Karaoke Forums

I don't think lawsuits are going to affect businesses. It's a part of the cost of doing business. A majority of businesses are sued at one time or another, some large, some small, some for small amounts, some for vast amounts. That is one of the reasons businesses carry insurance. Huge lawsuits really haven't affected McDonald's (old lady and hot coffee), Wal-Mart (employee class action suit), or Ford (the Pinto fiacso). They continue on, as do other smaller businesses.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

What ever happened to probable cause??? Just because Sound Choice is suspicious of a KJ, doesn't mean that the KJ has to show Sound Choice anything. A KJ doesn't have to prove that he or she owns an original disc unless there is probable cause to believe that he or she doesn't. Just playing a Sound Choice song doesn not give Sound Choice probable cause to believe that the KJ does NOT own the disc in question.

Let's just say that Sound Choice sends an investigator into two different karaoke bars. Bar A is run by a legitimate Karaoke host who runs off of a PC but has a disc for every song on his computer. Bar B is run by a pirate who bought all of his songs on a hard drive from E-bay. If both KJs play some Sound Choice songs during their respective shows, how can Sound Choice tell which KJ is legal and which one isn't? There is no probable cause for a search of either KJ's library. It is just as likely that both shows are legal as it is that both shows could be illegal. There is nothing inherently illegal about playing any song that would allow an outsider to insist that you prove that you are NOT committing a crime.

Sound Choice can be as suspicious as they want to be of anyone with 100,000 songs but it is possible that a KJ with that many songs CAN BE LEGAL so just having 100,000 songs is not probable cause for a search. Someone "dropping a dime" on a suspected pirate is also not good enough reason to substantiate probable cause. You would need someone with PROOF that someone was running an illegal show; like a former employee of the pirate or multi rigger. Hearsay is not going to cut it as a reason for a search.

Do you really think that Sound Choice will file a suit for every Sound Choice track that some KJ might have in their song book? I believe that they would only be able to file a suit for each track witnessed being played at a particular gig. In that case, all the KJ would have to do is go out and buy the tracks that were listed in the law suit and he would be covered.....and then he could file a law suit of his own for defamation of character against Sound Choice and the first time that Sound Choice how to pay out for such a law suit would be the last we would all hear about the latest witch hunt.

This line of thinking is most likely true if:

The show doesn't advertise 10's of thousands of songs
The show doesn't have a printed catalog that begs questioning
Every track played during the show wasn't from SC

And for discussion purposes, I would suggest that just because one show uses a PC and another one uses a Disc Player it doesn't mean that the latter is necessary legal while the former is not. All of the discs in use at the latter show could be illegal copies!

Do you ever read a poat or do you just like to argue????

you even quoted this in your post but I guess you didn't read it.

"Let's just say that Sound Choice sends an investigator into two different karaoke bars. Bar A is run by a legitimate Karaoke host who runs off of a PC but has a disc for every song on his computer. Bar B is run by a pirate who bought all of his songs on a hard drive from E-bay."

If Bar A is run by a LEGITIMATE Karaoke host.........LEGITIMATE Karaoke host means that his discs are also LEGITIMATE, TOV.

In civil suits, they don't have to have probable cause. that's a criminal term. However, they should be using "due diligence" to avoid harming those that are legitimate. It appears they aren't, given the MacLeod's case. THAT is what I have a problem with, not them going after pirates.
I am all for them getting what they're owed. However, the WAY they appear to be going about it is becoming more clear with time, and as I stated in the beginning, it doesn't look like they are using due diligence. they are just firing off lawsuits willy nilly hoping to catch a few in the net and it doesn't matter to them if they get a few legits at the same time.
What do they care if they harm someone else's reputation at the same time? It's all a part of getting what's owed to them. A cost of filling their pockets.
And for those of you who think they are doing this for all the legit KJ's out there, don't kid yourself. It is for their pocketbooks only. If was for the greater good, don't you think they would just go ahead and sue outright without offering a settlement? Wouldn't a win in court with a huge fine make a bigger impact?
Oh, that's right. They know they probably won't win, given the statistics for such cases in the last few years! Might as well line the pockets instead. (and no, I'm not saying they shouldn't get paid what is due them, but again, it's HOW they are doing it that makes me angry. Get the money at any cost).

Doesn't this set you up with a double set of standards, Bruce - one for SC and one for yourself? You've told us that you created your own karaoke tracks, and are adamant that you won't allow any KJ to copy them because then they'd be spread all around -- just like piracy.
So, how can YOU judge whether a KJ is legit and would not copy your personal tracks or is a pirate who would?
Wouldn't you "investigate" a KJ beforehand? Observe their show to glean information? Talk to other singers or bar employees to hear what they say, even talk to the KJ? Of course you would, that's essentially what any of us would do in that situation.
(Actually I think Bruce solves his particular problem by taking only his personal CDGs to shows, but I hope you see my point -- that some of us are attacking SC for doing the same things we would do.)

Now, I certainly don't mean this to come off as any slam toward Bruce, I just want to illustrate how this piracy issue has so many tricks and turns.

Also, regarding probable cause, I'll point out that civil cases and criminal cases have very different legal standards. The burdens of proof, rules of evidence, and findings of liability are quite different.

This was posted by BFFL in response to my previous posting on this thread.

Unfortunately, BFFL maybe the one who doesn't read. What I said was IN ADDITION to what BFFL had said in the post just preceding mine and was not a contradiction of anything he said!

And yes I DO AND CAN READ AND DISCERN WHAT I AM READING IN MOST THREADS. Some threads are less demanding and controversial in nature and I may just skim them to see if there is anything i can ADD!

I'm the only one singing my home made tracks so it's easy to keep track of them. If I was selling them all over the world, I'd have a much harder time telling where people got them from. If someone has one of my home made tracks on their hard drive, I know they STOLE it from me because there is no other way they could have gotten it. If someone asks me to make a track for them, I customize the title screen so I will know that it is a track that I produced for that person. If I see that track at a karaoke show, then I know who the KJ got it from. I only make tracks for people that I know and that they will only be using them for personal use and not be sharing them all over the world. If that happens, then I longer make cdg files for that person. I do it as a favor for people. I don't do it for money. I have never charged anyone for a cgd track that I have made. I'm not in it for the money. I like to help people sing the songs that they would love to sing.

Sound Choice sells their products all over the world. They have no idea where anyone got their tracks just by seeing the song come up on a screen at a karaoke bar. When I see my Logo Pop up on a screen, I have every cause to be suspicious because I don't sell my tracks to anyone. I can't walk into a karaoke and demand to see all of their tracks without some sollid reason to believe that they are in possession of my home made tracks. I wouldn't even bother to do so because the monetary damages to me are trivial because I don't want to sell the tracks that I make so I haven't lost any money if someone steals one or more of my songs. I just don't sing any of my home made songs at that show in the future if I decide to go back to that show at all.

Both could be used for probable cause.

All SC has to see is their trademark being processed through something other than the original SC disc. The trademark has been copied to a computer in both Bar A & Bar B in your scenario which is enough probable cause for an investigation on both.

Remember, a registered trademark CAN NOT be copied without the consent of the registrar. Now SC has every right through the civil court system to proceed to investigate if their trademark has in fact been copied to another media. If the legit KJ can prove that they have the original SC discs, then SC can CHOOSE not to sue. However, if SC wanted to, they can sue anyway because their trademark has been copied without their permission. Again, this is not copyright we are talking about, this is trademark infringement.

Of course SC has seen the light & will allow a 1:1 media shift of their product. In order for them to enter into an agreement not to sue a KJ for doing this, they will need proof through an audit before they enter that contract with a KJ.

I have to disagree Timberlee, that law suits won't affect businesses. If you owned a bar that DIDN'T have karaoke, and you heard about a few other bars that HAD KARAOKE were being sued, for some reasons you weren't familiar with would YOU hire someone to do karaoke at YOUR bar. Especially if you had OTHER entertainment? I'm looking at this issue as a company LOOKING to get my foot in the door. As it is already, KARAOKE in general is looked down upon as compared to OTHER forms of entertainment, so in my opinion, this is just ONE MORE negative that can deter the bar owner that MIGHT HAVE been considering "giving it a shot". You don't hear about a bar being sued for having LIVE ENTERTAINMENT do you? The law suits may not affect the bars as far as the way the handle SUITS, but it WILL affect their decisions on what TYPE of entertainment they want to pay for.

Srnitynow

Yes you do....

This is ancient but valid....

I'm sure you could find more cases...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... CH5H26.DTL

Over the years bars here (Knoxville) have been sued by ASCAP and BMI and had to pay large fines because they had "live entertainment" that played other than their own music. And "live entertainment" still thrives here.

_________________
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!

Probable Cause is the WRONG TERM to use when referring to CIVIL cases (as Diafel pointed out... Probable Cause is for Criminal Court). SC is filing CIVIL Motions here.

And, as it has been pointed out, yes, SC can name people in a case, but they are leaving themselves open for Defamation and Slander lawsuits. It doesn't matter that one bar (McCleod's) was sent a letter which they never responded to (back in September). SC did not due their DUE DILIGENCE when they accused that KJ of infringement and named both him and the Bar in their lawsuit. They saw a CAVs player and they saw SC music being played, and ASSUMED that it was from the CAVS machine. The KJ said that he ONLY uses discs at his show and could prove that. Obviously, the people that SC had investigating this place were not very observant when they went to that show.

