c. staley said:
You're so close to the forest, you can't see the trees....
FIRST:
If you do not "voluntarily submit" to a search you will be sued - correct?
umm....nope. where did you see that?
SECOND:
And it "may deem" to use this information to sue and/or threaten to sue, sell to other manufacturers, post on the internet or anything they want.... It's open season... on someone who "volunteers?"
nope. cant sue, i got the signed doc saying i have permission to shift to pc, what are they gonna sell to other manus? the info that i am 1:1 compliant? post on the internet...already done, check out their site, i am the first name on their "good" list. what is the problem again?
THIRD:
Nice. You volunteer for them to permanently "mark" your discs?... They trust you and appreciate your "proactive attitude?" Let them if you like, they'd never touch my property with anything. (It's simply the principle of the matter here.) How many KJ's that attended the meeting at SC studios and had audits had their discs "marked?" I'll bet none and they volunteered too.
and unless i am multi-rigging on 1 set of discs what is the problem with a small mark on the inside ring of a disc? many of the used discs i got have numbers, or the previous owners name written in the same place. problem is........?
FOURTH:
What they don't tell you is just as important as what they do tell you. For example
a) None of the "other factors" mentioned above are included in this agreement. You could theoretically have 100% discs and still fail based on undisclosed factors in this agreement.
dont know what factors they are referring to either, the audit is all it took for all of us.
b) This agreement states that it is basically an audit to get ONLY a piece of paper (the "Covenant Not To Sue document") and that is all. However, the rest of the document is loaded with unreasonable requests and conditions. Such as marking your discs, sharing your information, allowing invasive software to be parked on your machine, etc. etc.....
there is no software put on the computer, it doesn't say that they will either. the POST suit form does, but thats to make sure you didnt ditch the stolen car to avoid getting nailed for stealing it, but not on the voluntary form.
c) There is no statement as to what your liabilities are if you fail an audit. However, you are granting them the right to use whatever information they get against you.
FIFTH:
How you acquired your digital library, or how you ripped them or even WHEN should not matter as long as you have an original cd+g for each song right?
ok, i can follow you here. shouldn't matter. come to think of it, all he asked was which software i used to rip and what i liked about it. i think we have all been grilled harder than that on software on this forum.
The whole idea is "1:1 compliance" right? I certainly keep hearing the same rhetoric: "Get legal or get out!"... But in this case, even if you ARE "legal and compliant" it's still no good and just another way to extort more sales or this wouldn't be necessary at all:
if you bought a loaded drive, then you don't have the discs to back it up and you do not have to buy discs. but you cant keep the illegally copied tracks either. thats why they said work with them to acquire discs, you still need the discs. if you got them already, your good.
"Acquire discs" in this case is nothing more than a push for the Gem Series because: you have the cd+g and you have the digital copy that should be all that matters.
if you have the discs, you do not need to buy the GEM. you can have a digital copy as long as you have the discs. i dont see anywhere that if you own the discs you STILL need to buy the GEM......anywhere.........at all.........
SEVENTH:
This agreement is full of traps, otherwise, you wouldn't need this:
sign the doc and don't have discs, yup, it would affect your rights. that is in larger print as well letting you know to have a lawyer check it over, as many here did and attorneys found nothing wrong at all in it.
or this:
so suggesting that you have an attorney check over a document before signing it is bad? if there was something to hide wouldn't they avoid attorneys seeing it? so several attorneys, including IP attorneys, looked over this doc and see no issues. i am assuming that you believe you know more about IP law than IP lawyers? you are directly contradicting their findings on this document........
Even Singyoassoff sees lots of "superfluous language" here.... it's unnecessary.... right?
Lots of traps...
But you're big boys and girls, sign it if you like.