Karaoke Forums

There are already so many SC tracks out there with alternate logos. If you're already a pirate anyway; why not just use those? or make your own with your own logo attached. That would be a good selling point to a venue. They would like the idea of a show that NEVER shows a SC Logo or a CB Logo.

Perhaps it's controversial because those same people believe that they "bothered to pay to use your IP" when they actually purchased the product years ago.
Apparently, purchasing the product no longer means you have a license to use it according to Harrington. He sounds like the "Trump of the karaoke business."

I purchased CB in a digital format years ago – He cannot prevent me from using it anymore than he can prevent me from using anything else.

And once again it proves my point perfectly:
"if you use their logo, you will pay them again and you or your venues can be sued."

#1. I can't be bothered to pay to use their IP
#2. I can't be bothered to sign any contract to use their IP
#3. I can't be bothered to have my venues intimidated because of their IP
#4. I can't be bothered to have my venues sued because of their IP
#5. I can be bothered to pay their taxes to use their IP
#6. I won't be bothered by using their product at all.
Bulletproof & free. This is my business and I am not about to give them a foot in my door. And it looks like the courts are deciding the very same thing. Also keep in mind that as a business, the cost of their discs were expensed and written off years ago as a tax deduction – the first year that I used them.

Exactly.

I don't dispute that in the slightest. The purpose of the audit is to verify that you have 1:1 correspondence. If you do, great! We're happy. But we do need to verify it, because there are many who lie about it. You might know that you are 1:1, but we don't (without an audit) and your venues don't. If the venue tells you to get audited or get fired, you still have the choice to avoid the audit, but the venue has the right to protect itself from the risk that you're lying.

Or we can do it the hard way. We sue you and your venue, and one way or another we'll verify 1:1 correspondence (or not, and it will be much more expensive to get out of the suit).

And if I were you, I would have a problem with that setup except for the fact that every disc you ever bought said "don't copy," and you did it anyway.

English Translation: "You should pay us to prove that you're not a liar because we think you are."

(The venue can "protect itself from the risk that you're lying" simply by looking at your disks all by themselves if they want to. They don't have to have Harrington and the gumbahs look at your disk collection. But since copying your discs to a hard drive does not appear to be actionable in federal court, I don't think this is a problem)

This is an outright threat to every single host that uses their product in any form.

English Translation: "Pay us or even if you are NOT lying, we'll break your wallet."

Every single disc with the logo on it also says: "Used by permission" too... and that wasn't exactly the truth was it?

Don Corleone tells you to comply or someone will visit you and maybe break your legs. Don Harrington tells you to comply or he will break your bank. His posts here are blatant threats in an effort to extort payments from people. I would think that the authorities would treat this as a RICO situation if someone were to fight back.

Good grief. This is so stupid it's hardly worth responding to.

I did not say "comply or I will break your bank." People who are 1:1, who wait to be sued, then prove 1:1 with an early audit, spend virtually nothing.

What I said was, "We sue you and your venue, and one way or another we'll verify 1:1 correspondence (or not, and it will be much more expensive to get out of the suit)."

I expected people to be smart enough to understand that it becomes much more expensive to get out of the suit IF YOU DON'T HAVE 1:1 CORRESPONDENCE. I guess I overestimated the intelligence of the anti-SC crowd.

If you don't have 1:1 correspondence--in other words, if you're a pirate--then you have a number of options available to you:

(1) Stop using the brand. I know you think you're giving us the middle finger by doing so, but we are perfectly happy with this maneuver. It is extremely cheap to do this. Please take this option.

(2) If you want to keep using the brand, and I understand why that is, then buy a damn license. They aren't that expensive. If you can't afford to buy a license, you can't afford to use the product.

(3) Or you can keep using the brand, get sued, have to pay us a bunch of money, and STILL have to buy a damn license or stop using the brand. And you'll probably get fired by your venues because they don't like the fact that you exposed them to a lawsuit. This is not a good outcome for you.

This is not brain surgery. It's very simple. Pay for what you use, or don't use it. Or tempt fate, and we'll get around to you eventually, and yes, we will probably break your bank when we do. I do not want to put anyone in the poorhouse, but if you give me no choice, I will do just that.

Good grief indeed Jim! You forgot option number 4 just go ahead and run your business and forget about PEP/SCE, the chances of you suing someone is like getting audited by the I.R.S. very remote. Even if you do sue someone looking at your current track record as long as the defendant doesn't settle with you the chances of anything coming from it are slim. You don't go after hosts anymore since most of the illegal ones don't have two dollars to rub together. The same excuse you give for not going after APS even though they owe you a boat load of money. All this blustering and brow beating of yours, is just an attempt to get uninformed low hanging fruit to settle.

Now THAT'S some pretty darn convincing bedside "customer marketing" going on there boy!
Notice that (again) 2 of the 3 options he gives you requires that you sign a contract and/or pay a fee (or both). Even if you have already purchased the product.

And let's not forget that the contract you are required to sign specifically indemnifies them and not you from the infringement you commit in the exercise of that (required) contract. It's still your risk... it always has been anyway. They're just making sure that they won't get nailed.... if anyone looks at you cross-eyed.

I'm wondering just how much longer KJ's and venues will continue to let these PEP guys continue to insult them while blatantly threatening them and taking a whiz on them while they do it?

He certainly presents a strong case for option #1.... Of course if you take option #1, you will not "expose your venue to a lawsuit" from PEP at all, you'll keep your job and not have to pay PEP for any "damn license" or sign a contract. You will be "protecting your venues from a lawsuit" if you stop using the brand.

Your venues will appreciate you looking after and protecting their best interests and you can just run your entertainment business and take all that money you've saved and purchase NEW music from KSF... Looks like a winner to me.

This is plainly false. The rest of it, which hangs on this, is not worth mentioning.

Some of the controversy could be cleared up if you explain; when you say "pay to use our IP", are you referring to the track itself or the Sound Choice logo?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I am mostly referring to the use of our logo in connection with their karaoke entertainment services, but, to the extent that we own the copyright in the work, that, too.

Really false Jim? After you have said that it makes more sense to go after the deep pockets the venues in this case. If a host is sued it is collateral damage the main target now is the venue, that hires the host. This is really a waste of time for both of us since we are never going to meet except in this arena.