Karaoke Forums

Perhaps it was my error of interpretation where you said that Slep-tone had two victories on the merits. Seems in hindsight you were discussing decisions where Slep-tone's pleadings were being challenged and prevailed. So how many decisions on the merits have there been in favor of Slep-tone on its allegations that were not defaults? How many of Slep-tone's claims that went to trial did Slep-tone prevail on? How many in those circumstances has it lost?

In any event, the judge in Oregon dispensed with the argument of attorney's fees because there was no proof of willfulness, thus suggesting that the burden of proof was on Slep-tone because, in fact, it was. In default, a plaintiff is required to prove up (i.e. offer evidence of) each element of the claim. Here, Slep-tone did not. According to her decision, there was no evidence offered by Slep-tone, beyond perhaps speculation on its part, that showed the "willfulness" required for fees. As to state law fees, it seem she addressed it by citing to the gamesmanship in the pleadings and concession that it was a small claims matter in contradistinction to the settlement-inducing inflated nature of other claims in the complaint. She is clearly onto Slep-tone's tactics.

One thing that struck me about this decision was, if the defendant had put up any type of a fight, the matter could have gone the other way. It would seem the law protects the defendant even if he doesn't show up and pleads his case. A big mistake, even in the Panama City case in the 11th hour with no lawyer, the defendant managed to walk, by offering some excuse.

Furthermore the 15,000 in lost profits were not even figured in. All that was awarded were statutory damages in the amount of $10,000.00 plus 510.00 in costs, and of course the injunction. The investigation method was also called into question. "Observed the sampling of 11 out of 14 observed tracks is insufficient to establish a 75% rate of infringement".

The most damaging aspect of this case brings to light, something that has been quite evident in all of these cases, and noted by the Judge.

"Furthermore the manner in which plaintiff has pleaded this case (as well as many other similar cases against similarly situated defendants), i.e., asserting millions in statutory damages which could be trebled while at the same time seeking a low ball amount suggests an attempt to extract a settlement short of litigation based on the sanctions alone as opposed to intentionally infringing conduct".

Can anyone now say that these suits are not used to stoke up fear in the defendant in order to have them settle the suit before it ever goes to trial? SC asks at first for millions and then settles for 10,510.00 and an injunction. That is after the suit has drug on for over a year. If the defendants ever start fighting back in mass, then even this paltry sum, will not be awarded.

P.S. Danny I hope you can see where just licensing the GEM might be a better idea and cheaper to, if the hosts decides not to appear in court. There will be the added advantage of not having an injunction slapped on them and they can still compete against you. "Suits drives sales".

So what if "suits drive sales". Those who have been caught using SC product without having ANY original discs, should be paying for that music, whether it is by damages awarded, Gems bought or an injunction from having shows. I don't have a problem with any of those solutions. What is your problem with it? You would rather people use music they didn't pay for?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I would rather not have our court system tied up with such nonsense. You are up in Canada tim, it is not your court that is having to deal with this drivel. There wouldn't be a suit in the first place or SC and Jim would head North. It is quite plain SC is trolling for easy settlements that don't go to trial and expose how weak their position really is. The amount of a default decision is rather small, considering the amount of time and cost involved. The days of the $100,000.00 settlements are through. Really tim even SC doesn't care if people use music they didn't pay for, if they did they would go after the home market as well. Instead they pick on hosts since they are the most exposed. Most of the theft was done by persons that will never be threatened by any legal action what so ever.

I would rather not see the forums clogged up with your lather, rinse, repeat posts, but we all have to deal with that too.

It is laughably naive of you to think that what you post here will have any effect at all on the viability, effectiveness or frequency of Sound Choice lawsuits.

If you really want to make a difference, then figure out a way to do something about it and spare us your twist-o-babble.

_________________
-Chris

"So how many decisions on the merits have there been in favor of Slep-tone on its allegations that were not defaults? How many of Slep-tone's claims that went to trial did Slep-tone prevail on? How many in those circumstances has it lost?"

Still wondering.

I wonder what chairs would look like if our knees bent the other way too. I guess that only really matters to those who have knees that bend the other way.....

_________________
-Chris

As long as I'm not bending my knee to SC or Jim Chris it's ok. Oh by the way I did submit a plan to license all hosts, remember?

So how much would that licence be, for how long, and who would administer it? What would he punishments be for those who don't abide? We have something like that in Canada for DJs but because of sync rights, they can't do it for karaoke. The cost BTW is almost $400.00, taxes in, renewed annually. It is called Connect Music, formerly AVLA.

http://www.connectmusic.ca/Default.aspx

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Just look up my old original posts tim, it is all laid out. It will never happen because too many conflicting interests, that like things the way they are muddled.

Holy crap!! it must have gone up considerably. I used to pay $150 thru the canadian dj association I was a member of.

It got picked on because there was no accountability for those who never paid for their discs and forced legal KJ's to pay twice for their product.

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

You mean Danny like the current policy of SC, where you license GEM whether you are guilty or not? The legal KJ pays twice just to get SC off their backs, and no audit is required as long as you pay the licensing fee. The difference is with SC you are only covered for SC, under the other plan you are covered for all manus who sign on. I really don't see the difference between my plan and the current SC licensing system. Under SC's current plan less than 2% of the possible hosts are resolved. That leaves over 98% of the industry that is still out here playing Wild West Host. A 2% solution is not really a solution is it Dan?

LR, what a load of crap. If one is one to one, pays the fee, they don't buy the Gem. If they are disc based, again they don't pay for the Gem. The only ones "forced" to pay for Gems are those who are not one to one and want to stay in business. So who was one to one or disc based who were "forced" to buy the Gem?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

The load of crap tim is the legal pressure the host is subjected to. Just like APS's and Jim's reputation is harmed by baseless legal charge and counter charges, so is a host's reputation. The purpose of these suits is to pressure the host into paying off SC just to make everything go away, whether it is true or not. If you are tied up in court, and your business is under a cloud, you will naturally do what makes the most sense economically, even if your are not guilty. If you are faced with paying thousands in legal fees that you can't recoup, or just license the GEM series for 3500 to 5000 with no injunction about using the material what would you do?

This is not even close to being accurate.

A 1:1 host who gets sued can easily resolve the suit with an audit, which they may or may not have to pay for. No GEM license is required.



The purpose of the suits is to get karaoke operators to conform to the media-shifting policy. There are three options, in increasing order of expense:

1) Get your system(s) audited to verify 1:1 correspondence. (Free or low cost.)
2) Get out of the business. (Requires turnover of hosting equipment and may include a cash payment.)
3) Pay for past infringement and get certified going forward. (Requires cash payment, possession of a significant number of discs, and deletion down to 1:1.)
4) Pay for past infringement and acquire additional material. (Requires cash payment and GEM license, plus 1:1 correspondence.)

Note that the one thing required in each item is conformity to the media-shifting policy, either by getting to 1:1 correspondence (1, 3, or 4), or by getting out of the business (2).

There is no pressure on any operator to pay SC anything to "go away," especially not a 1:1 operator. Even when a payment is contemplated, it's not for SC to "go away." Getting to 1:1 correspondence is always required.

Jim the purpose of these suits are to license your unsold GEM series stockpile of unsold inventory, end of story.

Well, considering that the lawsuits predated the creation of the GEM series by more than a year, and considering that you are a retired KJ who operated (allegedly) without using SC for years, and you have no ties to anyone at SC, and have never been involved in any of the lawsuits, by all means, you would know.

I guess that makes me clean of the APS v.s. SC dog and pony show doesn't it Jim? Can you say the same?

Certainly not me. I paid for mine because I wanted a full collection of songs that were of the best quality and that is what I got with the GEM series. I got audited so I could play the songs I already have on disc.

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