Karaoke Forums

he may want to just go to court about it. you haven't won yet so it's a possibility.



he answered what you posted, just because after the first answer you changed your wording to change the meaning of the statement (words mean things) does not make him wrong. first he didn't know about the suit in the wrong state YOU gave him and gets attacked for it, then they did contact him about it and he refused, and then YOU changed the question. maybe he has something up his sleeve and is going to push forward in court. since HE is the one going forward and NOT pep-tone, why push the issue? it's very Roddy Piper "just when you think you have all the answers, i change the questions"


this is a good question Jim, if he is found to be legit, you just killed off a good guys jobs, reputation, and poisoned the venues against having karaoke at all. fewer venues does not help hosts get money to buy Advance discs, nor does it garner their support to helping you at all. it definitely turns SC into a 4 letter word with venue owners as i have experienced out here for 5 years now.

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

If he is legit, why not just do the audit and get it over with? I can't imagine it would take more than an hour to show the discs, especially via Skype. I could imagine a judge jumping all over him for not doing so and wasting the court's time. Or does he expect the court to accept his word without evidence to back it up?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Because here in the United States Timberlea, some people still believe that you shouldn't have to "prove your innocence" to everyone who demands a peek in your underwear.

I'm surprised that a company that doesn't sell, nor has it ever sold discs, cares about discs at all. They seem to care only about their trademark. Like it or not, this new company is NOT "the old karaoke manufacturer" at all. It is a trademark troll.

(1) I don't believe that they've taken venues they've sued so far to task about discs at all. They sue venues for having their trademark displayed, not discs displayed.
(2) They claim their suits are about trademark violations - not "disc violations"
(3) They are so focused on their trademark and not the discs that they've invented a product which is specifically designed to provide monthly income by "authorizing" what they usually call "unauthorized, counterfeit trademarks" they didn't manufacture to start with.

So, which part of this new company has anything to do with discs?

Look, I understand what you're saying, but are we just supposed to take his word for it?

"I've got all my discs, and we've got this lawsuit where you're going to be able to look at all these discs and my hard drive in discovery regardless of what happens, but you should just dismiss this lawsuit because I say I've got all my discs."

That makes no sense. The reason why we offer the audit at the beginning is because anyone who legitimately has 1:1 correspondence will be eager to show us what they have and get the suit resolved quickly for no money.

It's a real quandary. As a manufacture you can't afford to trust anyone. But our legal system with my VERY limited understanding was based on a person being Innocent until proven guilty. It seems like the legal system has changed or maybe it's just my poor understanding of it.

I think more than anything the above is what really upsets people. With all things equal nobody wins.

Nope you shouldn't take anyone's word for it... But do remember, Sound Choice was kind of gone for some years. Lots of people moved on to other vendors not even knowing you are back in the game (Self Included). The 1st time they might know your back is when they get hit WITH a lawsuit. So as far as you are willing to work with those people who thought they were legal after getting hit with a suit, you might have some new customers.

My problem exactly with the gradual flip flop in our society from "reasonable suspicion" to "prove you are innocent" schemes like this. Workplace drug testing is another big one.

Schemes like random drug testing are more about creating a perpetual industry cash cow than they are about helping society.

Plain and simple it is not needed.

Somebody wants to accuse you? Fine, but by requiring the test they are costing you time, money, and insulting your integrity.

When the results come back in your favor, they should have to pay you what your time, money, and integrity are worth and they most certainly do not have the right to charge you for proving your innocence.

It can be difficult for nonlawyers to understand.

"Presumed innocent until proven guilty" applies only in criminal cases, and even then, it doesn't mean what a lot of people think. It simply means that the burden of proof for the elements of a crime is on the prosecution. If you're accused of a crime, the government has the burden of showing all of the elements of the crime, beyond all reasonable doubt. You aren't required to prove you didn't do anything or to cooperate with the prosecution or to testify. But that doesn't mean the prosecution can't (with probable cause) search your home or your bank account or your car for evidence.

It also doesn't mean that it's unreasonable for the prosecution to ask you to cooperate. If there is probable cause to charge you with a crime, but you have information that could clear your name, there is nothing wrong with asking you to provide that information, nor with continuing the prosecution if you refuse.

Of course, these cases aren't criminal cases. They are civil disputes, subject (most of the time) only to the requirement that the plaintiff make good-faith allegations based on investigation and evidence of wrongdoing. That's all that's required to get to discovery--enough factual allegations that, if true, add up to a claim. Once in discovery, a plaintiff has broad latitude to examine potential evidence that's relevant to the case. As a defendant, you're required to cooperate with that discovery, to submit to a deposition if requested, and to testify at trial if the case proceeds to that point. In fact, in all of the cases I've tried for SC, I called the defendant to the stand. (That can't be done in a criminal case.)

When we invite a defendant to be audited shortly after he's sued, he can cooperate, or not--it's his option. But why wouldn't someone cooperate, if it meant getting the hassle of a lawsuit over with at minimal (often zero) expense? You can consider that audit to be as intrusive and offensive and time-consuming as you like, but defending a lawsuit is going to be much more intrusive and offensive and time-consuming than the audit. Even if you come out on top after refusing the audit, you're not going to get compensated for your time and effort in defending the lawsuit, and you're very unlikely to get your attorney fees paid.

"No money?" After suit audits are $500 aren't they? That is not "no money."

You don't get it do you?
Your "audit" isn't based on anything other than suspicion, threats, fear and an absolutely ridiculous one-sided contract. Even you would have to admit that it's nothing more than a fishing expedition for evidence of your accusation - evidence you do NOT have, did NOT acquire and DON'T know. Your constant hammering on "good-faith allegations of wrongdoing" is a childish excuse you use to file a suit and scare up a settlement in the first place.
File a suit against someone and you really think they're going to "be eager to show us what they have?" I don't think they'd be "eager" to do anything for you other than fart in your general direction.

The complaint and exhibit of your contract with APS (in your lawsuit against them) and the subsequent agreement on your part to increase their percentage is a full-blown expose on your "lawsuit trolling machine" constructed on commissions on quantities of suits filed. Investigations were not conducted and the entire operation was a sham..... but you still collected THOUSANDS of dollars didn't you? Of course you did. This was no "accident" and it shows the distance and absolute disregard for ethics and the law your firm will go to extract money from anyone. (the exhibit is easily accessible for anyone who wants a good read.)

And you wonder why you have such a hostile and an adversarial relationship with anyone who uses your product? You worked diligently over years, to poison your own customer base AND potential customer base with nothing more than arrogance.

Even to this day, you are still threatening KJ's with economic ruin if they don't do your bidding.
What do you thinks this REALLY means:

English Translation: "Pay us, or pay more to your own attorney, but win or lose, you will pay."

It's just another eloquently-worded threat that acts as another cup of poison in the well.

but the problem is, all it takes is [url]any[/url] evidence that backs up what may have happened

hosts are stealing SC music, you saw the SC trademark on a tv in the bar = they stole the music.

my white 2013 Chevy Traverse was stolen, you are driving a white 2013 Chevy Traverse = you stole my car.
we go to court, it is now up to you to prove you did not steal it.


first, it is still $500 to do that (per your statement on this forum) and if they did not do anything wrong, they may just feel railroaded "pay me or else you can pay me more".

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

We've never refused a post-suit audit based on the defendant refusing to pay for it.



Our experience shows otherwise. On the rare occasion when we've sued someone who did legitimately have 1:1 correspondence, it usually takes a matter of hours before we get a call requesting an audit.



Are you talking about me personally this time, or SC generally? Because you keep switching back and forth. I personally didn't make a dime from anything APS did, for the record. In fact, I spent a lot of uncompensated time dealing with APS's misconduct.



