Karaoke Forums

I may be WAY off base here, but from my point of view, something like this COULD kill karaoke especially in a SMALL town like I live in. All it takes is word to get around that "Hey, did you hear Joe is being sued, smoething about KARAOKE". The other bar owners aren't going to bother looking up (what it's all about), there just going to hear that it has something to do with not paying some organization FEES FOR KARAOKE. So for a company trying to get established, when you approach them, they are likely to say, "NAH, I've heard too many bad things about KARAOKE". I think if someone is going to stir up a hornet's nest, they should at least send out some type of information to ALL BARS. That way the owners are INFORMED, and can make a decision about KARAOKE based on KNOWLEDGE, not SPECULATION. The LAST thing a bar owner wants is a BAD REPUTATION, especially since it wouldn't have happened if he WOULDN'T HAVE HIRED THAT DAMN KARAOKE!!!.

Srnitynow

i don't believe there is any onus on the part of the bar to notify the KJ of anything. Furthermore, it is my understanding that SC's lawyer is no longer pursuing Mcleod's or the KJ

Greedy? So songwriters should just put their creative work out there for free? The musicians in the band, the record label who developed the artist, etc. should just sell what CDs they can, then turn a blind eye to file sharing, performance rights and other uses of their creative work. Are you kidding?

One of the attractions for bars has always been media. Whether it's music from a jukebox, a DJ/KJ or a live band or multiple TV screens with live sports. Is it impossible for a bar/restaurant to attract customers with stone cold silence? Probably not, but even chi-chi white tablecloth restaurants have some kind of background music. So you can bet your regular neighborhood watering hole has to have some component of entertainment besides food and drink to get people out of their homes. It's hard to convey fun and liveliness when the only sound you hear is clinking plates and glasses.

There's no doubt that SC is throwing a bunch of suits against the wall to see what sticks. My understanding is that their investigators went to the bar's KJ, requested a certain song which was in limited production (Eagles?) and if the KJ played the SC version, they were sued/audited. But to be sued only for having a CAVS machine? I predict that the falsely accused owners will indeed file suit against SC for defamation of character and will have a chilling effect on SC's actions in other cities. Or at the very least encourage SC to have a higher degree of diligence in naming defendants.

Will bar owners walk away from karaoke? Not necessarily. But it might encourage them to be a little more particular about doing their OWN due diligence on the KJ they hire such as asking the KJ to actually produce their store-bought discs. You might find the smaller dives hiring $100 hosts with burned discs discontinuing karaoke because they can't afford a legit KJ. I tend to think that most bar owners operate under the thinking "it's OK as long as I don't get caught, and they can't catch us all!"

_________________
[font=Lucida Console]DangerousKaraoke.com[/font]
[font=Lucida Console]"Sing for the day, sing for the moment, sing for the time of your life!"[/font]

A good bar owner (there are a few out there) would do their homework if they were a good businessperson and find out how the rules work when it comes to music of any kind. A bar or venue owner playing the "I didn't know" card will probably not survive in the game considering how the music industry is going after karaoke and music piracy now days.

_________________
No venue to big or too small. From your den to the local club or event, we have the music most requested. Great sounding system!

I did call the media! A public story would make the other venues in our area aware that piracy was a real issue and perhaps make the pirates run for the hills.

_________________
No venue to big or too small. From your den to the local club or event, we have the music most requested. Great sounding system!

quote: One of the attractions for bars has always been media. Whether it's music from a jukebox, a DJ/KJ or a live band or multiple TV screens with live sports. Is it impossible for a bar/restaurant to attract customers with stone cold silence? Probably not, but even chi-chi white tablecloth restaurants have some kind of background music. So you can bet your regular neighborhood watering hole has to have some component of entertainment besides food and drink to get people out of their homes. It's hard to convey fun and liveliness when the only sound you hear is clinking plates and glasses.



Yeah, not easy to do, but very very possible. Read my first post on this topic. The place I mentioned has been successful with pool, drinks and great food for over 10 years. In fact, the town they are in isn't that big, only about 6 thousand people, and there are about 10 other bars in a 10 mile radius. They actually are the second busiest bar in that area. Yeah, I agree that its uncommon, but still possible.

I am trying to figure how you can accuse Sound Choice and other Karaoke music manus of extortion when it is their product they want to be paid for, not a look a like.
Let me see if i understand your line of reasoning, so if I paint a picture and you steal it and all I want you to do is to pay a fair price for it, am i guilty of extortion?

_________________
No venue to big or too small. From your den to the local club or event, we have the music most requested. Great sounding system!

It is the bars duty to make sure no illegal activity goes on within their doors as required by having a liquor license and a business license.

_________________
No venue to big or too small. From your den to the local club or event, we have the music most requested. Great sounding system!

