What's new
By:
Filters

Fighting Back

Streaker said:
SC would have to PROVE you bootlegged their product.

Having a drive filled with BILLIONS of tracks does not prove they were pirated.
Click to expand...

Ya came in late Streaker- SC isn't fighting piracy, or even litigating against it- this is about Trademark Infringement- a different deal. :sqwink:
 
I am all for making things proper however I must say if you are missing one song or 1000 you have illegal files. Its sort of like stealing a piece of candy in the 5 and dime (yeah Im aging myself) or stealing a CD at the local Sam Goodys. Perhaps you steal a car. In any of these mentioned scenarios you in fact are stealing plain and simple. Giving grace for one or two discs or robbing 45 or 1000. Plain and simple it is theft. Gaining ones cash to pardon them for one disc compared to 100 or even more obviously gains the SC substantial profit margin so knocking the thief with two or threeillegal files is not worth the effort or SCs or Schleps time to pursue. Kurt if you find one or a thousand the honorable thing would be to treat them as they are. Pirates. Just my DHO.
 
Sound Choice said:
We have actually "toned down" the language of the audit since this was first posted to acknowledge an occasional missing disc.

Instead of an "admission of guilt" if someone signs our audit terms letter, we feel it is a strong "protest of innocence", given the escalating penalties if the audit is failed. And if someone named in our suit really is completely "innocent" (or let's cut them some slack and say 95%+ 1:1 ) then why would they not want to quickly go through the process to get the suit dropped?
Click to expand...


Would it be possible to get a copy of the new audit agreement- if not posted, then PM'd? If there has been a significant change for the good, I will be the first to come on the forum, quit kvetching about this document, and thank you for a positive step forward- that's a promise.
 
Thunder said:
Joe,

I hate reposting something that was just above your own post but apparently..... you missed it!:sqlaugh:
Click to expand...

I read it, and answered....at length. You skipped again.


Speaking of skipping, how about a direct reply to:

" 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?"

Or reply directly to:

Thunder: "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!" ( Note- no disclaimers of any type).

This, and others of your posts lead one to believe that you have first hand knowledge.

But then you posted: “Sound Choice filed against DanDan because they believe he is running illegally, my opinion is based entirely on that fact”

An admission that your negative opinion of DanDan was based not on ANY facts, just hearsay.

BTW- I'm still trying to figure out why Karaoke One was named in a suit.....

Would this not mean that his reputation has been damaged- at least in your eyes- due to that suit, though guilt has yet to be proven?
 
jokerswild said:
Joe.... tsk tsk tsk.... you have posted much of that out of context.... post the entire thing..... if you want to debate it.
Click to expand...


I two-finger typed a lot! What'd I miss?

EDIT: I think I found it- from ROB:: "does not in fact offer any actual proof just that they believe they may be right."

If that's it, please re-read my post. I spoke of ( and pointed it out as well) EVIDENCE, I never claimed anything regarding PROOF. Big difference. You are acknowledging that they gathered EVIDENCE- as it is stated in the suit.

But again, why would one acknowledge something that A) probably never happened, B) you didn't know was happening at the time- just taking SC's word for it- hearsay, C) is of no positive gain, and is incriminating? Where's the common sense, or at least good business sense in that?

Again, I'm basing this on the original document- still have to see the new one- Anyone?


326 icky posts- including mine- please make it stop.....:sqrolleyes::sqerr::sqfrown:

How about if we all count to 3 and stop at the same time....

OK, everyone. Ready? 1.....
 
JOECHARTREUSE wrote: If that's it, please re-read my post. I spoke of ( and pointed it out as well) EVIDENCE, I never claimed anything regarding PROOF. Big difference. You are acknowledging that they gathered EVIDENCE- as it is stated in the suit.

But again, why would one acknowledge something that A) probably never happened, B) you didn't know was happening at the time- just taking SC's word for it- hearsay.

JoeC - despite the fact that there is a 90%+ probability that 95% of hosts have some pirated Sound Choice tracks on their hard drive systems, I guarantee you that a Sound Choice employee or one of our investigators has visited each and every show at least once (and sometimes more than once) of the defendants named in our lawsuits. We have to have reasonable evidence to be able to file a lawsuit (i.e., we can't file frivolously) without causing ourselves potential problems.

So just give up on your entire thread of speculations about our lack of evidence or that an investigation "never happened". As to stating that our claim of doing an investigation is "hearsay" - PLEASE look up the definition of hearsay. Since we are the ones making the direct statement that we did an investigation, it cannot be "hearsay". Perhaps if a third party made a claim that we did an investigation one could speculate about "hearsay".

