Karaoke Forums

Jees! NIT NIT NIT!!! PICK PICK PICK!!!
It's an audit fee. People pay audit fees to get audited on their library that they have media shifted. A pirate that doesn't have any discs would not be paying an audit fee to prove he owns discs, he would pay large settlements in order to get legal. So yes I guess one COULD think of that fee as part of being able to media shift your discs to computer with permission.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

Words mean things. Some people understand that and some don't.
Often times those that do understand that use their words to decieve those that don't.
It happens all the time with politicians and lawyers.
You may consider it nit-picking, I consider it the tedious task of removing the eggs of the lice for the benefit of another.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

The arguing that goes on here benefits nobody. You have those that insist they are right & argue every little point down to a mistaken word or mis quoted context. You have others that say & post stuff without any reference to where/how they obtained the knowledge but hold onto that believe because they believe it (saw an example of that today). You have those that actually have references, post links to factual information and get jumped on by those with differening opinions because they either dislike the info, or twist it around to make it look like it doesn't apply. Then the analogies - there is NO analogy that fits, but they still get used for the point - but even those get nit picked to death, it's not about being exact, it's about a generaliztion - not saying they ARE the same thing.
NONE of these discussions would benefit anyone! Because no one can do it civilly without either bashing other people in whatever manner, bashing a manu or two until the horse is laying on the ground but continue to hit them, or just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Until that can be done by everyone, nothing good from these discussions will ever happen and will benefit no one!

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

The fee is not specifically an "audit fee" or a "media-shifting fee." It is a certification fee, paid for the purpose of establishing SC's certification that your library has been media-shifted according to the policy. The fee is set in order to compensate SC for the cost of doing the audit, maintaining the certification list, and providing the premiums given to certified hosts--and, for post-suit audits, to cover certain investigative costs, filing fees, and process server fees.

Thankfully, not every brand is doing thing the SC way, or us po' folk could never get started the way we want to. Hey Mr. Harrington, is there any word on these negotiations between SC and the UK brands??

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

I guess you didn't read where CB charges $199 for their certification fee.

You can call me names but I'm a big boy and I really don't care.

But no one has shown me where in ANY law or Act where it is okay to media shift, make copies or whatever for commercial purposes, without permission. No one has shown me where any company is not allowed to charge for such permission. It's not cheerleading, it is fact. Two different things. Not liking something doesn't mean you can ignore it.

So please read the Acts and show me where you are right.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Nobody said that they weren't allowed to charge for permission nor did anyone say they aren't allowed to do audits. I and others are saying that it is a crappy way to treat their customers, when other manus will give that same permission from free, without audits and other nonsense.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Why? For you there's nothing to explain because none of this applies to you... you live in Canada.... Why are you arguing U.S. law? Just for the sake of argument?

It's called free enterprise. The freedom to conduct business, not that everything should be free.

There is a difference between saying I don't like a policy and spewing vitoral because you don't like it.

Hyundai offers a 10 year/100,000 mile warranty in the US while GM offers a 5 year/100,000 mile warranty. Should we rant and rave at GM because they don't offer the longer warranty like Hyundai? You can use whichever auto maker you like but their policies are all different. What about you buy this year's model vehicle and then discover next year's same model has a longer warranty. Do you expect them to lengthen the warranty on your one year old vehicle?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Karaoke discs are not cars. Free enterprise is not always a good thing. And if you are trying to rebuild a customer base you don't charge extra fees. it just doesn't make good business sense.

You make no sense since you live in a Socialist country. Yes, certain things SHOULD be free, kind of like healthcare.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

What makes you think healthcare in Canada is free? Do you think we just pick $100 bills of the money tree? We pay heavily through taxes and *gasp* private health care insurance.

Socialist country? Really? And here I thought we were a Parliamentary Democracy and I get to vote. Damn, I wish someone told me sooner so I didn't waste time casting my vote.

"Why? For you there's nothing to explain because none of this applies to you... you live in Canada.... Why are you arguing U.S. law? Just for the sake of argument?"

Chippy nice way of trying to avoid an answer. You spew your garbage but are unwilling to back it up. Are you peeved because I'm calling you out, to back up your vitoral?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Here in the United States, that's called "Freedom of Speech" and it's one of our basic rights. Don't you have that in Canada too?



A better analogy would be that GM had a 10 year warranty and changed it to 5 years after you bought the car. If you knew that in advance, you might be driving a Hyundai. That's also known as "bait and switch."

But none of this car comparison applies to the current discussion.



Sorry, I'm not about to take that bait, and that's all it is.

BTW, It's spelled: "VITRIOL"

I like this game. I can make an even better analogy.

Suppose GM had a 10-year warranty that was valid only on the original vehicle, i.e., without any modifications. Then GM found out some people were modifying their vehicles and said, hey, if you modify your vehicle, no warranty, unless you modify it in this very specific way, and we'll still honor the warranty. Then a lot more people started modifying their vehicles, so GM said, "Since so many people want to modify their vehicles and keep their warranty, we're going to set up a policy that allows you to do it, as long as you follow the rules and let us check to make sure you're following the rules. And it will only cost you what it costs us."

Then some guy in Michigan started complaining that when he bought his car, he didn't know that modifying it was against the warranty rules (even though they had said that all along and the law was clear on the point), so he parked his car in his driveway and hung a sign on it announcing he wasn't going to drive his GM car anymore because he couldn't modify it the way he wanted to and still get warranty service when it broke down.

Then, after a couple of years of seeing his expensive car parked in the driveway, rusting out in the harsh Midwestern winter, he started asking GM if they would honor the warranty if he drove it unmodified, but when the company rep told him that of course, that was fine, that GM actually preferred people to drive their cars unmodified, he complained that he would only accept it if Dan Akerson hand-wrote him a permission letter using a peacock feather quill and ox's blood by the light of a waxing gibbous moon.

Analogies are fun.

Only when they are being used to illustrate a valid point and not as an excuse to launch a multi-paragraph personal attack.

Not everything that hurts your feelings is a personal attack.

And my point is valid, while yours is not. SC hasn't baited-and-switched anyone. The rules when you bought your discs prohibited copying for commercial purposes. There didn't need to be a policy because it was already against the law to do it without SC's permission.

One more thing...you have complained several times about it taking "90 days to dismiss Rodney." About 60 of those days happened before Rodney said a word to anyone. When it was brought to my attention, two days before Christmas, while I was on vacation visiting my family, Kurt and I immediately set the wheels in motion to get it resolved as quickly as possible. Because of an investigator who refused to provide information--and whose company has now been fired partly as a result of that incident--it took some time to get enough information for Kurt to make a decision. It took still more time--about two weeks after being instructed to dismiss the case--for the attorney to implement that plan.

When you complain about "90 days" given my personal involvement--and Kurt's--during time that really ought to have been spent with our families, when if it had been up to me it would have been 90 hours rather than 90 days, it's hard not to see that as a direct personal attack on both of us.

So spare me the sanctimony. One of us is trying to do the right thing here, and one of us is doing very little but whining and scheming to do damage to a company that has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to harm him.

Nope, but if or when they get stupid enough- as SC has- to sue paying customers who have cost them NOTHING, instead of actual pirates ( people who actually STEAL their music), then maybe......

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Um, not sure about that. SC authorized downloads from a few sources for a little while, then demanded 1:1 disc ownership. Smells like bait and switch to me...

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

No feelings hurt here...



Here we go again.... and you accuse me of repeating myself...

The "rules" as you've pointed out, were in fact changed and permission granted although you refuse to acknowledge it, and then changed AGAIN years later to facilitate your lawsuits. How convenient.


Jeez! Give it up already!
The investigator "refused to provide information" because there was none to give - pure and simple. And placing the blame on everyone else -- like the incompetent investigator OR the attorney that doesn't listen to instructions.... yadda, yadda, yadda is totally irrelevant: You were not involved in the case remember? It's not your area of responsibility.... I've heard that one enough times.


And you don't consider Rodney had a family to go home to? He wasn't sweating bullets through the holidays when he "really ought to have spent time with his family?"

If it was "up to Rodney" it would have (and should have) been ZERO HOURS.

Sorry if the numbers hurt your feelings, but the numbers don't lie and it's in no way a personal attack of any kind. Except for my miscalculation: it was actually 104 days from 10-06-2011 to 01-18-2012


You're doing nothing here more than "damage control" for your client and whining about it in the process. And now you are the one stating your own speculation as though it is fact.

Sorry counsel, it's not a one-way street.

RIGHT! If they start suing media shifters that don't adhere to their compliance ie getting their library audited, it will be the same thing with CB as it is not with SC for those that refuse to comply!

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

Oh boy, make a couple of spelling mistakes and some people are on it because that is the only criticism they can spew.

You say I'm trying to bait you or someone else is when you are asked a legitimate question that you know you won't like the answer to.

So once again, show me (and others) in any Act or law where it says it is okay to media shift or copy an audio/visual work for commercial purposes without permission. Further show me (and others) where a company cannot charge for that permission.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger