This is a link to info provided by DanDanTheTaxiMan, one of the accused in SC's sweep of the Phoenix area. Please note that this post was "off-topic" in the thread where is first appeared and most likely will be moved.
http://karaoke-forum.com/viewtopic.php?p=264242&no=1#264242
EDITED at 7:30 pm due to confusion with what the link said and my thoughts below: READ THE LINK TO UNDERSTAND WHAT FOLLOWS
I offer the following "food for thought" regarding that link! Assuming it is an exact copy of what SC provides their targets this is my opinion.
After SEEING that document, even though I have a 1:1 library, I would not submit to the audit as defined in SC's letter. It is too wide in scope and latitude, and I am particularly concerned with:
a. SC states they are after Trademark infringement but they would have to identify every specific track that was NOT purchased and HAS BEEN used at a paid show! Their audit cannot identify what tracks have been used for commercial purposes!
b. In my case, the audit would find tracks I DON'T use in my business but collected as a "hobbyist" before I went into business!
c. SC indicated that they required a CDG for each file in the library along with proof of purchase. I assume proof of purchase is required for SC to be assured that you didn't borrow the disc for the audit. But what if you bought it at a flee market for next to nothing with no receipt? A customer of mine has done just that, several times and I have purchased discs from KJ's who have left the business!
d. SC did not make an exception to the requirement that you have CDG even for files PURCHASED via downloaded.
e. If you have tracks on more than one machine, you must have a CDG for each copy of each track. So while someone running a CDG based show can have multiple backup copies of their CDG's, PC based operations cannot have a single backup HD!
So, for those who previously stated that all a legit operator had to lose by submitting to the audit is TIME, I even disagree now more fervently than before! A legit operator like myself finds, not unexpectedly, justification not to agree to SC audit, those items listed above are some of the main LEGITIMATE reasons why I would not submit to their audit.
In short: SC sets the rules! I don't understand fully what their rules SIGNIFY in terms of future actions SC might bring or cause to be brought against me? I don't accept that their audit or any audit of my computer can show that I have violated a trademark right? I can have 100,000 SC tracks on a HD, but if i never show them in public, I haven't violated any Trademark right!
But based upon their defined audit steps, SC wants to be the judge and jury! And it seems to me that if you accept their audit and they deem you have failed the audit, they will offer you a settlement. If you haven't done anything wrong, THAT IS you haven't played a track of theirs in public that wasn't purchased, why would you accept their offer?
And, then, if you don't accept their settlement offer they up the ante on future settlement offers. If you still reject their settlement (
which they state IS NOT a settlement) they threatened to follow through on the law suit. Ah, but will they be suing solely for trademark infringement or also venture into copyright infringement which appears easier to bring as a charge after they review you files and find EVEN ONE non-purchased track!
Let me share one real life example. I have purchased several discs over time from the bargain bin at my local karaoke dealer. Several times I have discovered that the lead vocals where on every track on the disc. Early on, the proprietor informed that I could turn down the volume on the right channel on my deck to overcome the problem, and that worked as long as I remembered to do so. When I ripped the disc to the computer, I put a note on the computer file to turn down the right channel volume, and that also worked so long as I remembered to do so!
Just recently, I discovered that I actually have a ripping program that could eliminate the vocal during the ripping process. I re-ripped the original discs with that new program, and it worked. Every track transferred to the PC excluded the vocal. So, now I don't have to remember to do ANYTHING!
Well, then I wondered, what if I burn the "good" files from the computer onto a "new" CD? Well, I did just that and ended up with 10 CDG's that I no longer have to turn down the right channel on! Guess what I did with the original discs? Yep, dumped 'em so I never use them again by mistake!
BTW using those discs as a reference point, if in the process of performing the audit if SC finds questionable tracks, even if you are able to mitigate away their existence, that doesn't mean SC will accept what you say. And what if the tracks in question aren't even theirs?
And with that said, and generally speaking, I am concerned that SC will use intimidation to get you to settle with them! At the end of their letter, didn't they use intimidation by referring to an actual, but irrelevant (not Trademark Law) court case? And remember, it costs SC a good deal to undertake such an audit. I doubt that they do so expecting to come away with nothing. I am a sure that they never, never complete their efforts without finding some reason to demand that you settle! If nothing else, they can also threaten to tell the other manufacturers what they have found and leave you with the thought that you could become a defendant in multiple suites!
And while it will cost time and money to go to court, I am not about to settle. And I by not submitting to the audit I would only be facing one plaintiff, SC. I'll let the court decide if I have done any harm to SC or broken an laws if I receive such a letter from SC! IMHO, based upon the parameters defined for the SC audit, few if any operators, even disc based ones would be successful in meeting the criteria established!
