GEM Set #1 has arrived!

[JoeChartreuse]

Athena, an easy, simple, yes or no question. Would it not have been better for SC to have ANY evidence of wrongdoing ( lack of 1:1 ratio) before naming you or anyone else in an intended suit?

Yes or no?

 

[KjAthena]

Yes it would have been better to have received a letter requesting an audit before receiving the "intent to file" and after having someone pass the audit they may even realize this would be a good idea.We realized we were "netted" because we were computerized and multi-rigged. Kurt and the people at SC are just that people... I do not exspect perfection from anyone but myself:wav:

 

[Guest]

Athena, an easy, simple, yes or no question. Would it not have been better for SC to have ANY evidence of wrongdoing ( lack of 1:1 ratio) before naming you or anyone else in an intended suit?

Yes or no?

That is what is vile about their practice.

They do not have any evidence - that is the purpose of the "notice of intent" rather than a law-suit. They use fear to coersce people into an audit as a menas to find the evidence they are lacking.

I would rather be served with the law suit because, the lack of evidence is grounds for immmediate dismissal. One writ, a few postage stamps and we're done.

 

[KjAthena]

"That is what is vile about their practice.

They do not have any evidence - that is the purpose of the "notice of intent" rather than a law-suit. They use fear to coersce people into an audit as a menas to find the evidence they are lacking.

I would rather be served with the law suit because, the lack of evidence is grounds for immmediate dismissal. One writ, a few postage stamps and we're done. "


But they do have evidence... the simple practice of ripping the disc to computer in and of itself is evidence. We were advised of this by our trademark/copyright ATTNY. Sound Choice "allows" this practice if you can prove 1-1 ratio.

 

[Big Joe]

But they do have evidence... the simple practice of ripping the disc to computer in and of itself is evidence. We were advised of this by our trademark/copyright ATTNY. Sound Choice "allows" this practice if you can prove 1-1 ratio.

Yes, you are correct. They have evidence of a crime so heinous that they will agree to allow you to continue on with this practice. After, of course, using the threat of a lawsuit as a backhanded way of inspecting your system and forcing you to allow them future inspections whenever they wish.

 

[KjAthena]

I really dont care how many audits we have to go thru... I exspect as other manus start the process of sueing we will have more> I have no problem with that. I am seeing a diffrence in my little peice of the world made by SC's actions. I am totally open to finding other ways of preventing/punishing pirates. I would love to be able to file unfair competion suits against all I know to be bragging pirates and IF I hit the lottery it will be first on my list. I do not have the resources to file suits at this time. SC is using there resources to try and change what has become a very large problem. I look forward to seeing NEW SC songs available when it does happen:tricool:

 

[Big Joe]

I really dont care how many audits we have to go thru... I exspect as other manus start the process of sueing we will have more> I have no problem with that. I am seeing a diffrence in my little peice of the world made by SC's actions. I am totally open to finding other ways of preventing/punishing pirates. I would love to be able to file unfair competion suits against all I know to be bragging pirates and IF I hit the lottery it will be first on my list. I do not have the resources to file suits at this time. SC is using there resources to try and change what has become a very large problem. I look forward to seeing NEW SC songs available when it does happen:tricool:

Thanks, Athena. I'll agree with you on the fact that sueing them for unfair competition would definately be great thing for the industry and really have a detrimental effect to their operations. We can agree to disagree why SC does what they do. If it helps your little corner of the world and works for you, OK.

I don't welcome it here simply because I fear, as far as the venues are concerned, it will do more harm than good. Many of the liquor licenses in town for a large number of venues are held by a small handful of people. One whiff of trouble on their part, and they'll drop karaoke from their establishments like a hot potato. They're not gonna sit back like a jury and hear arguments from both sides. And once it's gone, it'll stay gone for a long while.

 

[KjAthena]

Thanks, Athena. I'll agree with you on the fact that sueing them for unfair competition would definately be great thing for the industry and really have a detrimental effect to their operations. We can agree to disagree why SC does what they do. If it helps your little corner of the world and works for you, OK.

I don't welcome it here simply because I fear, as far as the venues are concerned, it will do more harm than good. Many of the liquor licenses in town for a large number of venues are held by a small handful of people. One whiff of trouble on their part, and they'll drop karaoke from their establishments like a hot potato. They're not gonna sit back like a jury and hear arguments from both sides. And once it's gone, it'll stay gone for a long while.

Big Joe...we can agree to disagree... If you are conserned about the venue issue in your area why not be proactive and inform then of what is coming and have your ducks lined up. Register with Safe Harbor..have them do the same before your area is hit. In this manner all legit hosts and venues are protected and it cost you and the venues nada. Dont you think that same small group of owners would rather be warned in advance and know how to protect themselves?

 

[Big Joe]

Big Joe...we can agree to disagree... If you are conserned about the venue issue in your area why not be proactive and inform then of what is coming and have your ducks lined up. Register with Safe Harbor..have them do the same before your area is hit. In this manner all legit hosts and venues are protected and it cost you and the venues nada. Dont you think that same small group of owners would rather be warned in advance and know how to protect themselves?

Owners have little interest in becoming the karaoke cops. SC Safe harbor and KIAA's plan are exactly the WHIFF OF TROUBLE i'm referring to.

Go ahead Thunder, tell me that if they don't want to play along then they don't deserve to have karaoke...I can feel it coming already.

 

[KjAthena]

That may be the case in your area..I dont know. Here we have found the bar owners more open to education and the ones we have approched were open to listening to the message. Some have even been thankful that we(the legit KJ's ) were advising them prior to any suits being filed against them:tricool:

 

[JoeChartreuse]

"That is what is vile about their practice.

They do not have any evidence - that is the purpose of the "notice of intent" rather than a law-suit. They use fear to coersce people into an audit as a menas to find the evidence they are lacking.

I would rather be served with the law suit because, the lack of evidence is grounds for immmediate dismissal. One writ, a few postage stamps and we're done. "


But they do have evidence... the simple practice of ripping the disc to computer in and of itself is evidence. We were advised of this by our trademark/copyright ATTNY. Sound Choice "allows" this practice if you can prove 1-1 ratio.

Yes and no. You are correct, except that simply ripping is not what they sue for. What they say they sue for is not being 1:1. To that end, they collect absolutely NO EVIDENCE before filing an intent to sue. THIS is what makes them unethical witchhunters.

 

[Guest]

Yes and no. You are correct, except that simply ripping is not what they sue for. What they say they sue for is not being 1:1. To that end, they collect absolutely NO EVIDENCE before filing an intent to sue. THIS is what makes them unethical witchhunters.

Joe, actually if you read the suits what they are suing for is Trademark violation ie: displaying the trademark without permission!

You have their permission to display it to the public at large through the use of the physical disc!

You don't have permission to display it the public at large through the use of a copy ie: digital file!

Doing the later you are automatically guilty of infringement, but if you are 1:1 (and can prove it) SC will drop you from any action!

However in reality they don't have too!

 

[Diafel]

Joe, actually if you read the suits what they are suing for is Trademark violation ie: displaying the trademark without permission!

You have their permission to display it to the public at large through the use of the physical disc!

You don't have permission to display it the public at large through the use of a copy ie: digital file!

Doing the later you are automatically guilty of infringement, but if you are 1:1 (and can prove it) SC will drop you from any action!

However in reality they don't have too!

Then wouldn't they be guilty of failing to protect their own trademark, by allowing some to shift, but not others?
They either allow it or they don't. It can't be both ways. Trademark law says you must protect your trademark at all times, not MOSt of the time or SOME of the time.
I suspect this is partly why they don't want to actually set foot in a courtroom. That, and their trademark lawsuit would probably fail on the media shifting front (1:1).

 

[Guest]

Then wouldn't they be guilty of failing to protect their own trademark, by allowing some to shift, but not others?
They either allow it or they don't. It can't be both ways. Trademark law says you must protect your trademark at all times, not MOSt of the time or SOME of the time.
I suspect this is partly why they don't want to actually set foot in a courtroom. That, and their trademark lawsuit would probably fail on the media shifting front (1:1).

And it is called "giving permission" you see believe it or not, they actually have the right to do that under the law if they so choose and they can even pick and choose who they give that permission to!

Just as I as a song copyright holder could give my permission to one person to record his/her rendition of my song and not allow anyone else to, or I could give that permission to 10,000 people, that would be my choice!

Just because one is given permission to record a song it does not extend that right to anyone else, by the same token just because 4,000 are given permission to display a trade mark it doesn't give everyone the right to do so!

It is all in black and white in the laws as they are written!

Sound Choice can choose to forgive 25 for violations and still not have a bit of problem prosecuting 3 others for the same violations! They aren't doing so but they have the right to!

You can compare it to the cop that sets up radar and let's three people go by running 70 in a 60MPH zone and then stops you for running 71, the arguement that he didn't enforce the law on the three speeders in front of you so you aren't guilty of anything either isn't going to fly with the judge!
You can make the arguement all day long that your speeding wasn't anymore a violation than the three that the cop let go by, the judge is still going to find you guilty of speeding!

The whole point is that SC has given blanket permission to display their trademark from a SC original disc, if you are displaying it from a copied and/or shifted source you don't have blanket permission and they have the right to file suit against you even if you are 1:1, they are graciously forgiving those who prove they are 1:1 (again they don't have too)!

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Joe, actually if you read the suits what they are suing for is Trademark violation ie: displaying the trademark without permission!

You have their permission to display it to the public at large through the use of the physical disc!

You don't have permission to display it the public at large through the use of a copy ie: digital file!

Doing the later you are automatically guilty of infringement, but if you are 1:1 (and can prove it) SC will drop you from any action!

However in reality they don't have too!

No argument here, Steve. The glitch is that though they may or may not sue, the ambiquity of what they do sets their buyer/user up for continuous harrassment at SC's descretion. Why bother with their product?

 

[c. staley]

Sound Choice can choose to forgive 25 for violations and still not have a bit of problem prosecuting 3 others for the same violations! They aren't doing so but they have the right to!

You can compare it to the cop that sets up radar and let's three people go by running 70 in a 60MPH zone and then stops you for running 71, the arguement that he didn't enforce the law on the three speeders in front of you so you aren't guilty of anything either isn't going to fly with the judge!
You can make the arguement all day long that your speeding wasn't anymore a violation than the three that the cop let go by, the judge is still going to find you guilty of speeding!

Maybe where you live that would happen. Here in the United States however, a cop has a responsibility to enforce the law equally, IMHO, if the good 'ol boys in yer neck the woods apply the law unequally, then there dereliction of duty problem wouldn't you agree?

One singer at my show was stopped repeatedly by the same cop and given a sobriety test each time.... after the 5th unsuccessful attempt (since he didn't drink alcohol), the cop started writing him tickets for speeding. The cop would let 5 speeding drunks go by just to try to nail this one person. Don't know what the personal issue was and don't care, but in the end, the singer sued the cop and the city for harrassment... and won a tidy sum.

 

[Guest]

No argument here, Steve. The glitch is that though they may or may not sue, the ambiquity of what they do sets their buyer/user up for continuous harrassment at SC's descretion. Why bother with their product?

Joe,

The simple answer is ludite:tribiggrin:

If anyone is really concerned about possible or continuous harrassment then all they have to do is run the show from disc (if they have them)!

If they don't have them to begin with then I agree they shouldn't be using them!

Personally, I don't see where going through an audit even once a year would be such a big hassle if it allowed me to continue to use a computer system to run my shows! Hell, IRS put me through 4 audits in 7 years, you want to talk about a real hassle that is one, of course if I hadn't been paying any of my taxes it could have been a lot worse!:tribiggrin:

 

[Guest]

"
But they do have evidence... the simple practice of ripping the disc to computer in and of itself is evidence.

Evidence of what - exactly?
The fact that a computer file exists within the domain of single ownership by itself does not consitute trademark infringment or piracy under the current state of the law.

Sound Choice "allows" this practice if you can prove 1-1 ratio.

SoundChoice has never previously reserved this authority - meaning they took no action to prohibit it.

Unless and until you sign their new agreement or license their new product there is no contract between SC and you that prohibits you from using and enjoying the product in the most convenient manner at your disposal - eg: ripping it to your drive.

You are not recognizing the full extent of how you were maniuplated. Without the public venue - there is no trademark infringement and SC has no case against you. SC is free to disseminate as much bulls__t as they want outside of a courtroom and that is a necessary ingredient in their strategy - to keep their dealings out of the court's oversight.

It is up to us to hash out the reality of what is acceptable - and so, you can view these threads as petty arguments between KJs - or recognize the importance of the informational exchange taking place. It is a shame these threads are closed to the public - they should be searcheable and readable to anyone and everyone.

Your venue was used in an attempt to coerce money out of you and other witnessing KJs through manipulation of your biggest personal fears and gripes.

Your lawyer was correct about one thing: submission was the fastest and cheapest way out - but it does not excuse the morally reprehensible actions of SC.

I can think of several venues who would be ideal targets if SC had a righteous cause of action - the most noteable being Marriott, Sandals, and a few cruise lines. But, none of them are being pursued - because, the legal capabilities of these corporations would shred them. Instead - they have picked you - the defenseless $75 a night KJ in quiet-town USA.

 

[Guest]

Personally, I don't see where going through an audit even once a year would be such a big hassle if it allowed me to continue to use a computer system to run my shows!

Neither would I - if I had agreed to such a program.

Instead, It is necessary to purge a system of any SC product too simply prevent clients and your business the harrassment and coercion.

I agree that the easiest way out of their law suit is to comply with their audit. But, the easiest and smartest way out of their audit is to dump their product line.

Real smart - SC!

 

[Guest]

Neither would I - if I had agreed to such a program.

Instead, It is necessary to purge a system of any SC product too simply prevent clients and your business the harrassment and coercion.

I agree that the easiest way out of their law suit is to comply with their audit. But, the easiest and smartest way out of their audit is to dump their product line.

Real smart - SC!

And dump Chartbuster, Top Hits Monthly, Pop Hits Monthly, and Zoom!

Then Dump Karaoke, because you don't have anything left!

I hope a lot of the pirates do just as you suggest because because that would certainly be the easiest and smartest thing for them to do, and it certainly won't hurt those of us who were dumb enough to be legit and willing go through an audit!:trismug: