Wait until they subpoena the client listing from Crookyln Clan and Smashviz...right after they shut them down.
Sound Choice Litigation - Worst Fears A Reality
- Thread starter ericlater
- Start date
- Status
Thunder,
You keep saying, in effect, "no harm, no foul!" So clearly, that's how YOU feel. But why can't you respect the opinions/feelings of others who don't want to be swept up in a big net to satisfy some goal you obviously put above privacy and individual rights? Do you have stock ownership in SoundChoice?
And since the consequences of Sound Choice's erroneous accusations means so little to you, are you willing to personally reimburse those who are swept up for their time, costs and damages?
- Messages
- 2,490
- Highlights
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 402
- Location
- Bergen County, NJ
- Peak Coin
- 0.000000¢
- DB Transfer
- 0.000000¢
1) Yes he does, because his name was included- bad press is bad. C'mon, this is what I'm talking about. He's innocent, and DOES have a problem.
2) Yup, mistakes are made- especially by the untrained and overzealous. How does that help the innocent host? Does the end justify the means?
3) No, it wouldn't happen. The Feds have no desire to "out" anyone, and wouldn't be issuing press releases until guilt is proven. Also, the fed will have no agenda, and no financial gain, and will thus be more interested in actual guilt, rather than intimidating people into paying settlements.
3) I have seen plenty of times where defendents in a criminal court has been announced as the persons who committed the crime, even though they haven't been found guilty of the crime beat the criminal charges only to lose on civil. Civil courts should be held to the same standards as criminal in my honest opinion. Beyond reasonable doubt. There should automatically be reasonable doubt civilly if found not guilty by a criminal jury.
G
Guest
Guest
1. Well Actually when the Feds do it they not only name the person they are going after long before the trial but usually long before the charges are filed.
2. There is always money in it for the Fed that is why they are so zealous in their pursuit of a person even if they are innocent.
3. If you are caught up in a federal investigation innocent or not you are going to have to have an attorney or you will go under the buss, to have an attorney it is going to cost you big bucks which is your responsibility and the Fed isn't going to cover one dime of it!
Do you guys ever read the papers or watch the news?
No Harm No Foul? With the SC suit issue there is no harm to yourself in allowing an audit of your library! I have already offered mine for audit, I just don't see the problem in it! Compensate for my time? Come to my office sit down with my disc and computer and have at it, if they want to compensate me for the coffee that I will supply I won't turn it down!
2. There is always money in it for the Fed that is why they are so zealous in their pursuit of a person even if they are innocent.
3. If you are caught up in a federal investigation innocent or not you are going to have to have an attorney or you will go under the buss, to have an attorney it is going to cost you big bucks which is your responsibility and the Fed isn't going to cover one dime of it!
Do you guys ever read the papers or watch the news?
No Harm No Foul? With the SC suit issue there is no harm to yourself in allowing an audit of your library! I have already offered mine for audit, I just don't see the problem in it! Compensate for my time? Come to my office sit down with my disc and computer and have at it, if they want to compensate me for the coffee that I will supply I won't turn it down!
Thunder, you just want to go on and on about what you would do. Well, bless your heart. I guess I am not as giving and gracious as you?
Furthermore, I learned from years of management experience that: "The task gets easier and easier the further removed you are from personally performing it!" So I will say with a great deal of certainty, having been an auditor, that audits are not always an easy as you imagine.
Consider the details involved in a BRAND new thread posted on a different karaoke forum.
The OP found out as his show was about to begin that his computer was locked up and nothing he tried would get the system to work. So, he headed home (10 mins away) to retrieve his disc player, his discs and his OLD SONG BOOKS!
Now why did he retrieve his OLD SONG BOOKS upon his return home? Because he realized while driving home that there was no way for him to cross reference the books that accompanied his computer files to his original discs.
Your assumption, Mr Thunder, is that everyone in ripping their CDG's included disc and track numbers when doing the arduous task of labeling their bin files on their computers. At some point, I stopped doing that to expedite getting the computer up to date!
Some people, I've been told, didn't even provide for folders when creating their computer files, so the information there are working with is in somewhat random disorder, particularly when there are typos in the file label!
Furthermore, I learned from years of management experience that: "The task gets easier and easier the further removed you are from personally performing it!" So I will say with a great deal of certainty, having been an auditor, that audits are not always an easy as you imagine.
Consider the details involved in a BRAND new thread posted on a different karaoke forum.
The OP found out as his show was about to begin that his computer was locked up and nothing he tried would get the system to work. So, he headed home (10 mins away) to retrieve his disc player, his discs and his OLD SONG BOOKS!
Now why did he retrieve his OLD SONG BOOKS upon his return home? Because he realized while driving home that there was no way for him to cross reference the books that accompanied his computer files to his original discs.
Your assumption, Mr Thunder, is that everyone in ripping their CDG's included disc and track numbers when doing the arduous task of labeling their bin files on their computers. At some point, I stopped doing that to expedite getting the computer up to date!
Some people, I've been told, didn't even provide for folders when creating their computer files, so the information there are working with is in somewhat random disorder, particularly when there are typos in the file label!
G
Guest
Guest
And that my friend would be a problem the auditor would have to sort out not the KJ! Which is why i would supply them with coffee.:sqwink: Each disc has a manufaturers code and number on it, so half the problem is already taken care of, even if his files were randomly done with his own code unless you are talking about 50,000+ songs it really wouldn't be that hard to click on the file and see if the SC logo pops up! of course it also would take but about two minutes to look at the number of disc versus the number of song files and do the math either!
The question is: "Why didn't the OP have backup with him?" It is as simple as having a small selection of disc and a player in his vehicle, or another computer!
Well, again "simple" you say. As an auditor, I would not want to be responsible for touching (damaging) any of your discs. And if you are like most KJ's you'll have discs that are already scratched. Secondly, as an auditor, I work on a budget that assumes that the client does most of the legwork and I review the results. If I need to see DISC# -----, I expect that I will request the disc and it will be made available!
So, I'd be looking for someone to pull the discs to support the bin files that I am auditing at that moment, or some process similar thereto. And who might that someone be?
Lastly, I am not going "off track" to respond to another declaration as to what is simple to do and what is not!
I have plenty of discs that I had purchased from reputable dealers that have no codes on the inner circle of the disc. And if that practice is something done consistently by SC, it's not done by all. And didn't SC state at some point that they would take ALL manufacturers into consideration when they perform their audit?
And even if the discs are encoded, it would be an vast exaggeration to declare that "half the problem is already taken care of" because of that code!
A lot of you folks are missing the point.
"IF A SOUND CHOICE LOGO/TRADEMARK IS SEEN GENERATED OFF OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN AN ORIGINAL SOUND CHOICE PRODUCT, IT IS INFRINGEMENT!"
Ok, I'm done yelling! :sqlaugh:
With all that said, Sound Choice has every right to accuse anyone of trademark infringement, that their investigators witnessed, running the Sound Choice Logo/Trademark on either a computer, burned CDG, or any other medium not using the ORIGINAL Sound Choice product.
Ask any I.P. Lawyer. Many will give you their TIME for FREE to advise you!
Now if SC wants to cut a deal & say, "Okay, as long as we can "audit" your original SC product that you have copied, we won't sue you for copying our trademark to a HD or Burned Disc etc...", is a pretty good deal, in my opinion, to allow me to run on computer without any fear of ever being named in a lawsuit.
I myself could be named in a suit just for the fact that I run karaoke on a computer with Sound Choice content. All my ORIGINAL product is locked away off-site from any show I produce. (I wonder if it was the same for McGaha at Macleod's. Perhaps he was running a CAVS that the investigator saw & had all his discs elsewhere like most of us do. I'm just assuming this & do not know if this was the case.)
I don't know if Thunder has done the same, but I have informed SC of my computer based show & will allow an audit at anytime when they begin their research in the Reno/Carson City area.
I suggest to every legit KJ running SC content, or any other labels content that are still in business, on a computer, a CAVS system, or Burned CDG's, to contact the labels & advise them of what you are doing & to offer for them to audit your ORIGINAL product library to avoid being named in a trademark infringement lawsuit.
Sounds pretty simple to me & is good business sense.
"IF A SOUND CHOICE LOGO/TRADEMARK IS SEEN GENERATED OFF OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN AN ORIGINAL SOUND CHOICE PRODUCT, IT IS INFRINGEMENT!"
Ok, I'm done yelling! :sqlaugh:
With all that said, Sound Choice has every right to accuse anyone of trademark infringement, that their investigators witnessed, running the Sound Choice Logo/Trademark on either a computer, burned CDG, or any other medium not using the ORIGINAL Sound Choice product.
Ask any I.P. Lawyer. Many will give you their TIME for FREE to advise you!
Now if SC wants to cut a deal & say, "Okay, as long as we can "audit" your original SC product that you have copied, we won't sue you for copying our trademark to a HD or Burned Disc etc...", is a pretty good deal, in my opinion, to allow me to run on computer without any fear of ever being named in a lawsuit.
I myself could be named in a suit just for the fact that I run karaoke on a computer with Sound Choice content. All my ORIGINAL product is locked away off-site from any show I produce. (I wonder if it was the same for McGaha at Macleod's. Perhaps he was running a CAVS that the investigator saw & had all his discs elsewhere like most of us do. I'm just assuming this & do not know if this was the case.)
I don't know if Thunder has done the same, but I have informed SC of my computer based show & will allow an audit at anytime when they begin their research in the Reno/Carson City area.
I suggest to every legit KJ running SC content, or any other labels content that are still in business, on a computer, a CAVS system, or Burned CDG's, to contact the labels & advise them of what you are doing & to offer for them to audit your ORIGINAL product library to avoid being named in a trademark infringement lawsuit.
Sounds pretty simple to me & is good business sense.
G
Guest
Guest
Wall Of Sound!
To answer your speculation.......... YES I HAVE!
To answer your speculation.......... YES I HAVE!
No, it is not good business sense unless you have absolutely nothing else to do all day then to present yourself for martyrdom. You won't even get 2 seconds of good publicity from your efforts unless the "karaoke world" universally gains knowledge of and provides support to SC efforts!
And if SC truly isn't representing and auditing for any other manufacturer, as they once implied they are, you just might have to volunteer for perhaps a dozen audits?
And, if you, Wall of Sound, aren't doing anything illegal regarding trademark infringement, why should you EVER be accused of trademark infringement? And more simply put, if every KJ did what you suggest, SC couldn't afford to perform the required audits!
I am not so sure of that. I see SC's logo on every website that offers their product for sale, as I see the logos of many companies used in advertisements by other companies!
Anyone can accuse anyone of anything they like. And anyone can sue anyone else, whether justified or not. And there are often consequence to making false allegations!
I am also not sure what you are implying when you say that SC: "has every right to accuse anyone of trademark infringement" based upon their investigator believing that the show in question is using hardware other than a CDG player and/or believing that the KJ used a burned CDG? I play many CDG's on my computer! And how would the investigator know that a CDG being played was a burn? And if burned CDG was used, was that burned CDG the KJ's or a customer's?
But most important, what specifically is the "every right" that SC has to be so frivolous in their investigative approach? And more notable, from what statute is the right derived to make questionable, if not unfounded assumptions?
And how many cases have their been where the investigator was proven wrong in their assertion? If the answer is 1 or more, it is MHO that the outcome is 1 too many false accusations!
