Karaoke Forums

This is just an FYI, one of the SC defendants that professed, to have legal hard drives here in phx was just slapped with $200,000 dollar default judgement, and before you all want to tell me that doesn't make him guilty and that he just failed to defend himself your partially right there are supposedly 3 more default judgements being signed by the federal judge within the next week or so. So as far as an approx. count here is what it looks like in phx 14 lawsuits 7 against operators 7 against bars owning there own equipment. 6 of the 7 bars settled with SC. 4 of the 7 operators are in default and will have default judgements filed, The 1 bar that didn't settle wanted to in the beginning and changed their mind. not sure why seeing as they already admitted to SC that they bought their HD from candy store with no back-up disc's and that laeves 3 kj's that have answered the complaint to fight, 2 of which are blatently illegal, Again just an FYI

So did the kj's in question have every original disc to back up their hard drive (on each computer if multi riggers)? Or did they buy a hard drive and just assume that because they paid for it through whatever sources made them legal and not have a single disc to show?
If they didn't have any original discs to back up their drives, then yes nail them to the wall, if however they had every song documented on a physical disc they bought then transferred, i'd like to hear of that & proof (via links to open cases which there should be) that that was the case.

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

I for one would like to believe that SC is finally getting some "results". And if they truly are, I hope the judgments are being well publicized, especially in Phoenix.

However, what we really need to hear from several local KJ's is that they have experienced less competition from illegal rigs and that there is an increased demand for legal ones! If that doesn't occur, nothing SC does will excite me in the least!

BTW: Just MHO, if three operators allowed a default judgment to be levied against them, I can only assume that they WERE GUILTY but have no intention of ever paying up!

So, they paid nothing to SC to avoid the trial; nothing to lawyers; nothing to the courts. Which is exactly how they got to where they are. They don't think they need to pay anything (for their karaoke libraries)!

Boy! Once again there's a lot of assumptions going on here.
Could be that the defendants were foolish enough to represent themselves and didn't file the right paperwork or their paperwork on time. That's ALL a default judgment means. Doesn't mean they're guilty at all. Just means they didn't answer on time or in the right format. I've seen it more than once.
For example, I've seen parents lose custody of their kids for the same reasons. Not because they were bad parents. Just stupid "lawyers".
Unless the defendants or plaintiffs speak up about WHY the judgments were defaulted, we will never really know. All you can do is assume, and you know where ASSuming gets you....

Diafel, based upon how I perceive SC's strategy, the guilt or innocence of those who are purported to be in default really matters not to me. I only care about any positive impact the actions of SC are actually having that benefit the legitimate Phoenix KJ's.

However, it is significant that not one, not two, not three, but four out of seven defendants, IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED, defaulted. Well, maybe like I said, they decided not to spend any money on a lawyer? So what? And IMHO, none of them will ever pay $200,000! And since none of that settlement would go to defraying any of my loses due to pirates I really don't care if they are in default or if they ever pay!

From this local KJ, I personally haven't seen, felt, heard or found any difference in demand; positive or negative. Now with that being said, I tend to work more private clubs, like American Legions, VFW's, Moose, etc... So I wouldn't necessarily have ready access to what's going on out there. I do however have a KJ friend who appears to be experiencing a slight up-upswing here as of late.

Whether this is a direct result of all the litigation, I just couldn't say.

_________________
EveningStar Entertainment & Events
JR & Michele LaPorte
Peoria, AZ

TOVMOD,

I have a new account due to the fact that a local pirate comp. refuses to settle. They filed chap 13 and one of their club accounts was named in the SC suit. Said club can't get out of their lawsuit unless they hire someone in the kiaa. ( that is their words). I am the ONLY KJ in the area who is a member ( actually still pending) that I know of.

Sure they could get out via paying lawyers ( sc has to prove contributory liability) but why would they wanna do that when they can take the route of least resistance, and less $$ ??

L Mc.

If the named party does not RESPOND to the suit, they default- just stupid or uninformed on their part. No guilt of anything shown by any that didn't admit it.


The bit about the KIAA, if true, sounds like a bit of coattail riding extortion in my humble opinion.

BTW- can the OP provide a link to a newspaper or other place to show that is actually happened? Not doubting, just don't have any wish to go off on a rant about air...

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Yes, please.

Joe,

I can't wait unitl you hear the next step by SC.

Your Commie enemies are coming for more and guess what??? It WILL help the market!!!

You sound like everyone on the planet defending the CRIMINAL who broke into someones house with the intent to rape and rob but was shot by the homeowner in self defense. But the homeowner is the bad guy.

He gets railroaded and sued and put in prison.

Can you see ANY just cause in what SC is doing??? THEY are the victim here !!!

Damn man!!!

Yeah I know you want a gov't solution blah, blah, blah.

This is the real world. You will NOT get it your way just because you think it is " the right thing to do" and "the way everyone else is doing it is wrong"

I'll say it AGAIN -SC is being WAY too nice with these scum bag pirates. But no you wanna give them a hug and say " poor widdle piywut" jusy pway nice and we will forget the millions in revenue you STOLE from us!!!

Come on JOE !!!! Enough !!!

And yeah, i wanna see a link too.

Joe's not the only one who disagrees with the way things are being done. It's beginning to be a bit of a broken record here, but if even ONE innocent person gets shafted by SC, then that, IMO, is too many.
If what is being said is true, is right on the money. I don't care how "in the right" anyone is or how much they've been wronged, you cannot do something wrong to others just because you've been wronged.
Extortion is NOT the way to go!
There's a right way to do things and a wrong way, even if you're a victim in the first place.

I, for one, can make a distinction between SC's "up front" tactics and the "backside" of their strategy that leads an accused into court. Once a court date is established, I have no sympathy for someone who doesn't show up, even if I disagree with the tactics that were used to achieve that end!

And, again, if it is true, I find it more than coincidental that 4 out of 7 accused defaulted! JMHO!

(1) SC maybe a victim, but that doesn't give them the right to victimize others and to victimize me. As to victimizing other, the SC strategy is replete with problems, beginning with the fact that they are engaging folks who are not professional investigators to build their cases and that their cases are based, for the most part, solely upon assumptions that can and have led to erroneous accusations.

(2) As to victimizing me, any pirate that complies with SC's up front demands remains in business with the "territory" that they had built through illegal means. And they get to stay in because they agree to payoff SC off and not go to court!

And after settling with SC, there is nothing stopping the pirate from continuing on with his new SC tracks purchased at a deep discount, along with the tens of thousands of other pirated tracks that he still possesses that are NOT SC's and that were never discussed during SC's audit because SC has no legal authority to address trademark infrigement of other manufacturer's tracks!

So in reality, the deal that SC strikes with pirates is being done at my expense and the expense of every other legit KJ who believed in conducting themselves honestly. And while I don't want anything from SC, it is a fact that I don't get a dime of the money they are extracting from accused KJ's so what benefit am I deriving?

In short, SC is actually reinforcing dishonest behavior and spitting in the eye of those who behaved honestly.

So, who's the victim here?

The people in question may have just screwed up their paperwork or whatever, but one thing I am sure of... "He who defends himself has a fool for a client" would definitely apply here. $200,000 seems a lot more expensive than an attorney...

Gee, I wish I knew what you are responding to/talking about. I have yet to comment at all in regard to SC on this issue- because I don't yet know that it happened- hence, the request for a link- but hey, as long as you're having fun.....

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Well, it's Saturday and we still find no link regarding the Phx judgments!

Until said judgments are concerned, let's leave this thread behind. Okay?

And of course the police have never charge anyone for a crime that didn't do it. Listen folks, people get charged with crimes or are sued everyday in various courts in different jurisdictions. Some are found guilty, some innocent, some of the guilty are freed and some innocent are found guilty for whatever reasons. Does this mean we shut down the justice/legal system? Now a court will at some time declare if SC or anyone's elses tacits are legal or not or if the suits have merit or not.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

As I said in another thread, I understand from reading the many articles on SC's actions, they hire a private investigator in each city to visit various karaoke shows. I'm sure there is some criteria they use which gives them reasonable doubt that the KJ's library is legal and that they actual own every one the SC-manufactured discs of the titles they are using in their show. For instance:

- Companies who advertise 200,000+ titles which, upon their investigation, they find have only been in business a short time.
- Companies who use SC titles which have been removed from the market (i.e. Eagles).
- Multi-rig companies where each KJ seems to have the full SC library, but whose gear is substandard

Remember, these are not criminal actions where you're innocent until proven guilty. These are civil actions where the plaintiff must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is liable. In the US justice system, anyone can sue anyone for anything.

Can a KJ who is wrongfully sued file a claim against SC for damages? Sure, if he can prove he lost business as a direct result of being sued. Otherwise, all they need do is file an answer with the court stating they indeed do own all the discs for the SC titles they use in their computer-based show and bring them to the trial. Perhaps the KJ will incur a couple of hundred dollars in legal fees which he may or may not be able to recover if it's shown that the court action was erroneous.

But so far I either see companies settling with SC or just ignoring the suit and hoping it will "go away". It doesn't. Under our civil judicial system if someone is served legally and they choose not to answer it, it can result in a default judgment placed against them - but only if the plaintiff can present evidence which in the judge's opinion demonstrates their guilt.

Defending yourself against legal actions is a cost of doing business, just as much as if someone slipped and hurt themselves because their leg got tangled in your mic cord.

_________________
[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]

Not precisely correct. First of all, the standard of evidence is lower. You must show by a preponderance of the evidence that you have been damaged. And while it may seem you can sue for anything, it must be a tort -- i.e. wrongdoing which causes an injury. Me saying that "I think he sucks" is not a tort -- me calling up his customers and saying "He sucks" probably is.

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

////////////////////////////////

I know this is branching off a bit but looking at mcky'S last statement, what do you think of this comment my brother left on my site (kingbingkaraoke.com) after my sister and I won a lawsuit against him. in February for an unrelated issue. Keep in mind every other comment left was by far positive including Ronnies (from this site) from his visit. I have since removed the comment and sent him a message that my site tracks IP addresses. He has never responded.

"Worse karoke money could buy. He is great if you enjoy someone who is drunk and stupid doing your party."

Do I have recourse here other than to drive down and put an arm lock on him?

_________________
KingBing Entertainment C'mon Up! I have a song for you!!! [font=MS Sans Serif][/font]