- Messages
- 137
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 102
roflmao!
Toqer Goes to the City Counsel of San Jose
- Thread starter jokerswild
- Start date
roflmao!
Not quite cutting anything.
Are you offering to "stand up and be the test bank" to pay for the legal services of the "test case?" I'll get the popcorn!
Julie...
Your point about Kurt's endorsement of the use of a back-up while the original is archived is well made, and well taken.
12 years ago, Kurt nailed the 1:1 concept.
Neither you, nor anyone else could have predicted the advent of computer operated shows and the wide-scale theft of intellectual property.
The statement about Chartbuster is not meant to scare or intimidate. It is meant to inform. The game is changing again and CB has the experience of others and their own observations and expertise. You may not find their methodology any more to your taste than SC's. Ready to drop all your Chartbuster? Stellar Records have been conspicuous in their absence but their statements on their website indicate their intention to take action as well. Ready to drop all your Stellar product?
"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."
No, not exactly. There are now, alternative methods of backup. There are now format shifting methods as well as unprecedented ease of duplication. It seems clear to me that Kurt could only have possessed knowledge that was available in 1998. The assumption was that your back-up would be 1:1, cd+g to cd-r media. No one is being sued for making a back-up and using it.
Your point about Kurt's endorsement of the use of a back-up while the original is archived is well made, and well taken.
12 years ago, Kurt nailed the 1:1 concept.
Neither you, nor anyone else could have predicted the advent of computer operated shows and the wide-scale theft of intellectual property.
The statement about Chartbuster is not meant to scare or intimidate. It is meant to inform. The game is changing again and CB has the experience of others and their own observations and expertise. You may not find their methodology any more to your taste than SC's. Ready to drop all your Chartbuster? Stellar Records have been conspicuous in their absence but their statements on their website indicate their intention to take action as well. Ready to drop all your Stellar product?
"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."
No, not exactly. There are now, alternative methods of backup. There are now format shifting methods as well as unprecedented ease of duplication. It seems clear to me that Kurt could only have possessed knowledge that was available in 1998. The assumption was that your back-up would be 1:1, cd+g to cd-r media. No one is being sued for making a back-up and using it.
That question is rhetorical, yes? You aren't really unable to comprehend what I'm saying, are you?
I would believe it to be obvious that I am not stepping up to finance the test case because I do not believe that the defendant would prevail.
The point is moot as I've already been vetted and will not be a party joined to the test case.
If you truly believe that you would prevail, perhaps you could gather the funds from those that support your beliefs. Think of it as an investment that could potentially pay off huge, if you prevail.
I'll take mine un-buttered, thanks:laughpill:
That's okay... it was rhetorical popcorn anyway.... (salted or not?)
The point is that those that are "being advised by their attorney" to simply settle - when they own the discs anyway - is because it would be cheaper to hand SC $6,000.00 than spend $8,000.00 proving that you're right. And THAT's the problem with all of this and why this methodology is labeled as "Extortion" .... because it is.
I agree with Chip's last post. It's the path of least resistance to okay the audit rather than telling SC to stuff it and take me to court. Therein lies the problem you're put between a rock and a hard place. Allow some random person to finger through your discs because you're running the show on a computer OR spend god knows how much defending yourself in court. Running a computer based show proves nothing other than you've format shifted which to the best of my knowledge is a gray area..There's no case law either way. A computer show may not even prove that you format shifted. You could be running dual drives and running the discs through the computer.
Sort of like when I was younger being a DJ and all I was always roaming around after work (in the middle of the night). A young man rolling through the ghetto at 3am is suspicious to police and they'd stop for me any little thing. Half the times I swear they just made something up to see what I was up to. Long story short they'd always ask to search the car. The first couple of times I thought sure no problem I have nothing to hide, they did their little search, which kept me by the side of the road for no less than 45 minutes each time and turned up nothing. I figured sooner or later they'd get tired of busting my chops. It continued and I started refusing searches. "No sir, I have nothing to hide but you guys stop me for nonsense all the time, never ticket me, toss my car, and never turn up a thing. Is it that hard to believe that I just drove out here to grab a sandwich and some coffee to wind down after work?"
I'd refuse the search they'd call for a K-9 because apparently a dog sniffing around doesn't constitute a search. Whatever. I'm sure my Cadillac with dark tinted windows didn't win me any sympathy points. I guess they thought what's a young man with a nice car doing in this neighborhood in the middle of the night. To be honest, I'd think the same thing probably here to cop drugs. I really couldn't blame them but it was the principle, How many times are you going to stop me before you realize that I'm not doing anything wrong.
