmonger" is not a word, to begin with. Second, it is hardly the type of pernicious sin that lying is. Even then, if you are pointing to a possible lie, that is *not* a personal attack. It is an attack on the merits.

And again, it is not name-calling when it is tied directly to behavior you are exhibiting as part of the debate in question. You have indeed been conjuring up spectres of Sound Choice doing things for nefarious purposes, so it would be more appropriate for you to show how you have not been fearmongering than to falsely call a fallacy.

This calls to the merits of your contentions, and is not a personal attack in the slightest. You, to me, appear to be the one getting desperate. Your own behavior is fallacious. You can pile that on top of your heap of straw men and burn it if you wish, but it is true.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

My statement had to do with the specific scenario of playing customer discs which you generalized to playing music you don't own. Given that SC has never sued anyone for playing a customer disc, then it is substantially different from what they actually are suing people for.

You are trying to braid hairs....







I see that Harrington has addressed this. It was yet another attempt by you to twist things to fit your argument.







I am just pointing out your hypocrisy. You say SC spreads fear and then you do the same. That is hardly name calling. That is simply calling a duck, a duck.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Of course some people can't tell the difference between a duck and a decoy.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger