Sound Choice Litigation - Worst Fears A Reality

[jclaydon]

See that's exactly the thing eric.. You see defamation, I don't. I disagree with you.

I don't know which of us is right, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not completely sure, but I think in Canada you also have to prove INTENT. In other words, was the defamation an accident *someone got the wrong facts and apologized* or deliberate.

But this is a case in the US so that doesn't apply anyway. I just happen to think it would be a good idea.

And yes, I am no obligation to prove I'm innocent until it goes to court, but it is still in my best interest to do so. If I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to the police or to any investigator that I'm innocent I save myself the TIME and money of having to go to court in the first place. Who wouldn't want to do that when it takes all of FIVE minutes to say "here are my discs, feel free to go thru them"

I have also voluntarily offered to submit to an audit when soundchoice decides to expand their efforts to Canada. As I keep saying, i have absolutely nothing to hide.


As for the media thing, no it wasn't in the newspaper but it was such a small town that EVERYONE knew about it anyway.

I actually carry the judgement with me everytime I approach a new venue. I explain the effects of piracy to them, and then i show them the judgement and say "I've already been thru this process, so you can be 100% confident that I am not breaking the law, and if you like, you are welcome to go thru my collection and verify it for yourself"

Its called turning a negative into a positive
-James

 

[Wall Of Sound]

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.

I have been advertising "Legal Karaoke" for nearly 8 years on our website way before SC agreed to a "covenant not to sue" for 1:1 ratio. I have links to IP Justice regarding media shifting on the site. I am still awaiting the KIAA audit but I am perfectly legal & since I have been promoting "Legal Karaoke" for years, I continue to advertise that fact. When The KIAA came about, it was a God Send! So now I am in alliance with SC & the rest of the labels when it comes to eradicating the pirate. I have been helping SC in all their efforts in the entire Reno/Carson area from Tahoe to Fallon & Reno to Bishop when necessary. Also I will probably help in the Sacramento area as well.

Feel free to visit my website to find the IP Justice links:

http://psycho-attitude-productions.com/

 

[possumdog]

I may have mistaken your ad saying you had the only hard drive show "sanctioned by the karaoke manucfacturers themselves " as being an actual audit. I have been to your website and actually communicated with you via your MySpace last summer and gave you some links. If you have been active as far out as you say you have, then we were paid a visit, even in Hell, Nevada.

 

[Wall Of Sound]

I may have mistaken your ad saying you had the only hard drive show "sanctioned by the karaoke manucfacturers themselves " as being an actual audit. I have been to your website and actually communicated with you via your MySpace last summer and gave you some links. If you have been active as far out as you say you have, then we were paid a visit, even in Hell, Nevada.

I may have used the term "sanctioned" on the MySpace's at some point but then realized that may have been an improper term since The KIAA has yet to look at the discs.

I prefer using "legal" now & was thinking about using "un-pirated"....

Where is HELL, NV? LOL!

 

[possumdog]

"At the Crossroads" between Carson City and Fallon. Robert Johnson yet to appear but the devil makes a weekly appearance with his fiddle of gold.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

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:

I believe you may be misinformed. Just as SC or anyone else can file a claim, or suit of any type with due cause, so can one who has been filed against. Defamation of character, libel, slander, loss of possible future income. etc...

As for SC having the deeper pockets.... I wouldn't jump to that conclusion so quickly. SC isn't a very big company. Many hosts are people who have done quite well in the business world prior to taking up karaoke. Myself included, if I may say so. One host I know could probably buy and sell SC & CB combined- without putting a dent in her principle. She does it because she loves it. She also didn't make her money by being being a shrinking violet.....

 

[JoeChartreuse]

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.

BTW- Kinda helps make my point....? :sqwink:

 

[JoeChartreuse]

The only people who can possibly have their reputations sullied are again the ones who are quilty of pirating!

Again, as previously shown, this just simply isn't true. Anyone, innocent or guilty, caught in this scattershot/dragline approach will be associated with piracy in the minds of others......

 

[JoeChartreuse]

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?

... You CAN be defamed by the allegations, if they become public.

The chances of 50% ( not that 50% is in ANY way required) being frivolous or unfounded? Going by the current record, pretty darn good!

Look, this isn't about SC. It's about the PROPER way to handle the piracy problem. SC is almost proving my point that the fed is the only way...

Again, all the wasted time, money, and effort by SC would be best spent lobbying for a federal authority.

Then, AFTER the fed proves guilt SC can initiate a civil suit to recoup losses. Everyone wins. Someone please tell me WHY this doen't make sense... Better yet, I toss the question to Steve.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

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.

I think you misunderstood my post. By saying that SC may not be doing what they CLAIM to be doing, I meant in terms of a proper investigation. No one saw the host using discs, or there wouldn't have been a suit. No on saw the CAVS in use, or there may have been just cause. NO ONE walked into that venue, and bothered to watch how the show was run, or even ask any questions.

They CLAIM an investigation of piracy. No evidence of that investigation was shown in this case.

Of course I think SC has the right to recoup losses if possible. It's just that I have seen no evidence that THEY are qualified to do it, and ample evidence that they are NOT. Get the fed involved...

 

[jokerswild]

Joe: I totally agree with you that the manufacture of any brand is not and should not be leading the investigations.... but, I also don't think a Federally subsidized organization is going to do much better.

Here's why, most if not all government organizations are very low funded and understaffed for starters. Also, there's a huge question on how and what would qualify as proper investigation proceedures. Obviously the later is something that would have to be worked out as a universally accepted practice.

One other reason why a federally controlled agency wouldn't really work is that the government has larger worries and I don't think even if all the karaoke manufactures in the world got together to lobby for this sort of thing that they still wouldn't have enough pull to get legislation in place because of other lobbiests with deeper pockets are already there and it's hard to hear a whisper over a roaring crowd.

It's a novel idea but, one that would be nearly impossible to get in place. The better solution would be better defineing the Fair Use Act to include more digital rights for the commercial industries and clearing up as much of the grey speculative areas in the process.

YMMV

 

[Guest]

The chances of 50% ( not that 50% is in ANY way required) being frivolous or unfounded? Going by the current record, pretty darn good!

Look, this isn't about SC. It's about the PROPER way to handle the piracy problem. SC is almost proving my point that the fed is the only way...

Again, all the wasted time, money, and effort by SC would be best spent lobbying for a federal authority.

Then, AFTER the fed proves guilt SC can initiate a civil suit to recoup losses. Everyone wins. Someone please tell me WHY this doen't make sense... Better yet, I toss the question to Steve.

Joe,

I would agree with you if the facts didn't get in the way!:sqwink:

The fact is some of the pirates have already settled with Sound Choice! So it is working and Sound Choice is recouping some of their cost!

... You CAN be defamed by the allegations, if they become public.

Again, You can't "Defame" yourself Jim managed to bring his case to the public eye on several points.

1. He took it to the newspapers himself!

2. He ignored the notice of intent!

3. Note numbers 1 and 2 above, instead of simply taking care of the situation as any normal businessman should have he chose to draw attention to it. It didn't make any difference to the outcome and it didn't hurt Sound Choice! Sound Choice would have dropped the case either way once they found out he was in compliance!

So no damage has been incurred by him other than what he may have brought on himself!

Then, AFTER the fed proves guilt SC can initiate a civil suit to recoup losses. Everyone wins. Someone please tell me WHY this doen't make sense... Better yet, I toss the question to Steve.

Joe, I don't even know if I can explain it to you but I will try! As I have knowledge of how the Federal RICO laws work (to a small extent) If a RICO situation is large enough the Fed will investigate it and file charges themselves criminally! If it isn't a large issue then it is required to be filed as a civil RICO by the complaintants, the investigation, presentation of the evidence etc. etc. etc. must be done by the complaintants, then if there is a ruling against those charged in Civil RICO the Feds "MAY" take action in the criminal system, but they don't have too.

The same thing goes for Copyright as well as Trademark violations it is up to the damaged party to seek redress not the Department of Justice! Then if the matter is big enough and the Fed thinks it can make some money from it they will prosecute on a criminal level!

 

[Wall Of Sound]

... You CAN be defamed by the allegations, if they become public.

So what you are saying is that if someone files a lawsuit they can be counter-sued for defamation?

I did a google search on Macleod's Irish Pub & the Slep-Tone Lawsuit Filing comes up on the first page. The WBIR report is nowhere to be found up to 5 pages deep as of today.

[ame="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=macleod%27s+irish+pub"]macleod's irish pub - Google Search[/ame]


I understand the other side of the argument, but by being named in a lawsuit, which is of public record, doesn't seem to be enough to counter sue.

 

[Diafel]

See that's exactly the thing eric.. You see defamation, I don't. I disagree with you.

I don't know which of us is right, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not completely sure, but I think in Canada you also have to prove INTENT. In other words, was the defamation an accident *someone got the wrong facts and apologized* or deliberate.

But this is a case in the US so that doesn't apply anyway. I just happen to think it would be a good idea.

Here's the law on Slander. My understanding is that this is the same law that applies in many jurisdictions throughout the US and INCLUDING CANADA. I am recently involved in a slander case and will be suing, so I am researching this.
In this case, SC HAD to know that named defendants would harm their reputations. Any reasonable person would know this and only a fool would think otherwise. It's all well and good IF they are guilty. If they are not, however....
Well, there's your defamation of character and slander and libel suit right there.

Some types of slander, however, are considered “slanderous per se” and are automatically awarded general damages without proof of special damages. In this case the slander must do one of the following:

* Declare the plaintiff unfit to perform his or her job adequately.
* Allege criminal behavior on the part of the plaintiff.
* Claim the plaintiff has an unsavory disease.
* Make immoral sexual claims, especially about the virtue of a female plaintiff.

My particular case also involves someone intimating that I did something illegal, which I did not and can prove. Therefore, my case is in the bag.

Sound Choice accused MacLeods of pirating, which is ILLEGAL. They alleged criminal behaviour on the part of MacLeods. This means that MacLeods DOES have a case, if they choose to pursue it.
As for MacLeods bringing it about, I don't believe that to be so. I believe that several bars named in the lawsuit were mentioned by name in the original news story. Those named are a matter of public record. All one has to do is go look at the case filed. Because SC negligently named them, MacLeods DOES have a case.
Also, they may have been sent a letter of intent, but again, that piece of paper means nothing. As for being notified of the lawsuit by being served, MacLeods and any of the others named were NOT served and to my knowledge haven't been yet, so that doesn't apply here.
In fact, I believe some of the bars found out about the suit through the media, not because they were served any legal papers, because they haven't been!
SC is not serving defendants in hopes of negotiations settlements with those named. Only AFTER they can't settle, will they go ahead and serve them.

Problem is, I don't think a single case will see the inside of a courtroom. The reason is that SC's lawyers know that they probably won't be successful.

This quote is from a website that I have stumbled upon in my travels (for your reference: http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/TrademarkLaw/TrademarkExtortion/TrademarkExtortion.shtml). They are an eBay seller that have fought major corporations including Disney, Warner Brothers, and MGM on copyright and trademark violation and have WON. They, in turn, are quoting Kenneth L. Port, of William Mitchell College Of Law who wrote a paper titled "Trademark Extortion: The End Of Trademark Law." He appears to have researched 3,500 trademark cases from 1947 to 2005 for his data.

From 1947 to 2005, only 51% of trademark infringement lawsuits were won by the rights holder when the case went to trial. Trademark owners were successful only 55% of the time getting injunctions for the same time period. And, in only 5.5% of the cases were damages awarded. In 2000, the courts awarded attorney fees to the aggregate tune of 1.4 million dollars. By 2005, the aggregate total of attorney fees awarded by the courts was ZERO

And THAT is why SC is trying to settle before ever serving papers and taking it to court.Because they know chances of winning and getting anything are next to zero.
I'm with Joe - get the government involved, but NOT the manufacturers. The way SC has handled it is slipshod at best. The MacLeod's case only illuminates it further.
A NEUTRAL party that is TRAINED in investigation is needed. Nothing less will suffice, lest they make more "mistakes".

 

[Guest]

Good luck on your suit!

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Joe: I totally agree with you that the manufacture of any brand is not and should not be leading the investigations.... but, I also don't think a Federally subsidized organization is going to do much better.

Here's why, most if not all government organizations are very low funded and understaffed for starters. Also, there's a huge question on how and what would qualify as proper investigation proceedures. Obviously the later is something that would have to be worked out as a universally accepted practice.

One other reason why a federally controlled agency wouldn't really work is that the government has larger worries and I don't think even if all the karaoke manufactures in the world got together to lobby for this sort of thing that they still wouldn't have enough pull to get legislation in place because of other lobbiests with deeper pockets are already there and it's hard to hear a whisper over a roaring crowd.

It's a novel idea but, one that would be nearly impossible to get in place. The better solution would be better defineing the Fair Use Act to include more digital rights for the commercial industries and clearing up as much of the grey speculative areas in the process.

YMMV

OK, not perfect, but not bad! A start, at least.....

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Joe,
The fact is some of the pirates have already settled with Sound Choice! So it is working and Sound Choice is recouping some of their cost!

1) As for the above, it might also be that some or many innocent hosts settled simply because they were coerced, it was cheaper, less of a hassle, etc...? I'd say probably...... You could call that a win, I might consider it a form of harrassment pay off....

I skipped the part about harm and foul- we will just have to disagree. Bad publicity is just bad....

 

[JoeChartreuse]

So what you are saying is that if someone files a lawsuit they can be counter-sued for defamation?

I did a google search on Macleod's Irish Pub & the Slep-Tone Lawsuit Filing comes up on the first page. The WBIR report is nowhere to be found up to 5 pages deep as of today.

macleod's irish pub - Google Search
.

Not on it's own. However, now that he's been proven innocent, he certainly has the right to counter sue.. Heck, if he was smart, maybe that's what he was aiming for by not submitting to an unsupervised audit...

 

[Guest]

1) As for the above, it might also be that some or many innocent hosts settled simply because they were coerced, it was cheaper, less of a hassle, etc...? I'd say probably...... You could call that a win, I might consider it a form of harrassment pay off....

I skipped the part about harm and foul- we will just have to disagree. Bad publicity is just bad....

Joe,

I am certainly confused here! Why would an innocent KJ settle, when all they would have to do is show their disc and allow a comparision with their hard drive?

Your arguments are flying in the face of logic!

 

[jokerswild]

OK, not perfect, but not bad! A start, at least.....

So that leaves the question: If a federal agency isn't feasible at this time and the manufacture lead investigations are flawed and imperfect, then what do we do?

I say let the manufacture hire their investigators and continue on as they are... I think they have every right to do so after all if someone was stealing from you wouldn't you do everything you could to catch them from video surveillance to hiring a private **** to investigate for you.

Like Steve has said, if you are an honest host and someone says show me your discs or pay a fine what do you suppose the host should do? Do you think it was wise to wait to be compelled to do so by a court or would it have been simpler to just show what ya got.