Karaoke Haters

[Big Joe]

Here's the problem Thunder:
(as you like to accuse others of, I believe you're having a bit of comprehension difficulty)

You are always looking for whichever "side" someone is "supporting" to make a determination on whether you label them a "pirate."

AND, just because someone doesn't "support SC" doesn't necessarily make them a "supporter" of pirates. It IS possible to not support either one and that's what you don't understand. With you, it's "either SC OR pirate" and it's not. You like to call me a "supporter of pirates" because I've dropped SC when in fact, it's because I don't support SC's method.

Contrary to your belief, there IS a "third side" that doesn't support either the pirates OR Sound Choice. Deal with it.

That is his only resort when it comes to someone speaking negatively of his beloved SC. "Jump on the bandwagon or I'll label you a pirate."

Somebody has to be the hot-headed mouthpiece that says the things that Kurt doesn't want to say himself. Don't ask me why he does it, you can all come to your own conclusions. He's decided to fall lockstep right into the SC propaganda machine. He obviously has his reasons for doing so.

He can use his thinly veiled BS to accuse me of whatever he wishes. He can pick up his ball and go home as soon as he's called out to defend his undefendable posts. It really is of little consequence to me, I sleep just fine at night.

 

[ericlater]

ABSOLUTLY CORRECT...makes no sense to me either:tribiggrin:

As I understand it, it makes perfect sense to me. The operator who has eliminated SC tracks is doing so because of two related reasons:

(a) They have comparable material on other labels

AND
(b) They believe that regardless of the legal nature of their library that by playing a SC track they could be sued and they don't believe that being "sued" is worth the risk even though they are operating legally!

 

[Jon Tuck]

Thanks for clarifying your stance. Anything else to offer?

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Somebody has to be the hot-headed mouthpiece that says the things that Kurt doesn't want to say himself. Don't ask me why he does it, you can all come to your own conclusions. He's decided to fall lockstep right into the SC propaganda machine. He obviously has his reasons for doing so.
.

Here is a quote from Thunder, which leaves me with 2 questions:


" don't know about Virginia as a whole but I am familar with my corner of it, there were 5 KJs working this area, since the Sound Choice suits were filed there are only two and I is one! The other one was just served in the Sound Choice lawsuit, I don't look for him to be around too much longer!"


This would not only leave Thunder the last man standing, but would leave him as the only one not audited or requested to be audited[/I during the sweep of his area.

Thus, my my 2 questions:

1) Who reported the other 4 to SC?

and


2) Would SC go after or eliminate a strong income producer?

 

[KjAthena]

As I understand it, it makes perfect sense to me. The operator who has eliminated SC tracks is doing so because of two related reasons:

(a) They have comparable material on other labels

AND
(b) They believe that regardless of the legal nature of their library that by playing a SC track they could be sued and they don't believe that being "sued" is worth the risk even though they are operating legally!

But they are not sued if they respond and request the audit to show they have the discs. An intent to file is not a lawsuit as we were informed by our ATTNY:kermit:

 

[ericlater]

But they are not sued if they respond and request the audit to show they have the discs. An intent to file is not a lawsuit as we were informed by our ATTNY:kermit:

Your "splitting hairs" here. Re-read my explanation and replace
"suit" with the hassle of being involved directly (read as being audited) with Sound Choice. Geez, is everything too subtle for you?

 

[Skid Rowe]

I still don't understand why people who have possibly spent hundreds and possibly thousands of dollars on Sound Choice products should drop them from their library. If you bought the disks, use them.

Someone said they might have comparable material on other disks. So if someone has say 3000 Sound Choice songs, then they have to get 3000 duplicates on other lables. That's a lot of waisted money on duplicates.

 

[Diafel]

I still don't understand why people who have possibly spent hundreds and possibly thousands of dollars on Sound Choice products should drop them from their library. If you bought the disks, use them.

Someone said they might have comparable material on other disks. So if someone has say 3000 Sound Choice songs, then they have to get 3000 duplicates on other lables. That's a lot of waisted money on duplicates.

We drop them because we do not want to risk being named in a lawsuit. Not only is it time consuming, but the cost to the reputation is not worth it. People hear you've been sued (or named in a possible lawsuit - same thing - semantics don't wash here) and they immediately think you must be guilty of something. After all, why are they suing you if you've done nothing wrong? Not good for the venues either.
The price of an audit, to me, is not worth it. Signing an agreement that says I am guilty and then allowing SC to "invade" my privacy whenever they want is not something you will find me doing. EVER!
But you will soon figure all this out with real life experience. When you do, let us know.

 

[KjAthena]

I keep hearing and seeing this audit agreement that offends so many....It is my beleif that honest people who are cooperative are not asked to sign this. If you are difficult and quarelsome maybe you will be asked to sign it. Has anybody at all come forward and said they signed it...even those that admitted guilt that paid the settlement...if so please post... I will have to ask some locals to see what they sigmned when they settled/