What's new
By:
Guest viewing is limited

Sound Choice Litigation - Worst Fears A Reality

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cam,

Sound Choice has tried over the years to impact the piracy issue.

They tried to copy protect their disc but alas the copy protected disc would not play in some players.

They setup KAPA to try and stop or at least curb piracy but they put an idiot in charge of it.

The current effort I am hoping is going to be more successful. Kurt is trying to work with legit KJs to try and make it as painless as possible, I have already extended an invitation to have my hard drives and disc audited anytime they want to do so, just to get it out of the way.

If this is successful it will do nothing but help the legit KJs all over the country, demand will be higher thus pricing can reflect this as well, way back when a KJ with 50 Pioneer laser disc could command a better rate than a good party band at $300 to $500 a night, today due to all the pirate KJs we have to struggle to get $150 to $300 per show. The reason for this is that the pirates can get setup and running with very little capital outlay and they can get by without charging more than $50 for the night. When the time comes that I can't get $250 for a show I will take every bit of karaoke gear I have and have one hell of a bonfire!
 
Wall Of Sound said:
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.
....
Click to expand...

.....Or do what SC CLAIMS to be doing ( though not sure they are after reading the article) and just send in an investigator. In the the case of a federally authorized investigator, I would have no problem with an audit. Why? Because they would have the authority to ask or demand it. Manufacturers do not. Again, why should I be inconvenienced for the sake of some puffed up jerk ( like the one I threw out of one of my shows- and never heard from since) who DEMANDS that I take MY time to make him happy? I make my living selling my time. If someone with no authority wants me to use it for them, my standard rate applies. Slightly higher on weekends and holidays...:sqwink:
 
ericlater said:
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!
Click to expand...


Man! Someone actually gets it! This is WHY it's gotta be the Feds.

I highlighted a portion of this quote. These points are also the reason that a manufacturer SHOULDN'T be involved:

Eventual complete loss of credibility

Loss of good will in the industry

Time ( and money) consuming counter suits

And, if handled as badly as SC has done it, an open door to a HUGE monetary payout in lawsuits- Quite possibly enough to wipe them out of business.


Again, If I were Kurt, I would be spending all this time and energy on lobbying for the Feds to step in.....


The last part of the post explains quite clearly why I won't allow myself to be bothered by comany reps. ANYONE can CLAIM some sort of authority. Nice letterhead, nifty sounding org. name, yada yada... But.....nothing.
 
Thunder said:
Cam,
If this is successful it will do nothing but help the legit KJs all over the country, demand will be higher thus pricing can reflect this as well, way back when a KJ with 50 Pioneer laser disc could command a better rate than a good party band at $300 to $500 a night, today due to all the pirate KJs we have to struggle to get $150 to $300 per show. The reason for this is that the pirates can get setup and running with very little capital outlay and they can get by without charging more than $50 for the night. When the time comes that I can't get $250 for a show I will take every bit of karaoke gear I have and have one hell of a bonfire!
Click to expand...


Yup, if anti-piracy regulation is enforced properly, I would definitely agree to all of the above.

Unfortunately, SC, or any other mfr., or pseudo-org with a fancy name, aren't the ones to do it- as shown by another foul-up. Again, let people who are TRAINED in investigation, who will actually walk in the door and see the show running, and HAVE the authority handle it.
 
Joe,

I am sorry but you and Eric are misunderstanding the process!

Yes you could refuse to respond to a letter of intent, the results would or could be the suit being activated against you and it would end up costing you money!

Yes you could file a countersuit against them (which would cost you more money) and if you lost (would cost you even more).

Again there is no damage to business or reputation if you are legit and you deal with it right from the start! Even if you don't deal with it and the suit gets activated and you are legit there is still no damage to your business or rep. The only difference is you cost yourself time and money!

Again in a civil case it isn't about being innocent until proven guilty, but let's use the analogy of a criminal case (where it is innocent until proven guilty)!

1. Someone makes a claim that you have broken the law.

2. The police investigate and they say they have evidence or witnesses against you
that would indicate that you had violated the criminal code. (now you have evidence
and witnesses that prove you could not have done the crime but you chose to not
inform the police of this fact)

3. The Prosecutor takes it to a Judge or JP and gets a warrant!

4. The police pick you up, handcuff you, and put you in jail.

5. You go before a judge and your bail is set, you pay it and are released until your
court date.

6. You go to court and the prosecutor tries to prove your guilt in the matter by
presenting evidence and witness testimony.

7. The attorney you paid counters the evidence and testimony and it goes to the jury.

8. The jury deliberates and comes back with a finding of not guilty.

9. The Judge tells you that you are free to go.

10. So you were innocent and walked away, you don't get your attorneys fees back so
you are out that money, you certainly don't get your time back.

The sad part is you could have stopped the whole thing at step number 2 if you had only been a little smarter, you wouldn't have spent the night in jail, you wouldn't have been arrested, you wouldn't have had to hire an attorney, you wouldn't have had to go to court!! Well the same thing applies here as well. Jim could have stopped this at Step number 1. if he had only been a little smarter!
 
Thunder said:
Joe,

I am sorry but you and Eric are misunderstanding the process!

Yes you could refuse to respond to a letter of intent, the results would or could be the suit being activated against you and it would end up costing you money!

A)Yes you could file a countersuit against them (which would cost you more money) and if you lost (would cost you even more).

B) Again there is no damage to business or reputation if you are legit and you deal with it right from the start! Even if you don't deal with it and the suit gets activated and you are legit there is still no damage to your business or rep. The only difference is you cost yourself time and money!

Again in a civil case it isn't about being innocent until proven guilty, but let's use the analogy of a criminal case (where it is innocent until proven guilty)!

!
Click to expand...


A) Point of interest: The attorney I discussed earlier said not only would she LOVE to take the countersuit on a contingency basis, she couldn't think of anyone who wouldn't. Almost a "gimme". BELIEVE me, a civil case would be the mfrs. worst nightmare, at least in the case of this article.


2) You have discussed this "no damage, no foul" before, and disagree completely. Bad press, rep damage, possible mistrust among possible future venues, etc...

Jim did EXACTLY what he should have. The mentality of allowing access without authorization, and without federal monitoring of that audit leaves the door open for possible misdeeds on the mfrs. side. It also allows the "witch hunt" to snowball.

I hope ALL hosts do what he did, and I hope that those who are innocent counter sue the whole thing to a halt, and I hope the Feds step in and do the job being done so badly now.


I'll tell you something else. I have copied all the SC based posts made by myself and KS into my PC and printed for files. JIC
 
JoeChartreuse said:
A) Point of interest: The attorney I discussed earlier said not only would she LOVE to take the countersuit on a contingency basis, she couldn't think of anyone who wouldn't.
Click to expand...

The attorney you talked to must be extremely hungry. You aren't talking about a State court proceeding this stuff is in federal court (my family is still involved in a federal civil case there) the cost to prosecute a civil case in federal starts at about $20,000 the cost to defend one is in the $60,000 range. Even though the judge dismissed the case (because as he stated the "fifth element in RICO had not been met"), the 4th circuit of appeals is now looking at it again. Even Judge Moon in the federal district court turned down the defendants suit for recovery of attorney's fees, as he stated, the allegations were made on a true belief that the case was sustainable, and no fees would be awarded to either side. I believe that to be the case for Sound Choice as well, plus I bet Sound Choices pockets are a lot deeper than your attorney friend's are!

The counter suit she could file in federal court would be only for recovery of attorney's fees in the defense of the case, so the poor "ol" KJ would still be out his time...:sqwink:
 
Thunder said:
The attorney you talked to must be extremely hungry. You aren't talking about a State court proceeding this stuff is in federal court (my family is still involved in a federal civil case there) the cost to prosecute a civil case in federal starts at about $20,000 the cost to defend one is in the $60,000 range. Even though the judge dismissed the case (because as he stated the "fifth element in RICO had not been met"), the 4th circuit of appeals is now looking at it again. Even Judge Moon in the federal district court turned down the defendants suit for recovery of attorney's fees, as he stated, the allegations were made on a true belief that the case was sustainable, and no fees would be awarded to either side. I believe that to be the case for Sound Choice as well, plus I bet Sound Choices pockets are a lot deeper than your attorney friend's are!

The counter suit she could file in federal court would be only for recovery of attorney's fees in the defense of the case, so the poor "ol" KJ would still be out his time...:sqwink:
Click to expand...

BUT... if the plaintiff is correct and the defendant has no defense, using your logic it would be best for the defendant to SETTLE before going to trial and letting things get out of hand! And there is more than attorney fees to settle, there is the likelihood that damages will be due as a result of defamation!

PS: In Phoenix, again, every KJ and venue involved had their reputations sullied by the media coverage of what SC did, even those who will be found innocent of SC assertions!
 
ericlater said:
BUT... if the plaintiff is correct and the defendant has no defense, using your logic it would be best for the defendant to SETTLE before going to trial and letting things get out of hand!

PS: In Phoenix, again, every KJ and venue involved had their reputations sullied by the media coverage of what SC did, even those who will be found innocent of SC assertions!
Click to expand...

Yes that would certainly be a lot cheaper since Sound Choice is making an honest offer to make them legit a lot cheaper (@ $1 per song) than it cost most of us to just get started in the business.

I googled "Phoenix karaoke" and the only "news" that I saw concerning Phoenix Karaoke and Sound Choice was in "Mobile Beat" and the web site of the "Karoke Alliance Group" (which appears to be several KJ companies). So Sound Choice didn't have anything to do with the release of that information or the writings.

So where is the damage to any KJs from Sound Choices filings?

The only people who can possibly have their reputations sullied are again the ones who are quilty of pirating!
 
ericlater said:
And there is more than attorney fees to settle, there is the likelihood that damages will be due as a result of defamation!
Click to expand...

You can not defame someone by a court filing, the judge or jury will decide if the allegations hold up or not!

Now if 50% of Sound Choices filings turn out to be unfounded there may be cause for filing an action against them for frivilous lawsuits!
What do you think the chances of that really happening are?
 
possumdog said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is really at the crux, isn't it. Like I mentioned before, why did it take a TV News report to get Macleod's to all of a sudden start moving when the lawsuit has been public knowlege since September 30th?

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-tnedce/case_no-3:2009cv00436/case_id-55365/

Sure, notification is usually sent the same day as the filing and may take a few days for defendants to receive it. Also "letters of intent" are sent before suits are filed anyway as has been clearly pointed out in this forum. If certified letters are ignored, there are consequences...
 
The news article was a bit contradictory. The first paragraph has Sound Choice saying they are dropping the suit. Further down it quotes their lawyer as saying he thinks the suit still has merit and they wouldn't sue anyone if they didn't think they had cause. Then it says Sound Choice still wants to audit the library.

Now I could understand if these guys said, "We didn't cooperate because we think it is bogus and we are striking a blow for freedom," but they seem to be playing it clueless. The KJ did say that he wasn't going to let them audit his library unless they told him what their investigative techniques were which seems to be going in that direction but it seems to be coming months after the fact.

Sound Choice may well be in the wrong. But I want to see how this pans out. If I am going to accuse them of jumping in without the facts then I want to be sure I'm not doing the same.
 
Thunder said:
You can not defame someone by a court filing, the judge or jury will decide if the allegations hold up or not!

Now if 50% of Sound Choices filings turn out to be unfounded there may be cause for filing an action against them for frivilous lawsuits!
What do you think the chances of that really happening are?
Click to expand...

I agree that the filing of a suit is not a basis for claiming defamation. But the claiming that someone did something improper without sufficient evidence, IS!
 
ericlater said:
I agree that the filing of a suit is not a basis for claiming defamation. But the claiming that someone did something improper without sufficient evidence, IS!
Click to expand...

Again you are not understanding the process of a civil action!

As I pointed out even in a criminal prosecution in most states you don't have that option unless you are wrongly convicted and confined (after the trial)! If the case if dropped or you are found not guilty you simply don't have that option!
 
JoeChartreuse said:
.....Or do what SC CLAIMS to be doing ( though not sure they are after reading the article) and just send in an investigator. In the the case of a federally authorized investigator, I would have no problem with an audit. Why? Because they would have the authority to ask or demand it. Manufacturers do not. Again, why should I be inconvenienced for the sake of some puffed up jerk ( like the one I threw out of one of my shows- and never heard from since) who DEMANDS that I take MY time to make him happy? I make my living selling my time. If someone with no authority wants me to use it for them, my standard rate applies. Slightly higher on weekends and holidays...:sqwink:
Click to expand...

If a manufactures trademark has been copied, to say a computer or other media, a manufacturer has every right to investigate & file litigation to have the courts demand "disclosure". This is all the "authority" they need legally.

I see that you are disc based. I assume you use original discs. So since there are no "burned" discs, then there would be no need for an audit. However, remember that SC only has to see their trademark generated from something other than "An original SC product" to go forward with any investigation they want, provided they follow the law, which is pretty obvious is what they are doing.

I have also told SC that they are welcome to come audit me at any time since I work 1:1 on computer. Also I am committed to helping SC in any capacity that I am able to help them in any litigation plans that they may have planned in the future around the Carson City area.
 
What will really be tragic for Macleod's is if SC finds no violation in their Karaoke music but then ASCAP and RIAA stomp them for venue fees and copyright violations for the MP3 music on their CAVs unit!
 
possumdog said:
The news article was a bit contradictory. The first paragraph has Sound Choice saying they are dropping the suit. Further down it quotes their lawyer as saying he thinks the suit still has merit and they wouldn't sue anyone if they didn't think they had cause. Then it says Sound Choice still wants to audit the library.
Click to expand...

I think that first paragraph in the text article was an update from the reporter since the TV spot stated the latter comment from Harrington. After the TV airing, Harrington informed WBIR that they were dropping Macleod's from the suit.

Also note that the KJ, Jim McGaha, is not named on the lawsuit, only Macleod's.


http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-tnedce/case_no-3:2009cv00436/case_id-55365/
 
[I have also told SC that they are welcome to come audit me at any time since I work 1:1 on computer. Also I am committed to helping SC in any capacity that I am able to help them in any litigation plans that they may have planned in the future around the Carson City area.[/QUOTE]

Aren't your companies already advertising that they passed the audit?

And, just out of interest, did your people venture far out of Carson City? I always wondered if the people at our show who requested only Sound Choice songs and took pictures all night were "The Karaoke Police." But the venue owner said they worked across the street and were just having a birthday party.

Anyway, I could forsee the Tennessee thing happening to us. We are so disc-based that we still use a Pioneer laser player but the boyfriend brings his laptop with our song list on it in case he has to confirm a number or look up a substitute or check his email during "Love Theme From the Titanic." (don't attack, just joking) In the past people have confused us as having computer karaoke. Don't think I would let it get past the first letter, however.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top