e
Thunder said:
7. If someone has any substantial number of pirated SC tracks why would they agree to an audit in the first place? Yet, one poster (Mr Cowles) claims he did just that. Why did he go through the audit? Why didn't he just say you got me! Well if you are charged you have two choices audit voluntarily or aduit under discovery by court order! Which would you choose?
This is just one example and a perfect one at that Thunder stating his opinion as if it is a fact. And in answering the question he posed, I'll use a "Thunder" tactic and state that I WOULD CHOOSE NEITHER!
I, for one, am not sure what "discovery" will involve regarding this matter?
I say that the plaintiff needs to put their investigator on the stand and have him provide a list of the SC tracks that he observed played during his investigation. I also believe that the plaintiff would then have to explain to the court why that specific list would be unusual to the point where it justified bringing a law suit!
Considering the uniqueness of the suit, considering that it will set a precedent if it actual comes to trial, considering that there is no previous case to study and therefore no FACTUAL MATERIAL to KNOW what the court will order of a defendant, this is what is likely to happen if the plaintiff convinces the court that "something is rotten in Denmark" as to the defendant's use of the specified SC tracks.
The court is likely to demand that the tracks used by the defendant as observed by the plaintiff's investigator must be correlated with a purchased discs that should be in the defendant's possession. That to me is ALL the discovery that is necessary.
But let's not forget that there are shows that primarily play customer disc/tracks and some of those tracks witnessed by the investigator may have been played from a customer's disc, not from the operators library!
If it seems clear to the court that the defendant cannot produce adequate support to prove he did nothing wrong, what more would the court need in the way evidence at that point?
As to an audit of the entire library, there is no test case regarding trademark law that has deemed having a trademark on a file on you computer is an infringement of said trademark!
Besides, if the defendant is a pirate, it is unlikely that an audit of his computer file is needed by the court in order for the plaintiff to win his case, the tracks named by the investigator should be quite adequate for determining guilt.
And didn't someone say each infraction can result in a fine of $250,000. Well, I figure that the investigator probably found several dozen displays of the SC trademark in order for SC to proceed with their complaint.
What does 24 x $250,000 work out to? With that realization, I don't think that the court will find a need to audit the entire library of the pirate?
So, if a pirate has a substantial number of un-purchased SC tracks why not fess up, pay the 6500, agree to a
future audit to confirm that he has remained in compliance and be done with it?
And if Thunder is suggesting that SC is insisting that even those who freely admit guilt must submit, nonetheless, to the SC audit, inquisitive/cynical people want to know why?
