Karaoke Forums

@birdofsong - I am under no guarantee that I will not be sued and I am triple certified. The audit in and of itself does not prevent me from being sued. It is my actions that are attached the the before, during, and after of the audit that give me faith that I will not be sued. I am not concerned about it because I am taking steps to limit my risk by maintaining a positive dialog with the manufacturers and adhering to their guidance.

Your arguement reminds me of driving. On any given day I am pretty sure I won't get pulled over by a policeman while driving. But there is no guarantee against that. If I abide by the rules - stop at stop signs, don't speed, use my signal when required - I am basically safe. But I have been pulled over several times for reasons that I felt were unwarranted and a couple of times just because an officer was having a rough day. In those cases I was able to prove my case and ultimately I was cleared. But I still drive. I don't lobby against requiring driver's licenses just because I know I am a competent and capable driver and I don't think I should have to prove myself to the state after passing that initial exam 31 years ago.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Your analogy doesn't work, Chris. The police didn't sell you the car, tell you go drive it and then stop you for driving it.

I really wish you people would stop equating Sound Choice to law enforcement or government. They aren't. They don't have the same rights as law enforcement or government, and that is my biggest problem here.

_________________
Birdofsong

There are very very few things in life that are guaranteed (except maybe taxes and death) and none of us can tell the future (if I could I'd have won a few big lotteries by now) and things do change.

Companies have the right to change things and policies (as long as it is within the limits of the law) just as governments are allowed to change policies and laws. And in fact the government has allowed people and companies to deal with legal problems in civil court. Now if anyone can show that any of the manufactureres are doing anything ILLEGAL, I'd love to hear it. "I don't like what they are doing or their methods" don't count, unless there is illegal activity.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

This is not about what I "like or don't like," nor about a change in a company's policy. This is about asking Sound Choice to honor their word that I will be safe from a lawsuit if I use original media. The answer I got was:



This is supposedly current policy by Sound Choice. It took me all of 2 minutes to find the below quotes on this forum by Mr. Harrington:

First, from 1/6/12:



Next, from 2/27/12:



And most recently from 3/8/12:



emphasis supplied.

Again...this is not about a change in policy. This is about the CURRENT policy, which Sound Choice has stated they will not guarantee.

A company that will sell you discs and then state over and over that they won't sue you if you use them and then sues you anyway -- or at the very least won't guarantee that they won't...that's a problem. A real problem.

To answer Mr. Harrington...yes, I expect you to be 100% perfect in suing the right people. That is a right that we are owed as not only customers who purchased the product, but ones that are willing to comply with the company's current policy. We deserve that protection and assurance.

_________________
Birdofsong

In other words, we should kiss their butt and not say anything against what they are doing or the way they are doing it in order to "protect" ourselves from getting sued?
Now, that's rich!
Sorry, but I disagree with the methodology applied and I will say so. If that puts me at risk for getting sued, then I will eliminate the risk by eliminating the product.
I understand that many of you have a more simplistic way of looking at it. "If you have nothing to hide, why won't you do an audit?". Well, it's just not that simple.
I believe in the right to personal privacy, and although I have nothing to hide, I'm going to demand proper search procedures when, and if, someone comes knocking, for any reason.
SC doesn't have the right do a search of my private property, any more than some random person off the street does.
There are rules to follow and I'm going to ensure that that happens where it concerns me.
The grocery store who sold me my groceries doesn't come knocking on my door demanding to search my home because they saw me using said groceries and they are a victim of frequent shoplifters. That would be inane.
Just as inane as SC's reasoning, as far as I'm concerned. If they sue me, they better have some air tight hard core evidence to back it up, not just seeing a computer in the room and a logo on the screen. But that's a moot point, anyway, where I'm concerned. I solved the problem the way Bird and Chip did, and until such time as SC amends its tactics, that's probably the way it's going to stay.

bird so you are saying the law firm you work for has a perfect record and has never lost a lawsuit or never had a client convicted or a fouled up investigation? If not, then why are you holding SC and/or its attornies to a higher standard.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

The key here is probably if one is playing "only" from original discs. If you are playing some songs on a computer and some as disc, then it would be difficult to make gaurantees as how would they know for sure which you were playing and via what mode?

My law firm is a defense firm. I personally do mostly auto negligence work. I've never seen a guy sued for causing an accident when he wasn't even in the car. Yes, there is a standard. And I expect them to uphold it, especially when they have given their word in this forum that there is protection for disc users.