InsaneKJ, I have a question for you. When were these letters sent to these bars... before or after you (or someone else) dropped a dime on them? Or, were these letters sent to every venue in town (or at least venues that were know to have Karaoke as part of their entertainment)? If it was the former, then just seeing a SC logo on the screen is not enough to name someone in a lawsuit (McCleod's Bar being a perfect case-in-point).

srnitynow @ Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:12 pm wrote:
I have to disagree Timberlee, that law suits won't affect businesses. If you owned a bar that DIDN'T have karaoke, and you heard about a few other bars that HAD KARAOKE were being sued, for some reasons you weren't familiar with would YOU hire someone to do karaoke at YOUR bar. Especially if you had OTHER entertainment? I'm looking at this issue as a company LOOKING to get my foot in the door. As it is already, KARAOKE in general is looked down upon as compared to OTHER forms of entertainment, so in my opinion, this is just ONE MORE negative that can deter the bar owner that MIGHT HAVE been considering "giving it a shot". You don't hear about a bar being sued for having LIVE ENTERTAINMENT do you? The law suits may not affect the bars as far as the way the handle SUITS, but it WILL affect their decisions on what TYPE of entertainment they want to pay for.

Srnitynow


Over the years bars here (Knoxville) have been sued by ASCAP and BMI and had to pay large fines because they had "live entertainment" that played other than their own music. And "live entertainment" still thrives here.

I guess you misunderstood. Businesses that have been sued, keep in business provided they have adequate insurance coverage.

And as with any business, if you have the smarts, you'll find out what actually happened and not rely on third, fourth, fifth hand stories. That's regardless of whether it's karaoke, vehicles or widgets. Did people stop going to McDonald's or any other fast food place? I think not. They did put warning labels on their cups. So all a bar will do if they want karaoke is to insure that a host is legitimate. It's not that difficult.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

1) Sorry, I used the wrong term on probable cause. I stand corrected....

2) You as well cueball need to do your research before you go off on something you completely missed. The KJ, Jim McGaha, was never named in the lawsuit, only Macleod's. See for yourself here:

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court- ... _id-55365/

3) For civil Federal Court filings, there are REQUIRED notifications prior to naming a defendant. May I suggest you look here to get an answer to your question(s):

http://www.smartrules.com/

4) I have no idea when any letters were sent out. I would have to refer you to the attorney who is handling SC's Tennessee lawsuit:

http://www.harringtonpractice.com/contact.php

5) As far as who "dropped the dime" on Macleod's, may I suggest contacting Sound Choice themselves & ask them directly:

http://www.soundchoicestore.com/help.ph ... ode=update

I hope this helps you.....

For someone that repeatedly claimed they were not a lawyer and fully admitted they know little about the law, this sounds pretty "lawyer-like."

Inaccurate as anything I've seen too, because an "intent" letter means what?

What kind of "paper trail" is this?

In this case it means "Look out because we're about to file an inaccurate and libelous suit on you. And we're putting it on the 5 o'clock news broadcast aimed to destroy your business.... that'll teach you!"

This whole "business" is getting ridiculous. A "real KJ" is now getting it from both ends of the barrel:
(1) pirates diminishing the business and
(2) manufacturers diminishing clubs.

Pretty soon, the only place you'll be singing is in your living room... clubs will dump karaoke entirely and justify it by explaining that they have;
(1) Megatouch games
(2) Dart Boards
(3) Juke box
(4) Dance music DJ
(5) Golden Tee Golf
(6) Live bands on the weekends
(7) Open Mic night every Tuesday

So why would they even need another form of entertainment?
Especially one that will have the chance of getting them named in a lawsuit just for having it?

So if you put yourself in the shoes of a bar owner, what is your incentive to have karaoke again?

We have a law firm retained & discuss legal matters with them to educate ourselves.

If you need to educate yourself on civil law may I suggest this site:

http://www.smartrules.com/

"intent letter"? Try looking here to understand clearly:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. ... &dict=CALD



If Macleod's had gotten ahold of SC when notified about the lawsuit, they would have never seen the light of WBIR.

"Neither Jimmy's Pub nor Macleod's have responded to the lawsuit via counsel." This from the WBIR text report: http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.as ... yid=104612

Our clients are very supportive of our efforts against piracy which includes helping the manufacturers know who alleged pirates may be. Our clients understand that by eliminating the saturation of karaoke in our area, which has swelled by alleged pirates booking cheap shows, may in fact help their bottom line.

I find it very interesting that there is all this uproar about one mistaken Venue out of over 30 KJ's and/or Venues out of 3 lawsuits filed with more to come. I will let you all know when those new ones hit!

In the original TV Spot it was stated that "Blue Chips told 10News they had settled with Sound Choice outside of court but would not comment on the settlement." Here is only one settlement that has been reported on publicly & it is my understanding that many others have settled, in all 3 suits, with SC as well....

Make no mistake, more lawsuits are coming all over the country. We are in touch with other POOP members who are doing similar efforts, like us, nationwide in their respected areas. If anything, the mistake of Macleod's, will only help SC learn to be a little more dilligent in their future investigations I would think.

So yeah, thanks to rumbolt for keeping the facts straight!

For someone who has claimed to be "In the Loop," you seem to know a whole lot of nothing (based on my simple questions to you). As for me getting my facts straight, I don't need to look at those URLs you gave me. I got my facts from the follow-up News report... http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.as ... 30&catid=2 .


Quotes:
As 10News first reported one week ago, a federal suit accuses McGaha and the bar that hired him, Macleod's of trademark infringement.

Earls said he got a copy of the lawsuit in September.

In many cases, Sound Choice Studios says their investigators went into bars and saw illegally copied music being played on a hard-drive attached to a karaoke jockey's sound system.

"I'm not 100% sure that their investigator has actually been in my door. There is no way he could have thought we had a computer, watching him (Jim) put discs in," Earls said.

Sound Choice has offered an audit to Macleod's where they would basically ask to see McGaha's music collection. Earls says he's not necessarily opposed to that, but first, he wants to know how Sound Choice's investigators came to think he was running illegal music.

"Once they answer my questions, we'll settle their questions and show them the discs we've got," Earls said. "I'm very upset, it's portrayed us to be dishonest. That's not good for anybody, it's portrayed Jim to be dishonest. This man has 600 CDs here at an average of 20 dollars a piece."

end quote
Maybe you should tell the News Station to get their facts straight.

Well there you go....

WBIR got it wrong, so now everyone can start going on diatribes on how WBIR can now be sued for defamation since the TV Spot made an error in its "investigation" since the KJ, Jim McGaha, IS NOT named on the lawsuit!

Not to single you out cue, but as I said before, the karaokescene clique is quite un-informed.

I'm in the "loop" because I am doing something to get rid of pirate scum & I am in "alliance" with the major players in the fight who are spending a lot of time & money to eliminate the illegit KJ and/or Venue. What are YOU doing cue, or some of the others around here, to get rid of karaoke piracy in your region, anything? rumbolt is doing something in Knoxville. It seems that most on this forum just sit & do nothing but critisize these legal actions over & over again without any basic knowlege of civil litigation which is easially found on the internet!

Instead of asking me questions on a forum regarding specific issues regarding legal issues, get ahold of the people involved to get your answers. That is what myself & my associates at the company I work for do. I'm sorry that you choose to keep yourself in ignorance by not looking for the facts. You can find those facts in the links I gave you.

I have to agree with Insanekj on thei one. If McLeods had just responded to the innitial contact (whatever form that came in via USPS, UPS, FedEX, Carrier Pigeon, Dogsled, Stone Tablets or even in a Dream ) instead we would be talking about the drunk that spilled beer on one of our good mics or asking us "when am I up" and not trying to play Judge, Jury and Excutioner (to early to get out the dictionary to make sure I spelled that one right) on a situation we really don't have all the facts to. I do know this, I am the one that CALLED WBIR to inform them that there was a lawsuit filed here in Federal Court regarding Copyright Infringment. The station collected information about the suit and contacted the Bars in question. The only bar to even respond to their inquiry was Blue Chips. Also collecting other background material. This went on for several weeks before the story was run @ the 11:00pm time slot. Now, I don't know what the investiagtors saw or didn't see, BUT I do know this, McLeods had every opportunity to make their case prior to the initial broadcast and even respond at the initial airing. Anthony Welsch the reporter for WBIR even said in his piece that they (McLeods) had no comment. Don't tell me that they were as completly suprised by all this as they claim. Something just doesn't fit. Why didn't they (Jim McGaha) show their discs the first time that WBIR contacted them or even prior when SC contacted them before the suit was filed. Were their (McLeods and Jim McGaha) heads stuck in the sand thinking that it was a joke. I don't think SC nor WBIR shot first then started asking questions afterwards. They (SC) asked for and got no response and had no choice but to proceed with litigation based on the information they had (good info or bad info). How much clearer can this all be. I live within 3 miles of McLeods and have never been in there and I'd suspect that nobody on this forum has either. Would it be safe to assume that WE do not know what his (Jim McGaha) system looked like before WBIR came calling the first time and wouldn't go in camera or comment. But a week later they were sure ready to show it off (read whatever you want into that) and cry foul. And since the ownership of the equipment was established as that of Jim McGaha (who is the KJ) the suit against the bar (McLeods) has been dropped as it should be. All the burden falls to the equipment owner and we don't know the status of any legal proceedings SC intends or not against the Jim McGaha.

_________________
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!