Karaoke Forums

The judge didn't have to give permission to fish. No one ever said that it was illegal, only UNETHICAL.

Btw- isn't Panama City where Big Bob won against SC without having to hire a lawyer? Not sure, but I think so.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Holy Horsehockey, Batman! That is the most amazing display of distractive debate technique that I have ever seen! Kudos for your creativity!

First, while I have certainly said that SC has intimidated payments out of uneducated KJs, I challenge you to find a post made by me stating my opinion on whether said KJs were "1:1". I may have surmised that some were probably innocent, but never stated it as a fact. Go ahead and look, I'll wait. I wouldn't have, because since SC forces said KJs into confidentiality agreements, if I gave a name of one who shared info with me, SC would sue them. Jim would LOVE for me to give names just for that reason. I'm not here to help SC sue people . Hence no name, and no such post. Creative on Jim's part though.

Hey Jim, how about supplying a list of those SC has settled with, and we can talk to them? Maybe we can find out if they were "1:1" or not. If YOU supply the names, the agreement would be voided and we could finally have transparency. Feel free to PM it if you wish.......

More importantly, and that aside, my focus has ALWAYS been on the suits, not the payoffs. SC sues without knowing whether the KJ has done anything wrong, as jim has admitted in this thread.
Have I stated that SC has sued KJs that were completely innocent of wrongdoing? Absolutely. Whether they were dropped later is irrelevant. It can only happen if there was a sloppy, non-professional, or completely non-existent investigation.
Once again...fishing. IP troll.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

What they did wrong was shift without permission.



No one is perfect. There will always be that small percentage of folks that get hosed over. It sucks, but it will always happen. So it is absolutely relevant that Sound Choice tried to make amends after the fact when they have made a mistake.

_________________
-Chris

Well, let's see.



Here are the basic parameters. There are three options: You can operate from discs. You can operate from a hard drive with 1:1 correspondence. Or you can operate from a hard drive without 1:1 correspondence. If I have left out some other possibility, please let me know.

In the first case, if that happens, the operator is dropped from the suit with an apology. That's happened exactly once. I agree that an original disc-based operator would be dumb to settle with us--but I also know that we would not accept any money from that operator.

In the third case, I think we can both agree that such a person is a pirate operator. I would think that sort of person would be wise to settle if sued.

So that leaves the second case. Our policy in that case is to offer that person an audit to demonstrate 1:1 correspondence, and to drop them if they demonstrate it.

Now, what you state in the portion I quoted above is that there are operators who are "dumb" for settling with SC. By definition, those operators could only be in group two. By the way, that is far from the only time you have stated that there are such operators. I found a post from 2011 in which you stated that you knew someone who settled with us (despite being 1:1) because his wife was a public figure and he didn't want to be scrutinized.

I can't imagine that you would think that someone should get a pass on piracy simply because he was related to a politician.



Our confidentiality agreement does NOT prohibit the signatories from discussing the case or the fact of settlement, nor would it prohibit the signatory from stating that he had 1:1 correspondence but settled anyway. What is confidential are the terms of the agreement itself--amounts paid, discs provided (if any), etc. So you could have this information without the operator having breached the confidentiality clause, and we would have no reasonable cause to sue.

SC has better things to do than to sue somebody for violating a confidentiality agreement, anyway.

So, with that issue dispensed with, how about a name?



My way is much more expeditious...and, by the way, it is the only way of actually testing YOUR assertion, that YOU know of defendants who were 1:1 but who settled with SC.



Your selective illiteracy is instructive. Everyone we've sued, except one KJ who was sued by mistake, as we have explained, has at least media-shifted without permission. (Still waiting on you to give me the name of the case where media-shifting was found to be fully legal and permissible, by the way.)

I can confirm that two local KJ friends of mine were sued, settled, and have had conversations with me about what took place. I have no idea what the finer details are, but both said that they felt they received a fair shake and it worked out for the best. I know one has a GEM and I believe the other does as well. Both do a lot more business and a lot more publicly post-suit than they ever did pre-suit.

_________________
-Chris

Who, besides SC, you and a few others here buying their Koolaid, says it is wrong?

This debate has been delivered too many times so I will simply refer to what it says on the discs or the inserts -

"This material is protected by Federal copyright laws. Unauthorized duplication, public performance or broadcast is a violation of applicable laws."

I support Sound Choices right to defend their intellectual property.

I have said before that I think it is silly to have to ask for permission, but that is what Sound Choice wants, so I did. A simple process that has benefited me greatly since doing so.

_________________
-Chris

Well, you made the grant statement without any qualification so you opened up the can of worms. And one more time, just for old time's sake, I could say:

Unauthorized copying of this post is prohibited.

I said it so it must be so?

You are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe. But you should know better than to pass off something as flimsy as this "as fact" here without getting called out on it.

It is also part of the Copyright Act, whether one likes it or not. And BTW when you post here your post belongs to KS, again whether you like it or not.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

And there is also fair use and that can and does extend to some corporate situations, whether you like it or not.

For very few corporate situations. I think Microsoft would take a very dim view if any corporation buying one Windows 8 or whatever and then copy it into all if its computers.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Yes, you are correct, but Microsoft does sell the Win 8 disc with full permission to
Install (copy on to) one computer.

_________________
Music speaks to the heart in ways words cannot express.

Microsoft also "allows" me to move the install to a hard drive, or to move a downloaded install to a DVD. They allow it because they do not have a choice and a judge would probably laugh at them if they tried to sue someone over it.

Well then Chris, if you believe and abide by that statement...then you must not play any karaoke at your shows, because even playing off the disc would constitute "unauthorized public performance"...how boring your shows must be!

_________________
Music speaks to the heart in ways words cannot express.

ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC provide the necessary authorizations for public performance.

I think the key differentiator is that while your post actually is copyrighted by you simply by making it, it was posted to a forum that has a terms of service (that you read and accepted....right?) that may have altered what you can enforce.

Karaoke CD's are covered under FEDERAL copyright law and trademarks are covered under FEDERAL trademark law.

So call me out all you want, but it is a FACT that Sound Choice has steadily been enforcing this whether that be settlements or outright judgments for a while now. If you don't agree, then take it up with them.

_________________
-Chris

That is actually all spelled out in the REVOCABLE LICENSE that you buy. You do not own the software, only a license to use the software under the terms that Microsoft specifies.

_________________
-Chris

Yes, I do know that.
Just pointing out the folly of a disc manu even putting that statement on the disc when they have nothing to do with enforcing it (public performance) because as WE ALL know that comes under ASCAP, BMI and SESAC.
They (the disc manu's) can put any statement they want on their disc, but it doesn't necessarily make it so.

_________________
Music speaks to the heart in ways words cannot express.

While that may be technically true, the reason why the "public performance" language appears on the discs is because the music publishers require it as a condition of licensing.

Fair enough.

_________________
Music speaks to the heart in ways words cannot express.