Sound Choice Litigation - Worst Fears A Reality
- Thread starter ericlater
- Start date
- Status
G
Guest
Guest
No problem they made a mistake and corrected the situation and moved on!
In any big sweep like SC is doing they are going to have a couple of misses, the thing is how many hits are they going to have?
In any big sweep like SC is doing they are going to have a couple of misses, the thing is how many hits are they going to have?
G
Guest
Guest
It isn't a problem you just show your disc no big deal!
Granted seeing as how he was disc based to begin with I can see him being a little peaved but look at the advantage he will have in his market if the other show that aren't legit get shut down or have to increase their rates when they have to pay fines and purchase thir CDGs!
Granted seeing as how he was disc based to begin with I can see him being a little peaved but look at the advantage he will have in his market if the other show that aren't legit get shut down or have to increase their rates when they have to pay fines and purchase thir CDGs!
IT MOST DEFINITELY IS A PROBLEM AND A VERY BIG DEAL
1. It seems to be human nature that when someone is accused of "anything" and the accusations are made public, most people will believe in the GUILT of the accused! And as to those who are familiar with the efforts of SC, why would they ever consider that SC make a mistake. It's a simple matter to select from careful observation who is a pirate; how could it be a mistake?
2. There original news coverage of the reported piracy that besmirched the venue and the KJ was much larger in size than the follow up story that revealed that the parties had done nothing wrong.
3. Based upon what the actual pirates are being assessed, the pirates in the referenced SC action made out better than the legit guy who has a much smaller library than the pirates and a library for which he paid full price!
4. You may not value your time and don't mind being rear-ended by SC. If your time is so unimportant to you and has no value, Thunder, why don't you provide all your karaoke gigs for gratis?
5. A KJ WHO WAS PROUD TO BE LEGIT learned, in effect, that his honesty over the years "didn't pay".
a. his reputation was besmirched
b. his time was infringed upon
c. his pirating competitors have gained an edge because their illegal libraries have been legitimized by SC for much less than the legit show paid for the same tracks
And, again, I wondered when I first learned of what SC is doing if it would ever come to circumstances like this and we quickly learned that it could.
As I have suggested, SC should go after the MAJOR multi-riggers
1. Easier to identify and find such KJ's
2. Less chance of accusing and hurting an honest KJ
3. Would provide significant help to the legit KJ's by possibly eliminating some if not all of the illegal rigs the multiriggers own?
4. Perhaps the fees/fines charged could/would "level the playing field" for the honest operators?
What Are Defamation, Libel and Slander?
Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.
Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff.
In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.
Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.
Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:
* Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
* Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
* Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
* Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;
While actions for defamation have their roots in common law, most jurisdictions have now enacted statutes which modify the common law. They may change the elements of the cause of action, limit when an action may be filed, or modify the defenses to an action for defamation. Some may even require that the defendant be given an opportunity to apologize before the plaintiff can seek non-economic damages.
Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.
Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff.
In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.
Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.
Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:
* Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
* Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
* Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
* Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;
While actions for defamation have their roots in common law, most jurisdictions have now enacted statutes which modify the common law. They may change the elements of the cause of action, limit when an action may be filed, or modify the defenses to an action for defamation. Some may even require that the defendant be given an opportunity to apologize before the plaintiff can seek non-economic damages.
G
Guest
Guest
Number one, you recieve a letter of intent to file (or statement of charges) before the case is actually activated against you, this is the point where you "clear up" the situation!
Number two, it appears that the only one who sullied Jim's reputation was Jim by going public with the mistake (no one would have ever known about if he hadn't taken it to the papers)! I don't think you can charge someone for slander when you are doing it yourself!
Number three, Who the heck uses a Cavs player to DJ from anyway?
As for your Libel laws those change from state to state and generally require proof of an actually damage to that person! ie. you have to show that your reputation was damaged to the point that it cost you your job or an income of some sort or has to be a blatant lie, which since the CAVs player was observed and indeed was used (although supposedly only for "DJ" music) and the SC logo was observed by the investigator a logical assumption could be made that that Sound Choice product was loaded on the CAVs player, since the CAVs system has not been approved for Sound Choice product then it would have been an apparent violation.
Sound Choice dropped the suit after dicovering new information, again no harm no foul!
Number two, it appears that the only one who sullied Jim's reputation was Jim by going public with the mistake (no one would have ever known about if he hadn't taken it to the papers)! I don't think you can charge someone for slander when you are doing it yourself!
Number three, Who the heck uses a Cavs player to DJ from anyway?
As for your Libel laws those change from state to state and generally require proof of an actually damage to that person! ie. you have to show that your reputation was damaged to the point that it cost you your job or an income of some sort or has to be a blatant lie, which since the CAVs player was observed and indeed was used (although supposedly only for "DJ" music) and the SC logo was observed by the investigator a logical assumption could be made that that Sound Choice product was loaded on the CAVs player, since the CAVs system has not been approved for Sound Choice product then it would have been an apparent violation.
Sound Choice dropped the suit after dicovering new information, again no harm no foul!
- Messages
- 2,490
- Highlights
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 402
- Location
- Bergen County, NJ
- Peak Coin
- 0.000000¢
- DB Transfer
- 0.000000¢
Gotta disagree here, Thunder-Man. There WAS harm and foul, as Eric showed.
This is EXACTLY why I am against anyone but a NON-BIASED federally mandated agency doing this sort of thing.
How many "witches" were hanged, tortured, and killed over this same sort of mentality.
Why do witch hunts come to mind? As quoted from the story: "I'm not 100% sure that their investigator has actually been in my door. There is no way he could have thought we had a computer, watching him (Jim) put discs in," Earls said.
Well? The attorney wouldn't even mention the REASONS behind the investigation and the suit. There was mention of a CAVS in the bar ( for regular music), but apparently NO ONE so it in use. An explaination has yet to surface...
As for the letter of intent, and "clearing it up" before hand: I don't OWE these people anything. If they wish to PAY for my time, at my standard hourly rate, I will be happy to show them anything they wish.
On the other hand, in a way I'm GLAD this happened ( though not for the host in question). Each time it does, SC's credibility drops, and the chance of a massive countersuit rises. Possibly even a class action suit. I believe that there are certainly grounds for it, and an attorney friend agrees.
After the smoke clears, THEN we may finally get a fully authorized non-biased federal agency to combat piracy. THAT would be terrific.
Actually, I wonder why SC isn't spending more time on that goal. It would make more sense, and keep them out of the line of fire...
Anyway, I thank Eric for the OP, and have downloaded and printed it for my files...
I don't know who might use a Cavs for DJ'ing but they are sold simply as a player for a Karaoke show. I believe, furthermore, that the CAVs can play CD's as well as CDG's. So why couldn't, not that it really matters, someone use the gadget to play MP3 CD's for DJing?
And I am not actually sure why you posed the question of how the CAVs unit is used considering SC dropped the action?
We don't have a justice system. We have a legal system. It ain't perfect.
SC prob will be more careful now.
No harm ,No foul. Inconvenience? Yes.
I am VERY much against more gov't beauracracy ( sp?)
Lee
SC prob will be more careful now.
No harm ,No foul. Inconvenience? Yes.
I am VERY much against more gov't beauracracy ( sp?)
Lee
- Messages
- 2,490
- Highlights
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 402
- Location
- Bergen County, NJ
- Peak Coin
- 0.000000¢
- DB Transfer
- 0.000000¢
Well, we have to disagree on the "no harm, no foul"....
I'm not big into govt. interference in most places either. However, THEY wouldn't be out to make money, only catch the bad guys. Also, known for CYA mentality, they would be more careful about accusing innocent people.
G
Guest
Guest
Eric,
Yes CAV makes a DVD CDG player but that is not the CAV machine being referenced the CAVs jukebox does not have a CD drive in it you can hook up an external CDrom to it to RIP a CDG to the hard drive but it won't just play it.
You can download the manual here and see for yourself!
http://www.cavsusa.com/product/H_player/jb199II.htm#manual
Yes CAV makes a DVD CDG player but that is not the CAV machine being referenced the CAVs jukebox does not have a CD drive in it you can hook up an external CDrom to it to RIP a CDG to the hard drive but it won't just play it.
You can download the manual here and see for yourself!
http://www.cavsusa.com/product/H_player/jb199II.htm#manual
excuse me, thunder, but the article i referenced in the op didn't identify the Cavs unit being used at Mcleod's. I am aware of that there a several different units manufactured by Cavs. And when I started out I was offered a Cavs karaoke system loaded with SC, PH and the entire MM library!
The reality of what some CAVS's system include is EXACTLY why I have urged SC to pursue the companies selling the systems followed up with visits to every customer who purchased one!
My understanding is that the certified "Letter Of Intent" was never responded to thus the defendants were then named in the lawsuit.
Sure, Sound Choice perhaps goofed up with this one by perhaps getting some bad intel, but civil suits are much different than criminal ones. In a civil suit there is "disclosure" no hard evidence needed for say "warrants" in a criminal investigation.
In regards to having a "Fed Agency" doing the enforcement that another poster suggests, would require intensive investigation like wire taps, hidden cameras, and the like to gather hard evidence I would assume.
Since Sound Choice is trying to recoup on their investment in product by going after trademark infringement, all they need is a reasonable cause to sue which starts first with that "Letter Of Intent" which was sent certified mail, and apparently was never responded to.
The wise thing for anyone to do if a letter like this arrives at your door for your required signiture, is to respond either personally or by your lawyer if you have nothing to hide. You would think any intelligent individual would do this.
Also, this KJ & Venue has been named on the suit since September. Why then did it take a News Broadcast in November to have them jump up to their defense when they could have at least been in contact with the lawfirm Sound Choice has retained?
My $2.00 worth....
I am not the lawyer for the accused and I don't know if the accused had lawyers and I don't care!
And while the referenced post indicated that all Sound Choice needs is reasonable cause to sue, if the accused parties counter sue for defamation, Sound Choice will be hard pressed TO PROVE that they had "reasonable cause"!
Personally, if it happened to me, knowing that I am innocent and that I was being falsely accused, I might also choose to do nothing in response to any correspondence received.
And if and when my actions, or lack thereof, required that I obtain a lawyer, I would do so when I DEEMED it was appropriate.
In my mind there are a few MUCH more basic questions left unanswered derived from the case at hand:
a) How did Sound Choice come to accuse two INNOCENT entities
b) Might Sound Choice make the same mistake again?
c) Might Sound Choice make a similar mistake in the future resulting in an erroneous accusation?
d) Were there damages experienced by the accused?
e) How will Sound Choice defend against any law suit that the accusers may decide to bring against Sound Choice
f) Is Sound Choice viable enough to withstand multiple defamation lawsuits and judgments, becaue judgments CAN be wiped out by bankruptcy?
I know the following story does not represent the exact same circumstance regarding "legal correspondence", but I just recently ignored some "legal correspondence"
Just this week I got an email from an organization who claimed to be in Asia. They used some fancy sounded official name for the organization and questioned my ownership of the domain name of one of my websites. And... they made it appear that they had the right to question my ownership.
They implored me that in order to resolve the issue and to keep matters simple that I either call or email them immediately.
What I did immediately is delete the email and sent it to where it belonged!
Someday, I may find out I made a mistake ignoring that email, but I doubt it! And I'll deal with it then if I did!
Also, I have refused certified letters in my lifetime and have had addressee of certified letters that I have sent refuse my letter. In short, there is no law requiring anyone to accept a certified letter, in the first place.
Lastly, just because someone receives a certified letter doesn't give that letter anymore legal weight than a piece of junk mail. All that the certification shows is that the sender sent correspondence to the addressee that was received as evidence by "somebody's" signature! And while some legal contracts require that certain types of actions by preceded by or acknowledge via certified letters, Sound Choice could have sent the same letters to Mcleod and McGaha without certifying them and the letters would have had the same legal weight and their efforts would have ended up with the same results!
i think this is one of those unsolveable 'agree to disagree' situations.
Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. I have been approached several times by 'the powers that be' *a specific karaoke retailer with spies I'm assuming* asking me about why I use a computer, how it's set up and if I have any burned copies etc.
I always tell them that if they want to stick around, I will be happy to show them EVERYTHING *including my entire collection of discs* AFTER the show.
Most of these people don't bother to take me up on my offer. A few have and after seeing my disc collection, I never see these people again.
The bottom line, for me, is I have absolutely nothing to hide and if anyone accused me, I would have no problems proving my innocence.
I can understand why this man is upset, I would be upset too but it was HIS choice to make this a public thing.
I have actually been thru a lawsuit for piracy. The people who sued me made a mistake. I had not pirated a single disc. If they had sued me for copyright infringement they might have won but that's an entirely different matter.
So far, my reputation is pretty intact AND i don't even hold a grudge against the company.
Accidents happen, no one is perfect. Learn from your mistakes and move on.
As for goverment agencies.. Experience has taught me the moment the government gets involved in anything they diffiuclty and COST goes thru the roof.
just my two cents
-James
Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. I have been approached several times by 'the powers that be' *a specific karaoke retailer with spies I'm assuming* asking me about why I use a computer, how it's set up and if I have any burned copies etc.
I always tell them that if they want to stick around, I will be happy to show them EVERYTHING *including my entire collection of discs* AFTER the show.
Most of these people don't bother to take me up on my offer. A few have and after seeing my disc collection, I never see these people again.
The bottom line, for me, is I have absolutely nothing to hide and if anyone accused me, I would have no problems proving my innocence.
I can understand why this man is upset, I would be upset too but it was HIS choice to make this a public thing.
