Karaoke Forums

Piracy, what is legal, what is not... This seems to be the number one subject lately and still not dying down (even though I think there's nothing to talk about unless we see actual results from law suits). I was doing some reading up and also followed the threads here in the forum and had this idea/thought I wanna share and open up for discussion:

Obviously SC is facing and trying to fight bankruptcy. So they try to recover money where they can.(From what I read and hear because they got sued for $20 Million.)

1. SC stated (I guess I can use "in public" since it was in their forum) that they won't go after KJ's who indeed have a 1:1 copy for each song they play from a computer. Multi Rigs, 1:1 copy for each rig. Correct? (I think there was a copy of that statement here in the forums somewhere, too)

2. From what I read and hear, the agency hired by SC walks into a venue, checks if you play SC songs and on top if you use a computer and that's it. There is no one asking the KJ "Do you have the original discs for all your digital songs" or anything like that. (Regarding to big dog's statement this must be the case, since she has all the original discs for her digital songs and she was never asked).

Now I'm not an attorney and have no real clue about this, but... let's say this goes to court. Considering the above 2 statements, SC would clearly lose in court. (Given that the KJ shows his original discs, receipts, etc to prove they have a 1:1 copy of their digital library). That's besides the point that AFAIK SC would have to prove first that the sued KJ is indeed illegal. So now the KJ wins the case and sues SC not only for the time and costs he had, but also for loss of business (I'm sure not every venue owner is happy of being sued, no matter if the KJ is guilty or not).

SC ends up going out of business once and for all.

Did I get that right? Is that what they want?

Like I said, I just want to throw that out there for discussion. I'm not claiming to be right and am curious about your opinion.

They wouldn't necessarily lose because they are suing for trademark. they have the right even though you might have the disc to win just because you weren't using the original disc. And even then they could win because each disc has the disclaimer that they aren't licensed for public use but for private use only. So any display in a bar of their logo constitutes breaking the trademark law.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Ok, but in conjunction with their own statement, that they would not go after KJ's that indeed use only a 1:1 copy... don't you think the judge would look into that and take this statement into consideration?

My thought is that many pirates are so obvious, and some SC tracks are so rare (Eagles for example) that it is a near sure thing when many pirates are investigated.

I bet that SC is not just sueing any kj that plays SC on a computer but they do sue the ones that clearly act like pirates.

Yes if SC sues enough KJs that their ivestigators believe to be pirates eventually they will sue one that is not guilty by mistake. BUT there are enough low hanging fruit of OBVIOUS pirates that have no defense at all, that they can pay the cost of the legal fees of the occasional rare innocent KJ. Odds are however that they are getting mostly wins when cases go to court (because we all know that there are a lot of easy to spot pirates).

This means that this part of the SC business is profitable, unfortunately probably not profitable enough to pay for a $20 million lawsuit.

But in conjunction with their actions, they do not verify that there is a 1:1 copy until after they go after the KJ.

This the way I look at it, during police investigations they tell the suspect, go ahead confess... we understand and wont go after you...


I would not show SC my entire library or hard disc, I view it as helping them build their case. Let them take me to court and I would show the judge my discs. And even then I would only show judge the discs to songs SC would be accusing me of playing.

I would like to read that too. Can you provide so more info?

_________________
Kevin

My opinion is that unless someone has some facts, what's to comment on. I haven't read of a $20 million lawsuit or that they are fighting bankrupcy.

As far as the 1:1, if the alleged pirate had 1:1 before the lawsuit and can prove it, SC would lose.

As for the investigative techniques, and if what you state is true in #2, that is not very good investigative work. If in fact Bigdog is telling the truth, then I would think SC would lose. We will see though if the case gets dropped or continues. I cannot see a lwayer who is likely on a contingency basis continuing with a case that he/she would lose.

_________________
Kevin

The lawsuit is actually a fact. You can google it.

You can try to google it and get pages of lawsuits pertaining to SC to sort through--everything from them suing people to them being sued. As you have found it before, could you please narrow it down with a link?

Well first of all a lot of people are making many assumptions without all the facts. Most think that SC is going all willy nilly over the place. Since it appears that attorneys are filing suits on SC's behalf, they would have ensured to cross their ts and dot their i's. Attiorneys hated being made fools of and that can ruin a professional reputation. As to the investigations themselves, who really knows what's going on. There are rumours, innuendo, and possibly misdirection out there, so until it is publicly revealed (and for SC to publicly announce the who, what, when, and how's of an investigation before a discovery and/or trial would be stupid), we really don't know.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I'm wondering if SC is planning to refund these honest people that purchased their disk while they were not paying the rights for producing them

If you have the Eagles disc, I will refund those for you.

You may wanna include other manu's in your wondering too.

_________________
Kevin

This is interesting. Per this article, it sounds like the Sound Choice CEO actually visited some bars in the Phoenix area: http://www.uskaraokealliance.com/Karaoke_Legal_Talk.htm

Thanks for link Seattle. It has the name dandanthetaximan listed in the lawsuit..

I wonder if this the same dan-taximan we have here on our forum...?

I read on a craigslist posting lastweek the SC has come to hawaii....will keep everyone informed. -john

It is one and the same Dan Dan the Taximan.

Here's an interesting site. The main page says it's not available yet, but it appears everything else is.


http://scsafeharbor.com/programdetails.php

Sevarin,

Much of what is known OR that people think they know has been posted on the "SC Hits Florida" thread. In that thread I just recently provided an overview of what the common basis and conditions are in considering trademark infringement violations.

I also pointed out awhile back, probably in the same thread, that there is no precedent for the suits that SC has filed.

And using the criteria from my above mentioned post, I have taken the liberty below to try to relate those criteria to how a pirate karaoke OPERATOR would infringe upon SC's trademark. And AS I HAVE INTERPRETED THE LAW, none of the criteria are being met:

1. Pirate operators are not selling an illegally made copy of the SC product (a karaoke track) along with the SC logo to the unsuspecting public. The pirate, in operating his show, is in fact offering no product for sale.
2. Pirate operators NOT SELLING karaoke tracks NOT made by SC, but that have intentionally been produced, labeled and packaged to look like the SC product
3. Pirate operators are NOT SELLING karaoke tracks that were produced by a company other than SC but that appear to have been made by SC and even have a SIMILAR logo
4. Pirate operators are not using the Sound Choice name for their company and/or show, thereby, "DILUTE" the value of the SC brand.
5. The most typical Pirate operators are not advertising how many SOUND CHOICE tracks they have, or that they are using SC tracks in promoting their show



In regard to the preceding, I have gained no understanding or come across any legal document that substantiates that using a copy of a disc is any different than using an original when it comes to trademark infringement. And I doubt that there is a similar trademark case that has ever been based upon that premise! And cases involving software have been filed as copyright matters.

Furthermore, I believe that the "licensing for public use" restriction is actually a copyright, rather than a trademark issue.

Lastly, and again, the basis for a trademark infringement suit such as the one that SC is asserting has no precedent in case law

Yeah, and what has that to do with my initial posting?

Did you actually read my posting? It states "(even though I think there's nothing to talk about unless we see actual results from law suits)".

Your point is?

What has it got to do with you post? Simple. While the title of your thread implies that you are offering a new twist to an existing subject, you have added, IMO, nothing significant to the subject - a topic that is discussed in a thread that has 129 posts to date and discuss every point you discussed in your OP, other than SC's "pending bankruptcy"!

So, let me see if I understand your original post after having re-read it? You made what appeared to be declarative statements regarding 1:1 operators but then concluded your entry by actually turning it into a questions with the addition of "Correct?" at the end of that statement! If you ask a question, do you not expect a response?

And while I didn't respond directly to you question, there are postings regarding 1:1 in the thread that I referenced!

You also made a somewhat declarative statement about the investigative techniques used by SC without any reference to what evidence you had for your conclusions regarding those techniques or any concurrence in opinion from those who have previously posted on this matter.

And then you stated, as reiterated in your last post, that UNLESS we see actual results from law suite there's nothing to talk about.

After all of the subjects that you did address in you post I must ask what is the "nothing" you say that can't be talked about? Meanwhile the essence of my post was to show IMHO how unlikely a trademark lawsuit will result in judgments on issues such as 1:1; format shifting; or using duplicated discs to run a show with.

And implicit it my post was the suggestion that SC doesn't likely want to go to trial using trademark infringement as the basis for its suit so it may not be prudent on our part to wait for the outcome of a such a suit to continuing discussing a topic that is currently being effected by SC as it continues to accuse operators using computers and settling with those who admit their "guilt"!



Well, I think I that should be self-evident from original response to your OP. If it wasn't, there isn't anything I could say to make it any clearer

Ok, let me simplify my OP:

Wouldn't it be ironic (in a way) if SC, while attempting to recover money wherever possible, shoots itself a whole in the foot and goes out of business caused by it?

That's all...

It's just a thought/theory build on events. Get it?