Karaoke Forums

This coming from the same person who could NOT have his client provide an ironclad guarantee that ANY KJ would NOT be sued for using their ORIGINAL DISCS? The same client who admittedly uses "enforcement as a sales tool?"

Birdofsong is right: "the ever-revolving policies of Sound Choice, which change on their whims"

Whoops, you're right. They HAVE sued original disc users.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Because what you "know" simply isn't so, no matter how much you would like for it to be.

I did not say that the policy hadn't changed in 20 years. I said that it had only been loosened during that time.

Also, no person has ever been sued by SC for using their original media, and there never will be.

First of all, the GEM licensees are all registered. W know who they are and we know where every GEM series disc belongs.

Second, the GEM title cards are different from the CDG title cards, so they can be easily identified in an investigation.

The GEM license, which is available on the SC website, contains a CNS and express consent as to SC's rights for the media shift. As long as the licensee follows the rules, they will have no problems.

OK. Let me clarify. This is not true. The policy has NOT "only been loosened". SC used to allow a "copy" as long as a KJ was 1:1. Then a "media shift" was permitted. No other requirement needed. Then SC decided that it could only be a CD and no other media. Then it was a media shift with an audit. Then a contract was required for the audit and then a fee for performing the audit. It sure doesn't look like SC has "loosened" their policy to me, unless there's some other meaning for the word "loosened" that I'm not aware of.
And claiming that no person has ever been sued for using original media is an outright lie, and everyone here knows it. Really, you are shooting yourself in the foot in regards to credibility here.

On the ODB hosts part of this, Harrington is correct. While very small number of ODB users may have been served a notice and may have even been named in a pending suit, they have all been dropped from proceedings. Thus they were never actually sued.

It has also been pointed out .....ad nauseum..... that there have been very, very few ODB hosts that have been served or otherwise named. Yet the anti-Sound Choice contingent continues to push those fringe cases as the norm.

I find this mindlessly parroted point to be particularly laughable since ....

1) It has only occured to a very small number of KJ's (<1% of those served);
2) ODB Hosts are the rarest of all the KJ's out there and their numbers are dwindling everyday;
3) New hosts coming online are generally NOT choosing to use discs, so the ongoing chance of it occuring is getting smaller and smaller every day.

The threat of being sued as an ODB host is not only a rare occurence, it becomes less so with every sale of a collection on eBay and Craigslist. I alone have snatched at least a dozen potential suits against ODB hosts out of the hands of the "evil empire" in the last two years.

Finally, the threat of being sued as an ODB host flies in the face of the current strategy of getting settlements from media-shifters. SC can't win a suit aor get an ODB host to settle because they are ODB. It is not in their interests at all to sue an ODB host. They aren't targeting them and they don't want them "caught in the net". This is again proven by the very small number of incedences that we have seen.

The continued trumpeting of "you can/will get sued as an ODB host" is fearmongering in it's purest form.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

This is simply not accurate.

The original policy was "Don't Copy." It has said so on every CD SC has ever produced, period.

The policy was relaxed to allow 1:1 copying onto CDs ONLY for archival purposes.

By the way, if you can show that you created your CD+G archival copies prior to the adoption of the official Media-Shifting Policy in 2007, or even prior to 2009 when we started suing over violations of that policy, then that policy will be honored provided that you are otherwise in compliance (i.e., 1:1) and have not conducted another media shift under the new policy.



The policy was loosened to allow for a shift to any type of media--hard drive, thumb drive, SD card, etc.--provided that the owner submitted to a verification audit. The audit does not now and never has required anyone to sign a contract. What is required is that the person whose collection is being audited sign an acknowledgement of what is being done and what SC does with the information. The fee is not a material term of the policy; it can be waived under particular circumstances, and there is no penalty for not paying the fee, except that we may not do the audit if the fee is not paid.



It's only not "loosened" in the sense that some people used to think it was OK to run seven systems off one set of discs then had to cut back after SC started suing people to stop a clear violation of its policy.

I had to deal with this in the recent trial in Florida--defendants who claimed not to have been aware of the policy and therefore argued that they should be able to copy all day long until they were warned. The problem is, they were warned on the face of the CDs they bought.



If you think someone has been sued for using original media, show me the complaint in which they are using original media and which states a claim for infringement based upon the use of original media. Every complaint we've ever filed has numbered paragraphs; it should be easy for a person experienced in the law as you are to pick out the case number and the complaint paragraph(s) that show that we sued someone for using original media.

If you were named in a Lawsuit as a defendant, regardless of whether you are an ODB KJ or a HD KJ, you have been sued. Period. If you were then dropped from the lawsuit (whether it be due to being named by mistake or not), you were still sued. Period.




And I am curious... For those 1% who were wrongfully named in a Lawsuit, and who paid for a Lawyer to defend them against the charges, were they ever reimbursed for their legal fees, or did they just get a letter from SC saying, "Oops. We're sorry. We made a mistake."?

Yep I'm sure that's the only thing they got

I got sued once and I'm trying to remember but when I was served papers I think at the top of the page was the phrase, "YOU HAVE BEEN SUED", and then it went on to tell me who and what.

Sued is Sued...you name is out there for all to see but I don't think I've seen a public retraction.

_________________
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

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!

"Served" is SUED.

"Named" is SUED.

The amount of sugarcoating that flies around here can make a normal person diabetic...

Wow, if the person who sued you dropped case because you were not the bad guy, then they should spend time posting everywhere that you were cleared and are one of the good guys.

Shouldn't have been sued in the first place, that's the problem.

it was your own fault for getting sued.
you did not put up signs stating you proudly play Sound Choice content from original discs, hold up the disc and announce over the mic that you were now playing a Sound Choice song off of this original disc.
had you done that you would not have been sued, but then again, as on every disc it clearly states "not for public performance" you are actually a technical infringer and are open to suits anyway, nothing unethical about it.

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

But, of course, now they are essentially demanding all KJs associated with any "certification" or litigation to do just that. It seems that if one is not a cheerleader, they are automatically the enemy...

Not only are you considered the enemy, there are some certified KJs who think you are a Pirate sympathizer. It's pretty stupid.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Trying again:

1) Answer?

2) Answer?

3) Answer?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Are you turning blue yet Joe?
i am, waiting for them to hit PIRATES (thieves) in AZ and not just 1:1 "technical infringers".

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

Still waiting? Are you turning blue yet Paradigm?

While you're waiting... there's a new Karaoke show that might explain why you're waiting so long......

Click HERE to watch.

(Provided by a friend of mine, so I can't take the credit.)

_________________
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.

Sorry that my answer was too oblique for you to grasp. The answers to your questions are found in the GEM license agreement itself, which you are welcome to examine.

1) SC does not "sell" GEM sets. They are licensed. The license includes a license to use the trademark and a license of any other rights SC may hold, sufficient to permit the licensee to shift the content under specified terms and conditions without fear of being sued by SC for infringement of its rights.

2) I'm not sure I understand your specific question. The license agreement contains a CNS. Because the title cards differ from CDGs, because the GEM series is a registered product, and because we have an inspection right under the license, we can tell with certainty whether the licensee is obeying the terms of the license prior to any suit.

3) When you tell someone how to get from point A to point B by crossing the street, and they cross at a crosswalk with the right of way, do you report them to the police? I do not know or care what the publishers think about it, because it is not my job to enforce their copyrights, because I don't think they can legally prevent a media-shift if it is 1:1 and the PRO fees are paid (and I doubt they care to), and because the GEM licensees are warned that they do not get any guarantee or indemnification from SC with respect to the rights of others.

Suppose you are a student at school, a minor, and the school is hosting a field trip that requires both parents, if you have two parents, to give permission for you to participate. If Dad says yes, does that mean that Mom also must say yes? Or do you still need to ask Mom? If Mom says no, does that mean that Dad doesn't have the right to say yes or no?

The point, in case you are thinking of being obtuse, is that the mere fact that SC cannot necessarily grant ALL of the rights needed to do a media-shift does not mean that SC loses the right to say NO to a media-shift, nor does it put SC in the soup if it says YES even if other permissions are required.