Karaoke Forums

As I said. Test it out.

For all the talk by the anti-Sound Choice, anti-audit, anti-industry, pro-piracy contingent, I have yet to see a single KJ, take a case to jury to prove they are right and the likes of Sound Choice or PR are wrong. People like Chip and you stomp their feet and try to get people to stand up against the tyranny of SC by pulling their content instead of putting their money where their mouths are.

If you, Chip and others are so confident, then stand up for the industry, be confident, leverage this decision, and set a new precedent.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

That is what I would expect from the other side, to be against SC's legal process is to be pro-piracy. Did it ever occur to you that some people just don't think piracy is that big a problem at least to themselves or there business? I have been in the market for years and piracy has not effected my business one bit. The manus haven't been a problem either, because I was proactive and headed off trouble before it began. People like Chip and me don't like to have people or companies run a scam on us and the other karaoke hosts. The trouble is Chris the host has to wait for the manu to sue them, the ball is in the manu's court. Speaking personally there is nothing to get into to court over, since I boycott the SC product and have done so for years. With less than 50 days left in the industry why would I sue SC, just out of principle? There is no need for a new precedent to be set, it already has been set. The manus can't sue for tract content, the only thing they can try and sue for is trademark infringement. The only way they can do that is to meet the two requirements for such a charge to be upheld. As long as the host is not trying to create confusion in the marketplace, and try and pass off for sale copied material as the genuine, legit product there is no basis to claim infringement. Most hosts just use their product they are not trying to sell it. They are providing a service, not selling a physical product, end of story.

Chris, you must realize that some of these people are all talk and no action. One would think that if they were so sure of their stance, they would create a scenario to combat it and prove they are right. But I guess some people don't have the ....

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Actually tim how does an individual host fight back? The average host is just on person against a large company and their army of lawyers and support staff. Talk about David v. Goliath. The hosts means are limited and usually they can't afford to be tied up for prolonged periods of time that these suits take up. Not to mention just being named in one of these suits hurts the reputation and bottom line of the host accused. When I spoke to CAVS about this they suggested that hosts ban together pool their resources, and bring the manus to their day of reckoning. The trouble is it is civil court and they have to prove their damages. Really the hosts and venues that need to file a class action lawsuit against SC are the ones that were duped into settling out of court. Then again they probably have signed agreements that prohibit them from suing SC at some future date, as a part of their settlement. That is what the manus have been banking on tim that it is just cheaper to settle and pay up than take on the manu by yourself. You are a fine one to talk about all talk and no action, your in another country and not even confronted with any of these problems, concerning the manus and their actions.

Just another excuse. I just love when someone is told to put up or shut up and they come out with their excuses.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

And just what I would expect from your side - single out only a single aspect among four.

Those that think piracy doesn't impact them are fooling them selves. The simplest proof of this is that is someone steals it and uses it then sales are lost and that impacts that chain. That is a given and absolutely no one dispute that and be taken seriously.

The other aspects of companies going out of business, saturation in the market which leads to pervasive undercutting can all be somewhat debated, but the arguments still way against those that feel piracy doesn't impact them or their business.

One thing I can state with certainty is that piracy has impacted you - The Lone Ranger. You spend countless hours on this and the other forum debating it. That is impact. If there were no piracy, PR and SC wouldn't be suing and you would have nothing to talk about.

It is impacting you as you read this because you are dedicating time to how you will respond.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

It has also impacted those who feel they have to mothball part of their investment in order to avoid the suits brought on by piracy. That is quite a hit in the pocket book, especially for those who are holding on to that inventory anyway rather than sell it off.

Whether or not people feel that the suits have no standing or won't hold up, the fact of the matter is that two companies ARE bringing suits and there have been some judgments against hosts. To tell someone to ignore it is irresponsible.

As for people not being as vocal anymore, I find that all of the speculation and theorizing repeated over and over doesn't give me any real answers or effect the outcome of anything. I'm just hanging back and for the most part just watching how it all plays out as only time will tell.

If the host is focused on his or her business Chris, like me and Joe and others have pointed out they have nothing to fear from pirates. If anything impacts this industry it is the amount of time being concerned about nothing. You mean like the countless hours the other side spends on here trying to shape opinion Chris? I guess it would be better for all of us to be little doggies in the back of somebody's car with our heads wagging up and down. PR and SC shouldn't be suing at least hosts and venues because they don't have a legal reason to do so. The publishers own the content, that is why EMI is suing SC. The manus can't even sue for trademark infringement it would seem unless you are copying their material and trying to sell it as the real McCoy. I don't love pirates but I don't love the manus either. To me they are two sides of the same coin, one is stealing and the other is running a scam on all hosts. They both are getting money in my opinion illegally, neither side has anything to brag about.

Just like the way I love when someone with no skin in the game, is telling others what they should and should not do. Maybe you should move down here and see what other people are dealing with on a daily basis, before you put your two cents in. Not excuses tim the harsh reality of having to conduct a legal battle as an individual against a company that makes it's living off of the legal process and the sales that process generates.

There. I fixed it for you.

Fix your own post Bazza don't be stealing other people's material because you can't come up with anything of your own. You fail to point out as usual that sometimes the innocent are scooped and accused with the guilty, I know the cost of doing business.

That is what I have thought L&L it is the good people trying to do the right thing that are most injured by this whole legal process v.s. pirate war going on. In order to protect themselves if they want to stay in business they either have to put away product they have paid for, or payoff the manus to use their material they paid for in the first place. The price can be steep when some hosts are operating on thin profit margins.

Well put LL.

I'm tired of all the Master Baiting by these forum trolls so I no longer respond much or post much anymore.

_________________
-- Mark

Come on Insane if this recent jury decision had gone the SC major victory route you would be shaking your pom poms high and wide. You have nothing to say because SC just got it's legal clock cleaned. Remember when I said if any of these cases ever went to a jury trial things might go against SC? Well it went to a jury of real people and they all voted against SC, live with it. When you say your not posting anymore does that mean you are deserting a sinking SC ship?

For the record, the owner of KKS denied, under oath, that he had ever shipped a preloaded hard drive that carried Sound Choice tracks other than what the purchaser already owned or purchased with the system.



The term "costs" has a specific meaning with respect to judgments and specifically does not include attorney fees. Your invocation of the term implies that you think it means more than it does.



The case is still pending, and I try to avoid commenting on pending cases, as you well know.

Nice spin Jim, I realize that all SC is liable for is the legal costs of the trial since you brought the suit and lost. As long as this trial went on I imagine that runs into a nice piece of change, especially if the lawyers on the other side make as much as you. Let's see you said $400.00 an hour. The only pending part here is SC paying The Kandy Store legal fees. You probably could drag this out a while to avoid having to answer any embarrassing questions. The fact remains every juror on this case found for the defendant. In order to establish trademark infringement you have to meet two requirements. The second requirement is going to be the tough one, if the host or venue is not creating confusion in the market place. They have to be making a copy of the product and stating that is real SC product. How many hosts and venues are actively selling discs? Oh by the way is this some kind of confirmation by you of the case? Some people were thinking it was all made up.

Note the absence of attorney fees.



That is not what is pending.

You have the advantage on this one since you have access to all the docs, which the rest don't have at present.

What else could possibly be pending, besides an appeal? The case was decided already. You LOST!!

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

An appeal will be pending shortly, unless we elect to file a motion for reconsideration and for judgment as a matter of law.

Additionally, the judge has not entered findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 52. As such, we don't know the basis for the decision.

Also, you should be aware that the Sixth Circuit has already reversed this judge once in this case.