It all stopped when after every time that they stopped me I'd turn around and go right back to the Police station and bust the watch commander's chops. The guy used hate seeing me come through door he know what he was in for.
Anywho, this story is the long way of saying Yes it easy to say I have nothing to hide go ahead and search me but where does it stop?
Sort of like when I was younger being a DJ and all I was always roaming around after work (in the middle of the night). A young man rolling through the ghetto at 3am is suspicious to police and they'd stop for me any little thing. Half the times I swear they just made something up to see what I was up to. Long story short they'd always ask to search the car. The first couple of times I thought sure no problem I have nothing to hide, they did their little search, which kept me by the side of the road for no less than 45 minutes each time and turned up nothing. I figured sooner or later they'd get tired of busting my chops. It continued and I started refusing searches. "No sir, I have nothing to hide but you guys stop me for nonsense all the time, never ticket me, toss my car, and never turn up a thing. Is it that hard to believe that I just drove out here to grab a sandwich and some coffee to wind down after work?"
I'd refuse the search they'd call for a K-9 because apparently a dog sniffing around doesn't constitute a search. Whatever. I'm sure my Cadillac with dark tinted windows didn't win me any sympathy points. I guess they thought what's a young man with a nice car doing in this neighborhood in the middle of the night. To be honest, I'd think the same thing probably here to cop drugs. I really couldn't blame them but it was the principle, How many times are you going to stop me before you realize that I'm not doing anything wrong.
It all stopped when after every time that they stopped me I'd turn around and go right back to the Police station and bust the watch commander's chops. The guy used hate seeing me come through door he know what he was in for.
Anywho, this story is the long way of saying Yes it easy to say I have nothing to hide go ahead and search me but where does it stop?
So Kurt is not responsible for the actions of the attorney he hired, then?
If not, then who is?
First, that will never happen since I'm dumping SC. But, on the off chance they ever do, I guess I would pick the dusty suckers up and throw them at them! LOL
See, this is where the fun begins. Shifting is a gray area- but not theirs. Not only does their consent mean absolutely nothing, but they have absolutely no right to give it. The shifting has never been made a black and white law. You were, I imagine, working on advice given by SC, which is not only unsound, but never a good idea. If you have a legal question, seek legal councel.
This goes for the use of ANY product. Why would one go to the producer - who has a profit to worry about- for legal advice about their product? I'm sorry, but that's just patently ridiculous.
Granted.
What are you going to do when CB comes after you?
What are you going to do when Stellar comes after you?
Dump 'em.
Good luck.
Ok, prove compliance right? So i'm out happilly doing my karaoke one night. Unbeknownst to me, an inspector for SC saunters in. He notices that a use a Cavs machine, thumbs through my books, requests a song or two, and takes a couple of pics showing the SC logo on the screens. Weeks or months go by and I get the dreaded letter of intent for Trademark Infringement because even though I bought all my music legally, it may or may not be a crime to formatt shift. Legally, morally, (you choose whatever standard you wish to apply) I should be obligated to show discs for the one or two tracks of which the alleged infringement occurred. But that's not what this is about anyway, SC doesn't give a chit if I formatt shift, they'll gladly allow me to do so after I submit and allow them to do what they have absolutely no legal right to do. They can't outright accuse me of theft, so they have decided to use this underhanded method as a backdoor into my business.
Pure speculation, I am certainly not stating it as a fact. How many is too many for you? 1...6....1000?
Is there a point when the end does not justify the means for you?
***QUESTION FOR SOUND CHOICE***
Kurt, How many times has this happened in the past, to your knowledge? Is Jennifer is the only one to date that has owned discs but still felt that settling in lieu of an audit was in her best interest? Was she offered an audit?
***END OF QUESTION***
And while I'm on this, let me just say to Jennifer. No one is using you as a poster child. You came here on your own and offered up information that simply verified what many had speculated was happening, and what others claimed was not happening.
Why on earth would I want to initiate a class action suit to resolve a grey area that the manufacturers don't seem to want to resolve themselves. I'm out doing karaoke 3 night a week. My location is listed in my profile. So is my picture. My name is actually Joe. If they wish to sweep the area, I'll still be right here waitng.
Well, Kurt has claimed that an extremely high percentage of KJ's ignore the letters. I'll keep waiting, but I better see hundreds, if not thousand of cases coming sooner or later.
Direct question asked above. BTW, it is not unusual for Kurt to ignore direct questions on this forum. Many have been asked, and remain unanswered. Your opinion of my opinions aside, I stopped holding my breath waiting for the answers.
:nopill:Are you talking about a party in the United States of America??? Last time I checked, all I have to do is show some ID and shut my mouth. I don't have to prove my innocence to anyone. And if the Govt. decides to bring charges against me, they better be able to tie those drugs to me.
Using your example, SC might as well send letters of intent to all of the patrons at a computer show. After all, every one at the party needs to prove their innocence, right?? Might even make a few more bucks while they're at it.
G
Guest
Guest
All the manus have the right to file a suit against every computer operator who has shifted their content to a computer without permission and then used them to make money, so yes that is an option!
I seriously doubt CB & Stellar are going to be making the same huge mistakes that SC has. They watched and learned. I have no issue with showing my discs, but just ASK. Don't sue first and ask questions later. And don't DEMAND that I do this or that either. On my end, I will NOT sign a contract like SC was making defendants sign before they went through and audit. It there is to be an audit at all, it will be done on terms I am comfortable with. Otherwise, I'll see them in court. Simple.
G
Guest
Guest
Aren't you disc based? If so then what are you concerned about?
If you are computer based well, having been at the meeting and discussed and listened to what all had to say, I will just say this............ Dump them from your system or you will see them in court if you are are named!
You might also consider dumping some of the other stuff from your system as well (some you wouldn't even think about)!
Okay Thunder, this is the second time that you've alluded to SC "purchasing defunct labels"....
If you purchased the Music Maestro "trademark" and then started going around and suing KJ's, it wouldn't do you much good. I would LOVE for that to happen.... then you'd be talking counter suit up-the-wazoo.
Try as you might to bluff others that you can, you can't. Anymore than you can get a $1,000,000.00 life insurance policy on the homeless guy with only a year to live.... you can't do it.
If that was brought up at your "meeting/karaoke party" and you believed it then you are being played like a fiddle.
Nice try though.
I believe there would be a valid suit here
No, Chip, he has suggested that defunct labels are now also going to be fair game because several of them have been purchased by the mfr's. This is fact.
You counter the (admittedly) vague statement by adding your own spin on something that you don't have adequate information on. He didn't allude to a specific mfr. Then comes the conjecture in the form of a sarcastic guess. You think, maybe, that the mfr's actually are successful business people who act with consideration and deliberate purpose. They are not idiots.
There is no bluff here. Thunder can certainly push your buttons, causing you to thrash about and make ridiculous statements. Speaking of being played like a fiddle.
Ask the direct question Chip. Wouldn't you like to know what line you're going to have to drop next in order to avoid a lawsuit?
You counter the (admittedly) vague statement by adding your own spin on something that you don't have adequate information on. He didn't allude to a specific mfr. Then comes the conjecture in the form of a sarcastic guess. You think, maybe, that the mfr's actually are successful business people who act with consideration and deliberate purpose. They are not idiots.
There is no bluff here. Thunder can certainly push your buttons, causing you to thrash about and make ridiculous statements. Speaking of being played like a fiddle.
Ask the direct question Chip. Wouldn't you like to know what line you're going to have to drop next in order to avoid a lawsuit?
1) I'm concerned about venues skipping on karaoke because the want their businesses to run smoothly. No waves. I'm also concerned about my friends.
Of the two confirmed contacts that I know of in NJ, one was a legit KJ that I've known for some time, and I have seen the disc library. This KJ has enough moral fiber not to accede to demands from a vendor. Unfortunately, this KJ's spouse is in a position that could be affected by any negative publicity, so the KJ didn't see fighting it as worth the possible damage. Result: A LEGIT hangs it up for spousal love. A good person. Too bad.
The second was a multi-rigger that I don't know well, and have no idea whether he was legit or not. What I DO know is that he is still in business, as are most, if not all those contacted by SC are- and no raise in the fee either.
No dent in PIRACY - now or ever.
2) Interesting comment. Care to expound on it? :rolleyespill:
I don't. Keep something else in mind. Many of the defunct labels ended up that way because the music OWNERS went after them for lack of licensing. MM, SGB, etc....
This means ( as it does for SC's many unlicensed tracks) that any logo is not legally there, and therefore cannot be used to win atrademark infringement case.
