Sound Choice said:Yes, we have been asked many times about OUR POSITION on the transfer of OUR CONTENT to a hard drive and I have been very consistent in stating that if you have an original Sound Choice product in a 1:1 ratio to the songs on your hard drive(s) we will not prosecute you. (Or as someone stated, we will chose to look the other way).
truthteller said:You won't prosecute someone, but you WILL file a BLIND lawsuit against someone who uses a computer (and may very well be within the 1:1 ratio), defame that persons reputation by naming the person in a suit without first verifying if they are within 1:1, and force that person to prove their innocence by submitting to YOUR audit of not only SC files, but computer files of other manufacturers that do not concern you. Unfortunately, the damage to a person's reputation is already done. But you don't care about that - your only concern is to keep suing using a 'dragnet' approach, and sell more karaoke discs.
Thunder said:1. The lawsuit is filed for trademark violation the lawsuit is the prosecution of the claim!
2. They don't have to verify 1:1 if you are using computer files because you are already in violation of trademark infringement!
3. They are willing to drop the charges if you are indeed within a 1:1 ratio (but they don't have to)
4. No ones reputation is damaged if they comply to the audit and or get right with the 1:1 forgiveness policy!
5. The only one who can damage your reputation in this situation is you!
6. The reason Sound Choice is in this business is to make money, if that is not the reason you are in it then your reputation can not be damaged!
Lone Wolf said:What about the KJ's that have been named that were not computer based but disc based and SC is going after them. Why should they have to submit to an audit?
Again I don't see or hear anything about the one "KJ" or the "VENUE" complaining about it in any manner perhaps they were all good with the way their reputation was damaged!:sqwink:
From what I understand if a KJ does submit to an audit SC marks the KJ's discs so that they can not be used in another audit somewhere else.
What happens if that KJ decides to quit the business and sell his discs off, the SC discs are useless to another KJ for any future audit because they have been marked.
I don't really see how that would be a problem, when I sell my business it will include everything including the name! And there will be a bill of sale with everything included in the sale clearly written down on it! If I buy out a KJ I will also ask for a bill of sale done in the same manner, I have always done business that way and the lawsuits or audits don't have anything to do with it, it is just a sound business practice!
I don't know about Y'all but I sure don't want to buy somebody's used SC or other discs that have been marked and someday have to prove my innocence.
Thunder said:Joe,
The simple fact is we totally disagree on these points.
The fact is as you and I have both noted in the past (totally in agreement with each other) that conversion to computer from CDG is in fact breaking the law. So any KJ that is using a computer (myself included) to run shows is in violation of the laws that are on the books at this time, it doesn't make any difference to the law if it is 1:1, 1:3, 0:1, 0:2 or 0:1000, it is still not within the rights of the KJ!
So any supposed damage to any KJs reputation has already been done to the KJ by the KJ!
Nope. No one is publicizing that fact, naming names, and putting pressure on venues because of it. Apples and Oranges.
The fact that Sound Choice is willing to "forgive" any violation that is within the 1:1 ratio is OK by me
So SC is providing documentation that they will NEVER go after that KJ again in regard to these violations? Show me.
, if they want to come and audit my library at some future date to check and see if I am remaining at a 1:1 ratio I simply don't have a problem with that either!
So you, clear thinker, are willing to go along with the terms of their audit, including signing a document that contains an ADMISSION OF GUILT, even before the audit, leaving you open to future litigation from SC AS WELL AS other manufacturers? Really? With all that legal knowledge?
If other manus (ie: Stellar and Chartbuster) have the same policy then Great I will continue to use their products, any manu that has a problem with the 1:1 use of their product for computer hosting, well I don't have a problem with that either I will just remove that particular product and no longer purchase any more from them! Problem solved!
So far the facts point to one KJ and Venue who was named falsely and we don't know what kind of compensation they were given (but I am willing to bet it was an awesome deal) Yes there are a lot of others who claim to be 1:1 but as I pointed out above they are still in violation of Sound Choice's rights so even if they were 1:1
Really? You have up to the minute full information from all parties involved everywhere in this situation? You KNOW FOR A FACT that they are all guilty of violation? OK, let's take big bad Dan Dan. He's based pretty far away from you, yet you have seen all of his discs and receipts- and saw all of them prior to the start of this situation? Or are you just taking SC's word for it? I know that I haven't seen all of his stuff, and as far as I know, a win in court isn't going to happen just because SC says so... As for me, I think I'll reserve judgement. BTW- this is an example of the damage that can be done. Dan hasn't lost in court, SC has yet to prove guilt, and yet because he decides to fight his name comes up more often. When it does, I've read assumptions of guilt, which I might add, have been fueled by some of the SC posts that I've seen. So yes, here's proof that damage can be done to someone not proven guilty of anything.
I not only believe that some of these cases will end up in court I also believe that Sound Choice will be successful in 98% of them, this is based simply on the way the law reads!
Nope, simply the way you seem to have misinterpreted what you've read.
I think it is doubtful that Sound Choice will name enough innocent KJs to allow for a class action lawsuit and if they offer a compensation package to any who are so named there won't be any to file a class action to begin with! How quickly do you think the vast majority of KJs would accept a compensation of say oh the entire SC library? It would be an easy compensation for Sound Choice and would be a drop in the bucket when compared to all the stolen SC songs that are in use today!
An SC library over funds that would cover much more than the cost of that? You're kidding, right? As for "not enough KJs": with what I've seen of so called "investigations" I would STRONGLY disagree. Also, how many KJ's who may have felt that they were coerced into paying might jump on that bandwagon? These folks would be looking for their $6500 back MINIMUM, plus keeping the discs they got, plus compensation for time, defamation of character, and emotional distress. This is only my opinion, but I can almost SMELL this one coming..
Of course I am just looking at it logically! :sqlaugh::rofl::sqlaugh: ( Fixed that for ya...)
Lone Wolf said:I seem to remember where someone was complaining about being named in a suit that was disc based, and I VERY sure that if Joe ever got papers he would.
Name him Wolf and I will eat my hat!
You don't see this a problem? Not everyone wants to buy a complete setup when they find someone getting out of the business, most just want the discs, and a bill of sale today really isn't worth the paper it is printed on because anyone with a computer can make a bill of sale. Receipts are worthless because of how they are printed out on paper with ink that fades over a period of time. I tried, after purchasing items I put the receipt in a folder in a dark drawer only to have them fade out, got the idea to scan them to digital and keep records on the computer then realized they could be altered and nobody would take them. Oh Yea who wants to buy someone a name used by someone else.
In the 140 to 200 years that it might take the ink to fade, :sqlaugh: well to say the least i don't think you or Sound Choice will be to wrried about it!
Just how do you know that person was audited, before you buy the discs he sure isn't going to tell anyone
Thunder said:Joe,
Nope. No one is publicizing that fact, naming names, and putting pressure on venues because of it. Apples and Oranges.
Then show me where one person or venue has stated publicly that the false accusations of Sound Choice has cost them money!
Apparently, Dan does- hence his willingness to fight in court-
So SC is providing documentation that they will NEVER go after that KJ again in regard to these violations? Show me.
That is just plain foolish Joe, would you write someone you didn't know a blank check sign it and tell them not to ever use it! That is what you are saying here!
So you are saying that SC ISN'T guaranteeing anything, yet wants you to sign an admission of guilt- Kinda stupid, huh?
So you, clear thinker, are willing to go along with the terms of their audit, including signing a document that contains an ADMISSION OF GUILT, even before the audit, leaving you open to future litigation from SC AS WELL AS other manufacturers? Really? With all that legal knowledge?
I said I would go along with an audit! there is a difference between an audit and a settlement agreement, yes if I were a pirate I would sign the settlement agreement and it would be an admission of guilt, you would have to be to settle! I believe you are confusing the two!
No confusion at all. If you are willing to agree to an audit from SC, you are willing to do so under their conditions, including signing a document admitting guilt. Part of the AUDIT AGREEMENT ( article 2) is an admission of guilt. WELL? Gonna sign that? I CAN"T HEAR YOU!!!
Really? You have up to the minute full information from all parties involved everywhere in this situation? You KNOW FOR A FACT that they are all guilty of violation? OK, let's take big bad Dan Dan. He's based pretty far away from you, yet you have seen all of his discs and receipts- and saw all of them prior to the start of this situation? Or are you just taking SC's word for it? I know that I haven't seen all of his stuff, and as far as I know, a win in court isn't going to happen just because SC says so... As for me, I think I'll reserve judgement. BTW- this is an example of the damage that can be done. Dan hasn't lost in court, SC has yet to prove guilt, and yet because he decides to fight his name comes up more often. When it does, I've read assumptions of guilt, which I might add, have been fueled by some of the SC posts that I've seen. So yes, here's proof that damage can be done to someone not proven guilty of anything.
Joe, Joe, Joe, I thought you wanted to use logic! I don't have anymore information on this than you do (well maybe a little more because some of it is in my back yard and I know some of the KJ's who have been sued and I know for a fact that they are indeed pirates)
DanDan chose to post on the subject himself as well as others here long before Kurt even brought up the subject, in fact DanDan was making attacks on Sound Choices actions against him, not only on this site but all over the internet! The damage that was done to DanDan's reputation again was done by DanDan not because Sound Choice filed suit on him but because DanDan chose to run karaoke illegally! That is as simple as it can be made!
Sorry Steve, but that's pure bulls**t. SC has, on several occasions, stated their one-sided views of Dan. You have just done the same. You just stated that Dan runs Karaoke illegally, yet you have never seen his discs or receipts before or after this situation started. What is your source of info? You have not proven that HERE, OR IN COURT. I hope for your sake you're right, because if not, you are now open to a libel suit. You're losing credibility left and right.
So are there damages if they are proven guilty?
Actually, yes. If you can't provide solid proof of how you knew PRIOR to SC's court case, you are liable for LIBEL. Let me clarify. You stated that Dan was illegal at 4:18PM on 3/12/10. If you did not have solid proof of that AT THAT TIME- no matter what happens in court with SC- you made a statement that leaves you open for a libel suit. If you don't know that, then I think that your knowledge of the law is SORELY LACKING.
I not only believe that some of these cases will end up in court I also believe that Sound Choice will be successful in 98% of them, this is based simply on the way the law reads!
Nope, simply the way you seem to have misinterpreted what you've read.
So how do you interput the treadmark laws and the violation of those laws?
Previously stated at least 6 times in this thread- go look AGAIN.
An SC library over funds that would cover much more than the cost of that? You're kidding, right? As for "not enough KJs": with what I've seen of so called "investigations" I would STRONGLY disagree.
Well, so far there is ONE what has he had to say on the subject?
Nope, only one that SC has admitted to so far- not the same thing.
Also, how many KJ's who may have felt that they were coerced into paying might jump on that bandwagon? These folks would be looking for their $6500 back MINIMUM, plus keeping the discs they got, plus compensation for time, defamation of character, and emotional distress.
Could be a small problem there since they have already agreed in writting that they were in violation!:sqwink:
You mean by signing the audit agreement as supplied by SC? Thanks, and proves my point.
This is only my opinion, but I can almost SMELL this one coming..
Joe, there is something on your upper lip!:sqwink:
Thunder said:Joe!
You have requested that your karaoke library be audited in order to have this information considered as one of the factors in
resolving a dispute between you and Sound Choice Studios, Inc., and Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. (together, “Sound Choice”).
Your signature below indicates your acknowledgement of the following terms for this audit:
Did any of you guys even bother reading what is in this document?
Where in there did you find anything thing that say if you sign it you are saying you are quilty of anything?
Who is to say that SC isn't doing just that type of investigation right now! Do you know that they are not?
BTW, there is nothing you can do on this subject that will get a rise out of me Joe!:sqwink:
Lone Wolf,
Old News Buddy but still didn't cover the point, "Show me where anyone has stated that it has damaged them (ie: lost gigs, lost patrons, lost revenue) without an actual damage then any suit would be baseless!
A place to debate everything and anything!