Karaoke Forums

I read the audit procedure, diafel. Seems pretty straightforward to me. As I said, my library would be rendered 1:1 compliance so I have nothing to worry about.

I compare it to a DUI checkpoint. Taking an extra 10 mninutes to get home sucks. But gettting the drunks off the road is worth my minor inconvenience.

YES




YES



There's nothing off topic in this thread IMHO. I may not agree with Diafel's stance entirely, but Sound Choice's own conduct with regard to piracy IS fair game in a discussion regarding piracy.



No and I agree with your stance the people selling hard drives are worse and have already posted to that effect if you will re-read my last post.



You were thanked for your post by at least two posters here and there are going to be more people interested in what you had to say. Let's just be honest about the whole picture with each other.

Then it's pretty clear to me that you have a reading comprehension problem.
That, and you care nothing for your basic rights. Go ahead and sign the agreement.

And when these pirates disappear the gigs will disappear with them since the clubs are being sued as well.

The real problem is that u.s. manufacturers can't compete on our own soil with offshore suppliers who don't have to get the same licensing. That is sad, but it's also not my problem it's theirs. I can purchase music from an offshore supplier.

I'll bet that there are a lot more pirated (unlicensed) tracks by suppliers than you would ever suspect.

(I purchase cds from overseas. The problem you run into is that overseas manufacturers prooduce tracks that correspond to how well a song charts in that particular country, not how popular it is in America.)

I guess we're just gonna have to be on opposing sides of the issue, diafel. I'm never gonna consider a library audit a violation of my "basic rights." Apparently your broad interpretation of "basic rights" exceeds your desire to eliminate piracy.

Okay WallOfSound, it's "devil's advocate time":



Okay, so Dan Stern got fingered by the feds... great. But what makes you think that "Big Bad Sound Choice" has only done wrong in the "past?" This one teensie lawsuit happend in 2006.... AFTER the eagles "mistake"... and the Abkko "oopsie"... and the KAPPA-gestoppo "raids." SC knew perfectly well what they should have done and purposely ignored it... This was not an "oversight"...



Yes, some of us have read the suit. And we're still wondering why it has taken so long. SC could have filed a suit against Stern years ago when they were first made aware of it... they didn't.... why not? If you think for one minute that SC's suit is really concerned about "unfair competition in the KJ market" you need to wake up and smell the coffee. It's fluff incorporated to make the suit look better to YOU because there is NO foundation in law that would permit them to do so when it is between KJ's. Stern competes with Sound Choice, on that they can sue... however, because a KJ is a pirate competing with other KJ's is nothing that they can touch in a court of law. Period. So don't be fooled into thinking that all that stuff in their suits really has any bearing on anything, it doesn't. It's a lipop for the suckers.



Correction: This thread is about a SINGLE distributor this time.... who has been selling openly for years...

Are we happy about it? Sure. It's about time.

You shouldn't be confused, the "convoluted comments here" are somewhat on track: you write of a distributor that has been busted, others write of "Sound Choice the distributor" that was busted... several times.... and keeps getting busted for the same thing over and over again.... and like it or not, it's called "piracy." (If the penalty
is less expensive than profits you make from it, you'd keep doing it too.)

And yes, SC has done some wrong things with copyright (and IMHO is most likely still so)....

And YES, the FBI was involved, but specifically in the role of issuing a "stern warning" (pun intended) that SC and the other members of KAPPA will be dragged into court by the FBI if their "investigator" was caught (again) going into clubs acting like he was some federal authority. It was explained to SC's counsel that the members of KAPPA were responsible for this bozo's actions and would be held accountable since they were paying him to do it.

And this was PRIOR to their pirating in 2003... they knew what they were doing, it was no accident. They simply think that the average KJ isn't smart enough to put 2 and 2 together. You have to understand and accept the fact that the organization you've signed your rights away to (KIAA) is run, managed, or directed by companies charged with piracy.




And which "other board" might that be?

And yes, we appreciate the information, it's just not as earth-shattering as you probably expected it to be.

So they audit you. You don't have to sign. What will they do, take you to court? If so they will have to testify they audited you and you passed. You of course will have a witnes or three to this. Just because someone wants you to sign something doesn't mean you have to.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I agree. You don't have to sign anything...

What's really sad is that you have to sign this same agreement -- and PAY for the privilege to do so -- in order to be a "member" in their "association."

It cracks me up that there are those that have done just that...

Reminds me of the scene in "National Lampoon's Vegas Vacation" when the dealer says to Chevy Chase:

"Tell you what Griswold, why don't we just go out back... you give me half your money, I'll kick you in the B****s and we'll call it a day."

To me straightforward would be... they saw their mark twice, let me show them both of those discs.

It is insane to say that handing them all my computers, hard drives and discs is straightforward.

I am in compliance, but will never feel obligated to give away my rights.



When the POLICE conduct a checkpoint, they ask for DL and insurance... not permission to go into your house and all your other vehicles without a warrant.

Well, whether or not you feel obligated, I'm guessing you'd agree to an audit if you got slapped with a lawsuit, whether or not you feel it's within your "rights" to refuse it. And I'm guessing you probably wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on if you try and sue them in return, as their lawyers have likely advised Sound Choice about potential repercussions of "wrongfully suing innocent 'victims'."

So feel free to continue posturing. I'm guessing when push comes to shove, you'd be willing to comply for the purpose of proving your innocence.

Most likely the defense would make a motion to have a third party do any inspections of whatever the court deemed to be necessary. So it would not be typical "audit" that you'd expect.
And it certainly wouldn't be one that would allow any markings be placed on any property.

Problem is, they require you to sign PRIOR to the audit, and they require the audit or they say will take you to court, whether you can show them your discs or not.



Actually, I'd tell them where to go and I'd see them in court.
I'm with Manobeer. Straightforward is "We saw you play X amount of our songs at your show. Can you show us X amount of discs to go with those songs?"
Since this is not what they are asking, I would show up in court with my discs and when the Judge sees each and every disc for each and every song SC says was played, their premise that it is "reasonable to assume" that my library was pirated will go right out the window along with their case.
No judge would order such a complete audit in such circumstances and indeed, would probably throw the case out so fast your head would spin.

No I would not agree to an audit if BLACKMAILED with threats of a lawsuit, and this is AMERICA I know I would have the rights to refuse SCs audit. You act as if a court of law is demanding the audits... It is the plaintiff that is requesting it, and defendants have no obligation to help build the case for the plaintiff. Only songs actually played on the night in question would be addressed in court, not any that may or may not be archived on hard drives.



Oh I would not counter sue, I have the discs... Let the judge decide if I am a pirate or not, that would be victory enough for me.




Posturing???

Only the simple minded fools that fall for SCs fear tactics believe that the audits prove innocence of any kind.

Only a JUDGE can decide innocence.

Actually a judge decides "points of law" and a jury decides the points of "fact." So it is the jury that decides guilt or innocence.

I stand corrected.

Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves? Let's back up. First, most of us will agree it's time they did something about pirated hard drive marketers. If allowed to operate freely, soon there would be no more production of karaoke, or music, so thank you SC (you multimillion dollar pirate bast@@@d) for your efforts. First SC must win, and then I believe they would go through the customer list, and identfy the people who purchased hard drives(of course they will go after similiar marketers too). I would think they'd get a search warrent, and the owner of a hard drive purchased from Stern, would get an univited search of the address to which the drive was sent.
Could someone pick it up from there?......

[quote="nobodyhome @ Sun May 09, 2010 11:18 am"]Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves? Let's back up. First, most of us will agree it's time they did something about pirated hard drive marketers. If allowed to operate freely, soon there would be no more production of karaoke, or music, so thank you SC (you multimillion dollar pirate bast@@@d) for your efforts. First SC must win, and then I believe they would go through the customer list, and identfy the people who purchased hard drives(of course they will go after similiar marketers too). I would think they'd get a search warrent, and the owner of a hard drive purchased from Stern, would get an univited search of the address to which the drive was sent.
Could someone pick it up from there?...... [

I have been sitting out this discussion but I have reached a point where I feel I need to step in and do a mind dump if you don't mind.

SC had cleared all their own litigations regarding licencing, have they not? Is that all behind them? Seems like I read somewhere that they were in the clear. If not I'd love to read the info you are using to judge them for myself.

Also, did I not read in the warrant and understand that they were going through AOL to find out who purchased from Stern, which lead me to beleive that they will not just stop at the seller but follow up with the purchasers to see if they were reselling.

Isn't calling them a "pirate bas@@@d" kinda harsh. Are they after you? What have they done to you? Are you operating outside the rules? Are you getting backed into a corner? Have you got something to hide? Why all the anger at them? Don't they make a good product? I am confused.

Here in my market, they did at least shut one guy down and he did settle (sealed settlement and no one knows what it was) and is now no issue. But, with that said there are more fish in our local pond that need to be visited by Sound Choice and soon I'd hope.

Guys, if we all intend to stay in the business (for our income and the enjoyment) we need to support our Karaoke manus (regardless of what we suspect or believe the condition of the manus own house is in) or there will not be any new (quality) music and the industry will die a painful slow death.

I personally support what Sound Choice and (I hope soon) Chartbusters are doing to curb the piracy virus that is running rampant amoungst us. Sure, they might not be moving as fast as we want them to but then again we don't know what they are really doing behind the scenes do we? I challange everyone here to pick up the phone or send a personal email to the COO of both companies and find out first hand what is going on and let them know we support them. Takeing a proactive approach verses acting like manus are the enemy will get us the KJ nowhere acting with such a Toxic attitude. We need to quit making up our own rules and get the real facts on how we are required to manage our music collections and quit bending the rules to suit us. My advise is to consult an attorney that has a background in IP law (intellectual property rights) to get the real facts.

My head hurts now.

_________________
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!

Good points Rum.

Fact is this entire fiasco is forcing manufacturers to understand and adapt in the networked market. All of their work is digital to begin with and the digital market has undergone radical shifts in distribution and ownership of content. Karaoke content creators need to adapt some real solutions to continue operation.

All of us have had the 'casual pirate' come up and hand us a home made disk and were asked to play #x on the disk. It's a compilation of songs made at home that enables them to have the version of the song they want be it SC, CB or SGB. In the gaming world we call it casual piracy; you and your friends mix and match what you want but it's not wrong because you don't really intend to hurt anyone and aren't dodging the purchase.

In the end the big manufacturers are going to have to adopt some sort of mass licensing scheme to enable them to collect subscription fees. I's happily pay a monthly fee to use all of a manufacturer's library and I know people who would love to do that at home too.

In the end all this sound and fury will result in a reasonable method for the consumer to have access to the goods with fair and reasonable compensation going to the content creators.

Okay, maybe I'm just hoping.

Rum,

Everyone knows your position. But what you, lehidude, Wall of Sound and others miss is that nobody would be critical of any SINCERE AND HONEST attempt to fight piracy, such as the recent significant and joyous action taken against Dan Stern, even if it is late in coming!

Meanwhile SC, itself, has acknowledged that their efforts ARE NOT designed to eliminate pirates. Nonetheless, there are people such as lehidude and Wall of Sound who ignore SC's own statements to that effect and wonder why anyone would be against SC's efforts to fight piracy. Well, simply, how can ANYONE support SC efforts to fight piracy when SC itself acknowledged that they ARE NOT FIGHTING PIRACY?

Now I would imagine that most of us who have identified problems with what SC is doing have come to that conclusion because we RECOGNIZE, ACCEPT AND CONCUR that SC IS NOT fighting piracy. And among those of us who take SC at their word in that regard, we expect a certain level of "accuracy" and "fairness" when SC approaches and accuses people of trademark infringement.

Yes, while we do want the number of pirates to be reduced, we don't want an entity like SC that is NOT functioning under a plan that is specifically designed to fight piracy to accuse people in a "willy nilly" fashion, of anything.

And how is it reasonable and fair for anyone to question why there are people who do not support Sound Choice's efforts in " fighting piracy" when there is no evidence to support that such a fight is going on? Again, SC doesn't claim to be "fighting piracy"! I don't think you can have it both ways?

I know that some posters believe or want to believe that in spite of SC's denials about fighting piracy, that SC is still helping legit KJ's with that problem, even if indirectly. And if you still believe that SC is helping you in any way, ask them directly either or both of the following:
(1) why does THEIR settlement agreement focuses on SC tracks and doesn't result in the elimination of any other manufacturer's pirated tracks from the libraries of those who have settled with SC?
(2) how many illegal karaoke operators HAVE they directly and actually put out of business?

Some of us also take exception to SC's demand to have access to "our" business' records that would otherwise be available only during the discovery phase in a court proceeding. And some of us also take exception to the terms of the "settlement" agreement offered by SC and their one-sided requirement that the agreement be signed by those who submit to their audit, BEFORE the audit even begins.

Some who acknowledge that SC's plan is NOT designed to reduce piracy, actually view it as a contrivance by SC. That is, SC plans to GAIN monies from the accused with the INTENTION BEFOREHAND TO keep the accused in business in order to accomplish that GOAL! Why has that been suggested? Because the only perceived benefit many of us can find in SC efforts goes to SC in the way of the $6500 settlements. And that benefit only exists when the funds that are due from every karaoke operator who settles with SC actually changes hands. And if the accused go out of business, SC won't get a dime. But if you don't accept that logic, please note furthermore that Kurt Slep has acknowledged on another forum that he could put those who are "guilty" out of business but he has chosen not to. And GOOD for SC, they deserve every dime they collect!

However, I'll stand by my statement that until SOUND CHOICES EFFORTS result in different answers to questions (1) and (2) posed above, then SC's effort is benefiting only SC! So why should anyone feel obliged to "support" them?

Also consider this: If SC derives a financial benefit from every accused who settles with them, do they have an incentive to pass or to fail each accused who is audited? And that being the case, why shouldn't some of us be skeptical about how the audit is conducted when you consider the broad scope SC has established for their audit along with their defined incentive for performing the audit? In short, in appears to some of us that with the game plan established by SC, they end up functioning as the plaintiff, the judge and the jury. What do you think?

But simply put, a person and or business who is accused of and convicted of just ONE trademark infringement will face a judgment that will be quite enormous. And if that statement is correct, I have to wonder why SC is using a pre-trial strategy that suggests that they need to and ultimately the court needs to determine if the accused business or individual has 1000 illegal SC tracks rather than just, perhaps, 10? 10 instances of infringement could easily result in a judgment that would bankrupt the typical karaoke operator!

My primary point? When you consider the likely penalties involved for one conviction of infringement, why doesn't SC just ask the accused to let them see the 10 or 20 or 100 discs that they have developed questions about? Wouldn't the tracks/discs in question provide enough material for a preliminary audit to let SC determine if they have a basis to proceed further? It seems so to me. If they don't find a problem with the very tracks/discs that provided the incentive for them to make their accusations, what basis do they really have for the charges they have brought against an operator?

And while I wouldn't completely open my records for the audit program they have established, I would consider allowing them to audit 50 specific discs. If that isn't enough for them, considering that they are the ones who would predetermine the discs to audit (based upon their experience and current investigative findings) then it should be as clear to you as it is to me that their audit is just a fishing trip!

Meanwhile, Lehidude suggested that the typical pirate could not afford the SC settlement terms and would go out of business. There is no evidence whatsoever of the being the case, typically speaking. While there may be a few operators who will go out of business, so far most have agreed to pay! AND to facilitate getting agreements along with the associated payments from the accused, SC is offering a very liberal payment plan.

Lastly, in another forum regarding SC efforts in FL, the operators of over 50 weekly shows accused by SC have agreed to pay. The amounts that SC is to receive have been openly discussed in another forum. And from my contacts in Florida there is no indication that anyone accused by SC, particularly those who have settled already, have stopped operating their regular shows. And those with the most to lose if they go out of business have already settled. It also seems that even the venues who have been sued have no reason to be concerned about their karaoke shows at this moment.

Not much reduction in the amount of pirating going on there. Wouldn't you say?



And while I noted this statement, I am completely befuddle by what it means. But if it means your market has one less pirate, I have to ask what does that mean in the scheme of things?

Let's think about the pirate that has multiple shows on multiple days during the course of a week. Let's use 20 shows per week at $150 per show. That is roughly $150,000 per year. Paying Sound Choice $6,000 to get them to leave you alone seems like a small price to pay. Even if Chart Buster and Pop Hits Monthly come after their $6,000 apiece; the pirate is laughing all of the way to the bank. The legitimate KJ is left scratching his or her head.