- Messages
- 1,268
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 402
- #1
Thread Owner
THIS IS NOT TO STIR PIRACY ARGUMENTS!
Toqer Goes to the City Counsel of San Jose
- Thread starter jokerswild
- Start date
Disregarding piracy altogether, I continue to have a problem with all of these percentages being thrown out without any requirement of proof. If you want to say, "The area is rampant with piracy", or, "It is extremely difficult to compete with illegal operators", then that is one thing. If you're gonna put a number like 90% on it, then please be prepared to show some proof.
Regarding the price of music, It may have been $2.00+ per track in 1996, but I just posted an ad I found that has thousands of legal PHM tracks for about $0.23 a track.
That's my biggest problem with all of the rhetoric, nobody says there's not a problem, but if you're willing to skew the facts so much, how can I not be skeptical??
Regarding the price of music, It may have been $2.00+ per track in 1996, but I just posted an ad I found that has thousands of legal PHM tracks for about $0.23 a track.
That's my biggest problem with all of the rhetoric, nobody says there's not a problem, but if you're willing to skew the facts so much, how can I not be skeptical??
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?
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?
As stated before, if keeping myself legal is not enough, then that's all your gonna get from me. I do not owe the industry anything more than to conduct myself in a legal and ethical maner. Anyone is welcome to submit to audits, join organizations and associations, or do whatever they feel necessary for thier own survival. To me, self-employment requires self-sufficence. When I fell I can no longer make it doing Karaoke, I'll pack it in and find something else.
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.
I am in total agreement. And I also knew the answer. One Loss = Game Over.
So then what's the alternative? The manufacturers don't want to take the risk. Inflate the numbers, blame the lower wages on pirates, and find a group that is willing to do your dirty work for you.
90% piracy, poor little old men who can not afford to pay $100,000 to compete, jobs that used to pay $400 a night are now taken by people working for a bar tab. Sorry, I just don't buy it.
I cannot set a legal precedent and clear up the grey areas that exist in format shifting and CD burns, But the Manu's can. And as Joe C. has pointed out for the n'th time, they are the ones that choose not to do it.
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!
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.
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.
Well, what it has to do with anything is this... no one is obligated to settle. Specifically if they can prove compliance or if they truly believe that they can contest the lawsuit and prevail under the current statutes. How you feel about that has absolutely no effect, your brownie points are exactly that: worthless. I care if they are illegal and get caught. No, nothing opens up more venues for you or increases your pay rate except you. Please, let's get over that. The mfr's are interested in providing you with legal, quality, protected product period. They will provide that, through legal channels, to your competition. Why? Because that is the intended result. Isn't that obvious? Get legal or get out. This can be applied equally and without bias to every single KJ out there. This is not an intrusion upon your rights. This is a standard to which you will eventually be upheld if you continue to operate in a commercial capacity in this industry.
It has occurred to me that it could have happened more than once. You want to quibble about statistics? Where do you come up with the prediction, the clairvoyance, that gives you the "hundreds" of people that have experienced what Jennifer did?
You are confusing criminal and civil proceedings.
Take a moment and consider the widget... the euphemism for any tangible product that may be marketed. If you produce a widget that has specific, unique characteristics that identify it as YOUR widget and someone else produces a replica of YOUR widget and uses YOUR widget to their financial gain without compensating you in any way. You have a prima facie case. You have legally sufficient: sufficient in law to establish a case or fact, unless disproved, evidence that your creation, your tangible product, your trademark, your intellectual property has been infringed upon. This is a civil matter. There is no burden of proof. There is no assumption of innocence in this situation. The fact that cannot be refuted is that if you have replicated or transferred the widget from its original state to another state, you are in violation of rights reserved. Facts. Not conjecture, not fear based assumption, not predictions based on reactionary impulse. If you truly believe that you can support a defense based on your reasoning, why haven't you stepped forward and challenged these companies yourself? Initiate the class action now. You also have the power to assert yourself and make the difference that you seem to suggest could exist if the mfr's didn't act in the way they have.
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.
What is that? An excuse? Passive aggressive deflection. Truly, if you had any concept of assertion with integrity, you'd have asked the direct questions in open forum. Slinking around the outskirts of the issues with isolationist attitude and skepticism, taking pot shots at statistics and semantics is futile at best. At worst, it is counter-productive. I believe that if you could find it within your capability to decide that it is worth it to assume responsibility for your own education, that you could eventually dispose of the defeatist attitude and actually contribute towards getting the intended result. I reiterate: Ask Debi or Kurt a DIRECT question. Do it with respect and reservation (just as you would have done unto you). I believe there are a few of us here, on both sides of the fence, that would be interested in the results.
Agreed, we'll be better off. Legal precedent will establish the playing field and the game will continue and the rules will be clearer and enforced. Agreed, there hasn't exactly been a united front on this. This is no longer the case. Ask any of your fellow OKJT members who attended the meeting at SC. Please, I ask you to pose any question you want to me regarding the information we received. It is the dialog that is the catalyst for change. You speak of the party as if you are an invitee. Tell me, if you're at the party and the police show up. If there is evidence of criminal activity in plain site, wouldn't you reasonably assume that you would be detained and questioned? Hey, guess what, I was just at the party... I'm not selling or doing drugs, I'm not under-age, I don't live here, etc. You are obligated to prove your innocence. Only because you are at the party. So, yeah, sorry backatya Charlie, but it is gonna happen.
- Messages
- 190
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 102
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.
An accusation in no way equates to evidence, and discovery is not allowed by way of fishing expedition.
- Messages
- 137
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 102
What happened to me happened because I was aware of the law enough to KNOW that there was no legal precedent involved when it came to media shifting. I knew I owned discs. I knew i would pass an audit. I also knew that I WAS GUILTY OF MEDIA SHIFTING WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. I wasn't sure how that would play out. I chose to make the settlement within hours of getting my letter in the mail. 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.
We were the first round of suits in NC. Had someone gone through this proceedure before us, we might have had other options. Being the first, we did what I FELT WAS RIGHT. I WAS GUILTY OF MEDIA SHIFTING WHICH IS ILLEGAL. Now that time has passed and problems have been spotted and problems are being resolved, I would have done things different. But AT THAT TIME, no one else had been through this. So mistakes were made on all parts. You can try to hold me up as a poster child, but I'm a grown woman who made a decision and I'm living with that decision.
The proceedure changed on the second round. The suspects got letters saying call us and get right or get sued. Instead of getting people volunteering to get right, they are running around Raleigh putting KIAA logos on everything (even though they are not members) and publically stating that they are legal. If they claim to be legal, they should prove that are legal. Have they responded to SC? No. They are pretending that it doesn't matter. When SC sues them, can you say that they were victims? They have had 2 months at least right now to decide to go through the audit and avoid the lawsuit. As of our meeting at SC, only one local KJ (and not one named in the letter) has called to buy discs. None have called to arrange an audit.
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.
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.
- Messages
- 190
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 102
Nothing but a fee is sufficient to initiate any suit. This is exactly my point.
I work in the legal field full time, Sandman. I am well aware of the rules of discovery in the courts. The bottom line is, you can ask for anything including the kitchen sink, but the court don't look kindly on it, and rarely order it.
Is this statement meant to scare or intimidate? If they're going to get in the legal ring, it's a good idea to have someone who knows what they're doing. I don't consider this a threatening action.
Actually, I have. Sound Choice themselves stated in a public forum that it was okay to make a back-up or archival copy of their materials from legal discs and use it as long as your original media is in storage (remember that garage full of Sound Choice discs???!!!). They did not, however, place constraints upon the usage or form of that archival material. Here is the actual post made by Kurt Slep on September 23, 1998:
That particular quote is one of many made by both Kurt and Derek Slep. Nevertheless, despite that permission, Sound Choice is still threatening or suing legal KJs for doing exactly what it was that they gave permission to do in the first place.
You aren't understand what I'm saying...I'm not talking about rights that I have to media shift...I'm talking about the rights that I have not to be harrassed or searched when I have done absolutely nothing by an entity that has no governmental or law enforcement power, yet is trying to scare me into doing something they have no right to ask me to do...submit or else. It costs very little to institute a suit, but a lot of money to defend it. It's intimidation, and I won't submit. I'd rather take my ball and go home. Thankfully, I had that option.
I may write a book...101 Illustated Uses for Sound Choice Karaoke CDGs When You No Longer Feel Safe in Playing Them in a Bar for Fear of Lawsuits and Harrassment. I think it may be a best seller.
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?
- Messages
- 137
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 102
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."
- Messages
- 137
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 102
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.
Agreed, we disagree. However, the courts agree that the right is reserved to the producer of the media and to the underlying composition's rights holders. This means you don't have the right unless it is granted or no longer reserved. There may not be a specific ruling on the issue, however there is plenty of legal precedent with regard to the disposition of rights reserved. The "Fair Use" that you are alluding to in cases involving media shifting of audio music tracks isn't relevant once commercial use occurs.
So why dump all your discs? Cutting off your nose to spite your face. Stand up and be the test case.
I am now in possession of two documents (GEM License Agreement and a separate Covenant that encompasses all of my CD+G media as well) that shield me and my venues from being joined in a lawsuit because I've transferred that media and displayed those trademarks. I expect to receive a third, from Chartbuster that also indemnifies me with regard to media shifting their product and the subsequent display of their trademark. The result of being vetted and obtaining that written authorization is that I am actually able to use this product legally, without fear. I believe that to be the ultimate benefit. I've suffered no harm or damages as a result of that decision. The other benefits are just beginning to play out.
Speculation is specious. If it comforts you to be certain about the outcome, that's fine. The statement is rendered moot by the first hand knowledge that Chartbuster is coming over the horizon.
Whachoogonnadoo when they come for U?
I'm not doing anything of the sort as far as a poster child is concerned, that was your statement, not mine. And I would prefer not being labeled as a "hater" by your above statement - it is an inflammatory word and it is not friendly and I'd appreciate you not attaching that to me.
My whole point is that you seem to think that Kurt was some sort of innocent victim left in the dark by his OWN attorney... I'm simply saying that I don't believe that to be true and if it in fact IS true, then why doesn't Kurt fire him and get a new one?
There are just pieces in your puzzle that don't fit in my opinion.
