Karaoke Forums

apology accepted

That quote was from the Ohio lawsuit 2010. I don't have to prove anything to anyone unless ordered by a judge, in which case, I will gladly oblige.

You're absolutley right. Same thing goes with a traffic stop. You're well within your legal right to refuse a search of your vehicle. But the vinidictive cop will see that as you're hiding something. So (s)he's gonna make your life miserable for the next 2 hours, ie. summoning the K-9 unit, filling out search forms, etc. Had you consented to the search, you woulda been on your merry way 5 minutes ago.

If you wanna hire a lawyer and go through days of winesses and testimony, go right ahead. Sound Choice isn't posturing or using legalese to scare the accused into settling: they're not going away until you prove you're legit, period. You woulda been on your merry way 5 minutes ago if you consented to an audit.

Then again, there are the select few that prefer cutting off their nose to spite their face. Just an FYI though. your countersuit is completely without merit.

Lehidude is right. The way they are doing it is to send investigators to your show to gather evidence. Then they send a letter of intent to sue. It is at this point that 1:1ers can contact them and agree to an audit that once you've proven you're 1:1, you go on your merry way. No cost to you other than your time.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.

It's not that simple. They want you to give up your rights before you are even audited. And then you have to sign papers giving up those rights and subjecting yoursef. diafel can put this into words much better that I can.

Now, if they came to my show and saw two of their songs played and asked:
Can you show us the discs of which those songs came from? I would say, sure...
and that would be the end of it.

But it's not. Too many stipulations. Why give up any and all of your rights? Yes, I know it can all be over in five minutes but at what price?

Now if it was a matter of just showing them my discs to prove that I own them, no problem. But I will NOT sign anything. I will not give up any rights that I might have. So, you see...it's not just about five minutes.

Who was it that just went through an audit here - I think KJ Athena was the name, said it was pretty much that simple. Took about an hour maybe & went on her merry way.
I think you guys are wanting to make something more out of nothing really.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

And once again the problem is they don't bother to ask.
As for having sufficient evidence to sue, one would only need to walk into a courtroom and insist that they names whatever songs they saw played. The accused can then whip out the said discs and the judge would dismiss the case. Especially once the defendant points out that t hey were never asked at the venue whether they had the discs or not. Indeed they were not even approached in any way shape or form. you guys seem to think you know what it's like in a courtroom and how it will go. I've spent far more time than anyone should, sitting in Supreme Court representing myself against a full fledged lawyer and watching other cases as well. I can tell you this: When I went to court, I got an award that is RARELY, IF EVER given (in fact, I have yet to hear of it being given), and I made the lawyer look like a fool to boot, by asking simple straightforward questions, much like I would do if I ever met SC in a court room. In fact, when I told my lawyer friend ( who does that job for a living) what I was awarded, she was flabbergasted and asked how I did it.
"Mister (or Madame) Justice: the plaintiff never even asked to see my discs, despite the fact that I was available and accessible all that evening, both before, and after, as well as during the show. In fact, I would like to know what songs, exactly, the plaintiff is claiming I stole. Once he identifies those tracks, I will be glad to show my corresponding discs, scratches and all (showing proof of age) as I have them right here with me today. But I would highly object to showing proof of ownership of tracks that the plaintiff did not witness being played as well as any that the plaintiff does not own. I would liken that to nothing more than a fishing expedition. However, if the plaintiff can show proof I played other tracks owned by them, then I would again gladly show my discs for those specific tracks."
The game would end for SC right there (at least in Canada, it would, and I would put money that it's no different in the States).
"Mister (or Madame) Justice: I would ask the court to please award costs to the respondent".
And I would get it.
End of story.
And that, in a nutshell, is why SC will never darken a courtroom door any of these "fishing expeditions".

That right there would make a judge raise their eyebrow and more than probably not waste their time any further with the issue. It would probably be dismissed in short order, unless the plaintiff can come up with a WHOLE lot more than seeing a computer and a logo.

Apples & oranges.
You can't compare criminal to civil. Just doesn't add up any more than one plus one is forty-seven.

diafel, you stated it beautifully! And that's why, I will never agree to an audit or sign anything. If you think I'm guilty, take me to court and be ready to prove it.