Actually, it would make pretty good business sense for the Pirate to volunteer for the audit and "pay the piper"! No?
And while I will accept the premise that SC will not sue anyone who has undergone their audit, that doesn't mean that copyright owners might not come after you someday!
If a person had decided to go computer, knowing it was a grey area or at least controversal from the legal standpoint, it would be good business sense to have their discs organized in such a way as to easily prove they possessed them.
To whom and for what reason would proof of possession be necessary?
And for those who began the process of computerizing 6-7 years ago when few KJ's were computerized and there were no discussion regarding the legalities, why would they be concerned about how they organized their work?
- Messages
- 2,490
- Highlights
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 402
- Location
- Bergen County, NJ
- Peak Coin
- 0.000000¢
- DB Transfer
- 0.000000¢
1) We possess different sets of facts here
2) Yes, there are fines that can be be gained by the fed- but the fed won't collapse without them, and these fines are set in advance. There is no smash and grab, go for the gusto greed.
3) One of my businesses ( Surplus Brokerage) was included in a large fed investigation. I was in and out in a day, and no bad publicity was released. No council needed either. All cases are different.
4) Thunder, repetition of No Harm No Foul doesn't make it any truer. The facts, bad publicity, and even this discussion prove otherwise.
As for an audit: Anyone, in ANY business, who allows an unauthorized ( by this I mean an agency with the gov authority of law enforcement) audit of their business or it's inventory without an unbiased person of authority or witness overseeing it is lacking in business acumen.
Anyone working in a service industry who gives up time for free is losing income.
If it was the FED doing the audit, I may be losing income, but at least I know I am dealing with someone who has full authority to be there.
Steve, the bottom line is that you give the impression that a mfr. is OWED an audit. To me, they are STEALING my income producing time. If they have the desire to recoup losses, shouldn't I as well? What has the mfr. done for free for me that would equal what my time is worth?
I'm not buying that there was no discussion about computers being legal 6 or 7 years ago. People can't complain about the MediaCloq discs or about Sound Choice threatening to come after them in the same breath as saying there wasn't any discussion about it being legal or not.
My boyfriend once sub-hosted for a company that went computer over 7 years ago. There was another host in town who then started multi-rigging and I remember hearing the discussions about whether he sould be doing that or not. That was way back when I was just a sometimes singer and had nothing to do with running a karaoke company yet even I knew about the computer controversy.
As for who should they show the discs to? I'm not specifying. I am just saying that if I were going to do something that might be challenging the law that I would want to have a way to prove my case should it come up later.
READ my terminology of "no discussions about it" to mean no widespread, intense discussions, such as the ones that exist today. When I joined my first karaoke forum back in 2007, before I ever worked as a KJ, I remember KJ's on the forum complaining about pirated hard drives. Those initial complaining KJ's were "poo pooed" by most other Kj's on the forum who didn't appreciate at the time the impact that piracy was going to have on all aspects of the industry.
And here's what the "poo pooers", including some of the most experienced KJ's, said just three years ago:
Can't you compete against a fly by night, inexperienced KJ who probably has a substandard rig, as well?
What's there to worry about, the hard drive probably has triplicates of the same songs, so the (pirated) library is not as big as advertised?
So what, if they have 100,000 songs? You don't need such a large library to run a karaoke show?
My point? Much was misunderstood about the problem as recently as 3 years ago as well as today. So, Possumdog, just because you may have had the clarity of thought as to what you felt you needed to do, there are still people who believe that because they paid money for a loaded hard drive on e-bay or from Craigs list that they had made a legal purchase of the drive AND its contents!
Just because Thunder says, "no harm, no foul", it doesn't make it so!
And just because you say a KJ should have KNOWN to do "X" or no to do "Y", doesn't make it so!
And is it legal to download tracks from the internet that you pay for? I don't know!
And there are pirates today that don't belong to any forums and therefore have no idea that what they are doing is illegal.
- Status
