Karaoke Forums

In other words, you can't make them delete anything from their Hardrives except for SC's songs.

So, SC goes about telling KJs that they must get audited (to prove they are 1:1) or be sued if they are seen running a show that is operated in any format other than the use of discs. Then they "offer" those that are not operating within the legal boundaries set forth, the "opportunity" to purchase/lease the SC GEM series. AND, after doing so, they are issued a "Certificate of Authenticity," stating that they are now operating legally (according to SC's standards).

The (then/now) "Pirate" KJ gets to operate his/her shows with the newly acquired GEM series in their library, and still use the other 80K plus songs from their Harddrive (that did not consist of the SC name brand), AND, drum roll please..... they have a "Certificate of Authenticity" to prove that they are now operating legally.

Yup!!! I can see how the playing field has been leveled/evened out to all KJs!!!

Cue it gets even better than that - I could buy the Foundations 1 set for $389 from Sound Choice and spend $349 for 1 set of Essentials from Chartbuster, get my "certificates" from both those folks and then add my 80,00-90,000 songs. Now I'm ready to compete with all my KJ friends in the market who have spent thousands on their products - and as far as all the venues are concerned, I'm good as gold. Now where in the h*ll is the sense in that scenario? There is no leveling of the playing field brother - you believe there is if you want to. When some of these guys get smart enough to figure that out maybe the cheerleaders will turn in their pom poms.

Cueball,

HarringtonLaw is correct when he says that when it comes to other labels, SC has "no standing in court." Because they can't sue a pirate for a brand they don't own. Consequently, they can "encourage" someone to go legal, but that's the extent of it.

Your scenario of buying the Gem AND keeping the other 90,000 tracks is correct. They can't do anything on any other company. This is why I've always sounded like a broken record: They aren't really interested in the "industry" because there's no money in that... the only cash that can be gleaned can only be generated off their own label. Consequently, they are not leveling any playing field for the hosts... it's makes great propaganda in my opinion, but it means very little.

HarringtonLaw has suggested injunctive relief, however how many stories have you read posted here by other KJ's of their frustration at repeatedly reporting pirates and nothing being done? Because SC doesn't want to mail out cease and desist letters, that would simply kill the market they're trying to get. But they want KJ's to become "tipsters" in this "fight against piracy for the good of the industry." They'll mail you a checklist along with an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) so you can drive around town and rat on the pirates so they can make a sale... and do it free. All the while, they're claiming they are "helping YOU" when in fact, they are "using you" to generate sales.

Right. In my opinion, they just want KJ's to root out new sales leads for them and perfume it to the point that the KJ's don't know/realize what they're actually doing.

While his suggestion that you can sue your own pirates seems simple enough on the surface, you'd have such a long, hard road in doing so that it wouldn't be worth the expense... if you could get anywhere at all without legally exposing yourself to some pretty nasty tort repercussions.

Besides, what plaintiff attorney is going to take that kind of case on a contingency basis? NONE... because there is no money for the attorney there. So, you would have to spend your own money on an hourly basis in order to sue them... and we all know how fast the courts are... and that could cost you tens of thousands of dollars. I don't think you'd want to sue a pirate on your own because when you distill it down to it's basic elements, you don't own any copyrights or trademarks so you'd have to find some way of suing on unfair competition and unfair business practices after you have gathered solid proof that he is a pirate, and it will end up being nothing more than a tax on the stupid.

The cheerleaders are being played like a fiddle..... but you gotta love the enthusiasm.

Chip, I picked up on that right away. I just didn't feel like retorting to the obvious. How many years have we all been together on these forums (JOLT and K-Scene), where that very same suggestion has come up? And, how many do you know of that have acted upon that? Where are the success stories? Where are the (failure), "It cost me too much to..." or "It was thrown out of Court" stories?

Was checking the SC site and when they listed who passed audits, they had it divided between who passed a voluntary audit and those who "resolved past issues with SC." There are only 7 in the latter category so it doesn't look like they have turned a lot of pirates back onto the streets. Seems like a small number compared to those they have served. Maybe it is too early to tell.

I find it rather bittersweet that people are finally starting understand what some of us here have been saying all along about this whole lawsuit business from the very beginning.
Before any of this came about, this was a fully supportive community, where EVERYONE cared and supported everyone else. And all it took was a lawsuit and a member regarding that lawsuit to instill "dissension in the ranks", if you will, and ruin the relative harmony that was here previously.
For the last 2 years or so, we've been ridiculed about our opinions and we've even been labeled as pirate supporters and even pirates themselves, just because we saw fit to point out the holes and inherent problems with both what the manufacturers have been doing and with their methodology in doing it.
Now it seems that perhaps we weren't so far off the mark. With the questions asked of and answered by Harringtonlaw many are starting to see it. I might add that many of those same questions were continually dodged by SC, thereby keeping the dissension in the ranks. This all could have been properly answered 2 years ago and saved a ton of heartache amongst the members here.
Bittersweet, indeed.

I'm not so sure I am willing to write it off, yet. Really I have always felt that until there is an actual court case and decision, no one will know for sure and it is all just speculation. In our area, pirates drastically reduced their songbooks and have had some of their shows dry up. So the publicity may have had an affect and my lead to other things being done. There have been mistakes made and things I haven't fully agreed with but I haven't been willing to ascribe them to purely evil motives as some have. And I don't think it is the piracy topic that is so bad as much as how people choose to discuss it.

I don't think anyone here have ascribed their motives as "purely evil" at all. Quite the opposite. Their motives are actually quite normal. They were robbed and they want their money. Fair enough. It's their METHODS that people have taken issue with.
You're right. It's certainly not the piracy topic in, and of, itself that has been the problem. I rather think that it's been some of the misinformation that certain manus have allowed some on here to continue believing, despite knowing otherwise and being capable of correcting it. But I believe it may have suited them to continue it for their own reasons.
And yes, some have chosen to discuss things in an accusatory and combative manner. Personally, I don't think it's the way to go either, but I will say this: If you continually poke a snake with a stick, don't be surprised when it finally coils up and bites you, meaning that some on here have provoked others to that point, and it just ends up being a free for all. I'm certainly glad to see that the mods have taken a stance on it and maybe now we can finally get some information and cordial discussion going, as it should have been in the first place and as it was before all this mess.
We can certainly see that starting to happen in the few posts above. Good to see.

I've never cared for nor supported a thief in this case a kj who doesn't buy any music or multirigs without discs for each system.

I've always said it was about SC recouping losses. If it even resorts to having kj's pull SC content, it will help me in that respect as singers in this area do want & request SC. I've already noticed new singers because some of the defendants here no longer offer SC.

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

Well, here's the problem with that Lonman:
I'm not a defendant and I'm also not using their product although I've spent thousands (not hundreds, but thousands) of dollars on their product. My equipment contains both a disc player and a computer.

If I use the product I paid for -manufactured by them -on my computer, I get sued.
If I use their product I paid for -manufactured by them -on my disc player even near my computer, I get sued as well.

So, in my situation, if I use their product, I get sued either way and so do my customers. It's a no-win scenario. And that's the reward I would get for purchasing thousands of dollars of their products. Real nice.

Forget explaining it away with the "just get an audit" answer. It is not an option, nor has it been for the last 16 years.

This is ridiculous. 16 years, sure, but now the rules have changed. Computer use is an option now, but you refuse the get an audit answer because that is the new thing. Whatever. I wasn't lumping you in with the thieves. You supposedly (I say this because I personally do not know) own your discs. You do what you feel is right & quit arguing. Jesus Chrimany! LET IT EFFEN GO ALREADY!!!

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

Thank you Lon.

My feelings exactly.

_________________
My first choice IS Sound Choice.

And this illustrates my point. I was referring specifically to people on this forum, yet, by your answer here, you insinuate (whether intentionally or nor, I don't know) that some here are pirates. Who are the pirates here? This is exactly the kind of crap that stirs people up that I'm speaking about. Some here are now overly sensitive due to the last couple of years of thinly veiled and outright accusations. Let's try and keep that to a minimum!

You know what they say about people who 'assume' ? No that was not what I was insinuating at all. I have no first hand knowledge of such, however am willing to bet there are - but that is nothing more than speculation on part. I read your statement as there was a time when everyone cared & supported everone else - meaning even those that whine back and forth today were once cooperative, helpful & friendly. Mine was a rebuttle in general targeting thieves only in which I never had any use for.
I'm not talking people who have bought discs that run computer now but still have discs - I do not consider that thievery (unless they are runinng multiple shows with that one set of discs). I'm talking the blatent thieves (knowingly or not) that bought illegal drives and probably don't know what a cdg is. Which I had thought I explained fairly clearly.

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

I don't believe there is anyone on these forums that's ever "had any use for" pirates. Why doesn't your suggestion (obviously targeted toward me) that you understand my position and that I need to "quit whining" about it include the cheerleaders that are belaboring their position ad naseum? I don't see you telling the cheerleaders to "Jesus Chrimany! LET IT EFFEN GO ALREADY!!!"

As a moderator, I believe you have a responsibility to remain fair and impartial in trying to direct the members here despite your own personal feelings on the issue. This doesn't mean that you don't have a right to express your personal feelings on any issue, however this being a public forum, it should allow for the free exchange of ideas and opinions --whether you like them (or agree with them) or not.

I'm not attacking anyone here and I'm not breaking any of the posting rules and I'd appreciate it if you would allow me the same courtesy that everyone else is allowed.


But this is what you don't understand or are ignoring: When your solution includes an audit, that's EXACTLY who you are talking about - those that have purchased discs - even years ago that you suggest have to undergo any kind of search without any evidence of wrongdoing. And it's being labeled under the auspices of a "new set of rules."

I understand that you don't have a problem with an audit and that's fine, however some of us do and that fact alone doesn't invalidate who we are nor does it point a finger as though we are some sort of pirate.

Dunno how long it's been.... but I think so long that your nickname back then was "Fuzzball" wasn't it?.... (Just kidding)



Well, there just weren't any and not because it wasn't contemplated however. I believe it's because there wasn't a sturdy enough foundation to make any kind of legal action worthwhile. I remember having these kinds of conversations with Tom Vivieros of Stellar and Eric Brown of Song Factory back in the day... We equated it similar to one club paying wholesale for their beer and one club across the street you think must be stealing a beer truck every day and giving away beer at ridiculously low prices. And even if they are losing money on beer, there's no law against that.

On a local level, suing for unfair business practices means you'd better have real, pertinent and irrefutable proof and a good-sized chunk of money. Monetarily speaking, on a federal level, suing for "predatory pricing" is prohibitively expensive.

So, at least it was discussed. Success/failure stories don't exist to my knowledge either and on that you have a very valid point...

LMFAOASCOMPC

All of Sound Choices actions indicate to me that they have no desire to create new product. The big three are now the big two. They could like Chartbuster and Stellar invest in new technology to make the product more secure, they don't. They are trying after the train has left the station, to tell the engineer what the final destination will be. You are right that it would not be necessary to pay 500.00 for something it can't deliver blanket license. They can however for say 100.00 sell the right to shift your material, without all the drama all this court business entails. Since they primarily are focused on sales, I have never heard of a marketing strategy that uses the threat of legal action to meet sales goals. There is something just not right about the methods SC uses to reach these sales goals. I too would like to go back to a situation where the hosts could be mutually supportive of one another. I also believe that by making accusations against fellow hosts, without proper intelligence is irresponsible and reflects badly on the industry as a whole. The final problem I have with all of this is how this all appears to venues that might hire hosts. Will they take a chance on karaoke period, if their is a risk to their business interests? As much as you might want to hang the pirates, it is time to be practical about the situation. It is also wrong to follow blindly a manu that has turned away from it's core business, and become professional legal litigants.

In my area I don't know of any hosts or venues that have even gotten the warning letter everybody has been talking about. At a few of the disc shops though I remember seeing something posted, but that was more than two years ago. It was just most of the hosts I know are disc based like myself. The few Kj's that use the laptop didn't stick around too long, I guess the hosts in my area have been very fortunate. The few computer based hosts I have seen don't even have a song book, or if they do it is very small, but they can punch up any song you ask for. Their main problem is that they cannot play an individuals disc, and a great many serious singers, where I play want to use their disc. There is a great deal of emotion involved when talking about piracy, this is increased by the amount of time, investment, and to if the karaoke is the host primary source of income.

Can we unsticky the "SC AUDIT INFO" now? Seems like an overwhelming majority here don't want to see it.