IMHO, there is a clear divide here among the "informed and experienced" and the "uninformed and speculators". I put Thunder, MusicMeister, and Dr.Drax in the former category. Some might claim that they are "supporters" of Sound Choice's position simply because they are Sound Choice "fans" (some poster claimed that one or more of them worked for Sound Choice). Quite simply, I believe their knowledge of the law and of the court system and how things work bring them to the logical and foregone conclusion that Sound Choice is "in the right" and that 98% of the time (I think that was a number Thunder threw out) we are going to win. We'll take a .980 batting average anytime!

I thought that at one point there was a collective "agreement" that all has been said and written in this post already and it was time to close it. However, given your continued speculation about the "reality" of our investigations, I obviously didn't make it clear enough (to you anyway) that we do have evidence against each defendant. (And naming "John Doe" defendants without having their complete home addresses or legal names is perfectly legal and we have done this sometimes to expedite the filing.).

Now (hopefully) having cleared up that issue, Sound Choice is also in favor of closing the thread.
 
JoeChartreuse said:
326 icky posts- including mine- please make it stop.....:sqrolleyes::sqerr::sqfrown:

How about if we all count to 3 and stop at the same time....

OK, everyone. Ready? 1.....
Click to expand...


two.....
 
JoeChartreuse said:
I read it, and answered....at length. You skipped again.


Speaking of skipping, how about a direct reply to:

" 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?"

Or reply directly to:

Thunder: "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!" ( Note- no disclaimers of any type).

This, and others of your posts lead one to believe that you have first hand knowledge.

But then you posted: “Sound Choice filed against DanDan because they believe he is running illegally, my opinion is based entirely on that fact”

An admission that your negative opinion of DanDan was based not on ANY facts, just hearsay.

BTW- I'm still trying to figure out why Karaoke One was named in a suit.....

Would this not mean that his reputation has been damaged- at least in your eyes- due to that suit, though guilt has yet to be proven?
Click to expand...

Joe, there is no point in my answering these questions AGAIN for you because it is apparent that you are skipping over what doesn't work for you!

Go back and reread this thread you will find that I have answered every question you have asked, perhaps not the answer you want to hear but answered just the same!
 
Sound Choice said:
JOECHARTREUSE wrote: If that's it, please re-read my post. I spoke of ( and pointed it out as well) EVIDENCE, I never claimed anything regarding PROOF. Big difference. You are acknowledging that they gathered EVIDENCE- as it is stated in the suit.


But again, why would one acknowledge something that A) probably never happened, B) you didn't know was happening at the time- just taking SC's word for it- hearsay.

JoeC - despite the fact that there is a 90%+ probability that 95% of hosts have some pirated Sound Choice tracks on their hard drive systems, I guarantee you that a Sound Choice employee or one of our investigators has visited each and every show at least once (and sometimes more than once) of the defendants named in our lawsuits. We have to have reasonable evidence to be able to file a lawsuit (i.e., we can't file frivolously) without causing ourselves potential problems.

So just give up on your entire thread of speculations about our lack of evidence or that an investigation "never happened". As to stating that our claim of doing an investigation is "hearsay" - PLEASE look up the definition of hearsay. Since we are the ones making the direct statement that we did an investigation, it cannot be "hearsay". Perhaps if a third party made a claim that we did an investigation one could speculate about "hearsay".

Please re-read my post. What I said in regard to "hearsay" alluded to THUNDER'S comments on DanDan. He had no evidence, and openly admitted that he is basing his opinion of Dan's alleged piracy SOLEY on the fact that you named him. THUNDER is operation on hearsay. As for "investigation": IF investigators visited every show ( and I'm not convinced of that) then their lack of ability to do the job is glaringly evident. Also, I am still awaiting an explaination for "John Doe" suits. How are KJs being "investigated if the "investigators" don't know who they are?
Even if we were just sticking to the McCleod debacle, how could this possibly have happened if there was a professional investigation?



IMHO, there is a clear divide here among the "informed and experienced" and the "uninformed and speculators". I put Thunder, MusicMeister, and Dr.Drax in the former category.

Well you might, as they agree with your methodology. However, let's look at motivation: Dr. Drax is a well known DJ NOT a Karaoke Host. His experience in this field is MUCH less than many on this forum. WHY is he here now? a bit of "celebrity" backup? Thunder, while I disagree with him, has WAY more experience in this field than Dr. Drax, as do I, and many others here.

