Karaoke Forums

You're taking an allegation as prepared by the plaintiff's lawyer as fact. Before you get to #24, maybe you should read the first page, where the Plaintiffs "allege" the following.....

Legalese aside, I'm getting the vibe that you DO in fact consider Sound Choice to be no better than a pirate. And I'm the one that needs to get real? Please.

You're kidding me, right?

I think I'm gonna pee my pants.

Do as you must, you're the one grandstanding and saying that Sound Choice showed a complete willfull disregard of the rules. I contend that since one of the three songs in question was produced in 1996 (when how copyright laws applied to karaoke were unclear) there was no willfull disregard at all.

Well if SC shows up at one of your shows, and you play ONE of their songs... prepare to b3^d over(PARDON MY FRENCH).

So yes if SC pirated 3 songs, I assume that they pirated many more.

If I get audited, I won't be crying about it like everyone else here is. If naming me in a suit nabs another pirate on account of their so-called "guilty before innocent" investigations, I have absolutley no problem lugging my cases down for inspection.

Not grandstanding at all and I'm certainly not saying anything. It's all there in the lawsuit. Go ahead and read it.
I'm really not sure where you're getting the year 1996 from, but just so that we're clear here, this suit was filed in 2006, and according to paragraph 23, which states in part, "Over the past 3 years (and upon information and belief during prior periods)" that brings us back to 2003, and perhaps before then, but certainly nowhere does it state 1996. Even if it did, they certainly knew better by 2003 and 2006!
Your argument has no validity. Perhaps you need to do your research a little better.

"nabs another pirate"????

You're taking an allegation as prepared by the plaintiff's lawyer as fact... I could swear I just heard that somewhere.


And good for you, if you really dont have a problem bending over for SC.

I would never let them go through my computer or hard drives...

If I was sued by them, I would take the discs to the songs they claim I illegally played on the night in question and let the judge decide if I am a pirate.

The Impossible Dream was on 8127. This disk was released on April 16, 1995 as per Amazon.

Let us not turn this discussion into an argument and face the fact: a pirate is a pirate; it does not matter if he robbed a ship load of gold or just get away with one silver coin. he still wear a black patch over one eye.

_________________
I can neither confirm nor deny ever having or knowing anything about nothing.... mrscott

Not that it makes a difference, because by 2006 SC had plenty of time to conduct an internal audit.


Also per Amazon... January 1, 2005

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000UW ... 519&sr=8-1

It's clear to me that you either can't read, choose to ignore what you read, or you have a serious comprehension problem.
The songs in question were also offered on SCRG1306, SSG2195, SCG8127, and SCG8157, all of which were manufactured well AFTER 1996 and were indeed purchased by the plaintiff's representatives from Sound Choice in March of 2006.
There is NO MENTION of 1996 in the lawsuit! Even if there was, how is this a valid defense of their actions since the law was clarified?
Also, as pointed out in the lawsuit, SC were already in the habit of properly obtaining licensing from other copyright holders when they re-recorded these particular songs, yet deliberately chose not to contact the copyright owners and get permission.
You can't tell me that SC thought they could just go ahead and use it freely because the law wasn't properly defined as to synchronization rights yet! At the VERY least SC KNEW or ought to have known that royalties for the music and lyrics were due, irregardless of the stance on synchronization.

Oh, and I wouldn't hold much water with the dates that Amazon says things are originally released on. I once saw a Pyromania album by Def Leppard being listed as having an original release date in the late 90's!

Does anybody here care about the fact that Dan Stern finally got fingered by the feds or is it that all you care about is BIG BAD SOUND CHOICE & what they have done wrong in the past?

Have any of you read the Ohio Lawsuit? It's about suing people who sold loaded CAVS & HDs with stolen SC product prolificating unfair competition in the KJ market!

This thread is about distributors this time! Is anyone happy about that at all? I'm confused at all the conveluded comments here that aren't even on topic!

Sure SC has done some wrong things with copyright but was the FBI ever involved?

I came over here from another board to give you all the good news because I figured that it would get the word out quicker that distributors are now getting nabbed & thought you might appreciate it.

It seems that I have wasted my time....

Yeah! But check out the Chartbuster website. They specifically say that they do not allow or authorize any format shifting for any reason. For commercial purposes, you must play from disc. Might be a lawsuit they are not willing to fight though! Test it in court and they might lose. Sound Choice at least realizes that it's going to happen (and needs to) to get up to date with new technology.

What I'm wondering is--are we going to hold the other karaoke companies to the same standards that we are judging Sound Choice--are we going to boycott/not play Chartbuster or Stellar? Because they have the same kind of suits going on right now rather than a few years ago. Only a few months ago CB ruffled some feathers by sending out a disc without the advertised Shinedown songs on it.

It appears that SC has tried to clean up their act by making sure they get the licensing first while at the same time getting criticized for being slow in putting out new songs.

It would also appear that CB and Stellar are gearing up to go after pirates also so aren't they in the same boat as SC?

American karaoke companies are at a disadvantage due to our laws and all have been in copyright trouble at one time or another. Are we going to end up only buying from Zoom or other overseas companies because of this?

Yes. The problem is that these same karaoke companies simply want to hold YOU to a higher standard than they are willing to hold themselves. Did you read the SC filings against KJ's? It says the invested over $18,000,000 in their operation. Where did that money come from and how much of it was made off of pirated (unlicensed) music? SC has always known the rules regarding licensing ever since the days of running recording booths at amusement Parks.

Dkkaraoke packed up and left the united states because other manufacturers like SC, music maestro, nutech and others were beating them to the market with unlicensed music. DK's logic was fairly simple: if they won't follow the laws in their own country, we won't violate the law just to compete.

I would imagine that there are far more unlicensed tracks then there are licensed ones.

Like a school of pirhana, people here smell blood and attack. Heaven forbid a major manufacturer becomes proactive and takes on blatant copyright violators, only to be accused of copyright violations themselves.

This dead horse has been beaten here and other boards for months since Sound Choice began suing KJ's. People fail to look at the big picture, only to fear "losing giigs," or "taking valuable time to be audited" as reasons why their "civil rights" or whatever are being violated. It's a bunch of garbage. Time and time again Sound Choice has said that if you're legit, there's nothing to worry about. Why does everyone need to be a skeptic? These lawsuits are for the greater good, don't you people underdstand that?

The problem is that throughout history, every time someone has said "there's nothing to worry about" there WAS something to worry about.
And IMHO, this case this no exception.
They want you, as a part of their audit, to sign a document that gives specific rights to SC, EVEN IF YOU'RE LEGIT! It is a part of their audit system, so if they accuse you, EVEN IF YOU'RE LEGIT, they want you to sign it giving away many of your rights. in order to prove to them you're legit!
Would you just go ahead and sign a document without consulting your lawyer first because the person asking you to sign tells you there's nothing to worry about regarding it?
If you do, then you are a fool and deserve everything you get.
I'm willing to bet there isn't a lawyer around who would advise signing it.
These lawsuits are most definitely NOT for the greater good unless you're referring to SC's pocketbook as the "greater good". There is nothing in it for anyone else. Don't kid yourself. Not that it's wrong, because it's not. I just don't think anyone should be ascribing beneficial aspects to it that don't exist. Remember that it's for SC's wallet and THAT ALONE!
Yes, SC has the right to go after pirates, and they SHOULD, but they need to do it properly and not drag innocent KJ's through the mud while doing it. They also need to be prepared to give a little and not just expect everyone to roll over to their scare tactics.
They aren't stopping pirate KJ's. All they are doing is getting some compensation from them and allowing them to continue with a much discounted library.
And if Chartbusters or any of the other manus used the same tactics, I would feel exactly the same way. But they aren't, are they? At least not YET.
As for the fact that they are finally going after the hard drive producers, I don't think that has fallen on deaf ears. It's about time and that's good news! It's just that there is nothing to say regarding that. They are going after them and it's interesting for sure, but what else can you say about it except "great!"?

"You people?" (And what is that supposed to mean?)

For the greater good? Greater good for who? You can't possibly believe it's for the greater good of the kj's do you?

SC is simply being revealed for who they truly are. A pirate suing pirates and somehow you believe this will benefit you?

If it is so good, have you signed their agreement and are you already a member if KIAA?

Yes, I believe they are suing for the greater good. How many pirates are gonna have the resources to cough up the $6000 "settlement fee?" I'd be willing to wager that only a few have those resources, the others will walk away, having not wanted to invest money to be legit in the first place.

ETA: I'm not a KIAA member. 'You people' is directed at everyone who insists that Sound Choice's efforts are not well-intended. And yes, I'm sick of pirates infiltrating the karaoke scene in general. If a lawsuit was initiated by Sound Choice in my area there would be less pirates, and in turn more gigs for legitimate hosts, and perhaps de-saturate the over-saturated market to increase attendance at the remaining shows.