Not quite. First, let's modify your analogy so it fits the scenario a little better.
Let's say you paint a picture, then make prints of it and sell them. Then word gets to you that copies are being made and passed around. You then decide to investigate and spot several copies in various places. You then file suit against the "owners" without due diligence to determine whether those copies are legit or not.
You then send out letters to said owners that if they pay X amount of dollars, you will drop them from the suit. And you never had any intention of going through with the suit anyway,because you know that they rarely come out in the plaintiff's favour.
That is extortion.
And that is exactly what it appears that SC is doing.
It's becoming clearer to me as time goes on that SC is indeed not exercising due diligence in naming defendants, just as I suspected in the very beginning. The afore-mentioned case illustrates this clearly.
And no matter what you may think, I'm with tovmod on this one. There is ALWAYS harm done when false accusations are made.

I'm not faulting you for it, by the way. Just trying to clarify that this particular instance wasn't a Sound Choice instigated fear tactic as seemed to have been implied.

And Diafel--are you sure SC isn't first saying, "Show us your discs and we'll drop the suit?"

Rumbolt, you missed my point COMPLETELY. I didn't say that the bar owners were playing ignorant to the rules, but if they hear that (such and such) bar owner is being sued because of KARAOKE, THAT'S all they hear. They don't care why, or what was the circumstances, they MIGHT just say, I'm GLAD I don't have KARAOKE, so I don't have anything to worry about. They can STILL have a jukebox, music on tv, pool table, darts, slots, live bands etc. Why would they NOW want KARAOKE, if it MIGHT get them SUED? They don't need to do any HOMEWORK now, so why would they want to bring in entertainment that they have to RESEARCH to be sure that THEY won't be NEXT to be SUED. It's much easier to say "No thanks, we already have enough ENTERTAINMENT".

Srnitynow

And no one said anything to the contrary.

What am finding in regard to SC's tactics is that some who enthusiastically support SC (and I do support their goals) don't see the flaws in the implementation of their plan and that some of their tactics are questionable!

For one, in America a defendant doesn't have to prove anything; his accuser has the burden of proof. SC is trying to get people to plead guilty without a trial and provide the evidence to convict themselves. Not bad if it works!

And if Mcleod's didn't respond to SC's letter, they didn't have to. If receiving no response SC wants to take the matter to court, let them.

Furthermore, what Mcleod does/did has no impact on what the KJ (McGaha) chooses to do; they are not defendants much less co-defendants!

It doesn't matter which, because it's obvious from the MacLeod's case that they aren't using due diligence in assuring that the defendant is in violation or likely in violation.
They are making assumptions that aren't correct and are filing suits on the basis of them.
If they had anything approximating real evidence, other than the fact that they saw a CAVS player in the venue (which wasn't used for karaoke at all), then I might consider that they have a leg to stand on and a reasonable right to ask to see the discs and ask for payment if they were in violation. But they didn't and they don't.

MacLeod's and the KJ are in a perfect position for a countersuit for libel.
(since the accusations are put in the form of a lawsuit, it is written and not spoken)

And it's at least slightly helpful that the TV station did a followup report on the false accusation.

Well if it wasn't for piracy, it wouldn't have come down to this potential risk.

I do not think you are off base at all. I think you are right on point! This consequence could happen. All thanks to karaoke piracy....

Wow! It sounds like the Harrington Practice http://www.harringtonpractice.com/ are a bunch of stupid lawyers willing to risk thier licenses on doing something as stupid as extortion!

Perhaps.... You never know these days do you?

Thanks again rumbolt for keeping the facts straight here...

As one who is in the loop like you & I are on all this, don't get discouraged by all the assumpsions flying around....

Like you said earlier, there is a paper trail that there were intent letters first sent by certified mail back in September before the venue was named in the lawsuit, so any defamation suit would be moot....

Keep up the good work....

The places that might cut it out are the ones that probably are now worrying about things they didn't think they had to worry about before--like ASCAP and having to pay more than $35 a show or bring their bathroom up to code or not pay their waitresses under the table, etc.--all those little things they feel are infringements on their right to run their own business without interference. So they will dump karaoke in spite but really it will be because they never actually could afford to do it legitimately in the first place.

Not quite! All sound Choice has done is to establish ownership of the music. Unless i have missed something, they have not requested any money by sending out the letters. Because the music in question is not in its original format (on a cd) then they (Sound Choice) is asking for proof of ownership by requiring the bar/kj to produce original cds. Once ownership has been established or not will determine the next course of legal action. All that being said, neither you nor I know what evidence was made available to proceed with the suit that caused the stink. We can only speculate, ain't this fun! Do you want to buy a painting?

_________________
No venue to big or too small. From your den to the local club or event, we have the music most requested. Great sounding system!

Thanks,

I know everyone has a point of view and I greatly respect that. I not saying the bar and kj are right and not saying SC is right, I will leave it to the lawyers.

_________________
No venue to big or too small. From your den to the local club or event, we have the music most requested. Great sounding system!