Karaoke Forums

I hope this is the Raleigh, NC action coming down finally. Those guys named are working every night and saying to anyone that will listen that SC Choice has no chance to sideline them, this is no big deal, etc. - would be good to see some resolution for all the guys here who have played by the rules yet aren't getting gigs due to these folks working them.

So there have been ZERO cases of karaoke piracy before a judge where the defendant showed up?

I thought Joe was referring to a case against an actual pirate, but against a technical infringer (i.e. media shifter who owned all original manufacturer produced media for all tracks loaded on HD).

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

The investigation is not designed to identify the source from which the KJ made or acquired the copy; it's to verify that a copy, not the original, is in use.



The KJ didn't agree to an audit, but in a civil suit, we have the opportunity for discovery. The KJ produced those pirated custom discs in response to our request.

OK... that's sort of like an audit... The KJ had to show his/her discs (just not all of them). I can understand that. And then, as you are saying, is when the pirated copies were discovered. That makes sense to me now.

[quote="KaraokeHeroes"]So, if I buy a CDG, and I load it onto a hard drive player, and I keep the disc in a filing cabinet with a receipt to show I purchased it, am I still at risk if I get sued? Am I the kind of target SoundChoice and others would go after?

And what if I buy three CDGs and load them on three hard drive players, and keep all three discs?

If you mean to ask if you loaded 1 disc per drive, then yes, we personally would never
see a problem with that. Because Soundchoice is having to deal with so many sneaky kj's I think they
found it easier to simply go after anyone to make sure they can prove they have the original disc and
are 1 to 1 compliant. Does this mean we support those tactics? Yes and No because we kinda understand
it. But for petes sake, can you at least treat the kj with a little more respect with your investigations and
give more appearance of someone who truly cares about cleaning up a mess and do not leave room for
others to think you are simply sweeping up the floor just to get to $ lying under it. Now if you are saying
taking 3 discs and puting all 3 on 3 different computers then that is unauthorized without any debate.
ALTHOUGH we really wish someone would just issue licenses to use 1 disc on however many systems you
need it for and pay a prorated fee for each system

What if I do that, but only hang onto one disc?

Unfortunatly, this is a tactic too many people are using in order to explain why they have a loaded
computer and no discs, etc. Now if you have the receipt for that disc still with you and proof of it, then my personal
belief is that no one should use scare tactics on you and simply work with you. But if you have zero proof of owning the
discs, then the manufacturer has that right to tell you not to use it. But there again, for the few kjs that would lose discs
and are honest about it. You suffer for the many others that used that tactic in order to squeeze out of the situation.

What if I buy one disc and load it on three hard drive players, all for use on the same premises?

Hmm, that actually is interesting because cavs sells a digital server where you buy the music once and as long
as all the other units you attach to it are on the same premise, you can use all of them with the 1 music pack.
So if you had karaoke rooms all in one building, I do not personally see a problem with it and we would never
look down upon it. That's our personal opinion.

EX MILITARY - " In life, jumping into a pool that has several different minds floating around in it. You find yourself becoming more aware of the subject matter and at the same time experiencing more confusion on the subject matter. The Bible has many rules and the ONLY rule I live by is to treat your fellow man with a level of respect and kindness that you wish to have bestowed upon you. Live life doing right by others. That's all a human can really ask of each other"

It's been a week since your self-imposed deadline, so how did it turn out?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

The trial went very well. The judge asked for proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, due Friday, and he will render a verdict on his own timetable.

To RE-clarify: SC suits do not target "piracy" in regard to the standard non-distributor KJ suits. It's not a matter of no pirates showing up in court, it's a matter of "piracy" not being a part of the suit.

To quote Harrington Law: The investigation is not designed to identify the source from which the KJ made or acquired the copy; it's to verify that a copy, not the original, is in use."

In other words, they are not interested in whether the tracks were stolen, only that they were not played from the original media ( get those media shifting customers!).

Piracy has never had anything to do with whatever SC thinks they are doing, and even SC has said so. The "piracy" propaganda came from those self-described as "cheerleaders" in hopes of defending SC's unethical actions, and possibly soothing the conciences of those who have used SC's actions to attempt to cut down on competition ( which, in most regions, hasn't worked anyway) that they didn't have the skills to do themselves.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

But piracy is mentioned in a lawsuit filed by Slep-Tone which states in its first paragraph -

"1. This is an action for trademark infringement, trade dress infringement,
and federal unfair competition, brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants, in
which the Defendants are accused of committing piracy of and counterfeiting
karaoke accompaniment tracks comprising trademarks and trade dress belonging to
the Plaintiffs."

http://www.pdf-archive.com/2012/04/24/d ... t-4-20-12/

Of course this is in the joint filing with Piracy Recovery LLC, so I guess along with Slep-Tone, they were both obligated to use the term "piracy" I guess.

Except that "piracy" is referred to in each of the complaints we have prepared. The problem that seems to be tripping you up is that the term "piracy" is not a legal term of art. We have to state our claims in the language established by the law--"infringement," "counterfeiting," "unfair competition," etc.



The fact that the investigation is not designed to identify stolen tracks--we don't know how to do that--does not mean that we aren't interested in whether the tracks were "stolen," as you put it.

What we are interested in is in determining whether the defendant has, or does not have, 1:1 correspondence for all of the SC tracks in his or her library. If the defendant does have 1:1 correspondence, even though we have the right to pursue that act by itself and have it enjoined if we want, we will drop the suit provided that the defendant complies with the rest of the policy. If the defendant is at 0:1, 1:2, 1:3, etc. for their various tracks--which by any reasonable definition constitutes "piracy"--then we pursue damages and injunctive relief.



To the contrary, the fact that we don't ask technical infringers for anything other than a small fee to reimburse us for having to force their compliance with the policy, while pursuing large settlements, damage awards, injunctive relief, and seizure from the people who are not merely technical infringers, but outright pirates, indicates that the primary focus of our efforts is on stopping the piracy of our materials.

So are you saying that $500 is a small fee and a GEM sale is large settlement?

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

You seem to be under the impression that an accused infringer can simply purchase a GEM license at the retail price and be dropped from the lawsuit.

Our minimum settlement figure is $9000 for 3000 GEM tracks, which is more than 3 times the retail price. So yes, a $500 fee (which could have been $150, and which is sometimes reduced or waived based on financial circumstances) is a small fee by comparison.

"So that enforcement is gonna be the best Sales Tool we have. "

--- Kurt Slep

Yeah, a pretty sickening tactic.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Apples and oranges. When I buy a car, the terms are spelled out. I know when I make the purchase that I have a certain amount of time that things are covered, and what the company will do in case of different possibilities.

The same cannot be said for the ever-revolving policies of Sound Choice, which change on their whims (or whatever will make them more money on the back end).

By the way -- I have a lifetime warranty on my Chrysler.

_________________
Birdofsong

Yeah but lifetime for a Chrysler is maybe a year. .

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Only if you're driving.

SC's policies have not changed in 20 years except to make them looser (i.e., more favorable to the KJ).

I've said it before, but it bears repeating:

In the absence of permission from SC, the default position is DON'T COPY. If you are unclear about what the policy is, DON'T COPY. You can ALWAYS use your original discs, and you will not be sued for using your original discs.

Another reason why I never switched over.....

A question comes to mind:

When SC sells a GEM set ( which are made specifically for easy transfer to PC) do they include a written statement granting permission to transfer to and use the tracks from a PC?

If not, what guarantee does a GEM buyer have - other than verbal, which is meaningless- that SC won't sue them later? I've read the CNTS, and it doesn't guarantee anything- more loopholes than a crocheted sweater.

If so, how do the music owner/publishers feel about that?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Both points are simply not true as has been pointed out ad nauseam. I really don't know why you continue to insist on saying that the policy has not changed in 20 years when we know that it has, and on several occasions, and that you will not be sued for using original discs.