Karaoke Forums

Chris, I know that already. I just said it purposely to get you to correct me so we can both be on the same page.

I snipped out all the crap you posted above this:

Why should I care?

PEP doesn't care if a KJ loses their job do they? Nope, they use that as an economic tool to pressure defendants.

PEP doesn't care if the rest of the venue's employees lose their jobs do they? Nope.

PEP only cares if the venue is insured... because that's who will pay for it. Just ask Kurt how many times Harrington has proclaimed that settlements he's had to pay for losing lawsuits were paid by insurance carriers.

Give me ONE (just 1) LEGITIMATE reason why I should care about PEP or it's employees at all?
Do they care about me? Nope. And why should they? They aren't relatives, they haven't sent me dime or purchased anything from me when I've sent them money and purchased from them... Should my feelings be hurt?

I really don't care if they went out of business tomorrow. The 8 or so employees would find new jobs. Even Harrington would find a new client to start all over with. It's not the end of the world.

The problem is that for some unsubstantiated reason, you think venues or even PEP should care (or do care) about you.

They don't. But they'll say anything you want as long as you send them money.

The KJ didn't "screw" anyone, he's not the one suing the venue... PEP is.

PEP licenses pirates. Wake up and smell the coffee...

Chip - Given the information I have provided thus far, do you think the KJ in question acted in the best interest of his customers?

_________________
-Chris

What I think about the KJ - or what you think is irrelevant and it won't change anything.

But I do think that PEP found another target to sue for money. And they really don't care much about the KJ, the venue, or even it's employees. They care about the insurance carrier who will ultimately foot the bill. (Even Harrington has suggested to KJ's and venues to check their business insurance so they know if it will cover them when they get sued.)

They don't care if the venue drops karaoke forever or goes out of business... as long as the check cashes first. They're not just "poisoning the well" but they're taking a giant crap in it before they leave for good measure.

What I know is that you believe that KJ's should not be held liable for anything. Pirates or otherwise.

_________________
-Chris

For the record, we actually encourage defendants to retain counsel. We will work with them either way.



I don't know who you're talking about specifically, but our policy--as you and I discussed by telephone the other day--is to do the audit at any point. I'm certain that we would do the audit if asked today.

But the defendant has to agree to it. We can't force him to do a voluntary audit. We can, of course, get pretty much the same information in discovery, but that takes a long time to get to if the defendant isn't cooperative.

So the question remains: If you genuinely had 1:1 correspondence, and you were sued for infringement, and we offered you a free audit with a guaranteed release if you passed, why wouldn't you take us up on that--knowing, by the way, that we will eventually get to look at everything even if you stonewall?

I suppose that someone might stand on principle, and that's fine--so fine, in fact, that we'll also stand on principle, and make the point that "don't copy" means "don't copy."

But doesn't it suggest the possibility that the defendant in question doesn't actually have 1:1 correspondence?

I can count on two hands the number of defendants we've sued over the last 7 years who actually did have 1:1 correspondence. In all of those cases, the defendant was very quick to cooperate with our audit request.

Many have claimed it; few have demonstrated it, even when you factor in the 2% allowable variance.

Of course, we're far afield from the original topic.

Make no mistake: A pirate who won't take steps to quit being a pirate should lose his job. That's the only result that's fair to everyone involved.



Make no mistake: A venue that hires pirates, is warned not to do so, is given no fewer than five different options to stop hiring pirates, and nevertheless continues to hire pirates does deserve to suffer a financial hit. Considering that we confine our requests for settlements and judgments to a small amount in comparison to what the venue is likely to have made from the activity, I'd say we are doing our part to ensure that the venue has the ability to stay in business. However, a venue that has to close because it can't afford to operate legally is the source of its employees' misfortunes, not PEP.

If you can't afford to operate legally, you can't afford to operate. Period. The blame for that has to be laid 100% at the venue's feet.



I'm not even sure what this means. The fact that a venue is, or is not, insured does not factor into our decision to sue. We encourage venues that have insurance to check with their carrier to see if they are covered. Not everybody realizes that insurance may cover them. Would you prefer that we not suggest that?



I'll let Chris explain why he thinks that's important. I don't particularly think you owe our company or our employees any care at all, at least not beyond the normal care you would extend to human beings generally. Since that level is obviously very low in your case, I have no expectations.



Actually, I think you care very much about that--so much, in fact, that you actively wish for it to happen. Unfortunately, we've been disappointing you for years on that score.



If he had followed the rules, they wouldn't have been sued. Ergo, it's on him.

What you are suggesting, in a roundabout way, is that venues that reap far more of the rewards of piracy than the KJ reaps should suffer no consequences, even after they are warned against this behavior and given many different ways to get right.

Whatever the pirate KJ is making, the venue is making some multiple of that number from the piracy.

Boy it's hard to keep an SC question civil.....

I don't open fire often but I'll hop in my A-10 and fly into this little fray...

This whole PEP thing has gotten absurd. Here's my personal issue with SC
The content is getting old. Other manufacturers are re licensing and releasing the most popular content diminishing the necessity of SC content.
The help licensing is a nice idea but still too expensive considering the age of the newest material in the red series. Since you don't own the material, only the license to use it, then if you cancel your help license, you lose right to use the material. You never really own it.
There is no "I am done paying for this" moment.
I have yet to see a list of what other brands may be subject to audits because they were rebranded or licensed by SC at one time. (CAVS, some American Idol, for example).
Going after pirates through trademark infringement makes some sense BUT, not leaving an easy path for legit operators should a perceived violation occur does not.
Example: Here's my online posted songlist for all to see, here are the photos of my matching disks with my company logo or face in them, timestamped......DONE!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW BUG OFF!!!! No audit necessary.
No song list, no disk photos with clearly identifiable ownership, go ahead and sue em.


If you built a business using illegal SC, you deserve what you get. You should have at least bought as many disks as possible off the money you made.
If you built a business with actual disks or, dare I say you bought disks later, but you do physically have them, then it should be simple to prove that and not require jumping through hoops.

If you will excuse me, Daimler Jeep has sent me a court order to cease and desist from driving my jeep on the street. Apparently the Jeep trademark is not approved for street use, only off road use so I am violating the trademark agreement. They require me to prove I tow my jeep on a trailer on public roads or pay them $40,000 or buy a new jeep and they promise not to sue again for 5 years. They did give me the option of paying $5.00 per mile for an unrestricted license per vehicle.
Guess I'll just go buy a Chevy... more cost effective.

_________________
Purple Frog Karaoke Cuz we all feel odd and love to "croak"

I run my show just fine without using SC. Much of the SC only songs are starting to come out on other brands, like Karaoke Version, with better sound quality than SC ever achieved. So, to get involved with SC, at this point, for me, would be pointless. I will just keep doing what I am doing. I have had SC people, who like the versions of there songs that I get, BETTER than the SC version. I am happy, they are happy, and I have no problem if a SC rep comes to my show.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE