Karaoke Forums

I would. If I could afford the legal fees, I would do exactly that. I would let them take me to court, prove my case there, and see what happens. I believe what they are doing is wrong and it has to stop. It wasn't my fault that they lost so much money, so it is not MY responsibility to help them recover what they lost, or to fight some battle for them. I didn't even buy my SC discs from them, directly because they charge too much for them. I bought them from Karaoke.com. I don't owe SC anything. Like I said, I didn't cause their downfall.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Plan on shelling out a lot of bucks, Athena. If you want to read a trial transcript, you have to order it from the Judge's court reporter -- these are not public documents, they have to be prepared special by the court reporter. The parties only order them if they are planning an appeal, because the transcript is necessary for that purpose. Depending on how long the actual trial is, you could pay hundreds of dollars.

If you're talking about a final judgment, that's different.

_________________
Birdofsong

While discovery might be good it is still not on the side of the KJ.
Jim has said that a post suit filing audit would cost the KJ $500.00
Who is to pay for all this legal work being done if the KJ waits until
discovery to show all his discs?
Certainly they would have to pay his attorney (if they had one) but
what about all the court costs that have been racked up before the
discovery ruling by the judge is handed down?

It's all good and well for a KJ to do an audit post suit filing but I don't think
that a KJ should have to pay for it. In actuality what he is paying for is all
the paperwork, investigation work and filing fees for SC.

Why should they have to pay for that.

Yea I know HL is going to say "SC never gave permission to shift our
LOGO and TRADE DRESS so we have a right to sue", but come on now
isn't that a little ridiculous. The real monies should be in the PIRATES that have
the music and no discs.

Named in a suit, show your discs, NO COST
Named in a suit, can't show your discs, go to court and lose you shirt!

_________________
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

Why should SC pay for a KJ to comply with SC's policies for media-shifting?

After all, the reason why a legit KJ wants to do the media shift is for his/her own convenience. Why should SC pay for the KJ's convenience?

It's not like the $500 is earning SC a profit on the activity. If anything, there is generally a loss associated with it.



Actually, what I was going to say is that SC has established conditions necessary to gain its permission to apply its trademarks and trade dress to physical tracks it did not create. I don't find that ridiculous, any more than it's ridiculous for the Coca-Cola Company to require that its bottlers follow conditions for putting the Coca-Cola logo on the bottles.

Coca-Cola pays bottling companies to package their product, is SC offering to pay me to use it's product in shows?
then i could see the comparison, but otherwise, how do they get compared to kj's?

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

Perhaps because the "policies" were not in place at the time of the sale of said media.



Perhaps because the audit is for SC's convenience. There is no good reason why a KJ should have to pay anything for SC's convenience.



It saves SC a $350 filing fee.
It saves SC billable hours of lawyer fees (unless their lawyer is paid on commision in which case it saves the lawyer).
It saves SC investigator fees (unless investigators are paid on commision in which case it saves the investigator).
I suspect there are other advantages to SC such as advertising and spreading the word of the countless benefits of helping SC and their lawyers make a fortune through trademark trolling lawsuits.

Add up all the advantages to SC, and it certainly could be profitable for them.
Add up the advantages to the KJ and......hmmm advantages to the KJ?



The ridiculous part is that SC established all of these conditions long after the fact of the sale of the product and then they change those conditions every few months.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

No, it's the other way around. The bottling companies pay royalties to the Coca-Cola Company--which actually manufactures very little product itself.

You're right--the policy did change. The old policy was "don't copy at all." Now the policy is "we will allow you to copy if you follow these rules." I don't see how that helps you.




The audit is not for SC's convenience. The audit is to ensure that the KJ is following the policy, which is itself a condition required by the policy.



If you obtain the audit before being sued, the cost is $150, not $500. The cost of a post-suit audit is increased precisely because the KJ forced SC to incur additional costs instead of following the policy in the first place. So it's not profitable, period.

On the other hand, the KJ gets the benefit of being able to operate legally without carrying around discs, which in my view is a huge benefit.



The problem with your theory about what makes this ridiculous is that the original conditions--which have been printed on every disc made from the very beginning--were that NO COPYING was allowed. If you don't like the new conditions, we are more than happy to operate under the conditions as they existed when the product was purchased--i.e., DON'T COPY.

It is beyond me why people think that they are entitled to copy other rights holders media in order to make money themselves in a commercial enterprise.

It seems that some people in the KJ business know nothing about running a business.

It doesn't help me, but it's not supposed to. Every SC policy is designed to help you.
There were a lot of old policies, and 1:1 without audit or fear of lawsuit used to be one of them.



If the KJ is 1:1 in the first place, that KJ is already operating legally.
SC is the benificiary of the audit process.



It also states public performance is not allowed. Just as there are conditions under which that is allowed outside of SC's control, the same is true with the "media shift".

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

How do they know you are 1:1 without verifying? I could just see the US and the former USSR (Russia) reducing their nuclear weapons without verifying or buying a business without verifying or a house or car without verifying that everything is ok with it.

Remember the saying "Trust but verify".

As for cost the $150 sounds a lot cheaper than the cost of getting to a Discovery. And there will be a Discovery before it ever hits a courtroom. This is why no cases of 1:1 hosts have ever, nor will ever hit a court room.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

the media-shift is a benefit to the KJ it allows them to run a computerized show and not have to carry discs... period

If a KJ wishes to media-shift they must follow the rules set by the manufactures....Period

The media-shift does not benefit the manufacture.....Period

Those that receive the benefit pay for said benefit ...Period

Rules printed on every CDG state NO copying.....Period

The manufactures OWN the rights....they have the option to change the rules...Period

If you do not wish to follow the rules and pay for an audit......Play from disc....Period

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

And if the inspector is an idiot and sites someone wrong, like say the hybrid host that uses computer for most of his stuff and a player just for SC. What happens then? I would tell everyone involved to go to Hell if they tried charging me $500 for a discovery audit if I didn't even have any SC on my computer, and the inspector made a mistake.

Right now, that is EXACTLY how I run. MOST of my stuff is on computer, but I still have my 38 SC discs that I use for my own songs, and those I use in a player. An inspector could still misconstrue that. I will NEVER pay for an audit, because I don't need one.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

If that mistake were made, and if what you're saying is accurate, you would not be asked to pay anything. Of course, we know who you are, so that mistake is extremely unlikely.

Actually, you know where I live, you know what I drive, I'm sure you know my name, but you don't know who I am.

BTW, is that some sort of threat?? I really don't appreciate it if it is.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

I agree. Unfortunately, no one is proving that anyone is stealing anything, and- as far as the SC suits go- no one is even ACCUSING anyone of stealing anything. They are just targeting media-shifters- you know,- their CUSTOMERS in many cases....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I know for a fact that Zoom never gave SC any "authority" to do anything- they just said if you want to look go ahead- but since we (Zoom) authorize downloads, "1:1" is not an option. SC is NOT authorized to perform ANY legal actions on Zoom's behalf, despite nonsense spread to the contrary.


I would add that SC has absolutely no legal standing in regard to any trademark but their own- and that, in regard to these circumstances, is weak at best.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Really? NAME THEM. SC has absolutely no "authority" of ANY type, though they may feel free to initiate suits just like any private citizen.

However, they have no grounds to sue for others. No damages, no permissions, no copyrights, no logos- nothing.

Danny, with all due respect, where- other than SC- do you get any info that states otherwise?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Again, would appreciate if you were polite enough to reply outside the post, but after several reminders, I guess that will never happen, so here we go with numbers again. On the other hand, "disingenuous" is such a sweet way to call something a lie that I stiill like you.... :

1) Gee, I can't seem to find a single suit accusing any one of "piracy" or even using the word. Do you have an example to share that is not connected to a distributor of some sort?


2) Jim, we are discussing a CIVIL suit. There are no criminal charges of illegality involved, only lack ocompliance.


3) As previously stated, I understand that this is your viewpoint. Unproven in regard to SC's specific situation in court.Others differ.


4) Yup, but counterfeiting isn't one of them. NO ONE can give permission to counterfeit. It's either counterfeit (fake), or it's not. . Keep in mind that though one company may own a trademark, the music and lyrics are owned by others. If they are "counterfeited" it is the duty of any who know about it to pass that information along to the proper parties. If it is, and anyone turns a blind eye to it due to some sort of agreement ( hypothetically speaking, of course ), it would be my opinion that they would be complicit. Thoughts?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I can't pick up the details here. Are these folks also accused of distributing stolen material and/or using stolen material in multiple locations?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."