Are you interested in contributing to this thread, or just refuting my statements?

_________________
Birdofsong

Your expectation of 100% perfection is unreasonable, because it does not account for the possibility of human error. As long as humans are involved--and there's no way to get the human element out of it--then there will be the possibility of error.

When running a show, have you ever had the wrong song come up? Ever mispronounce somebody's name on the microphone? Ever accidentally skip someone in the rotation, or have some dead air? Ever have a technical malfunction?

If I came to you as a patron and said, "Hey, before I put my name in, can you guarantee 100% that you'll play the song I want to sing and that I'll be able to get through it without a technical malfunction? and if you can't do that, I'm not going to sing," what would your response be? If it's anything other than, "We'll do our best" or "GFY" then you're not telling the truth. You can't guarantee that everything will go right even though it goes right 99% of the time or more, and even though you've checked and re-checked everything. The power could go out, and where would you be?

I could sit here and say, "birdofsong, I guarantee you will not get sued if you use your original SC discs," and I could very well mean that I would do everything in my power to prevent it, but in the end it would be a lie because I can't control everything. Anytime there is a lawsuit there is the possibility that the plaintiff has gotten the wrong idea, despite good faith and the best intentions.

What I can tell you is what I have said before: We are not targeting people who play from original discs. We train our investigators to check carefully to see if discs are being used. We do not want to sue people who play from original discs. But in the unlikely event that it does happen, we will move quickly after it is brought to our attention to rectify the situation. And if there is anything we can do to make it more likely that we will identify a KJ who plays only from original discs, we will find a way to implement it.

Your analogy doesn't work, Mr. Harrington Of course these things have happened. These are minor impromptu errors. They take seconds to happen, seconds to fix, and I guarantee none of them have ever cost anyone their livelihood. They are nothing akin to an investigator spending an hour or more in someone's club and still not being careful enough to gather the correct information, such as watching someone use a disc. If you can't figure that one out in an hour, you have no business being an investigator. If you rely on an investigator that cannot make sure of what is occurring, you have no business suing someone on that basis.



You can, in fact, guarantee it. You have that control. You have the ability to provide me with a "Covenant Not to Sue." You have done it before. There is no reason why I should not be afforded the same protection. especially when I'm not shifting your content, and am playing SC's original media.

_________________
Birdofsong

You're not willing to do what is required of you to obtain that document. And you yourself have said that you're not willing to make it easy for my investigator to see that you are playing originals. So what it sounds like is that you want to maximize your personal convenience while neutering our ability to determine whether you're even upholding the simple rules you agreed to.

I'd like to table this discussion until I can spend some time thinking about a way for us to solve this problem.

Even if he provided you a covenant not to sue, you still have obligations that you must uphold within the terms of the covenant. If the covenant is broken by you, then you can be sued.

I think what you are really asking for is amnesty or maybe even a pardon.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Why is it not enough that I purchase the product and use it without shifting it? Everyone else who receives the covenant is a shifter. You have also released and certified people on photographs of their discs, only. No audit. No investigation. No lawsuit. I'm pretty sure Skid Row got certified without anything at all.

You state that I am also not willing to make it easy to see that I'm playing discs. I just said that my system is integrated, and my player is not separate. I would be carrying discs and using discs. Why is that not enough? Should I be required to prance around the room with it before I play it, as well?

I'm fine with tabling it at this point. Let me know what you come up with.

_________________
Birdofsong

I would just like to add, from a stand point of someone that is trying to get started in this business, why would I want to buy a product from a company that could sue me, regardless of how I use the product. SC isn't making themselves "user friendly". I do not want to buy a product and have to look over my should the whole time I am using it. I have never heard of buying a product that you have to prove you are using correctly, outside of Karaoke disks. Is it that hard for you to see why people are getting annoyed?? Between not wanting to pay extra for audits, not wanting our privacy infringed upon, and not wanting mistakes to be made by inspectors, people have every right to question SC's motives as a company. If you can't assure your customers that they won't get sued even if they use the original material there is a serious problem. And telling Birdofsong that she should reconfigure her system to accommodate YOUR inspectors is even more wrong. The inconvenience should not be on the KJ's. They are the paying customers. Myself, I may not even use a karaoke player. I may use an external CD-ROM to run disks with a program, because I am sure some part of my operation will be computerized, because I may buy the CB system at some point in the future.

You are also making it hard to have a relationship with our customers. We can't trust them. Every time a new person shows up we have to worry about him/her being an inspector. We further have to worry about that inspector being competent in their job. While you seem to have a whole bunch of cheerleaders here, you are making it very hard on some to want to use your product. Personally, if I am going to get snooped on by some investigator, I would rather him not see ANY of your product so he/she can't make any mistakes. To me, it really sucks because I have always enjoyed SC music, but won't open myself up to an accidental lawsuit, either. Fighting piracy shouldn't make us all have to bow down to Big Brother.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

It is enough that you purchase the product and use it without shifting it. I think that the chances of you being sued over that are so remote that you're hurting yourself unnecessarily by worrying about it. But the chances aren't zero just because I want them to be zero. You're asking me if it's ok to use it in an environment alongside a computer, and to make it difficult for my investigator to tell exactly what you're doing, AND asking me to guarantee that my investigator won't conclude that you are playing SC from your computer.

Suppose I did say that you won't be sued, and we send in an investigator, and it turns out you are actually playing it from your computer. What then? My investigator then has to prove a negative--that you didn't play from a player--which is very difficult to do.



My investigators are trained to look for people playing discs. If they can't see the area you work in clearly, they might miss it. So I suggest that you prompt them to ask.

You clearly have no problem putting up a sign. How about a sign that says, "Sound Choice tracks played in this establishment are played from original discs. If you'd like to see the original discs, just ask"? If you put up a sign like that at your kiosk--or for people who use books, in the front of the book--then I feel confident in saying that you won't be sued just because a logo comes up.

Or you could do the media-shift, do the audit, and quit worrying about it entirely. I'm sure the fee will not be a problem, and the audit process is not onerous.

Or maybe we can come up another solution.

REALLY??? So patrons will now have access to the disks?? REALLY?? That's what I want, the whole bar having access to my CDs. You KNOW some drunk will take that to heart, and want to physically look at the disks.

Maybe you should come up with another solution. You are pushing these audits, and clearly some here do not like that option. Maybe you should look into buying Birdofsong's Disks back. As a matter of fact, you can buy mine back, too. We shouldn't have to configure our systems so you investigators can see clearly, either. You are really starting to sound worse than the government with your rules ad regs.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Don't be obtuse. I'm not suggesting that she hand the discs over to a drunk patron. Just that if somebody wants to see that she's playing from discs, point out the disc player and maybe hold up a disc.



The rules are simple enough that they can be written in readable type on a single sheet of paper.

You know what I mean.

You are making this all about YOU (meaning SC and your firm) and YOUR convenience. The KJs are the ones out there doing the work, buying the products and filling your pockets. It is OUR convenience as YOUR customers that matters. Posting signs will make people think they have the right to look at and touch OUR disks. "The sign says so". Personally, I think these inspectors should have to identify themselves upon doing these inspections. A surprise inspection is one thing, but the inspector should identify himself so we don't have to wonder which of the customers is the inspector. It's not like the KJ can just change his system on the fly. Either he has disks or he doesn't.


The NEW Sound Choice Motto: Resistance is futile...........you WILL be assimilated.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

It's a bit like closing the gate after the horse is already out, don't you think
Your comment almost seems flippant, given the circumstances.
And you claim you didn't know about it, but I know very well that both you and Kurt DID know about it. You couldn't help but know about it because it was posted all over here for weeks, in several different threads before they were finally deleted because of the content.
You can't claim not to have seen it when you replied to other posts in the very same threads. Or did you conveniently skip those and not read them?
Some of those who are guilty of it appear to have been permanently banned, though I can't say for sure, because no one has told me one way or another, but there are others still here and one in particular who is most vocal in her tirades against me, and some of the others here. Even going so far as to say she would report me to the police for "what I've done", though I still don't know what that is. She refused to elaborate further. I told her to fill her boots. I've done nothing illegal.
Anyway, it's all well and good that now you say you don't approve of it, but at the time, the silence from you and SC spoke volumes. Kind of hard to build trust on a foundation like that.
I guess I shouldn't knock a good try, though.
I do honestly hope things can improve, but I really can't see how with a history like that.

PS: Sorry for the thread highjack, Bird. Perhaps this should be split to a separate thread?

Funny you should mention this.
I suggested from the very beginning that your investigators should ask to see discs. Kurt gave every excuse under the sun as to how that won't work. Why the change? And will your investigators now start asking before they file?