I can't speak for your particular situation, economically ruinous or not, but we have been extremely consistent about what compliance means:

(a) Use the original product you purchased. (That means original discs, not copies.)
(b) Get our permission to use copies. (Certification or a HELP license.)
(c) Don't use the product.

We are perfectly happy with any of these options. None of these options is financially ruinous for anyone.

Of course, if you want to step outside those very reasonable options, then yes, financial ruin is a possibility. Even so, we give people lots of chances to avoid it.



That could be said of any defendant in a civil suit. It doesn't mean the suit is illegitimate. And, of course, you ignored the context. A defendant who can show 1:1 correspondence who refuses an audit isn't saving money or standing on some principle that will result in him being "made whole." He's just wasting money and time and effort on futility. We will eventually get discovery, see what discs he has and what tracks are on his hard drive, and the inquiry will be more intrusive than if he'd just taken the audit in the first place. He'll be out the extra time and possibly extra money (if he has an attorney), and he will get exactly the same thing he would have gotten if he'd done the audit--a voluntary dismissal.

Query (which I'm sure you won't answer): Do you think it's appropriate for us to bring a lawsuit against a KJ who uses SC-branded tracks he acquired by purchasing them, pirated, on a hard drive, without buying any discs at all? It's a simple question, capable of a yes or no answer if you're inclined, or feel free to provide a more complex answer.



It's kind of you to call me eloquent.

When I see this, I just shake my head and mutter, "This (@$%&#!) again?"

Our investigations involve much, much more than "We saw the SC trademark on a TV in the bar, so we sued." It's ridiculous at this stage for you to suggest otherwise. In fact, you've made this comment before, and it turned out to be based on a transcription error on one of the docket sites--you said we named someone as a defendant in a case when we hadn't; rather, they were mentioned in the complaint as another employer of one of the defendants, not as a defendant.

Our investigations are extensive. They involve multiple, long site visits (often 2-3 hours at shows), with photographs and video where it's legal to do so. We talk to the KJ. We listen carefully to what the KJ says over the PA. We look at the songbooks and take photos in some cases. We look at the system being used, verifying that the KJ isn't using original discs. We do an extensive background investigation, examining public records and social media and advertising the KJ has put out. We check schedules to see if KJs are playing at multiple places simultaneously. We talk to bar personnel. And this is a small part of what we do before we even consider filing a suit.

Now, did APS do all of that when they were investigating and managing cases? I don't know. I also don't particularly care; it's ancient history. They were fired, and they did a lot of damage on the way out. Whatever they happened to be doing is irrelevant to what we're doing now. We have our own protocols, and we follow them.



We do ask the defendant to pay the full cost of the audit in that situation. After all, we've been doing this long enough, and have provided enough warnings, that it is not unreasonable to ask a defendant to pay for something that they should have done without us forcing the issue.

But the key word is "ask." We ask defendants who claim 1:1 to pay the full cost of the audit. But if a defendant says, "Hey, I'm willing to do the audit, but I can't afford/don't want to pay for it," we're not going to turn them down.

The answer is both "yes" AND "no." The simple answer is that I do not believe people should be able to purchase a hard drive off of the internet and start a business. On a personal level, I am offended that I have spent many thousands of dollars over the years to sustain a business when someone else can just pop down a couple hundred bucks and *SHAZZAM!* now they're in business.

However, the question you posed was more complex than that -- you didn't ask if it was wrong for people to pirate music. You asked if a new company (PEP) should be able to sue people for running hard drives that contain music that a now-defunct company previously produced.

One "short answer" to your question would be "yes" ONLY on the condition that it was the original company of "Sound Choice" who would still be active in the business of manufacturing karaoke songs. Then is when any claim of "damages" would be relevant. However, that entity is gone and that would have ended as soon as they sold their catalog off to Stingray and stopped production. That's when they opened the barn door and let the horses out long ago and then sat on their butts for a number of years, too late to call them back now.

