- Messages
- 1,268
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 402
- #1
Thread Owner
THIS IS NOT TO STIR PIRACY ARGUMENTS!
You can be skeptical. To what end? You want to quibble about the percentages? You say there is a problem, but rather than direct your analysis there, you focus on the rhetoric. To what end?
Big Joe, with all due respect; that produces no results. It has no effect on the issue whatsoever.
"Disregarding piracy altogether"? I think not.
What percentage would spur you to become an advocate of the "little old man"? What percentage range would be considered elevated or alarming? I contend that the number would be somewhere above 1% and certainly can't exceed 100%.
My own experience at the last five shows I've witnessed is that 4 out of 5 are running pc's. The one running discs had all burns. I know that isn't proof of anything "piratical", but it is an indicator that further information is needed. I know for a fact, because I asked and observed, that the 3 out of the 4 running pc's DO NOT own the discs to back up their music. 80% pc, 75% of those confirmed illegal. None of them are competitors in my market/area. However; they are doing damage to our industry and indirectly to every manufacturer and individual or firm that operates, legally, to provide the goods and services needed.
My biggest problem with all of the rhetoric is that it is distracting so many capable people and diverting their energies away from progress and solutions.
Can you help? Help me? Help us? Help yourself?
All of this discussion could be put to bed with one or two pirates being sued. The issue of burns being used, the issue of format shifting, all of it. After all the investigations, all the audits, all the rhetoric, why don't any of these known pirates ever end up before a judge? Was this ever asked of CB and SC?
It was, Big Joe- many times. They don't answer, but I have one- also stated many times.
If any of these mfrs go to court and lose ( which I have been advised should/will happen in SCs situation) even once, a precedent is set, and they will no longer have the ammunition required to go after the settlements they have been getting up to this point. No more income from that source.
Also, if a company has distributed unlicensed product, a new can of worms may be opened for them.
Not only that, a loss might trigger a wave of counter-/class action suits, causing a company to lose back MUCH more than they gained during the settlement processes.
These are all possibilities that would make a court appearance the very last thing a mfr. wants.
Has it occurred to you that you are not aware of how many defendants have settled before appearing in court?
Has it occurred to you that these cases don't make it to trial because the named individuals have retained competent attorneys who have advised them against contesting the suit?
Has it occurred to you that you do not have all of the information regarding how many named individuals proved compliance and were dropped from suits?
Has it occurred to you that you do not possess information regarding the cases that are in process now that the plaintiffs have no intention of settling without judgement?
You have the same access to Kurt Slep and Debi Stovall that all of us here at OKJT have. Ask your questions. The answers may help someone other than you.
Has it occurred to you that: One Win = Game ON!
What does that have to do with anything? They don't have to allow anyone to settle, nor do they get brownie points from me for doing it. I don't care if those that are illegal get caught and lose everything. That would actually put a dent in piracy. Setting a pirate up with some shiny new discs and a nice financing deal does nothing to open up more venues or increase the pay rate.
Has it occurred to you that what happened to Jennifer could have happened hundreds of times because people are simply afraid of a lawsuit that SC has no intention of following through with, or are unable to afford a competent attorney? And I'm not talking about illegal operators, I talking about hosts with discs.
I have a problem having to prove compliance to avoid a lawsuit. In a court of law, I can sit quietly and never open my mouth. The burden of proof does not fall upon the defendant.
If only you were simply waiting. No one here has control over the temporal aspect of this process. Not the plaintiffs, not the defendants, not the courts. It takes the time it takes. This is pandemic in our judiciary system. It is certainly not isolated to our particular concerns. Thanks for holding, we'll be with you as soon as we can. Quit griping about waiting. The industry is relatively young and the issues associated with digital piracy are even younger. It is a big, grown-up world out there and it takes time to adapt. The recording industry has been around 70 years longer than our little niche and as a whole they've moved slower than we have.We're all waiting.
Debi hasn't been around this forum all that long. The question remains. She can answer anytime. Same goes for Kurt.
And we will all be better off either way. Because there will be actual legal precedent. There hasn't exactly been a united front from the manufacturers on this. If one is just starting to form, then I suppose that is good news. But they are several years late to the party. Whatever happened in the past was not my responsibility to police, and it's not gonna be at the top of my list now. I keep myself legal. I associate with others in my area that are legal. If you think I need an audit to prove that to you, sorry Charlie, not gonna happen.
Has it occurred to you that what happened to Jennifer could have happened hundreds of times because people are simply afraid of a lawsuit that SC has no intention of following through with, or are unable to afford a competent attorney? And I'm not talking about illegal operators, I talking about hosts with discs.
I have a problem having to prove compliance to avoid a lawsuit. In a court of law, I can sit quietly and never open my mouth. The burden of proof does not fall upon the defendant.
We're all waiting.
Debi hasn't been around this forum all that long. The question remains. She can answer anytime. Same goes for Kurt.
You're right, Sandman, that there is no burden of proof...there is a preponderance of the evidence.
An accusation in no way equates to evidence, and discovery is not allowed by way of fishing expedition.
Here's where we have to agree to disagree.Here's the thing, you don't actually possess the right that you feel is being infringed upon. The only way that you can obtain the right to media shift is by written authorization from the manufacturer. When it is a simple fact that you don't have that authorization, you are in violation. Your right to privacy is superseded by the courts authority. SC & CB aren't violating your rights. They are conducting themselves within the rules of our system. It is the court's responsibility to protect your rights and rule accordingly.
Julie, the preponderance of evidence is the level of proof required to prevail in most civil cases. It relates directly to the judgement and the final outcome of the lawsuit. It is not required to initiate the suit.
The fact remains that the unauthorized transfer of files from CD+G media to ANY other media and displaying said files in public constitutes a prima facie case. At the very least, in the eyes of the courts, that annoying little reality is sufficient to initiate the suit.
You're right Julie. Discovery is not intended to be a "fishing expedition". It is simply part of the pre-trial litigation process during which each party requests relevant information and documents from the other side in an attempt to "discover" pertinent facts. Generally discovery devices include depositions, interogatories, requests for admissions, document production requests and requests for inspection with subsequent subpoenas and court orders to compel the parties in the case to be completely forthcoming.
The scope of information obtainable through discovery is quite broad and not limited to what can be used in a trial. Federal courts and most state courts allow a party to discover any information "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Because of this broad standard, parties often disagree about what information must be exchanged and what may be kept confidential. These disputes are resolved through court rulings on discovery motions.
You may not be aware of it, but Chartbuster has retained an employee who has experience working for the Attorney General (I can't remember which state) and who is very knowledgeable and up-to-date on IP law and the current state of change afoot among the various levels of law enforcement and the judiciary. Chartbuster is coming next.
Using a computer to run your shows? Have you obtained written authorization to shift the media? If your answers are yes and no... you are serving yourself up on a platter. The accusation is not evidence, it is made because of the evidence: the unauthorized media shift and the subsequent display of the trademarks.
Here's the thing, you don't actually possess the right that you feel is being infringed upon. The only way that you can obtain the right to media shift is by written authorization from the manufacturer. When it is a simple fact that you don't have that authorization, you are in violation. Your right to privacy is superseded by the courts authority. SC & CB aren't violating your rights. They are conducting themselves within the rules of our system. It is the court's responsibility to protect your rights and rule accordingly.
My husband wanted to go through the audit, but I wanted it over and done with. At that point, the attorney didn't have audit proceedures in place and so he highly discouraged that option. He also wanted to get paid for his part in this lawsuit.
Discouraged the option to prove your innocence because they "didn't have audit procedures in place?" I find that highly suspect on his part since they had audited Skid and Athena and a number of others BEFORE your episode.
And what is with "wanted to get paid?" Does this mean that if you went through the audit and passed, he wouldn't get a commission? He only gets a commission if there's a settlement? Please explain why anything relating to your case should ever involve any mention of payment to their attorney.
It looks more like he "discouraged the option" to insure that "he would get paid." Don't you think?
My episode was over a year ago... Skid and Athena were very recently audited. So I guess that proves that you do not have all the facts.
And attorneys on contingency do not get paid unless there is a settlement. So Kurt would have been happy with my paying him, his attorney was a little aggressive so that he could take a percentage. Yes, I've said all along that the attorney was a bully. Kurt hired him to get results and he did. Why is that on Kurt? Kurt is aware now of the situation and he's working with me to make things right.
Sorry, I've never read when the episode occurred, it was an assumption on my part that it was fairly recent.
And it is "on Kurt" because you seem to think that he wasn't aware that his attorney was using these bullying tactics as a method to get paid. Of course he was, he agreed to the contingency which allows the attorney any means necessary including bullying, mob tactics, strong-arming and whatever other terms you used (now softened to "a little aggressive") in order to "get paid."
Here's where we have to agree to disagree.
Unless and until a court rules that I may not media shift, then I do posses that right.
And as we have all seen, the manus see the exact opposite. This is why it's important now, more than ever, to get a test case into the court room and have a definitive ruling.
But as many of us have speculated, including "non-partisan" Joe C, that will not happen any time soon, since I'm also of the belief that the last thing the Sound Choice wants is the possibility of losing that leverage. And I'm quite sure they would.
Yes, but Kurt was not told by his attorney that we owned discs and had been in business 20 years. Kurt is making this up to us as I've posted numerous times. You can continue to hate, but I'm not playing that game or being your poster child. I am happy with my current relationship with Kurt and SC. I have no complaints with how he has treated me. Please find someone else to point to when you want to slam Kurt or SC. If you want to slam his attorney, I have no problems with that. Just don't assume that Kurt was told every detail of my conversations with his attorney. Having had an attorney of my own in the past, I was only notified when settlement offers were made or motions were filed.
A place to debate everything and anything!