Forgive me Steve, but: At this point, I see Thunder's motivation as merely "winning a debate". Mine is different. I am trying to make sure that INNOCENT KJs are fully informed so that they don't make mistakes that could cost them, and to protect the business of Karaoke Hosting in general.

I have tried to do this in the past as well, arguing against public PC based shows (everyone who owns a PC can do it, right?), and conversion of tracks from CD to MP3/ CD+G to MP3+G ( much easier to pirate- no real production or distribution costs) for use in shows. I got called names there too, but was willing to take the heat. Of course, no one listened, and I was shouted down by those who merely like to win debates. The results are in, and because common sense lost out to people driven by a need to "be right", we are now suffering a HUGE influx of PC driven pirate shows- major contributors to the situation we are discussing now.

I have no comment in regard to Music Meister. I don't know enough about him. I WILL say to the positive that even though we may disagree, he presents himself intelligently, seems to limit his posts to what he knows best, and does NOT seem ego driven. Disagree or not, I'm very glad he's here.


Some might claim that they are "supporters" of Sound Choice's position simply because they are Sound Choice "fans" (some poster claimed that one or more of them worked for Sound Choice). Quite simply, I believe their knowledge of the law and of the court system and how things work bring them to the logical and foregone conclusion that Sound Choice is "in the right" and that 98% of the time (I think that was a number Thunder threw out) we are going to win. We'll take a .980 batting average anytime!


Nothing wrong with believing whatever you wish- all of us have that right.

I thought that at one point there was a collective "agreement" that all has been said and written in this post already and it was time to close it. However, given your continued speculation about the "reality" of our investigations, I obviously didn't make it clear enough (to you anyway) that we do have evidence against each defendant. (And naming "John Doe" defendants without having their complete home addresses or legal names is perfectly legal and we have done this sometimes to expedite the filing.).

Now (hopefully) having cleared up that issue, Sound Choice is also in favor of closing the thread.


I had actually posted speculations regarding the "investigations" hundreds of posts ago- just haven't recieved any helpful replies, so kept trying. However, we ARE in agreement that everything has been said, and I have been asking that this thread be ended for some time now. It's getting so unpleasant that I don't even like reading my own posts :sqembarrassed:
Click to expand...

Joe Chartreuse agrees with Sound CHoice that this thread should be closed.
 
I'll say it again: They've just made up their minds and LOGIC doesn't exist!


Kurt, Please !!!

Really?

If we all send Victoria Espinel our thought on this and they actually DO something about it. We will all HAVE to share everything, regardless of who is the "recipient" and who is the "producer". You will be REQUIRED to GIVE away your library.

Not so fast my freind.


And... We can't close this thread. I'm still waiting to see "the plan".

Lee
 
I guess we have to ask Ericlater to have it closed as he started it

PLEASE ERIC ASK IT TO BE CLOSED

Thanks
 
Close it? I'm not really sure if I am clear on Joe's or Thunder's positions yet.
 
possumdog said:
Close it? I'm not really sure if I am clear on Joe's or Thunder's positions yet.
Click to expand...

Ya!!! And anyway we are only up to 334 posts of "He's a bloddy pirate if..." and "No he ain't as long as..."


Think we can make 500 before I have to close it? :sqlaugh::sqwink:
 
Look it's the Plan, the plan!! Lee, I am assuming that you are referring to Ericlater's teasing us about his "plan" - since I have stated quite clearly (at least I thought I was clear) about Sound Choice's plans. But since Eric has declined to provide it, let's let him open another thread with details of it when he is ready to unveil it.

"Look, up in the sky! It's a bird, it's Superman, no, it's THE PLAN!".
 
I was chanting the same thing " the plan the plan" LOL

We all know your evil plan Kurt ( wink)

let's let him open another thread with details of it when he is ready to unveil it.

Sounds like a plan !

Lee
 
Mantis1 said:
I was chanting the same thing " the plan the plan" LOL

We all know your evil plan Kurt ( wink)

let's let him open another thread with details of it when he is ready to unveil it.

Sounds like a plan !

Lee
Click to expand...

I just so invisioned Kurt sitting in a darkened room with really old furniture strokin' a white persian cat.... laying out his evil plans and laughing mechanically.... Muwahahahahahaha...... :sqwink:
 
oh.. we need a song for this scenario. only thing i can think of at the moment is "thriller"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top