GEM Series appears!

[Bazza]

You don't have to be breaching anything. Just ask those that are 1:1 and have been sued like KJAthena or Good Time Karaoke... they didn't "breach" anything either did they?

They didn't buy the entire collection directly from Sound Choice either. We are talking about the GEM sets here, remember?

 

[c. staley]

They didn't buy the entire collection directly from Sound Choice either. We are talking about the GEM sets here, remember?

We are. And you're point was about breaching the agreement. My point is that you don't have to have ANY formal agreement with SC to get sued by them. And, if they make "side agreements" with your clubs, SC can also get you fired within 30 days.

Just look at this from the "venue FAQ" of their Safe harbor program.

If we determine that the host you've hired is an infringer and we are unable to resolve our dispute with the host, we will notify you. If you continue to use the services of that host after 30 days following our notification, we may sue you for infringement occurring after that date.

All it says is; "If we determine." That's it. No proof of any kind required, there is no remedy for you in this direct agreement with clubs. "We MAY sue you" means that all they are selling here is fear of litigation. Take your computer and gem series elsewhere and have a nice day.

 

[Loneavenger]

We are. And you're point was about breaching the agreement. My point is that you don't have to have ANY formal agreement with SC to get sued by them. And, if they make "side agreements" with your clubs, SC can also get you fired within 30 days.

Just look at this from the "venue FAQ" of their Safe harbor program.



All it says is; "If we determine." That's it. No proof of any kind required, there is no remedy for you in this direct agreement with clubs. "We MAY sue you" means that all they are selling here is fear of litigation. Take your computer and gem series elsewhere and have a nice day.

Sounds fair to me, I'm confused why you would assume someone would go through these legal actions without " proof ". If you're legal no worries if not you have to worry. I really am confused as to why you have such a problem with this. I guess the question that needs to be asked of you Staley is with laws the way they currently are, how would you prefer this whole situation would be handled? And i should add, if you can't answer this with a plan that would work as well as or better than what Sound Choice is doing then you should probably protest a little less just for the sake of protesting.

 

[Loneavenger]

You don't have to be breaching anything. Just ask those that are 1:1 and have been sued like KJAthena or Good Time Karaoke... they didn't "breach" anything either did they?

And they're not complaining, are they :sqrolleyes: must not be as bad as you want to believe sooo badly

 

[c. staley]

Sounds fair to me, I'm confused why you would assume someone would go through these legal actions without " proof ".

Funny.... you should be asking KJAthena or Good Time Karaoke that.... They were both sued with no "proof" as you say.

If you're legal no worries if not you have to worry. I really am confused as to why you have such a problem with this.

And no, your sweeping statement of "If you're legal no worries" is pure bull. Ask KJAthena if they were legal or Good Time Karaoke if they were legal and they'll tell you "yes, we are." Did that prevent them from being sued? Nope.

Remember, they weren't just "questioned" or even asked politely, they were SUED first! Which is EXACTLY what you state above;
"I'm confused why you would assume someone would go through these legal actions without " proof ".

Hello? Anyone home? Well, you need to get that answer from your buddies at SC, because they've done it, and more than once. Don't excuse them nor ignore their actions like it never happened or justify them some other way.

Here's why I have such a problem with this:

Their entire legal action is one big "fishing expedition" that's why. I spent a lot of money on their product and by their own admission, they are "conducting sweeps" to literally SUE anyone and their clubs who are using their tracks on a computer - and in some cases, even if you are using discs. They might as well be doing racial or religious profiling while they're at it because that's all it is, one big "profiling fishing expedition. "

It's a simple formula for them: KJ + SC = lawsuit, period.

I have a very large investment in their product that they have created and marketed to use in "commercial applications" that they are now filing suit if you do and that has simply rendered it worthless to use.

I guess the question that needs to be asked of you Staley is with laws the way they currently are, how would you prefer this whole situation would be handled? And i should add, if you can't answer this with a plan that would work as well as or better than what Sound Choice is doing then you should probably protest a little less just for the sake of protesting.

No plan that I would ever have, or anyone else, - no matter how workable, equitable, inexpensive or anything else - would "work as well or better" in your mind. You've already made your decision that "their way is the only fair way" and nothing I could ever propose would change that. So your paragraph above is nothing more than a "subjective trap."

As far back as 1997, it was suggested to ALL the manufacturers that they "register and restrict their sales to professional KJ's" and even that they should triple their prices in order to make this an industry more difficult to enter. I know this for a fact, since I'm the one that suggested it.

Their answer was a resounding "NO WAY! We want to tap the 'home and retail market' and make money there too. If we do what you say, there will be MORE piracy, not less." Consequently, we saw what? Sound Choice repackaged as "Performer's Choice" and sold at Walmart. So the greed for the home market basically opened the flood gates and there was no stopping it.

Great.... whatever. And let's not forget that wonderful "Media Cloq" debacle to curb piracy as well. That did nothing to thwart piracy, all it did was screw up any legal hosts with certain cdg players that wouldn't play them.

And where are we now? Oh gee! Lookie, lookie! It now looks like SC wants to "restrict their sales to professional KJ's" for the gem series now doesn't it? Except now, they want to retroactively restrict the use of the regular spotlight series too and get them out of the KJ's hands and off the market....

It's too little, too late and a bunch of crap and that's my opinion. But if you're happy with it then more power to you.

 

[c. staley]

And they're not complaining, are they :sqrolleyes: must not be as bad as you want to believe sooo badly

They are also now currently "married to SC" with their agreements now aren't they? You're not going to think that I'm going to believe any story that they didn't "sign anything" when this was all done do you?

Tell me they didn't.....

 

[Guest]

They are also now currently "married to SC" with their agreements now aren't they? You're not going to think that I'm going to believe any story that they didn't "sign anything" when this was all done do you?

Tell me they didn't.....

Chip,

Would you please post the agreement that those who settled or were found to be 1;1, signed, I think we would all rather see it so we can judge for ourselves exactly what is in it!

 

[c. staley]

Chip,

Would you please post the agreement that those who settled or were found to be 1;1, signed, I think we would all rather see it so we can judge for ourselves exactly what is in it!

Ask SC for it, I'm sure that they have a copy. While you're at it, would you please ask them an post the proof that SC used to sue these 1:1 kj's in the first place.

I think it would only be fair for all the members here to see exactly what the determining factors were so we can all judge this ourselves.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. :sqwink:

 

[Guest]

Ask SC for it, I'm sure that they have a copy. While you're at it, would you please ask them an post the proof that SC used to sue these 1:1 kj's in the first place.

I think it would only be fair for all the members here to see exactly what the determining factors were so we can all judge this ourselves.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. :sqwink:

You are the one who keeps telling everyone what is in it so I would rather see your copy since you keep saying no one can trust Sound Choice, I am afraid they will pull a switch on me!

 

[Guest]

If you're legal no worries (consent to be probed) if not you have to worry. I really am confused as to why you have such a problem with this.

It boggles the mind that you could even present such a premise and not be bothered by it.

Let me ask you: Are you a witch?
If you're not, you've got nothing to worry about.

 

[c. staley]

You are the one who keeps telling everyone what is in it so I would rather see your copy since you keep saying no one can trust Sound Choice, I am afraid they will pull a switch on me!

I never said that I had a copy of anything nor did I ever claim to know "what is in it" as you say above and I'll appreciate you not insinuating or assuming anything regarding my posts in the future. Thank you.

Please check with Loneavenger who seems more connected with SC than you:

Originally Posted by Loneavenger:
No what i'm referring to is AFTER the audit, you get signed documents from Sound Choice that is signed by them and the individual involved letting you know that they will NEVER pursue legal action against you again, even if they suspect you of doing something illegal the most they can do is conduct an audit, they cannot sue you unless you're not 1:1. They will never sue you because you use a hard drive after the audit as long as you're 1:1.

Are you suggesting that Loneavenger is somehow not conveying a truthful story? Now Thunder, if you'd like to call Loneavenger a liar it's entirely between you and him. Have a nice day!

 

[c. staley]

It boggles the mind that you could even present such a premise and not be bothered by it.

Let me ask you: Are you a witch?
If you're not, you've got nothing to worry about.

Gee, how would you be able to verify this???? j

I understand that you can't drown a witch....

and they don't burn either....

Nothing that a good "pressing between two stones" won't tell us...

 

[Guest]

...but we are requiring you to obtain written permission for the format /media shift to avoid being "investigated" or be able to prove you have the discs and meet the 1:1 standard if you are named in a lawsuit if you want to be let out of it.

From what instrument of law do you derive such a right to require this proof?

Where can I find this 1:1 standard in the law or in any previous Sound Choice purchase contract?

 

[Loneavenger]

I never said that I had a copy of anything nor did I ever claim to know "what is in it" as you say above and I'll appreciate you not insinuating or assuming anything regarding my posts in the future. Thank you.

Please check with Loneavenger who seems more connected with SC than you:



Are you suggesting that Loneavenger is somehow not conveying a truthful story? Now Thunder, if you'd like to call Loneavenger a liar it's entirely between you and him. Have a nice day!

Staley anyone who has a specific question about the settlement agreement can send me a pm , has always been this way

 

[c. staley]

Staley anyone who has a specific question about the settlement agreement can send me a pm , has always been this way

Thank you very much!

Thunder, you have your answer. :sqwink:

 

[Guest]

Chip,

Oh so you have never seen this agreement!

Bob,

never mind................:sqlaugh:

 

[c. staley]

Chip,
Oh so you have never seen this agreement!

I don't have to.

The very fact that it exists at all is enough.

So I'd suggest that you "get the facts" regarding this agreement which we know exists, directly from Loneavenger.

Buh-bye.:sqwink:

 

[Guest]

3) You have completely overlooked the COMMERCIAL versus CONSUMER or home use of the music content.

"Consumer" and "Home Use" are not legally interchangeable.

The "user" in "commercial use" is often not synonymous with the "owner" of the disc being played.

I can walk into any night club right now with any retail disc I own and hand it to the DJ to be played. If he plays it - any liability for "commercial use" passes to the club - not me. They are the user, they are the one accruing the commercial benefit.

If you truly believed that the "consumption" of your product was synonymous only with use in a private home - then you willingly violated both your own policy and the scope of your own license by targeting working DJs/KJs and commercial venues.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Loneavenger]

I don't have to.

The very fact that it exists at all is enough.

So I'd suggest that you "get the facts" regarding this agreement which we know exists, directly from Loneavenger.

Buh-bye.:sqwink:

Chip,

You seem a little excited that the " agreement " exists? This is an agreement from Sound Choice , legally binding them to never again pursue legal action towards you.....ummmm what do YOU think we were talking about

 

[c. staley]

"Consumer" and "Home Use" are not legally interchangeable.

The "user" in "commercial use" is often not synonymous with the "owner" of the disc being played.

I can walk into any night club right now with any retail disc I own and hand it to the DJ to be played. If he plays it - any liability for "commercial use" passes to the club - not me. They are the user, they are the one accruing the commercial benefit.

If you truly believed that the "consumption" of your product was synonymous only with use in a private home - then you willingly violated both your own policy and the scope of your own license to prodcue this product by targeting working DJs/KJs and commercial venues.

You can't have it both ways.

Kurt Said:

And what in the heck is wrong with a home user bringing in an Original CDG to play in your club - as long as you don't rip it and make an illegal copy?

So obviously Sound Choice doesn't have a problem with "home users" discs migrating back to the clubs. Because when you think of it, there is really nothing that distinguishes me from a "home user" is there?