The other answer is "no" because PEP doesn't currently require an "audit" for a "help license" do you? You're already licensing what you call "counterfeit" tracks aren't you? And you are already doing that without a lawsuit - even though they have or have not purchased a single disc or a loaded drive. But when it comes to discs, your current company (PEP) didn't manufacture them, didn't license them for karaoke use, didn't press them, ship them or have anything else to do with them, period. So I don't believe your company should have any claim at all when it comes to "discs" because you're not in the "disc business"

Here is the part that I have trouble accepting. There's no question that every KJ who has been an active member in an ONLINE Karaoke Forum (not just K-Scene), will be aware of all of this. The problem is, a lot of KJs don't participate in these forums, AND UNLESS you (SC, PEP, or anyone representing them) have personally sent them a letter detailing what's going to happen to them if they do play SC tracks in a media-shifted format, they still may not know about all of this (even 5 years later). Let's agree that some KJs do talk to each other, but let's also agree that some do not.... and there's a lot of them out there.

I should be more clear: When I say "you" I'm usually referring to "the company" and the rub here is that "you" are the lead attorney for your client and I'm sure that the client consults with and from.... "you" the person.

But whether or not you are directly compensated for each 1/10th hour, commission, or otherwise, you are still compensated by your client for all your (undivided) work in your position as the lead attorney.

Just like the venues monetarily benefit indirectly from karaoke by selling drinks and food, you have always been compensated for your work.. including the agreements with APS which I'm sure were authored by you and not your client.

There are many things of which you are "sure" but incorrect. This is one of them.

I was entirely uninvolved in the decision to hire APS. I did not author or review any agreement between APS and SC. I did not author any procedures to be used by APS. I never spoke to Steve Brophy about anything having to do with SC, with one exception (below). Neither was I compensated for any work I did regarding the suit against APS, which I handled as a courtesy to Kurt--and got personally named in the counterclaims of the lawsuit, despite my having nothing to do with any of it.

I did hire APS to serve process on two defendants in the first lawsuit we did, after the process server we initially hired couldn't find two of the defendants. This was all done before any of the other stuff APS did.

You also have no knowledge about what my compensation arrangement with SC is and has ever been. And it's really none of your business, so I'm not going to comment on it.

First, for the record: I really don't care if you make a million a month or you're working for peanuts, stock shares or even free- that's between you and Kurt....

Otherwise, let's compare what you're telling us today, to what you've claimed in the past.
TODAY, you're claiming:
(1) I did not author any procedures to be used by APS.
(2) I never spoke to Steve Brophy about anything having to do with SC, with one exception (below).

Now, the contract with APS was signed on 5-5-2010 and he was sued in 2012 -- almost 2 full years and this is what you had to say (my bolding for emphasis) on Wed Aug 03, 2011 almost dead-center of the employment time that APS had the "exclusive contract:"

"Without exception?" The contract says:
"all service rights are exclusive to APS, subject to agreed upon performance milestones"

YOU said: "...conducted by an investigator trained according to my instructions"
Paragraph 3 of the Brophy contract would disagree that you had anything to do with anything:
"Nothing herein shall be construed as reserving to Client any right to control APS with respect to APS physical conduct in the performance of this Agreement."
and:
"APS shall have full control and supervision of all persons employed by APS..."

So, either you did or you didn't.... but it's looking like there conflicting info here. I'll leave it up to clear up whether you were inflating your authority then or now because frankly, somethin' ain't exactly jiving...

Ethics... it's all about ethics....

WOW, STILL on the Brophy thing?? Geeze!!

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

It's not a matter of "the Brophy thing" at all. It's a matter of "is he telling the truth... today?" because his stories are constantly changing.

Who CARES at this point?? The subject is this new nonsense from SC, not old cases. Sometimes you are as bad as Insane Assclown, or whatever he calls himself.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE