Karaoke Forums

It does matter what the reason is. When we're investigating an unlicensed user, we're there to gather information for use in preparing a lawsuit. When we're visiting a licensee, the purpose isn't to bring a lawsuit. It's to make sure that the licensee is meeting the terms of the license. If they aren't, then we work with the licensee to make appropriate changes. We're not trying to play "gotcha" with our licensees. We're simply making sure they are keeping to our standards, and helping them do so if they aren't.



I would definitely tell a licensee that he was visited, even 24-48 hours after doing it, if he asked. We might not volunteer that information, especially if there wasn't a problem identified, because, frankly, we're busy and there's no reason to make a special effort to notify the licensee if no changes are needed. I would also have no problem telling a licensee that he wasn't visited on any given night.



I'm saying it wasn't us. The only reason I responded in the first place was because I was a little irritated at the suggestion that our investigators are so unprofessional that they would engage in the type of behavior described. They don't. More than 99% of our investigations conclude without the operator even suspecting that we were there. What's much more common is the "false positive"--the operator thinks, as in this case, that he's being watched by us, when we have not sent an investigator to that show.



What interest could I (or PEP) possibly have in investigating one of our top licensees, an early adopter of our program who has been a staunch anti-piracy advocate for many years? I believe you've heard me say many times on this board that our resources are limited. Spending time and money to "investigate" a licensee about whom we have no questions would be not only a waste of those resources on an unproductive task, but also a lost opportunity to use those resources on something more productive.

You talking about what PEP is doing with the outcome. I'm reading from what you've said on this thread: that your occasionally go to some registered licencees without an announcement be it on a tip, etc.. While PEP's intent might be different because they are registered, you aren't there on a social call, You aren't there to meet with Paradigm in person or to give him a new CD or award. You are making sure they are compliant, and for that, you aren't going to give them advanced notice, etc. Depending on how compliant they are will determine how that are handled after your... lets call it "review", if the word will make you feel better.



You wouldn't tell them or anyone else what you are doing in a public forum (Via private message is a different story). It gives your position away to admit you are there, with possible pirates scattering into the wind. I actually believe you that your company most likely didn't visit Paradigm, but you would be hard pressed to give a truthful answer in a public space. So the default answer is going to be "no we weren't there" from PEP in a place like this. As for the "volunteering" of information, well if the KJ doesn't know, they can't really ask can they?

If Paradigm 100% believed that he was not looked over by PEP, this thread would not exist.

I don't know the policy on how your investigators work, and I am inclined to believe they do it as covertly as possible. However, unless you personally are training them, and then flying them to locations across the US, their might be some people who could fail the task if they aren't under PEP's direct control. Even if they are that inept, it's probably too late for someone who is on your radar to do anything about an incoming lawsuit or disciplinary action anyway, and any issues have still been recorded by said inept person.



That's Simple: PEP is investigating their product, and making sure users are compliant. Depending on the outcome of any investigation with a registered user, PEP has several options. PEP might give them a friendly warning, cancel their registration and/or make them switch to a HELP licence or if they have totally stepped over the line, file a lawsuit. So there is money involved.

I don't believe the task is unproductive. These people signed contracts with PEP about what they can and can't do with the product. Your company is looking to make sure they comply. It makes sense to me that if your investigators are in the area, what's an additional stop to make sure one of your registered users are indeed keeping up with their end of the deal?

It's not just PEP either: lots of companies look into copyright issues and even if someone is allowed to use a logo trademark or image, it doesn't mean that a company won't take offense if its used incorrectly. I just heard a story about Jack Daniels a week or two ago who was quite friendly towards an author who spoofed the JD logo. It was a very polite cease and desist letter. They were very nice about it and even offered to help with costs to redesign the (dust?)cover of his book in fact for the 2nd printing.

For the record: I fully believe that Paradigm is operating 100% legally, and feel exactly as many of us here do about piracy, which is to say he's against it.

@ Paradigm: MY apologies if I have or am offending you in any way.

, whatever.

We don't operate in the manner you're suggesting, but if you want to be paranoid about it, I guess it's a free country.

Your the one who brought up that you "secret shop" registered users, not anyone else.



So you investigate your registered users to make sure they are compliant. Sorry that you don't like how that sounds, but you are the one who put it out there.

And I've never said it was unwarranted, just that you do it. Although admittedly I don't use the cute terms you use.

So who's being paranoid, as well as dismissive?

But you are right "Whatever"

You keep using the term "registered users." We don't have "registered users" for the Sound Choice product. We have licensees. We are required by law to do at least some monitoring of our licensees for compliance. You make it sound like something nefarious, when in fact it's a very normal function of trademark licensing. And you have practically accused me of lying about whether we were doing it in Arizona two nights ago. Why would I lie about that?

Sound like he might approve of restaurants getting inspected.......just once.

_________________
-Chris

I believe Harrington when he says: Because I don't think he's done anything in Arizona for a loooong while. Even though just 6 months ago, he told Paradigm that he had an investigator and an attorney in place...

Nothing has happened..... at all.... despite receiving plenty of leads about pirates...

Nope.

Not a thing....

Carry on...

for the record guys....
i don't believe Jim SENT an investigator after me, my belief was that an investigator was just doing what we have seen before, just pulling karaoke shows from the web and going.
i am not afraid of getting "got", i think i have made my ideals on piracy very clear over the years.
i was very perturbed that some jack a$$ was wasting time in my venue and not at some reported pirates venue.
to date, i only personally know a few of those who have been sued, and the information on the lawsuit was so far from reality that someone picking some karaoke bar from the web, taking pictures, and using names online was not out of the realm of possibility...it has been done (though it WAS done BEFORE Jim came into the picture i do believe) and have not seen any since then to see the difference first hand.
i know Jim would see my name and move on, as much as i push on him, he knows where i ultimately stand on the end goal and i still give reports when i find something worth investigating. same goal, different methods.
his answer of "it wasn't us, we are not investigating there now" satisfies me.
My apologies to Jim for getting him irritated at this.

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

If you are referring to me, I wrote this:





Sorry about the multiple edits, seems my computer doesn't want to behave today.

The fact is that after nearly 8 years of a legal quest, less than 2% of the estimated hosts have dealt with or been investigated. In over 19 years of professional hosting plus my retirement time, I have only personally met one host approached by SC aka PEP. When it was discovered he had no assets, the matter was dropped. This host is still playing today in the Inland Empire. At least in California there is more of a chance you will be audited by the I.R.S, than by SC. All this concern over investigators is over blown. Jim has admitted that PEP is a small, little, tiny weenie company, with few resources. They are after the low hanging fruit and are not going to spend too much in trying to get little or no return on their legal investment period.

Why would Irish militants care about karaoke legalities?

_________________
-Chris

Sorry I meant the I.R.S. you get the meaning. Must be because it's near St. Patrick's day, watch out for the PEP inspector's.

Our investigators don't work like that. I can't speak to what APS might have been doing (in Arizona and elsewhere) years ago, but they've been out of the picture for a long time.

Our investigative process is much more involved than picking a show from the web and going to it. We identify targets, run preliminary checks, send letters to venues, and do heavy research into the various players involved. Only then do we send out an investigator to gather evidence to support a claim.

An investigator who freelances in the manner you're describing wouldn't be paid for the work, because it's not useful to us. All of our teams know our process and follow it. So that tells me it's not a real investigator, but somebody who's either trying to scare you (or your venue).

You can't speak for APS, but didn't SC hire them to handle their pirate problems in Arizona, Nevada and California? This company was representing SC, both as investigators, and in the court with lawyers weren't they? You claim that SC had no knowledge of their activities and yet isn't SC responsible for sub contractors they hire? Isn't SC still owed around $300,000.00 collected by APS that was never paid to them? Some of that money came from the operators in California that settled out of court for $5,000.00 a piece. Later judge Wright threw the cases that weren't settled out of court, and those operators didn't pay one dime. In hindsight I bet those hosts feel very stupid to have settled, and you wonder why hosts fight back, really?

I guess PEP has learned it's lesson the hard way about subcontracting out their investigations and legal matters, or have they? They still have to hire investigators and lawyers in states they are trying to push their legal agenda. That is part of the hold up in Arizona, that PEP couldn't get good help at the price they were willing to pay? If you rely on contingency as payment you run the same risk as hiring someone like APS don't you? After all they were working on contingency also and just decided to keep the money collected to cover their costs, that is why you didn't get any, wasn't it? Of course you are supervising the whole operation this time, aren't you Jim so there won't be a repeat of the APS scandal, right? Seems like you have enough spare time to come on here if that is the case then you shouldn't be saying any one agent of yours went rogue, right? So if something happens this time both you and PEP are going to have to own it aren't you?

Absolutely not. That only applies when you are PEP suing a venue. They have no problem stating the that venue is responsible for their subcontractor (KJ's) when it comes to infringement, but they certainly aren't responsible when their own subcontractor strays outside of honesty and ethics as long as they are getting some money for it.

See how that works?

When did you stop beating your wife?

My Dad once told me" If you have to beat them to keep them you better let them go". Maybe it is time to let go of this legal farce of yours? If you are not going to take seriously the overseeing of your minions, then you should get out of the suits drives sales business Jim. You are going to be responsible for their actions, you are going to have to own it, you and Kurt, so deal with it.

Not only do I find that response to be offensive, I also consider it to be slanderous. A person in your profession should know better than to make things personal, no matter what. You could and should be held accountable for making remarks like that. I honestly am shocked by a statement like that. It may seem funny to you, but it is simply not funny at all.

I wasn't intending to be funny. I was making a point about the smugness of his questions. No one would seriously think I was accusing him of having beaten his wife. And it was no more offensive and slanderous than what I was responding to, yet you complain about me? It's one set of rules for me, and one set for everyone else?

The other comments that preceded your statement were made from a viewpoint outside your own. You may not agree with what they had said, that is fine. I believe you have a right to your opinion and viewpoint as well. But your comment was plainly rude and offensive. You are a professional, a licensed practicing lawyer and you make a comment like that, so "yes" a different set of rules for you indeed.