And by the same token, EVERYONE who is a legal citizen of this country, be they an individual or a corporate entity does, in fact, have the RIGHT to SAY NO.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Where did everyone go?
- Thread starter KjFlorida
- Start date
And by the same token, EVERYONE who is a legal citizen of this country, be they an individual or a corporate entity does, in fact, have the RIGHT to SAY NO.
Right on Chip... and when you say NO and the courts decide YES... that is how the system works. Everyone has the right, everyone is exercising their rights. The courts make a ruling about who is right about their rights. Right?
- Messages
- 190
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 102
It seems that there was just a $1.5 million judgement in a sharing music case. At this point in time, the law seems to lean towards the manufacturers. It seems a few hours of your time to prevent a lawsuit would be worth the effort. You said you know it's been decided in court, yet you still want to scream your rights are being violated. I would think that by filing a lawsuit, they would have the right to ask. They have to have some type of proof in order to file the lawsuit. They had pictures of us using SC and using the computer so don't say they didn't have proof enough to file the suit.
Sound Choice lawsuits are not about the music. They don't even own the music anymore. They are about TRADEMARK. Don't get a false sense of security that the courts are going to see these suits in tandem with music file sharing and rule similarly.
And you don't have to have real proof in order to file a civil suit. Trust me...I see frivolous lawsuits being filed every day. Problem is, you still have to pay defend them. Thanks, but no thanks.
Right on Chip... and when you say NO and the courts decide YES... that is how the system works. Everyone has the right, everyone is exercising their rights. The courts make a ruling about who is right about their rights. Right?
Yes... that's right.....
And when you say NO and the courts decide NO is right, then that my friend, is the right ruling about rights. Right?
(Hold the salt too...)
So now you are equating SC's suits to frivolous lawsuits.
I can understand that you might categorize them as a nuisance, but they are from from frivolous.
And again, you don't have to pay anything to be dropped from the suit if you have the discs.
I can understand that you might categorize them as a nuisance, but they are from from frivolous.
And again, you don't have to pay anything to be dropped from the suit if you have the discs.
So now you are equating SC's suits to frivolous lawsuits.
I can understand that you might categorize them as a nuisance, but they are from from frivolous.
And again, you don't have to pay anything to be dropped from the suit if you have the discs.
No, I don't believe that's what she said at all. But what she means is that it takes nothing to file a suit other than a fee to the clerk, no "proof" or evidence of any kind. And there are real costs involved with defending yourself against just such a suit.
Now, if you're asking "my opinion" of their suits then that's another matter entirely...
Sound Choice lawsuits are not about the music. They don't even own the music anymore. They are about TRADEMARK. Don't get a false sense of security that the courts are going to see these suits in tandem with music file sharing and rule similarly.
And you don't have to have real proof in order to file a civil suit. Trust me...I see frivolous lawsuits being filed every day. Problem is, you still have to pay defend them. Thanks, but no thanks.
Any one else see this as implying that the SC lawsuits are frivolous? If not, I'll retract my statement.
- Messages
- 190
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 102
Any one else see this as implying that the SC lawsuits are frivolous? If not, I'll retract my statement.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I have enough of my own, thank you very much. Besides...it's apparent that you're going to see whatever you want.
How is this putting words in your mouth? I am claiming my inference. I am asking if anyone agrees with me. I am trying to see it the way you intended.
Since, as of now, no one has agreed with me, I'll retract the statement that I made to the effect that you were equating SC's lawsuits with frivolous lawsuits. I regret the misunderstanding.
Since, as of now, no one has agreed with me, I'll retract the statement that I made to the effect that you were equating SC's lawsuits with frivolous lawsuits. I regret the misunderstanding.
- Messages
- 190
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 102
just a question if SC suddenly owned all the music again would that change your point of veiw?
Nope, because their lawsuit still is about trademark. Not music.
G
Guest
Guest
just a question if SC suddenly owned all the music again would that change your point of veiw?
:winkpill:
And what if they owned several of the other "defunct" brands as well?
Or maybe even consider that between SC, CB and PHM that many of the "defunct" companies could be bought up. :winkpill:
I don't agree with you at all. You totally took what she said completely out of context.How is this putting words in your mouth? I am claiming my inference. I am asking if anyone agrees with me. I am trying to see it the way you intended.
Since, as of now, no one has agreed with me, I'll retract the statement that I made to the effect that you were equating SC's lawsuits with frivolous lawsuits. I regret the misunderstanding.
She most definitely was not saying that the SC suits were frivolous. What she said was that all it takes to file a suit is a fee, and as an extreme example of that is that she see frivolous suits filed every day. Nothing said there about SC suits being frivolous. Please read it again. SLOWLY.
Not a chance.just a question if SC suddenly owned all the music again would that change your point of veiw?
The whole argument that they have no right to audit your system is countered with them saying you have no right to use their music in any format except that which you bought it in. .
Um...no. They have no legal right to audit your system, and they have no legal right to grant or not grant media shifting- it's not within their perview. It is for the U.S. judiciary system to decide, if and when they get around to it.
So when someone videos or takes pictures of SC logos or CB logos or Stellar logos on your system and signs and affidavit stating you are using a computer and you end up in court, you would let the judge audit your system since they are part of the government? Or you'd rather wait for the FBI to be involved. I don't understand that mentality...
Allow me:
1: The U.S. govenment and it's law enforcement arms have rights that SC does not.
2: Once the COURT has audited my discs, and found no discrepancies, their COURT audit would be all I need as evidence to counter sue and win. The court providing me with evidence? How great is that? Add to that the logo added to hundreds of unlicensed songs ( meaning not LEGALLY there in the first place) produced by SC, and you get a twofer! Awesome.
Right on Chip... and when you say NO and the courts decide YES... that is how the system works.QUOTE]
When, pray tell, will it ever go to court? If SC values their current business model, I would guess never...
Sound Choice lawsuits are not about the music. They don't even own the music anymore. .
They never did. As far as licensing, if you mean the sale of the catalogue to Sting-Ray, I'm fairly certain that Sting-Ray is owned by Kurt's brother, and it was just a business shift to avoid certain issues.
just a question if SC suddenly owned all the music again would that change your point of veiw?
Where does this come from? They never owned ANY music. They had licensing for SOME of what they produced, but that's about it.
