Karaoke Forums

Hmmm, doesn't say what CAVS USA Inc is suing for!

I'm sure someone here will pull up their PACER account to find out.

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

Chortle, chortle, chuckle, chuckle...yep...reading it right now....

Asking for in excess of $150,000,000 (that's 150 million, folks) for....drum roll, please....

(Here's the Cliff Notes)

Count I - Trade Libel

Sound Choice sent out mass mailings since 2001 disparaging CAVS and making libelous statements. Sound Choice promised the recipients of the mass mailings that they would be sued if they purchased the "illegal" CAVS units.

Count II - Unfair Competition

The fraudulent statements made by Sound Choice constitute unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent business practices. They created irreparable injury to CAVS business reputation and goodwill.

{insert sarcasm} Of course it must be a simple misunderstanding, since Sound Choice would never do anything underhanded or disparaging whatsoever. {end sarcasm}

Birdofsong

_________________
Birdofsong

Thank you bird for the reporting.

I thought it might be for Libel, since SC does state CAVS in a lot of their piracy documentation & referring to loaded hard drives in the same sentence.

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

But it is as much "cavs" fault as SC. If they hadn't created their own computer and refered to it as a "Cavs" machine then SC would have never utter "CAVS" name.
While I believe that "CAVS" had the best of intentions and it's not their fault someone loaded SC tracks onto the machines in question. They should cry foul when their name gets called because their karaoke computer bears their name.

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

Karma strikes back....

It's the name of their product.... you can't fault cavs for giving the product a name. What should they have named it instead?

I don't see compuhost getting dragged the same way... do you?

I have no problem with the name itself. SC just decided to lump Compuhost with all the other regular PC computer programs. I do not believe that it was intentional that they used a specific name for the CAVS unit and not a specific name for a PC unit. They were totally different animals. And I do not believe CAVS itself is being held responsible for the crimes of some of their dealers. I know of at least one CAVS dealer in CT that loaded SC product onto their machines for their purchasers. I know one such purchaser first hand.

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

I don't think this lawsuit will get very far, because Sound Choice didn't libel CAVs. They did say many times that they would seek to bring suits against anyone using SC product illeaglly loaded on a CAVs machine. Since the CAVs player is a propriety program and SC never authorized their product to be used on it. Any CAV player with their product on it would be considered illegal. Since you can't be sued for making a true statement, CAVs just wasted a bunch of money.



For something to be libelious it must meet three criteria, it must be:

Untrue. In order to be defamatory, the statement must be untrue. If the statement is true or substantially true, then it is not defamatory, and the case is over. Since it is substantially true that CAVs player were sold by CAVs dealers loaded with SC product, that takes care of one.

Damaging. In order for the plaintiff to prevail, the statement must have caused real and substantial harm to the person or business. The plaintiff must present evidence of the substantial harm done. What was damaged can CAVs show any loss of sales for their unit, where there isn't a substantial loss as great or even greater by SC during the same time period There goes two!

Knowingly false. The plaintiff must also show that the defendant knew the statement was untrue, but published or broadcast the statement despite that knowledge. This is the hardest one of all to prove in court. Unless Someone from Sound Choice stated publicly "that I am going to spead this lie about CAVs or the owner of CAVs called up Sound Choice and told them none of our machines are loaded with your product, would any of this be considered knowingly false. But if Someone ordered a loaded CAVs player from a CAVs dealer and it came with SC product on it or they have a witness who did so.......... well there goes number three out the window as well.

Wrong again thunder.

Wait.... let me put my waders on....


Okay....


Wrong because the statment;"Illegal CAVs machine" is untrue. CAV's machines are not illegal.

"CAVs dealers" and "substantially true?"

That "takes care of" nothing. Strike one against SC.


Absolutely they can show "real and substantial harm" in the loss of sales of their product. Doesn't SC claim the same thing against alleged pirates for "loss of sales" and that they are suing to "recover assets?" There really is no practical difference between the two. SC is spreading libelous information claiming that CAVs is an "illegal product" when it is not an threatening to sue those that purchase the product.... very damaging to sales.

Strike TWO against SC...


Someone at Sound Choice doesn't have to proclaim that they are going to spread a lie, they simply have to do it. And they did... repeatedly and in writing.

STRIKE THREE AGAINST SC.

And here you go again.... claiming "a CAVs dealer" sold a loaded machine... not that it was loaded by CAVs.

There's nothing "illegal" about a CAVs unit so it is libelous AND damaging.

Sorry you can't twist and justify their actions. Nice try. Keep fishing though.

It is TRUE that SC content had been sold without the discs on the hard drives of a CAVS machine. I know firsthand of a company who bought one and got Sound Choice content without benefit of having the discs to back them up. So the fact is that SC was not lying about their content being sold on the machine which made those machines illegal.

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

I don't believe for an instant that CAVS ever sold a machine with preloaded SC content on it. Whoever you "know firsthand" I'm sure did not buy the machine new from CAVs with any content. So the fact of this matter is that a CAVs machine is NOT, "illegal."

SC's assertion that a CAVs machine is "illegal" is in fact NOT true.

So which of these statements is false?

(none of them)

Chip, those case notes that you quoted don't tell the whole story. The question I have is, what EXACTLY did SC say/put in those e-mails when they referred to CAVs as an illegal product? Did SC just say that the CAVs is an illegal product, or did they say that IF the CAVs unit sold has SC material on it, then it is an illegal product (since SC never gave their permission for their product to be used on a CAVs unit)? There is a difference here.

Now, unless you are privy to the actual statements that SC made when CAVs appeared in the market, then I would hold back on all of the cheering. Of course, if you happen to have access to the actual correspondence that CAVs is claiming SC said, I'd love to read it. Please share.

I can only guess it's stuff like this from APS and associates' website:
"What exactly is a pirated/unauthorized copy?



Slep-Tone distributes karaoke accompaniment tracks on compact discs, primarily in a format called CD+G, or "compact disc plus graphics", although it has recently released a licensed product on CD-ROM in MP3G or “MP3 plus graphics” format. It does not distribute tracks on any other medium. If you copied songs from an original, legally purchased CDG to a computer or hard drive WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION it is an unauthorized copy. If you obtained your Sound Choice tracks by downloading them from the internet, by making copies from discs that you do not own or by buying a preloaded hard drive or karaoke machine (a CAVS System being an example), or created multiple copies from a single original source then you did not legally obtain your Sound Choice tracks and they are considered pirated copies."

Obvious to me that they said "CAVS loaded with SC content without benefit of discs."

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

Cue,
We will find out what that content is as this case progresses. In the meantime, I doubt that CAVs would bother to file a suit without any chance of a monetary outcome in their favor. Why not let thunder, wall, Athena, or any of the cheerleaders simply request a copy from sound choice and we can freely argue the points here. If they refuse a courtesy copy, I would wonder why.

I'm gonna have to side with Chip on this one.

I look at it this way if SC had said that Western Digital External Hard Drives were illegal because they had SC content on them then WD could do the same that CAVS is doing now.

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

Exactly!

All this is is what we call in Canada an Originating Notice and Statement of Claim. All it is is letting the Defendant is being sued and what the ALLEGATIONS are. Nothing has been proven. Just because something is alleged does not make it true. Until there is a settlement or ruling by a court then that's all it is - ALLEGATIONS.

People/corporations sue people/corporations all the time and each and every party think they are right, which is why they go in the first place.

So I will watch while Chip and his people attack SC and Thunder and his defend SC.

As for spending money on court documents, nah, I can spend it on good Canadian beer.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

What's a good Canadian beer?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF