Fighting Back
- Thread starter ericlater
- Start date
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 42
Sound Choice 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.
truthteller said:
...and back on the original track of the thread. I agree with 99.9% of the above. Of course, the fact that they want to sell more discs is fine- that IS what they're supposes to be doing. As for the rest- My thoughts exactly. :sqcool:
G
Guest
Guest
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!
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!
Thunder said:
Going around again and again huh? Sigh.....
4) Not only are reputations damaged when named in a frivolous dragnet suit, but complying with their audit conditions includes signing an agreement that includes an admission of guilt- BEFORE the audit, whether innocent or not- leaving the the KJ fool enough to sign it open to litigation not only from SC in the future (no matter what they SAY they might do) but from other companies as well. SC will supply NO documentation that says otherwise. Innocent, SC disagrees, and you which to fight the suit? Your rep will still be damaged in the process, not only by possible media coverage, but from what I've seen, SC doesn't mind talking about it either. Not a frivolous suit? No investigation, lots of incorrect information, even incorrect people named, and what IMHO SEEMS to be an avoidance of the courts. As far as I know, and this is only my belief- no claim as fact YET, IF it goes to court ( and I believe SC will drop it rather than lose there, if their attorney is a thinker) it will be because it's the choice of those named, not the other way around.
I also believe that when SC mistakenly names enough innocent KJs, they will be in danger of one BIG class action suit.
5) See above
6) See above
Are we having fun yet, or is this thread gonna hit the 300 mark? I've eliminated less dupes in my books then what's here on this thread....
G
Guest
Guest
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! The fact that Sound Choice is choosing to enforce their rights has nothing to do with how the KJs rep is being damaged, only with Sound Choices attempts to recover their losses from the violations. The fact that Sound Choice is willing to "forgive" any violation that is within the 1:1 ratio is OK by 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! 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 they are still not innocent and have to go through the process to be able to receive "forgiveness and the blessing" of Sound Choice! But the real truth of the matter is many of the so called innocent KJs are in fact 100% pirates who owned no disc prior to the lawsuits being filed and they are scrambling now to purchase as many Sound Choice Disc as they can (I know of two of them personally and I am sure there are many many more)!
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!
The only way none of these cases will reach trial is if the KJs being sued (are a thinker) and reach a settlement before trial!
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!
Of course I am just looking at it logically!:sqwink:
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! The fact that Sound Choice is choosing to enforce their rights has nothing to do with how the KJs rep is being damaged, only with Sound Choices attempts to recover their losses from the violations. The fact that Sound Choice is willing to "forgive" any violation that is within the 1:1 ratio is OK by 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! 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 they are still not innocent and have to go through the process to be able to receive "forgiveness and the blessing" of Sound Choice! But the real truth of the matter is many of the so called innocent KJs are in fact 100% pirates who owned no disc prior to the lawsuits being filed and they are scrambling now to purchase as many Sound Choice Disc as they can (I know of two of them personally and I am sure there are many many more)!
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!
The only way none of these cases will reach trial is if the KJs being sued (are a thinker) and reach a settlement before trial!
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!
Of course I am just looking at it logically!:sqwink:
- Messages
- 136
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 102
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?
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 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.
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 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.
- Messages
- 81
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 62
There was a SINGLE case (that we're aware of) where that happened.
What happened was that music was being played back from another device that the investigator thought was being used for karaoke. Since both were in use at the same time, it was an honest mistake.
It was put on the news, and based on the reports - the case was being dropped.
As for the marking - I have no idea how they would handle that. But if you can show a receipt for purchase of the marked disc I can't imagine that they would deny the disc as valid for your audit. Particularly if it was only a disc or two. If it was your entire collection - then I suspect they'll wonder what was up.
What happened was that music was being played back from another device that the investigator thought was being used for karaoke. Since both were in use at the same time, it was an honest mistake.
It was put on the news, and based on the reports - the case was being dropped.
As for the marking - I have no idea how they would handle that. But if you can show a receipt for purchase of the marked disc I can't imagine that they would deny the disc as valid for your audit. Particularly if it was only a disc or two. If it was your entire collection - then I suspect they'll wonder what was up.
G
Guest
Guest
Lone Wolf said:
Then don't purchase any used SC disc from someone who has been audited, because it isn't very likely that they are going to sell your their library anyway since after being stamped legit their business is going to increase along with their fees and selling will no longer be an option!:sqwink:
Thunder said:
My answers in bold type above.
G
Guest
Guest
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!
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, 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!
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!
So are there damages if they are proven guilty?
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?
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?
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:
This is only my opinion, but I can almost SMELL this one coming..
Joe, there is something on your upper lip!:sqwink:
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!
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, 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!
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!
So are there damages if they are proven guilty?
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?
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?
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:
This is only my opinion, but I can almost SMELL this one coming..
Joe, there is something on your upper lip!:sqwink:
- Messages
- 136
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Wolf View Post
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?
Thunder says:
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!
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.
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.
Thunder says:
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!
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.
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 says:
Then don't purchase any used SC disc from someone who has been audited, because it isn't very likely that they are going to sell your their library anyway since after being stamped legit their business is going to increase along with their fees and selling will no longer be an option!
Just how do you know that person was audited, before you buy the discs he sure isn't going to tell anyone
Originally Posted by Lone Wolf View Post
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?
Thunder says:
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!
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.
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.
Thunder says:
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!
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.
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 says:
Then don't purchase any used SC disc from someone who has been audited, because it isn't very likely that they are going to sell your their library anyway since after being stamped legit their business is going to increase along with their fees and selling will no longer be an option!
Just how do you know that person was audited, before you buy the discs he sure isn't going to tell anyone
G
Guest
Guest
Lone Wolf said:
Does it make any difference if you have a bill of sale? And BTW a bill of sale is considered a legal document in any court in the U.S. and it can be written in crayon on a slab of birch bark!
Thunder said:
I think it's hoisin sauce Steve- comes with the steamed dumplings. LOTTA garlic in that stuff...:sqlaugh::sqwink:
G
Guest
Guest
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-
No Joe show me where DanDan has stated publicly where he has been damaged! The fact is he has already stated that Sound Choice has had no negative effect on his business, show me where he refutes his previous statment! The only damage that DanDan is going to be able to show will be where he ran around making purchases of SC product after the suit was filed, I don't think that can really be seen as damages!
So you are saying that SC ISN'T guaranteeing anything, yet wants you to sign an admission of guilt- Kinda stupid, huh?
The old have you stopped beating your wife question! Please Joe!:sqlaugh: No I said I was perfectly willing to go through an audit! if they find that I am not 1:1 then I would quikly sign the settlement agreement!
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!!!
Post the audit agreement and I will look at it closely!
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.
Joe, I think you are the one who needs to bone up on legal issues, Sound Choice filed against DanDan because they believe he is running illegally, my opinion is based entirely on that fact, repeating or choosing to believe what someone else states does not a libel case make! However, if DanDan thinks I am wrong he is perfectly welcome to take what i have written here and try to sue me!
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.
See this is why you need to spend a little time studying the laws you want to say are violated and use a little common sense! First the question was based on your claim that those who have already settled and signed an agreement with SC would have grounds to sue Sound Choice! Which you didn't answer!
Now you are saying that DanDan has an action against me because I don't know if he was a pirate prior to Sound Choice filing suit! That is like saying I am guilty of false testimony if I testify that I saw Ben shoot Bob but didn't have any knowledge that Ben was going to shoot Bob prior to Ben shooting Bob! The only thing my belief does for DanDan is make a libel suit against Sound Choice IF he wins in court on the Trademark issue.
You knowledge of the law is sorely lacking!:sqwink:
Apparently, Dan does- hence his willingness to fight in court-
No Joe show me where DanDan has stated publicly where he has been damaged! The fact is he has already stated that Sound Choice has had no negative effect on his business, show me where he refutes his previous statment! The only damage that DanDan is going to be able to show will be where he ran around making purchases of SC product after the suit was filed, I don't think that can really be seen as damages!
So you are saying that SC ISN'T guaranteeing anything, yet wants you to sign an admission of guilt- Kinda stupid, huh?
The old have you stopped beating your wife question! Please Joe!:sqlaugh: No I said I was perfectly willing to go through an audit! if they find that I am not 1:1 then I would quikly sign the settlement agreement!
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!!!
Post the audit agreement and I will look at it closely!
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.
Joe, I think you are the one who needs to bone up on legal issues, Sound Choice filed against DanDan because they believe he is running illegally, my opinion is based entirely on that fact, repeating or choosing to believe what someone else states does not a libel case make! However, if DanDan thinks I am wrong he is perfectly welcome to take what i have written here and try to sue me!
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.
See this is why you need to spend a little time studying the laws you want to say are violated and use a little common sense! First the question was based on your claim that those who have already settled and signed an agreement with SC would have grounds to sue Sound Choice! Which you didn't answer!
Now you are saying that DanDan has an action against me because I don't know if he was a pirate prior to Sound Choice filing suit! That is like saying I am guilty of false testimony if I testify that I saw Ben shoot Bob but didn't have any knowledge that Ben was going to shoot Bob prior to Ben shooting Bob! The only thing my belief does for DanDan is make a libel suit against Sound Choice IF he wins in court on the Trademark issue.
You knowledge of the law is sorely lacking!:sqwink:
- Messages
- 136
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 102
Ok Thunder put some mustard or what ever on you hat and eat it while watching this:
http://soundchoicesucks.blogspot.com/2010/02/classic-example-of-why-sound-choice.html
You also asked for a copy of the audit agreement here it is and I would especially read #3 on page one.
INITIALS AUDIT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT – PAGE 1 OF 2
KARAOKE LIBRARY AUDIT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF TERMS
THIS DOCUMENT MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. DO NOT SIGN IT WITHOUT READING IT.
THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT BEING TENDERED AS PART OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS.
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:
1. YOUR REQUEST FOR AUDIT. Your signature below constitutes your request for an audit of your karaoke library. Sound
Choice has agreed to conduct this audit at its own expense (except for incidental expenses you may incur in assembling
your materials for the audit).
2. EXISTING EVIDENCE. A Sound Choice representative has already visited one or more of your shows and gathered evidence,
including photographs, song lists, and other information, that based upon our experience reflects a high probability that
you have committed acts of infringement. You have been sued for trademark infringement involving counterfeiting. In
summary, you have been accused of playing karaoke accompaniment tracks that include a display of Sound Choice
trademarks, without owning a legal CD+G disc containing that track for each system on which you store that track.
3. REJECTION OF SETTLEMENT OFFER. You acknowledge that Sound Choice has offered to settle this matter on certain
conditions. Your request for an audit constitutes a rejection of that settlement offer. Sound Choice’s policy is to increase
its settlement demand at the conclusion of an audit, if you are determined to have infringed its intellectual property.
4. SCOPE OF AUDIT. Sound Choice will conduct an audit of your karaoke library to determine whether you have legitimately
acquired a legal copy of every Sound Choice karaoke accompaniment track stored in your karaoke library. A Sound Choice
track is deemed to have been legitimately acquired only if you own an original CD+G (compact disc plus graphics) disc
containing that track. If you have transferred the track to another format (“media-shifted”), you must own an original
CD+G disc containing that track for each such system to which you have transferred that track, in order to be considered in
compliance. Sound Choice has also been authorized by other manufacturers of karaoke accompaniment tracks, including
Chartbuster, Stellar, Pocket Songs, Priddis Music, and others, to perform a simultaneous audit on their behalf; your audit
may include those manufacturers. Sound Choice will provide the results to those manufacturers, who may begin their own
lawsuits against you if you are not in compliance. These other manufacturers will be identified on the day of the audit.
5. RIGHT TO TERMINATE. You have the right to terminate the audit at any time; however, you should be aware that Sound
Choice may use all available legal process, including obtaining a court order, to obtain the information it is collecting
through this audit. Destruction of evidence, whether performed before or after the audit, may constitute “spoliation”
and may subject you to sanctions from the court.
6. AUDIT PROCEDURES. The following procedures will be used to conduct the audit:
A. A Sound Choice representative will contact you to arrange for a mutually acceptable time and place for the audit.
B. If at any time during the audit process you fail to cooperate fully with the representative’s requests, the audit
may terminate and Sound Choice will consider you to have failed the audit.
C. You should assemble for inspection all of your karaoke discs, CAVS machines, computers (including laptops), and
any other apparatus containing karaoke media, whether being used for active or backup purposes, in the
designated location at the designated time. If any additional equipment is necessary to access the media
(including but not limited to keyboard/mouse, monitor, or the like), you should bring that equipment as well.
Failure to present all materials for inspection will constitute failure of the audit.
D. You should also assemble for inspection all of your song lists and receipts from disc purchases made within the last
five years. Receipts for disc purchases may be verified against seller records to prevent falsification. Discs
acquired after Sound Choice’s initial investigation will be matched against load dates on your system to determine
whether infringement occurred prior to acquisition of the disc. An indication of a track loaded before purchase
will be considered an indication of infringement and will constitute failure of the audit.
AUDIT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT – PAGE 2 OF 2
E. During the audit, each disc will be marked using an indelible method. This marking will not interfere with your
ability to play the disc but will prevent that disc from being re-used in an audit of another company.
F. Sound Choice may employ software designed to examine any hard drives in your possession to determine whether
songs have been deleted from the system after Sound Choice’s investigation began. A deleted track file may
indicate an attempt at spoliation and constitute evidence of willful infringement, as well as an audit failure.
G. You should be prepared to demonstrate that you, or one of your employees, loaded every song stored other than
on a CD+G onto the machine where it is stored. If you purchased a pre-loaded hard drive or CAVS machine, you
should be aware that Sound Choice has never authorized a transfer of that type. Possession of a pre-loaded
system will be considered failure of the audit.
7. SUCCESSFUL AUDIT. You will be deemed to have successfully completed the audit if you comply fully with these terms in all
respects and if the audit shows that for every audited track, you own one legitimately acquired original disc containing that
track for every individual machine (CAVS machine, laptop, or other device you use for media storage for a karaoke show)
that contains that track. This is known as “1:1 correspondence.”
8. DISMISSAL OF SUIT. If you successfully complete the audit, Sound Choice will be willing to dismiss the suit against you
provided that you agree to adhere to all applicable copyright and trademark laws with regard to the use of Sound Choice
accompaniment tracks and to submit to future audits at Sound Choice’s reasonable request.
9. USE OF AUDIT RESULTS. You acknowledge that Sound Choice may use the results of the audit it conducts in any way it
deems appropriate, including as evidence against you in the pending suit.
10. FAILED AUDIT. At the conclusion of a failed audit, Sound Choice will tender you a new settlement offer that is at least
$2,000 per system higher than the most recent settlement offer made. If that settlement offer is not accepted within 14
days of being tendered, it will be withdrawn, and Sound Choice will be committed to seeing the lawsuit to its conclusion. In
that event, you should be aware that statutory damages for trademark counterfeiting can be as high as $2,000,000 per
mark (there are two federally registered trademarks at issue here, for a total of $4,000,000). You should also be aware that
in a recent case involving non-commercial file-sharing, Capitol Records v. Thomas, a jury awarded almost $2 million to the
record labels who sued an individual. Because your use is commercial, Sound Choice believes it can obtain a significant
verdict against you.
11. ADVICE OF COUNSEL. You acknowledge that you have had the opportunity to review this document and to obtain an
opinion of counsel regarding it prior to signing it.
Your signature below constitutes a rejection of any and all outstanding settlement offers from Sound Choice and an
acknowledgement of the terms of audit.
IF YOU ARE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH ANY OF THE TERMS ABOVE, DO NOT SIGN THIS DOCUMENT.
SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME
COMPANY NAME TITLE
DATE E-MAIL ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER
THIS DOCUMENT MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. DO NOT SIGN IT WITHOUT READING IT.
THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT BEING TENDERED AS PART OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS.
OH YEA we have joined the 21st century we don't use crayons and bark, and ink from store generated receipts fade really fast.
http://soundchoicesucks.blogspot.com/2010/02/classic-example-of-why-sound-choice.html
You also asked for a copy of the audit agreement here it is and I would especially read #3 on page one.
INITIALS AUDIT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT – PAGE 1 OF 2
KARAOKE LIBRARY AUDIT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF TERMS
THIS DOCUMENT MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. DO NOT SIGN IT WITHOUT READING IT.
THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT BEING TENDERED AS PART OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS.
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:
1. YOUR REQUEST FOR AUDIT. Your signature below constitutes your request for an audit of your karaoke library. Sound
Choice has agreed to conduct this audit at its own expense (except for incidental expenses you may incur in assembling
your materials for the audit).
2. EXISTING EVIDENCE. A Sound Choice representative has already visited one or more of your shows and gathered evidence,
including photographs, song lists, and other information, that based upon our experience reflects a high probability that
you have committed acts of infringement. You have been sued for trademark infringement involving counterfeiting. In
summary, you have been accused of playing karaoke accompaniment tracks that include a display of Sound Choice
trademarks, without owning a legal CD+G disc containing that track for each system on which you store that track.
3. REJECTION OF SETTLEMENT OFFER. You acknowledge that Sound Choice has offered to settle this matter on certain
conditions. Your request for an audit constitutes a rejection of that settlement offer. Sound Choice’s policy is to increase
its settlement demand at the conclusion of an audit, if you are determined to have infringed its intellectual property.
4. SCOPE OF AUDIT. Sound Choice will conduct an audit of your karaoke library to determine whether you have legitimately
acquired a legal copy of every Sound Choice karaoke accompaniment track stored in your karaoke library. A Sound Choice
track is deemed to have been legitimately acquired only if you own an original CD+G (compact disc plus graphics) disc
containing that track. If you have transferred the track to another format (“media-shifted”), you must own an original
CD+G disc containing that track for each such system to which you have transferred that track, in order to be considered in
compliance. Sound Choice has also been authorized by other manufacturers of karaoke accompaniment tracks, including
Chartbuster, Stellar, Pocket Songs, Priddis Music, and others, to perform a simultaneous audit on their behalf; your audit
may include those manufacturers. Sound Choice will provide the results to those manufacturers, who may begin their own
lawsuits against you if you are not in compliance. These other manufacturers will be identified on the day of the audit.
5. RIGHT TO TERMINATE. You have the right to terminate the audit at any time; however, you should be aware that Sound
Choice may use all available legal process, including obtaining a court order, to obtain the information it is collecting
through this audit. Destruction of evidence, whether performed before or after the audit, may constitute “spoliation”
and may subject you to sanctions from the court.
6. AUDIT PROCEDURES. The following procedures will be used to conduct the audit:
A. A Sound Choice representative will contact you to arrange for a mutually acceptable time and place for the audit.
B. If at any time during the audit process you fail to cooperate fully with the representative’s requests, the audit
may terminate and Sound Choice will consider you to have failed the audit.
C. You should assemble for inspection all of your karaoke discs, CAVS machines, computers (including laptops), and
any other apparatus containing karaoke media, whether being used for active or backup purposes, in the
designated location at the designated time. If any additional equipment is necessary to access the media
(including but not limited to keyboard/mouse, monitor, or the like), you should bring that equipment as well.
Failure to present all materials for inspection will constitute failure of the audit.
D. You should also assemble for inspection all of your song lists and receipts from disc purchases made within the last
five years. Receipts for disc purchases may be verified against seller records to prevent falsification. Discs
acquired after Sound Choice’s initial investigation will be matched against load dates on your system to determine
whether infringement occurred prior to acquisition of the disc. An indication of a track loaded before purchase
will be considered an indication of infringement and will constitute failure of the audit.
AUDIT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT – PAGE 2 OF 2
E. During the audit, each disc will be marked using an indelible method. This marking will not interfere with your
ability to play the disc but will prevent that disc from being re-used in an audit of another company.
F. Sound Choice may employ software designed to examine any hard drives in your possession to determine whether
songs have been deleted from the system after Sound Choice’s investigation began. A deleted track file may
indicate an attempt at spoliation and constitute evidence of willful infringement, as well as an audit failure.
G. You should be prepared to demonstrate that you, or one of your employees, loaded every song stored other than
on a CD+G onto the machine where it is stored. If you purchased a pre-loaded hard drive or CAVS machine, you
should be aware that Sound Choice has never authorized a transfer of that type. Possession of a pre-loaded
system will be considered failure of the audit.
7. SUCCESSFUL AUDIT. You will be deemed to have successfully completed the audit if you comply fully with these terms in all
respects and if the audit shows that for every audited track, you own one legitimately acquired original disc containing that
track for every individual machine (CAVS machine, laptop, or other device you use for media storage for a karaoke show)
that contains that track. This is known as “1:1 correspondence.”
8. DISMISSAL OF SUIT. If you successfully complete the audit, Sound Choice will be willing to dismiss the suit against you
provided that you agree to adhere to all applicable copyright and trademark laws with regard to the use of Sound Choice
accompaniment tracks and to submit to future audits at Sound Choice’s reasonable request.
9. USE OF AUDIT RESULTS. You acknowledge that Sound Choice may use the results of the audit it conducts in any way it
deems appropriate, including as evidence against you in the pending suit.
10. FAILED AUDIT. At the conclusion of a failed audit, Sound Choice will tender you a new settlement offer that is at least
$2,000 per system higher than the most recent settlement offer made. If that settlement offer is not accepted within 14
days of being tendered, it will be withdrawn, and Sound Choice will be committed to seeing the lawsuit to its conclusion. In
that event, you should be aware that statutory damages for trademark counterfeiting can be as high as $2,000,000 per
mark (there are two federally registered trademarks at issue here, for a total of $4,000,000). You should also be aware that
in a recent case involving non-commercial file-sharing, Capitol Records v. Thomas, a jury awarded almost $2 million to the
record labels who sued an individual. Because your use is commercial, Sound Choice believes it can obtain a significant
verdict against you.
11. ADVICE OF COUNSEL. You acknowledge that you have had the opportunity to review this document and to obtain an
opinion of counsel regarding it prior to signing it.
Your signature below constitutes a rejection of any and all outstanding settlement offers from Sound Choice and an
acknowledgement of the terms of audit.
IF YOU ARE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH ANY OF THE TERMS ABOVE, DO NOT SIGN THIS DOCUMENT.
SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME
COMPANY NAME TITLE
DATE E-MAIL ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER
THIS DOCUMENT MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. DO NOT SIGN IT WITHOUT READING IT.
THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT BEING TENDERED AS PART OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS.
OH YEA we have joined the 21st century we don't use crayons and bark, and ink from store generated receipts fade really fast.
Steve, you skipped over a couple of very important points of my post.
First, though I wish to apologize to you for the harsh tone of my second to last post. I did it for a reason, but it was not meant to offend you, merely to cause you to have a certain reaction.
An explaination:
This thread contains several hundred posts, many repetitive, and many based a certain disagreements between you and I. Enough already. Here's what I have shown, using your own words.....
1) You stated that Dan is a pirate, without any disclaimers ( "in my opinion" or "I think", etc....) without any proof, and I quote you: - " ..because DanDan chose to run karaoke illegally That is as simple as it can be made!"
- AND you stated that you would be willing to undergo SC's audit, which includes an admission of guilt.
This is EVIDENCE that your knowledge of the law is not quite as solid as you claim.
2) Your statements regarding Dan have given credence to mine regarding damage to a reputation though PROOF of guilt has yet to be shown. EVIDENCE that my statements in this regard are correct.
Yes, I admit that I pushed you into these statements, and I apologize- but hundreds of posts in regard to this same nonsense should be enough.
Also, I add the following:
It would be very easy for Sound Choice to make EVERYONE on this thread happy. All they would have to do is exactly what they currently CLAIM to do- properly investigate ( using investigators trained to know what to look for, what questions to ask, and how to properly document their findings- and NOT use so-so KJ's trying to decrease competition this way instead of with their skills as a creditable source of names, or old web sites, or guesses.) BEFORE naming names, filing suits, or using intimidating tactics.
If they did, then ONLY illegal KJs would be involved in this situation, and NO ONE HERE has a problem with that.
Also, if SC removed that pesky pre-admission of guilt from their audit document, they may find a little less hostility coming their way. :sqfrown:
SC could recoup losses from people who REALLY DID steal from them, and though most would probably stay in business, they MIGHT put a few real pirates out of business as well. That would,of course, limit SC's income from this situation to only real pirates ( OK-"Trademark Infringers" :sqrolleyes
, but I think that's all they are entitled to, don't you agree?
So SC and all here should be happy with that. Can we please move on?
First, though I wish to apologize to you for the harsh tone of my second to last post. I did it for a reason, but it was not meant to offend you, merely to cause you to have a certain reaction.
An explaination:
This thread contains several hundred posts, many repetitive, and many based a certain disagreements between you and I. Enough already. Here's what I have shown, using your own words.....
1) You stated that Dan is a pirate, without any disclaimers ( "in my opinion" or "I think", etc....) without any proof, and I quote you: - " ..because DanDan chose to run karaoke illegally That is as simple as it can be made!"
- AND you stated that you would be willing to undergo SC's audit, which includes an admission of guilt.
This is EVIDENCE that your knowledge of the law is not quite as solid as you claim.
2) Your statements regarding Dan have given credence to mine regarding damage to a reputation though PROOF of guilt has yet to be shown. EVIDENCE that my statements in this regard are correct.
Yes, I admit that I pushed you into these statements, and I apologize- but hundreds of posts in regard to this same nonsense should be enough.
Also, I add the following:
It would be very easy for Sound Choice to make EVERYONE on this thread happy. All they would have to do is exactly what they currently CLAIM to do- properly investigate ( using investigators trained to know what to look for, what questions to ask, and how to properly document their findings- and NOT use so-so KJ's trying to decrease competition this way instead of with their skills as a creditable source of names, or old web sites, or guesses.) BEFORE naming names, filing suits, or using intimidating tactics.
If they did, then ONLY illegal KJs would be involved in this situation, and NO ONE HERE has a problem with that.
Also, if SC removed that pesky pre-admission of guilt from their audit document, they may find a little less hostility coming their way. :sqfrown:
SC could recoup losses from people who REALLY DID steal from them, and though most would probably stay in business, they MIGHT put a few real pirates out of business as well. That would,of course, limit SC's income from this situation to only real pirates ( OK-"Trademark Infringers" :sqrolleyes
, but I think that's all they are entitled to, don't you agree?So SC and all here should be happy with that. Can we please move on?
G
Guest
Guest
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!
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!
Thunder said:
First, you should know both us well enough that trying to get a rise out of you is never my intention, Thunder-man..:sqbiggrin:
However, I have been getting some very negative statements, saying that I don't know this or that, I'm ignorant of the facts, yada....yada...kinda tiresome after a few hundred posts. So I decided to present some EVIDENCE.
I'm starting to see a pattern from you of skipping over what you disagree with.
For lone wolf's statement, you posted a little piece of the agreement that wasn't germaine, but forgot the following:
"
2. EXISTING EVIDENCE. A Sound Choice representative has already visited one or more of your shows and gathered evidence,
including photographs, song lists, and other information, that based upon our experience reflects a high probability that
you have committed acts of infringement. You have been sued for trademark infringement involving counterfeiting. In...."
When you sign the agreement, you are also acknowledging that the above is true whether it is or not. It's incriminating.. Also, this document is part of the AUDIT, not the settlement agreement, Steve. If you agree to their AUDIT under their terms, you would be required to sign this document. So though you have no interest in the settlement agreement, inviting them in to audit under their condition- just to prove yourself LEGIT- would require incriminating yourself. Do you still want to do it?
Also:
I have given EVIDENCE that you a bit short on legal knowledge in my post above.
I have given EVIDENCE in my post above - with YOUR HELP- that reputations can be tarnished by SC's actions whether guilt is proven or not.
Here's some more:
Several people have mentioned that there was only a SINGLE case of a mistake- the one where the host was actually disc based ( 'cause he's smart..:sqwink::sqbiggrin
, but what about the one where SC claimed to have had investigators at a specific venue on a specific day and date, where they allegedly saw a specific host displaying their logo improperly.Don't remember that one? It ended up that not only was that specific KJ NOT THERE at the time, he wasn't even EMPLOYED there then. Apparently they got the name from an old web site.
Either SC was untruthful about investigating, or the investigators fabricated results. ( Personall, I think it was the first.) There's no way around that. Someone LIED.
EVIDENCE that SC does not always work in a truthful manner. That being established, things they allege in regard to KJs must be taken with a grain of salt.
BTW- Just because SC mistakes may not all be publicized ( and if SC were smart, I'm sure they would keep that from happening as much as possible) doesn't mean others don't exist.
There has been a side debate here ( which I haven't been involved in) about the legality of "John Doe" suits.
The fact is that legality is the smaller issue. If SC were actually INVESTIGATING, why would "John Doe" suits be neccesary at all? If they were investigating they would KNOW the names of the alleged offenders, would they not?
EVIDENCE that SC is NOT performing proper investigations prior to their actions.
Note use of the word "evidence", not "proof". However, the evidence of my statements IS there.
Having said that, I have yet to see any EVIDENCE that SC is performing ANY proper investigation. What I HAVE shown - again, with your help- is that innocent KJs who value their reputations have great reason to be concerned.
Also, just for fun:
QUOTING STEVE: " Sound Choice filed against DanDan because they believe he is running illegally, my opinion is based entirely on that fact, repeating or choosing to believe what someone else states does not a libel case make!"
Well, Steve's earlier quote: "" ..because DanDan chose to run karaoke illegally That is as simple as it can be made!"
-
Your earlier quote did not include that this was merely your opinion, based on hearsay from SC. You stated as above- as if it were simply a fact. THAT is actionable.
Since you openly admit that your opinion is based on what you get from SC, you are also admitting that you KNOW absolutely no PROVEN FACTS about the case at all. You are operating on hearsay from one side of two, and per my evidence above, that hearsay may not be very reliable.
Earlier you posted that you KNEW the facts- and now admit that you don't.
EVIDENCE that there seems to be no reason left for further debate. Unless, of course, someone here has complete first hand knowledge from BOTH sides of Dan's case, for instance, ( Has seen all of Dan's equipment, discs, receipts etc..prior to this action- and has also seen first hand SC's evidence in the case.....and I doubt anyone has done both) and disagrees with either Steve or I. Other than that, with no absolute facts available, this thread has pretty much run it's course.
Can we go outside and play now??
G
Guest
Guest
Joe,
To sum it all up neither do you! That would make it all supposition on both our parts!
At this time, I can't be wrong and you can't be wrong, the only thing that we both know as an absolute is neither one of us knows what the outcome will!
To sum it all up neither do you! That would make it all supposition on both our parts!
At this time, I can't be wrong and you can't be wrong, the only thing that we both know as an absolute is neither one of us knows what the outcome will!