I have actually been thru a lawsuit for piracy. The people who sued me made a mistake. I had not pirated a single disc. If they had sued me for copyright infringement they might have won but that's an entirely different matter.
So far, my reputation is pretty intact AND i don't even hold a grudge against the company.
Accidents happen, no one is perfect. Learn from your mistakes and move on.
As for goverment agencies.. Experience has taught me the moment the government gets involved in anything they diffiuclty and COST goes thru the roof.
just my two cents
-James
jclaydon said:
I don't understand why you feel that Sound Choices defamation of a KJ is something "to agree to disagree" about? Either the KJ was defamed by Sound Choice or he wasn't? Either the KJ was asked to defend himself against an unfounded claim or Soundchoice presented the "proof" to the KJ that he is a pirate and justly asked for remuneration from him for his thievery?
And I must assert that under our legal system one doesn't have to prove their innocence under any circumstance, even if they happen to be guilty. The accuser or prosecutor has the responsibility to prove they are in fact guilty. So, again, did Soundchoice prove to the KJ that they "had the goods on him" to prove that he is a pirate or did they send what was perceived by the innocent KJ to be an empty threat from a company on a fishing expedition?
And..since you state that your "reputation is in tact" after your piracy suit, I can only assume that the accusations levied against you were never bandied about in the media, as happened in this specific case as well as Sounchoice's similar efforts in Phoenix. And I remember that the personal names of every known accused was in the press regarding the Phoenix KJ's and venues!
Now, if something I just said is factually incorrect than I would like to be corrected. Otherwise, I am not discussing a matter of opinion where agreements to disagree are often useful. And, as an example, a matter of opinion would be how to run a rotation, or when to buy the karaoke version of a brand new top 40 song, or to play filler music or not, or to use a sub during your karaoke show, or......?
Lastly, while I respect that you and Thunder are cavalier about such matters, I value my time and my reputation and I don't take it likely when either is devalued by the indiscriminate and careless actions of others
It seems that a lot of words are being generated on speculation. We don't KNOW all the details of this. There are some things that don't add up as far as the way the news reported on this. I would like to see how this plays out before making judgments about who did what to whom.
It is my understanding that SC has been working with local KJs to do the "investigating" for these suits. That does seem to be open for abuse if the KJ isn't honorable and uses their position to get revenge on someone by turning them in falsely. But I thought there was a process as far as requesting songs and taking photos that was involved. Reporting someone after just seeing a CAVs machine on the premises would indicate that someone skipped steps or there is more to this than we know.
Whether or not the preliminary letters should have been ignored, the actual suit was evidently filed months ago and you would think that would get a response and things could have easily been cleared up by now. Sound Choice may well be in the wrong here but it seems we need to know more about this before we pass judgment on what happened.
It is my understanding that SC has been working with local KJs to do the "investigating" for these suits. That does seem to be open for abuse if the KJ isn't honorable and uses their position to get revenge on someone by turning them in falsely. But I thought there was a process as far as requesting songs and taking photos that was involved. Reporting someone after just seeing a CAVs machine on the premises would indicate that someone skipped steps or there is more to this than we know.
Whether or not the preliminary letters should have been ignored, the actual suit was evidently filed months ago and you would think that would get a response and things could have easily been cleared up by now. Sound Choice may well be in the wrong here but it seems we need to know more about this before we pass judgment on what happened.
Unfortunately, in regard to EVERY story I am intimately familiar with that has appeared on the news, the news was substantially mistaken in at least one or more of the facts presented.
However, without an intimate involvement with a story, the public has nothing else to work with other than the news. And the local news in this story which so thoroughly covered the issue of karaoke piracy stated that SC's lawyer said that a mistake was make and the matter had been dropped.
Late Thursday afternoon, an attorney for Sound Choice Studios confirmed to 10News they plan to drop their lawsuit against Macleod's. He said an investigator working for Sound Choice entered Macleod's and mistakenly thought a CAVS System, used to play general music in the bar, was being used for karaoke.
I don't think, in order to be fair or responsible that any onus falls upon me to gather ANY ADDITIONAL FACTS IN ORDER TO PASS JUDGMENT. DO YOU?
G
Guest
Guest
I don't understand why people feel the need to beat this topic to death.
I'm saddened Sound Choice is no longer making Karaoke, but their problem is their own fault. They created the situation they are in at this time.
Measures could have been instated to prevent their situation.
I'm saddened Sound Choice is no longer making Karaoke, but their problem is their own fault. They created the situation they are in at this time.
Measures could have been instated to prevent their situation.
- Status
