Karaoke Forums

With all due respect Cueball that "ALLEGED Pirate" that did not even bother to answer the lawsuit when filed.....In my opinion when an "ALLEGED Pirate" sticks buries their head in the sand and does not reply to legal documents served to them it is ALMOST as good as a confession.
Cueball we have debated back and forth on this forum upon occasion , same as I have with JoeC...I may not agree with some of your opinions but I respect you and believe you have integrity, honor and the right to your opinions as well

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

And likewise, with all due respect, I based my post/comment on what Joe wrote here. Joe did not post any background information in his OP (other than to use the phrase "alleged pirate"), and therefore, I had no additional information to go on. I do not know which Forum he dragged this out from, and I don't know who he was talking about. That being said, with the additional information you stated, I can understand where you are coming from with your post.

"Almost" only works in games like horse shoes or with hand grenades.

Of course, when I see pictures of someone who let a grandchild play in a clothes dryer "because it's cute" I wonder where they left their brain -- because it simply teaches the child(ren) that playing in a dryer is acceptable.

ok guys upon further investigation I must admit that I was wrong the "alleged pirate in question" has responded.


For the record, ***** ****** has responded to the lawsuit on November 16th 2011 here:

11/16/2011 18 ANSWER to Complaint - (Discovery), 1 Jury demand filed by defendant ***** ******.(lc) (Entered: 11/21/2011)

http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trad ... l/summary/

Sorry for the stars but I do not wish to be banned for posting personal information. I apologize for not finding this sooner.

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

Bahahaha!!!! Good one!!!!!!! I see she ignored it, or perhaps she has you on ignore.
Let's see if I can fix her "blind spot".

Ain't that the truth!

Stole 100,000 worth of music? Um, first, I said "alleged" pirate.

Second, SC calls anyone who displays their logo from a non-disc source a pirate. Sorry, but to me and the dictionary, a pirate is a thief, not a media shifter.

So what we have here is someone CALLED a pirate -by a company that calls people such for a living- who raised 27K for charity. PROVE she STOLE MUSIC and I will be happy to re-think. Until then, what SC calls him is worthless.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Don't know. What I know is that someone did an act of kindness, but because a company that mismanaged themselves out of the business of new karaoke track production called her a name ( without ANY proof)- because that is their new way of making ather income -her act was denigrated, and questioned by people such as yourself.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

It wasn't. you misunderstood my post. The "sleaze" was the whining complainer on that forum, not the host that raised the money.

To Leopard Lizard: I would not be allowed on that forum to say "hello" before being banned for having a differing opinion.

Since I hve never beened banned from anywhere online since the advent of Easylink ( before the actual internet and worldwide web existed), I don't plan to start there.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

You folks are rapidly proving my point, and also giving anyone who wants to sue SC ammunition.

I said ALLEGED pirate. I also stated, as has J. Harrington, that SC considers media shifters pirates, whether they be thieves or not.

So, instead of taking the "alleged" part to heart, you are ignoring it and stating that this host stole tracks as a fact- without any proof at all- just like SC.

I have, at this point, saved these posts in case anyone needs them. I am that disgusted with the assumption of guilt by some based on the say-so of a company such as SC.

I'm also very sorry that people can so easily be swayed without any thought to the possible innocence of the charitable person involved.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

THANK YOU Cue! Nice to know someone here read, understood, and has a heart...

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

You're a little late with this correction.... I already corrected SwingcatKurt, and he already acknowledged that he misread it.

While I agree that not replying would not have been smartest legal move, it wouldn't have made her guilty of stealing tracks. She could have ignored it because she was advised that it had no merit, or she thought it was frivolous, or- for all anyone knows- she is disc based. No way to tell. Not smart, but not an indication of guilt either. However, she DID reply.

Remember: SC is NOT after PIRATES ( people who steal music) but suing who they can that display their logo from a PC, and hoping for reward settlements. NOTHING that they sue for ( "Trademark Infringement) has any connection to stealing music. Yet, because THEY use the term "pirate" for media shifters as well ( as admitted by J. Harrington) who may have actually purchased all of their music properly, said hosts suffer damage to their reputations, as PROVEN on this thread.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Deleted double post

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Joe you are twisting this all around. You said you backed the actions of the alleged pirate. You set up the situation of asking people to comment on it and "alleged" does include the potential that this person could be a pirate as part of the scenario. My response stated "IF" twice and asked if you would back stealing to raise money IF the allegations were true. You have sidestepped that to accuse everyone of ruining someone's reputation when you are the one who started the conversation about it and dragged it up for discussion on here in the first place.

This is not accurate. I recognize that your mind is closed to my explanation, but maybe others will eventually understand.

There are two groups. We'll call Group A "people who steal music." We'll call Group B "people who display the SC logo from a PC without authorization but maintain 1:1 correspondence." You think we should sue Group A but not Group B. In order to do that, we have to have a reliable way to separate the two.

Despite our best efforts to devise an investigative method that separates them, however, we have been unable to do so. The thing that separates them is that Group B has enough discs to cover all of the tracks on their hard drives, while Group A doesn't. But the people in Group B don't bring their discs to shows. A lot of the people in Group B, if we asked them prior to suit, would tell us to get stuffed if we asked to see their discs. A lot of the people in Group A would disappear if we asked them the same question. So asking to see discs doesn't work.

You cannot go to a show, maintain cover, and separate a Group A KJ from a Group B KJ with 100% accuracy. They look identical. So we go to shows, document what we see, and if we are convinced that the KJ is in Group A or Group B, go to the next step.

There is one thing that is actionable that both Group A and Group B KJs do. They both commit trademark infringement by using unauthorized (and therefore counterfeit) media-shifted tracks. So we sue both groups for that activity. With Group B, we offer them the opportunity to go through the same steps they would have had to go through to get taken out of Group B in the first place, get them certified, and send them on their way. With Group A, we offer them some settlement options, which include getting out of the business entirely or acquiring legal music to operate with.

The net result is exactly the same as what you are asking for, except that the people who are ONLY committing trademark infringement (by media-shifting without authorization) also get sued, which is something we have the right to do anyway. I have repeatedly asked you for suggestions as to how we can tailor our process to avoid suing Group B, but you refuse. What that tells me is that either (a) you aren't interested in making our anti-piracy efforts more effective and in making those efforts have less of an impact on the "Group B" people, or (b) you don't have any better ideas. I'm not sure which. What I do know is that you are interested in complaining no matter what we do.



A media-shifter who does so without following the policy has committed an act of piracy.

Authorization to shift the content to a "non-original media" was granted by both Kurt and Derek Slep in 1998. Repeated by them a number of times.


Just as asking to see the licensing on SC's content doesn't work either.


Which includes "sue them ALL." Because in reality, you don't care about the ones that already have discs, they're not potential customers.


A shakedown... got it. Your "certification" for Group B is nothing more than a worthless sucker on a stick for holding still and not crying and you know that.


See above. or below:

"backup copy" does not limit the media to CDR discs.


You're still asking the KJ's to solve your problems? You're not out to stop piracy, you're out to sell product - pure and simple. A duck is a duck. Remember the terms you used to use like "asset recovery?"....



And you claim I sound like a broken record?....

Here's an easier solution for KJ's that want to stay digital AND not get sued:
Drop the brand. After all, SC isn't a supplier anymore anyway.

Isn't that what Sound Choice/Harrington is saying with their policy? "Keep the original in archive" if you want to make a shifted copy.

Seems easier to just remain disc based with the original unit instead of not using them.

I would not be apt to attend shows without Sound Choice songs that I like.

somewhat......, except that now you can use that backup copy only if you pay a yearly fee to do so.

What chip is getting at is "sure, we will allow you to use a backup copy"
and then "no you can't use a backup copy, now pay me or i'll sue"

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

In 1998, it was not possible to use a hard drive to run a karaoke show. Times change, and technology changes. Policies change. Something that may have been OK in 1998 may not be in 2011.




I believe Kurt has called your bluff on that issue.



Do you really think that someone who already owns some SC discs is not a "potential customer"? I guess, technically speaking, they aren't a "potential customer"--they're an actual customer. In any event, it's irrelevant. If they're a customer, they are a customer that hasn't followed the rules.



Just this week I've had two KJs, former defendants who got legal and got certified, tell me that they got jobs because they were certified. The venues had kicked out pirates and were looking for certified KJs. Doesn't sound "worthless" to me.



Considering that was all that was available at the time, in kind of does--particularly where SC has made it absolutely 100% clear what the policy is.



Wow, a commercial enterprise seeking to sell its products? How dare we!

I'm not asking Joe or anyone else to solve SC's problems. But if he's going to complain about our effective methods, he should tell us how to change them to make them more to his liking. I'd love to be able to differentiate between Group A and Group B. If I can maintain the effectiveness of our investigative protocols and avoid suing people who are actually 1:1, I'll implement it today. It's a lot of trouble for me to deal with people who are 1:1, and it takes time and focus away from the people who aren't.



That's actually good advice. If you can't follow the rules, there's no reason for you to use the music.



SC is a supplier. What you mean to say is that SC isn't making new music anymore. When SC returns to production, what will you say at that point?