What's new
By:
Filters

I Went Through The Sound Choice Audit And Came Out Alive

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sound Choice said:
Joe, you were one of the posters DEMANDING that Skid and Thunder go through an audit.
Click to expand...

Thanks Kurt for pointing out the double standard hypocrisy...
 
Sound Choice said:
Joe, you were one of the posters DEMANDING that Skid and Thunder go through an audit.
Click to expand...
Please show us where that post is. I seriously don't recall him DEMANDING any such thing!
 
O-K everyone. I just wanted to explain how the audit was done. Not start a whole new thread of arguments. Everyone agrees to disagree. We will never resolve the issue. So, I request that the mods close this thtead before it too gets out of hand.
 
Are the arguments really out of hand - or is this thread just not the game changer some were hoping for? :)
 
Proformance said:
Are the arguments really out of hand - or is this thread just not the game changer some were hoping for? :)
Click to expand...
It's just that he doesn't want to hear differing opinions. Fair enough. He doesn't have to read them...
 
:tomshorse:


I agree, close the thread. It is always going to be he said/she said.

It's pretty f'n sad that this is the only thing in the karaoke lounge anyone wants to talk about.

IMHO, YMMV
 
Sound Choice said:
Joe, you were one of the posters DEMANDING that Skid and Thunder go through an audit. .
Click to expand...

Huh? Absolute horse-patootey! I have never posted any such thing ANYWHERE. Feel free to copy and paste it..

The ONLY thing I did was explain WHY no audit was required of them.

I don't think ANYONE should submit to an audit from SC, REMEMBER?


Ah well..... Yeah, close this thread. We can do this on the others...
 
Do we really need to do this at all anymore ?

Give it a rest.
 
I don't see any reason to close this thread at this point....

Mostly because I'm trying to figure out just exactly what was gained by submitting to an audit that wasn't required.

No the simple answer of self satisfaction just doesn't ring as the full story to me... and the other thing that bothers me is how quick it was setup and executed.
 
JoeChartreuse said:
Huh? Absolute horse-patootey!
Click to expand...


Holy sh_t -- Joe's pissed now -- he cursed (as best as Joe can curse)! :sqerr: :sqeek:



@rob -- Have no fear! Everything will be explained tomorrow when our "corporate counsel" returns from his overseas studies. :sqrolleyes:

It will be put into excruciating detail, via many wiki links -- yet will ultimately have nothing to do with the scam being perpetrated via these bogus audit stories... :sqerr: yorofl:
 
Joker, besides the self satisfaction of "showing" SC my disks, is that I will also get a letter stating that I am legal. This I hope will help me in future clubs that I may try to get.

It was set up and executed so fast because I'm only a short didtance from Sound Choice in Charlotte. They didn't have to go out of state. I'm in Raleigh, about 2 1/2 hours away.
 
I would so love to see this letter and it's stipulations if any.... when you get it.
 
When I get it, I'll show it to you.....NOT. Folks here will probably just pick it to death, tear it appart, and try to twist it into something ugly. You want to see the letter, go through the audit.
 
jokerswild said:
I don't see any reason to close this thread at this point....

Mostly because I'm trying to figure out just exactly what was gained by submitting to an audit that wasn't required.

No the simple answer of self satisfaction just doesn't ring as the full story to me... and the other thing that bothers me is how quick it was setup and executed.
Click to expand...

What are the "rules" here for closing a thread or booting a poster off for a few days. The rules might be in the terms of service , but I am not sure they are the same for all. For example, unless some posting of his was removed, why is Thunder banished from the site? I don't recall seeing anything more "offensive" (IMHO) than posts by JoeC, Chip, SoftRick, Diafel or Proformance.

And if the OP (SkidRowe ) asks that his thread be closed, why would it not be closed? Who determines when? A community vote? Not being "antagonistic" here, just wanting to know.

BTW, I think it's been about 2 weeks from Skid's first posting until the audit - it's NOT terribly fast, but that would be the timeframe that we would like to have all audits done in. But as Skid stated, it was easier because we could get someone there faster.

As for your question "Mostly because I'm trying to figure out just exactly what was gained by submitting to an audit that wasn't required. " Skid answered why he wanted to go through the audit and we obliged. We also will try to arrange audits IN ADVANCE of any actions by Sound Choice for those that want to prove compliance and legitimacy without having to be prompted or investigated as the motivation. Remember the COMPLETE 1:1 format/media shift policy with Sound Choice and Stellar (haven't confirmed what Chartbusters is stating, since that is now in question) is that "in the absence of written permission to perform a media/format shift from CDG to a hard drive based system, you are subject to investigation and notification of infringement (whether by letter of intent to sue or by a notice of a suit being filed or by being served in a lawsuit). However, IF you can prove that you have all the original legal discs in your possession prior to AND at the time of the investigation and continuing through the audit, then you will be dropped from whatever legal action is being contemplated or taken.

Again, the ONLY way for a commercial user of the content to avoid potential problems if you have done a format/media shift (i.e., not running the original discs - right JoeC?) is to obtain in writing, in advance, permission or a covenant not to sue from the rights holders to do the shift to another media/format. And that document is not likely to be given without some sort of audit to prove 1:1 already and it will also contain clauses outlining under what conditions you must operate so you can continue to avoid being sued.

That's one advantage of licensing the GEM Series, all of this is clearly spelled out in writing for the Licensee and they can show that they are legal and legitimate with Sound Choice to any venue which asks for proof of compliance with Sound Choice's policies.
 
A bit off topic...

but I'd like to address Kurt's questions in the previous post.

Thunder (Steve) was given a 7-day break due to calling a member a pirate. Steve was previously issued a warning for an earlier instance of similar nature. That's our SOP. Warning first, infraction second.

If that bothers you, think about how I feel. Shirl and I have been friends with Steve and Jo for many years. I lived in Steve's market area for 18 years. He was rattling the walls at the local schools with FOH stacks when I started out with a cheesy RS rig. :D

We've visited with Steve and Jo at their home in Rochelle. We've seen the massive FOH in person. Steve has smalled down the rig in recent years but he's still out there doing his shows. He isn't making anything up.

Yeah, it hurts like hell, seeing Steve banned for a week. But I can't show partiality. I trust my staff to make the right decisions for the benefit of all members.

Aside from the site TOS there are no hard and fast rules here governing thread and post management. We have a top-notch forum staff here; these folks are seasoned professionals in the business of mobile entertainment.

Admin encourages forum moderators to moderate at will. Since we have several moderators responsible for several forums, all with differing personalities (and thresholds of tolerance), issues may be managed in differing ways.

On a personal note, if staff were to ride herd on every thread looking for excuses to censor we'd be no better than the sites we all left. True, we have had to issue warnings and infractions in the past. It's a part of the staff's job description that we all truly hate. No one wants to censure a member.

This is Rob's forum to manage and moderate. Rob knows the topic of karaoke and has the final say.

I hope it helps. :)
 
First of all Kurt with all due respect I will not nor will any other mod on this board be bullied by you or any other poster. I resent the accusation of un-fair or un-equal treatment.

FYI: Thunder recieved a time out.... he wasn't banished from the board. I believe the reason was givin already but since you missed it. It was because of his continued accusitory remarks towards certain members of this board that they were pirates..... wthout proof of such behavior.

How would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot and you were the one being smeared publicly or atleast as publicly as a chat board would allow.... that's rhetorical.

People have the right to their opinions here... we as forum moderators do our best to keep the peace and advise people without the need for editing or other sorted backend antics.... but, when one attacks someone on a personal level it is taken very seriously.

So far, and I need to review some of the threads.... the folks you mention have not attack another on a personal level. You may feel that since they are calling into question the ethics of how a person is going about obtaining their due.... but that is not personal.. that is a business practice being called into question.

Thank you.
 
Forum Moderators should not show obvious bias and hurl insults at posters then. This site has lost some credibility because of that.

Perhaps the mods for forums should only be mods in areas that are not their main interest so that they can be impartial.
 
jokerswild said:
First of all Kurt with all due respect I will not nor will any other mod on this board be bullied by you or any other poster. I resent the accusation of un-fair or un-equal treatment.

FYI: Thunder recieved a time out.... he wasn't banished from the board. I believe the reason was givin already but since you missed it. It was because of his continued accusitory remarks towards certain members of this board that they were pirates..... wthout proof of such behavior.

How would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot and you were the one being smeared publicly or atleast as publicly as a chat board would allow.... that's rhetorical.

People have the right to their opinions here... we as forum moderators do our best to keep the peace and advise people without the need for editing or other sorted backend antics.... but, when one attacks someone on a personal level it is taken very seriously.

So far, and I need to review some of the threads.... the folks you mention have not attack another on a personal level. You may feel that since they are calling into question the ethics of how a person is going about obtaining their due.... but that is not personal.. that is a business practice being called into question.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

Rob - The unwritten rule here has always been that when the OP requests a thread that he started be closed, it was.

When did that rule change?

"No the simple answer of self satisfaction just doesn't ring as the full story to me... and the other thing that bothers me is how quick it was setup and executed. "

To me, this implies that someone is being less than honest. Can't you take the Op's word?

"
 
Again, we have strayed too far from my original post and intent. Again, I ask to close it.

Maybe someone can start another thread to argue about about how this forum is moderated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top