I bet the judge asks why you didn't just submit to the audit, instead of wasting the court's time. You're not getting rewarded under any circumstances, no matter how much experience you have in getting "unheard of judgments" against competant lawyers . You're STILL out time for the trial, and money for the lawyer, unless you choose to put your hack lawyer "skills" to the test again. I wouldn't exactly stick a feather in my cap for your efforts in avoiding the audit, though. It's kinda like spending an extra $5 in gas to drive around a $1 toll bridge for the purpose of avoiding the toll. Is that a better analogy for you?

And when I show him (or her) SC's "requirements" for such an audit, that will be all that's needed.
As for you trying to cut down my experiences in court, just how much time have YOU spent in court going against lawyers and winning? Have you even ever seen the inside of a courtroom? Do you have any clue what the rules of court are? I'm willing to be you haven't a clue. At least I know what I'm talking about. Perhaps you should stop spouting unless you've walked the walk.

NO, you got it all wrong. The question would be asked to the Plaintiff:
Why didn't you ask to see the discs from which you accuse the defendant of copyright infringement on the night in question?

What is with you? If you want to subject yourself to an audit, that's your business but why are you going against anyone who should stand up for themself and refuse to be a part of it.

I have never been a follower. I will stand up for what I believe is right. But you are acting like SC's little patsy boy. So, if you want to play their game, go ahead. But stop trying to persuade us into your way of thinking. We are adults and can form our own opinions and decisions on how to best handle the situation. It seems that if we don't follow your way of thinking, we're wrong. But there is no wrong or right. It's whatever you believe is the right thing to do.

Nope. Still doesn't work.
You're also forgetting about PRINCIPLE. Something I'm beginning to suspect that you lack.
And yes, judges DO take it into account.

I've already suspected that.

Your courtroom experience absoutely deserves scrutiny. You didn't pass the bar, yet you respond in various threads about civil rights and the like as though you have this vast experience in law, which, having not attained the status of lawyer, is certainly NOT the case.

What's worse is that unsuspecting board members run the risk of accepting your less-than-esteemed legal opinion as fact. This would be bad for them, as it is a generally accepted principle that LAWYERS should dole out legal advice, and non-lawyers shouls sit quietly on the sidelines, which is obviously difficult for you for some reason.

Feel free to accuse me of lacking principle. The fact is that many if not most of the people here would GLADLY submit to an audit rather than go through the legal system.

You just won't stop. Who cares what most of the people would do. Like I said, I am not a follower. If the majority would rather submit to an audit, then God bless you! But as for me and a few others, we'll stand up for our rights and our beliefs.

OK, I'm done with this.

Ummm... Excuse me?? Just how do you know how much experience at law I have or have not? Where do you get off assuming such knowledge about me?
And just WHERE have I "Doled out" legal advice and to whom?
What I have stated is my opinion of what WOULD happen were the case to go to court.
I thought that was quite obvious since many of my statements contain such phrases as "the judge WOULD" and "it would" ETC. Any idiot can see that.
As for people who would take what I've said as legal advice, then they are fools, just as you are for somehow believing I've offered such "advice" to anyone.
You don't like my take on the subject at hand. That's clear, but you don't have the right to put words in my mouth and try to discredit me and my experience just because you don't like it.
It's really a no-brainer for anyone who's spent even half a day observing in a courtroom.
I notice you avoided answering my earlier questions, so I'll be sure to ask them again so that everyone knows that you are avoiding answering them, probably because the answers will likely be: none, no and no.

Just how much time have YOU spent in court going against lawyers and winning? Have you even ever seen the inside of a courtroom?
Do you have any clue what the rules of court are?

Well the one little thing most of you have forgotten is a little thing called "Discovery" . A Discovery occurs before a case goes to trial (for a criminal trial in Canada it is called a Preliminary Inquiry in the US, the Grand Jury). It is in this phase evidence is given and one's discs would be audited. Depending on the outcome of the evidence and the audit a decision would be made to continue on. This process saves courtroom time.

I would be interested on what type of case Diafel is talking about. I've been involved in multiple hundreds of cases both criminal (including sexual assaults, attempted murders, manslaughters), family (they're just plain messes), and civil (insurance frauds) as an investigator and the one thing I have learned is NEVER EVER presume what any judge will decide. I've had cases where we thought we won and los and cases we thought we lost and wound up winning. I can recall very few cases where one party was awarded costs.

Bottom line is how much inconvenience and costs is one willing to incur. Personally, they want to take a looksee, go for it (but I'm disc based anyway).

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger