Jammie Thomas-Rasset hit with $1.5 in damages

[Diafel]

If not you are displaying logos copied without AUTHORIZATION the only license you are granted is for the use from the DISC not a copy of it.

But nice effort!

Please show me the COMPLETED (not settled) AMERICAN court case that defines your statement!

 

[Birdofsong]

I don't see it as an inconvenience in having an audit done. What is perceived by one as a gross breach of rights is a means to an end to another. One sometimes has to give up something to get what they want. Take travel after 9-11, one now has to go through body scanners and submit to searches through their belongings to go to where they want to go. Can they refuse, yes but there are consequences for refusing such as not being allowed on the plane.

I already gave up something. My money. That was good enough for the hunders of other manufacturers of products I paid money to over the years. I don't see them barging over here trying to prove I still own my stuff.

Body scanners??? Seriously??? There you go, equating Sound Choice's demand for audits with Federal Law. Not even close to being the same thing. Sound Choice is not a governmental entity and has no rights to search me whatsoever. Airport laws are a matter of national security. I don't think Ralph Schmoe over at the Good Laughs Cantina is going to cause me to blow up by playing a pirated Sound Choice track.

 

[possumdog]

How people feel about what SC does really seems to depend on how they feel about computer use. Those that agree that it is not a legally authorized use at the moment don't find it an intrusion to "bend over" and show what they have in order to gain the convenience of computer use. They see anyone using a computer as subject to suit so will go through the inconvenience of an audit as a business decision to gain a business advantage. They are acting within what they see as a reality of the times, despite the laws not catching up to the technology. They don't see anyone interfering with their rights as they don't see that they have any under current law.

Those that don't think there are any true laws governing computer use will always see any attempts to control computer shows as an intrusion. If there is no true law against it than SC wouldn't really have much leverage for wanting to audit.

Then there are those that may agree there are laws but don't think there SHOULD be any and they will fight anyone they think is threatening their perceived rights.

I think that as long as the laws are ambiguous, no one will agree on SCs tactics. But the arguments are not so much based on anyone being willing to give up rights or see others rights trampled upon so much as disagreeing on what the rights are at the moment.

 

[DannyGKaraoke]

Here's how it got as far as it didas posted by Moonrider on another forum)

"Well, she could have originally settled for $5000.
She chose to fight.
She was found guilty and fined $200,000.
The RIAA offered - AFTER THE JUDGEMENT - to settle for $25,000 and a statement of guilt. (12.5% of the award)
She appealed the judgement to a jury.
The jury of her peers discovered she'd tampered with evidence, perjured herself, and discovered even MORE evidence of her guilt. The jury of her peers determined she should pay damages of $1.9 million dollars.
The judge felt that was extreme and reduced it to $54,000 (2.8% of the award) and the guilty verdict.
After being given a break twice, and only having to pay pennies on the dollar for damages, Ms. Thomas-Rasset . . .
Appeals to another jury of her peers, who confirmed every single finding of the previous two trials. They apparently did feel that the $1.9 mil might have been too high though. They decided she only need pay $1.2 million.

I'm perfectly comfortable with throwing her under the bus at this point."
I feel exactly the same way.

 

[Dan Hutter]

Here's how it got as far as it didas posted by Moonrider on another forum)

"Well, she could have originally settled for $5000.
She chose to fight.
She was found guilty and fined $200,000.
The RIAA offered - AFTER THE JUDGEMENT - to settle for $25,000 and a statement of guilt. (12.5% of the award)
She appealed the judgement to a jury.
The jury of her peers discovered she'd tampered with evidence, perjured herself, and discovered even MORE evidence of her guilt. The jury of her peers determined she should pay damages of $1.9 million dollars.
The judge felt that was extreme and reduced it to $54,000 (2.8% of the award) and the guilty verdict.
After being given a break twice, and only having to pay pennies on the dollar for damages, Ms. Thomas-Rasset . . .
Appeals to another jury of her peers, who confirmed every single finding of the previous two trials. They apparently did feel that the $1.9 mil might have been too high though. They decided she only need pay $1.2 million.

I'm perfectly comfortable with throwing her under the bus at this point."
I feel exactly the same way.

I'm starting to feel less and less for this woman.

 

[Guest]

Here is where I will disagree. Case in point. You or I purchase a copy or license to use a microsoft product, say Windows.

I did not buy a license - I bought a retail product (hypothetically) with no express or implied contract, subject only to the copyright law as it exists at any given point during the products life.

That is what the "GEM" series is going forward, perhaps a little too late to save the ship.

 

[DJCC]

I did not buy a license - I bought a retail product (hypothetically) with no express or implied contract, subject only to the copyright law as it exists at any given point during the products life.

That is what the "GEM" series is going forward, perhaps a little too late to save the ship.

My point was/is that everyone is up in arms about SC wanting proof that they own/purchased the karaoke. The same thing happens to us all the time, just sometimes we don't see it.

 

[Paradigm Karaoke]

You purchased the Gem set! cool..................

If not you are displaying logos copied without AUTHORIZATION the only license you are granted is for the use from the DISC not a copy of it.

But nice effort!

nope, no Gem series here, i prefer to OWN my music. if i so wanted (god knows why i would, but for arguments sake) i could take my 8719 disc and snap it in half, throw it like a frizbee, use it as a clay pigeon, i own it.
i CAN NOT do that with the Gem series discs as i would never own them.

only granted a license to use them from a disc.....show me where that is defined.

oh, and for the record, i am expecting an audit later this week voluntarily so this is not to hide anything. this is wanting you to prove your claims.

 

[Sound Choice]

]The basis of your complaint is alleged infringement of the trademark which presupposes a copyright violation.

Since we don't SELL songs as downloads, but only on CDG format, the FACT that the file is on someone's computer is PROOF that a copy has been made. Since we don't automatically authorize copying/media shifting to a computer/hard drive (although the permission can be obtained in writing under specific circumstances - one of which of course requires proof that you own the original discs) convincing a judge/jury would not be a problem.

I am simply astounded how you guys can believe that it will be difficult for us to prove a copy was made!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, oddly enough I believe what I write - or better stated: I write what I believe. Thank you for admitting that - and since your beliefs do not have to have any basis in proof or fact, they are equivalent to opinions and therefore you can and do make up anything you want to say. However, in a court of law (since you try to argue for the theoretical defendants), that isn't going to fly in convincing a jury or the judge of someone's innocence. "Only the facts, ma'am"

 

[Sound Choice]

I did not buy a license - I bought a retail product (hypothetically) with no express or implied contract, subject only to the copyright law as it exists at any given point during the products life.

PRO - you are so far off base (again). Do you not know what a "shrinkwrap license" is? Although you might have ignored it (along with probably ignoring the Terms and Conditions on websites and the fine print on your Credit card agreements and the limitations in your insurance contracts), I guarantee you that the Microsoft products come with express contracts and limitations on the use of their products.

But in this case of "not paying attention" - you would not be alone in this regard, as probably the majority of users do not read T&Cs or shrinkwrap licenses or know the details of their insurance policies.

 

[Sound Choice]

Please show me the COMPLETED (not settled) AMERICAN court case that defines your statement!

He doesn't need one. IP laws state that all rights are reserved to the rights holder unless expressly permitted otherwise. So, in case of doubt, rights that are not clearly defined remain with us until a court orders otherwise. Sorry if you don't like it, but that is the way it is. Sort of like when you enter a town or a new state, there usually is a sign posted "Speed limit 35 unless otherwise posted". And you could be on a four lane highway with no traffic and not a speed limit sign in sight for dozens of miles - what is the speed limit? Despite your wishes or beliefs that it SHOULD BE 55 miles an hour or 65, the SPEED LIMIT IS 35. If you would get pulled over the cop could write you up for speeding if you are going 40 and your attempted argument to the judge that "well there was no sign posted and it should be 55 because it's a four lane highway" would be met with a "sorry ma'am, the law in this state is 35 miles an hour unless otherwise posted. You are a licensed driver and it's YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to know the laws."

 

[c. staley]

PRO - you are so far off base (again). Do you not know what a "shrinkwrap license" is? Although you might have ignored it (along with probably ignoring the Terms and Conditions on websites and the fine print on your Credit card agreements and the limitations in your insurance contracts), I guarantee you that the Microsoft products come with express contracts and limitations on the use of their products.

But in this case of "not paying attention" - you would not be alone in this regard, as probably the majority of users do not read T&Cs or shrinkwrap licenses or know the details of their insurance policies.

I've looked in the case of an SC disc.... would you care to enlighten us on exactly what that "shrinkwrap license" looks like and/or says?

 

[DannyGKaraoke]

It's on the disc case insert in small print where it says these are professional recreations., Chip. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. But who reads the small print anyway.

 

[Sound Choice]

you first.

my playing a Sound Choice track with a Sound Choice Logo from my computer is not the same as putting the Sound Choice logo on someone else's track trying to pass it off as Sound Choices track.

i own a single user license (original disc) to play that track. when i am using my computer, my discs stay zipped up in their cases and only one license (my single user license that i own) is being used. nowhere was this prohibited on the discs or cases, anymore than public performance was prohibited. this means i have a single user license to display that trademark provided it is only attached to genuine Sound Choice tracks.

as i said before, if i was playing SGB tracks with a Sound Choice logo attached, THAT is trademark infringement. if i made and used or distributed copies of SC material beyond my single user license (ie. multi-rigging with one library, give a copy to my buddy, sell it on craigs list etc.) or any other way in which i could not guarantee that only one license is being used for the one license purchased, THAT would be infringement.

When we meet on Friday, can you please show me your "single user license" from Sound Choice? To the best of my knowledge, you are going to be presenting your originally purchased Sound Choice CDGs, which have no reference whatsoever to allowing you to copy the songs to a computer.

As a matter of fact, for the past three years, all SC discs are packaged with a slip of paper which states: "WARNING: Copying this disc or any Sound Choice song to a hard drive for commercial use without the proper permission or making multiple copies from a single disc or file constitutes willful infringement which may incur statutory damages of not less than $750 per song.

Call 1-800-788-4487 to speak to a Customer Service Representative about getting a discounted rate on our entire library so your business can be in compliance."

You will be asking that permission as a result of the audit and I understand have adjusted your library to meet the 1:1 requirement accordingly and therefore we will likely be granting you written permission to do the format shift provided you abide by our policies (basically continuing to meet the 1:1 rule). But don't be mistaken - you don't have that right or any "single user license" without our permission, which has not yet been granted.

 

[Sound Choice]

Here is where I will disagree. Case in point. You or I purchase a copy or license to use a microsoft product, say Windows. Every time we go live on the internet our pc/software checks to make sure our "agreement" is valid. Check it out, it's part of your "user" agreement. If you or I have a pirate copy sooner or later we would be shut down until we paid up to the man (Microsoft). The burden of "ownership" or "authorized user" proof is on you or I.

All of us here are using some type of software that, although we paid a bunch of money for, we do not "own", but we are allowed to use as long as we do not violate the terms of use.

It's simple, if you paid for it, you have the disc to prove it, then show them and be free to use them, just like using the Microsoft "key codes".

Case in point #2. I paid for and use Karma. When I purchased a new laptop I had to "prove" to Bob Latshaw that I the original copy (key code for ONE machine) of the software that he "owns" in order to use the software on the new machine.

THANK YOU DJCC - someone else who "gets it". I had already made reference to the shrinkwrap license before I read your posting, but I am glad to see there are others aware of the LEGALITIES AND LIMITATIONS associated with the use of IP based products and able to quote specific cases to support the facts.

 

[c. staley]

He doesn't need one. IP laws state that all rights are reserved to the rights holder unless expressly permitted otherwise. So, in case of doubt, rights that are not clearly defined remain with us until a court orders otherwise. Sorry if you don't like it, but that is the way it is. Sort of like when you enter a town or a new state, there usually is a sign posted "Speed limit 35 unless otherwise posted". And you could be on a four lane highway with no traffic and not a speed limit sign in sight for dozens of miles - what is the speed limit? Despite your wishes or beliefs that it SHOULD BE 55 miles an hour or 65, the SPEED LIMIT IS 35. If you would get pulled over the cop could write you up for speeding if you are going 40 and your attempted argument to the judge that "well there was no sign posted and it should be 55 because it's a four lane highway" would be met with a "sorry ma'am, the law in this state is 35 miles an hour unless otherwise posted. You are a licensed driver and it's YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to know the laws."

Waffle, waffle, waffle....

When we meet on Friday, can you please show me your "single user license" from Sound Choice? To the best of my knowledge, you are going to be presenting your originally purchased Sound Choice CDGs, which have no reference whatsoever to allowing you to copy the songs to a computer.

And so it comes around (once again) to public performance which you - the rights holder of the sound recording - have specifically and in writing denied from day one.

Of course, on one hand you say that's the "publisher speaking" and then turn around and proclaim - like above - that "all rights are reserved to the rights holder unless expressly permitted otherwise."

 

[Diafel]

Thank you for admitting that - and since your beliefs do not have to have any basis in proof or fact, they are equivalent to opinions and therefore you can and do make up anything you want to say. However, in a court of law (since you try to argue for the theoretical defendants), that isn't going to fly in convincing a jury or the judge of someone's innocence. "Only the facts, ma'am"

And once again, care to show what court case decided that you cannot media shift from CD+G to your computer?
Just looking for facts!

 

[Guest]

And once again, care to show what court case decided that you cannot media shift from CD+G to your computer?
Just looking for facts!

Care to show me the one where you can?

 

[JoeChartreuse]

1) Since we don't SELL songs as downloads, but only on CDG format, the FACT that the file is on someone's computer is PROOF that a copy has been made.

2) ...... "Only the facts, ma'am"

1) You did, through third party sites, whether you wish to admit it or not. However, you will now go after those who purchased these downloads because they aren't 1:1. Nice bit of double-dipping....


2) Uh, huh....

 

[JoeChartreuse]

THUNDER'S POST: "--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder
Thank you for admitting that - and since your beliefs do not have to have any basis in proof or fact, they are equivalent to opinions and therefore you can and do make up anything you want to say. However, in a court of law (since you try to argue for the theoretical defendants), that isn't going to fly in convincing a jury or the judge of someone's innocence. "Only the facts, ma'am"
-------------------------------------------------------
DIAFEL'S REPLY: "And once again, care to show what court case decided that you cannot media shift from CD+G to your computer?
Just looking for facts!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THUNDER ANSWERING:

Care to show me the one where you can?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve, YOU made a statement. Diafel called you out on it, and for the nth time, you flipped it back- a standard response. Can you back up your statement with an example or not? Before telling me to go check a post from a year ago, please note that if YOU can't find and post it, then I have no reason to give it credibility.