Karaoke Forums

For the record, I tend to laugh at the personal attacks.

I am reminded of an FDR quote, from a speech given a few days before his second election (in 1936):

"Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred."

Ok, that's funny no matter who you are...
On the other hand, nose-Pepsi is lousy for the keyboard.... Thanks for the mood-lightener, Jim....

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

.

..and back to ick..

Just because someone SAYS all suggestions are being used, it doesn't mean that they ARE. On the contrary, there seems to be no evidence at all of that being the case.

It's not amnesia, it's simply re-iterating. The courts - in the majority -don't believe in SC's "investigations". Hence, neither do I - nor do many others.

If we were shown differently, that could change. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened yet.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Joe, how many courts/judges have been involved and how many of those made comment on SCs investigative techniques? If you don't know the answer to this, then your statement is a wild guess at best. The same goes for ALL those loses SC has sustained. How many courts/judges and the reason(s) why. A case can be loss on a myriad of factors such as time, wrong section in law etc.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

but if the defendant loses it is because the ARE ABSOLUTELY GUILTY without a shadow of a doubt.
why does your reasoning for someone losing apply to anyone buy SC?
when double standard is mentioned, this is why.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

Psst...the answer is...two.

One of them was in the context of a Rule 11 motion by a defendant, which the judge denied on the basis that our pre-suit investigation was sufficient to justify proceeding with the suit.

The other one was when a judge asked to see our investigative reports to see whether we had a legitimate basis for proceeding with the case...and we showed them to him, and he agreed that we did.

You can tell Joe if you like, but he won't remember.

Because my opinion, or your opinion needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The opinion of a lawyer is given more weight because they are trained in the field of Law. Here's the kicker that everyone needs to understand. Every one of these court cases has lawyers on both sides, unless someone is stupid enough to represent themselves. In every one of those cases, the lawyers present an almost polar view from each other. They are PAID to present a perspective whether they believe 100% in that view or not. I am NOT saying Jim does not believe in what he presents, but if all Lawyers were trained with the same law, and two lawyers represent alternate views, someone doesn't believe 100% of their case.

In our case, we all DO believe 100% of our perspective.

Paradigm, because in the court system, the Complainant has to prove their case, but you can go and find why the Defendants lost and report back, if you are so interested.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

"The same goes for ALL those loses SC has sustained. How many courts/judges and the reason(s) why. A case can be loss on a myriad of factors such as time, wrong section in law etc."
buy you are giving benefit of the doubt to SC where you will not to anyone else. that is what i mean.

when SC loses a case it is because of a clerical error or a misread law by the judge, or some other mistake because SC could never be doing anything that they are being charged with.
all someone has to do is be named in a suit by SC and they are a no good dirty low life pirate and obviously guilty. it doesnt even have to go beyond being named and they are crucified here.

extreme example.....
the host that was disc based...
when he was named the cheerleaders wanted him hanged from the mizzen-mast and great job by SC nailing this scum. then it was discovered that not only did he not have a loaded drive, he used original discs only.
SC gets named by EMI and it is all a mistake and EMI must be out of their mind, SC would never....

benefit of the doubt goes only to SC no matter the case.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

I believe Paradigm answered the court question adequately. If they could prove their case, they wouldn't lose. Before we get 16 definitions of "losing" please allow to state that by loss, I mean "not a win". The plaintiff (SC) didn't get what they wanted.

So going back to basics,
we have Jim stating the following:



Therefore, no "investigation" process currently in /no in use can supply any evidence
of WRONGDOING prior to the suit being served. Jim CLAIMS that they check amounts of shows, size of library, and whether the host is PC based ( that one has already been proven false- and not with just a well-known case....). Even if this [/bCLAIM] were proven true, it would only be peripheral information, and nothing that would actually indicate wrongdoing.

The fact is, without a way to prove wrongdoing prior to the suits, it's just not worthwhile for SC to pay for actual professional investigations- for each KJ named- so they don't.

We often read of Jim speaking of amnesia on my part, or incorrectly describing me as "SC - Hater" (whatever the heck that means- a corporate entity only exists on paper. Nothing to hate).

Well it's been a few years, and I'm pretty sure that and "top-secret" investigative techniques would be pretty much out of the bag by now, so that excuse has worn thin.

Why not do what seems so troublesome in court and prove your case. [b] Describe a typical investigation of a standard KJ. Not one suspected of distribution for profit, because that would be a criminal case (theft) and you would have had outside help to build those cases. Then show how it stacked up in court by way of verification.


Again, a dragnet. A fishing expedition. An IP troll.

All of the above being said, if SC wants to make back some of the money they lost because of what is in my opinion gross mismanagement, the way they are doing it is probably their best shot. An income producer? Sure. Unethical? Not a doubt in my mind.

A means to fight piracy? Absolutely not....and was never intended as one.

Conclusion: SC will do what they do. They will continue intimidating uneducated KJs out of "settlements" and praying that they don't have to fight them in court.

However, as long as they propagate the myth that they are trying to do something good for others, I will call them out on it.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

The judge in the Panama City case basically gave them permission to "fish"--in other words anyone who media shifts SC tracks without permission is a legitimate suspect:

"Defendants argue that they had some form of implied consent to display the Sound
Choice mark during their karaoke shows. In essence, their argument is that the
“standard” warning contained on the discs was meant only to protect the copyright holder
(i.e. the recording artist etc.) and not Plaintiff who was the trademark holder. They thus
contend that they were free to transfer their disc collection to hard drive. None of the
parties have cited a case on point. However, I find that a generalized warning which
prohibits copying a disc is sufficient to put a user on notice that the trademark holders do
not consent to copying their associated marks.
Defendants also assert that the media shifting policy is ineffective because it was
not properly communicated to them. I need not reach this issue because I find that the
standardized warning on the discs prohibited all copying by default. "

That being said, how many KJs can Joe C name that SC extracted a settlement from despite them having all of their discs? If you can't name one then you shouldn't keep saying they are doing it.

Last--It is very easy to keep baiting Harrington to disclose their investigation techniques when you know that it isn't going to happen simply because it would be stupid to warn pirates how to evade detection.

Joe, the standard you are trying to articulate has never been the standard for commencing a civil case.

It's not even the standard for commencing a criminal case.

For you to complain that we are somehow doing something wrong by conducting a thorough presuit investigation, that meets and exceeds the obligations placed on civil plaintiffs for centuries, simply demonstrates that you have no credibility to speak on the issue.

Of course, credibility has never been your strong suit, because you continue to make arguments based upon outdated and discredited information and upon your own uninformed assumptions.

Our obligation is to make an "inquiry reasonable under the circumstances," in order to assert that the legal contentions are warranted and that the factual allegations either have evidentiary support or are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

Every court that has examined the issue has said that our investigations meet or exceed that obligation. When you go to law school, pass the bar, and develop a litigation practice, and can therefore demonstrate some real expertise on how litigation works, then you can credibly express a contrary opinion if you still hold it.

Even reading Rule 11 would be a good start.

But as it stands now, based upon your opinion as expressed here, you believe the law obligates civil plaintiffs to be able to prove their cases conclusively before a lawsuit is filed. That is not a part of the law, and it has never been a part of the law.

As I said above, not even criminal charges are held to that standard. Proceeding with a criminal charge requires only "probable cause to believe that crime to be charged has been committed." These are not criminal cases.

Until you grasp these fundamental facts, where are not the subject of any serious dispute among people who do this sort of thing for a living, you will not be able to speak credibly on this issue.

[quote="HarringtonLaw"/]

Every court that has examined the issue has said that our investigations meet or exceed that obligation.......
.[/quote]
—-----------------------------------------------------------------
You just lied through your teeth- Just ask judge Wright- and proved my point. Thank you. I also noticed how you conveniently skipped through my request for a description of your so-called "investigations". Thank you. You help verify my words more than any anti-methodology poster, simply because you are SC's "Champion", yet post what you do.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Judge Wright was not privy to any details of our investigations, nor did he rule on the quality of those investigations.

Nice try, but it's just not there.



I have told you numerous times that I am not going to share the details of our methodology. The fact that you asked for something does not require me to provide it.

I second that motion.

_________________
-- Mark

Joe says: "here is what SC is doing"
response from cheerleaders... "prove it or Shut up Joe".

Jim says: "here is what SC is doing"
response from cheerleaders... "absolute fact, no proof necessary, shut up Joe".

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

It's not a question of a double standard as to proof.

Most of the things I talk about here are based on matter that is publicly available. I encourage people to look at the court documents we file. If you disagree with how I have presented something, please feel free to point out how I am wrong.

When Joe says that we have extracted settlements from people who have 1:1 correspondence, however, that's an extraordinary claim. Without more information, I'm unable to test what he says. The only way I could prove a negative would be to release all of our settlement agreements and related papers. In many cases, I am prohibited from doing so.

But if Joe has information that indicates I am wrong and he's right, he can certainly give us some information about whomever he means. It's not necessary that he produce proof. All that is required is enough information for me to identify the party and determine whether I can talk about the settlement (if one exists). All it will take to prove me wrong is a single case. For some reason, he is content to keep repeating that there are such people, but he absolutely refuses to name names.

If he will just name names, I will supply the proof, if it is available and legal for me to do so.

Give it a rest. After this many years, there are no secrets. You can't describe your "investigative techniques" because there aren't any. Disagree? All you have to do is post your procedure. Once again, if there ever WAS one, it is no longer a secret at this point. You can't??? You must realize that this is why most of the original pro-SC methodology folks have jumped ship leaving you with just the tiniest of a contingent. If you want a following, credibility is paramount. SC, after crapping all over their own label, and being put on court records by judges as IP trolls, no longer has any.

Oh yes the courts. All anyone not lazy enough to believe without verification has to do is che k the records. Proved everything to the satisfaction of any court? Again, judge Wright seems to make that out as a lie. So have any others not presiding over suits that were for distribution. Just a KJ who media shifted? Show us your overpowering awesomeness..

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

This made me laugh. I had no idea you were so in touch with the worlds KJ's! Unless again, you are basing the planet on this tiny little corner of vitriol known as KS. Hey, maybe another poll about who uses SC! Then we will know what the world is doing!

As for jumping ship, if you haven't noticed, the entire forum is practically dead. My guess is people just got tired of the non-stop trolling and BS. Honestly, I don't blame them.

I'm trying to figure out why it is you think we can't keep a secret for five years, especially when we have strong incentives to keep that secret.

Your "logic" is impeccable--it's a game of "heads I win, tails you lose." If I refuse to post the procedure, it's not because it's a secret, but because I don't have one. And if I do post the procedure, thus proving that it had been kept a secret, it's no longer a secret.



Your anger is turning your sentences into word salad.

You know very well that I didn't say "proved everything to the satisfaction of any court." I said: "Every court that has examined the issue has said that our investigations meet or exceed that obligation." If you think that's not right, that's fine--just point out the court that said our investigations were inadequate. But you cannot base your argument on something I didn't say. Words mean things.

But here's the thing: You've claimed that we entered into settlement agreements with multiple operators who had 1:1 correspondence and who nevertheless settled. I haven't asked you for proof of that statement. All I've asked you for is a name so that I can pull this settlement agreement and the supporting documentation. If you can give me a name, we can resolve this. And, unlike the situation above, giving me a name won't cause you to violate any confidences or compromise any work. If you don't want to publicize the name, you can send me a private message or an email.

Because you'd rather have the innuendo, the false logic, the red herring, or whatever this is, you won't do it. But that's not my problem...it's yours.