Karaoke Forums

Putting myself in a producer's shoes -- any producer -- I too would litigate against those that openly sold or bought hard drives containing illegal copies of my property.

Not to "save the karaoke industry", because realistically that isn't something any producer can do.

And not to make or recoup any lost profits. There's no getting back the retail value of all the illegal copies out there, that amount is too big to be realistic. The injury has been done. All the potential settlements from all the buyers and sellers of drives on Ebay can't hold a candle compared to the retail value of all the pirated tracks in the world. The sellers would rarely have money to take, and the buyers practically never and, alas, those are the only viable targets. (PEP has taken aim at KJ's and venues for years, and it hasn't gotten them anywhere -- it never will.)

So why would I litigate when it won't save the world or make myself money? Because those that openly traffic in illegal drives are adding insult to injury. Just because I can't fix the injury is no reason to tolerate the insult. The very public insult when the goods are touted on Ebay.

So my goal in this type of litigation would only be to break even. The purpose is to put a stop to the flagrant insults. That would be sufficient reason for me, and as long as the program even came close to breaking even, then I would pursue it.

Isn't that the whole reason PEP dropped going after hosts? Even when they won say in California basically because the hosts settled before it went to court, even then they didn't see any of the $300,000.00 collected by the investigators and the lawyer. The money was kept by their agents to cover the cost of recovery. That is why SC/PEP ended up suing their agents, and still they didn't see a dime. The hosts who didn't pay just walked. I don't see EP how that is winning. Not only that but Judge Wright labeled them intellectual trolls for their troubles. Since no official papers were served, and Cajun's lawyer said not to sweat it until they were, so far all this is is a legal bluff. Similar to what SC/PEP was doing to see who would pay up.

After years of collective complaining about the abuses of the legal system perpetuated by SoundChoice/Slep-Tone/PEP, when we are finally presented with an example of an outfit protecting their interests (interests they actually own) in the manner in which it is supposed to be done, and it is greeted with ill-informed and ignorant rants of "It's a scam" or "they can't prove their case" or even instructions on what they think is the best way to pirate more effectively.
Wow.

How is "I'm retired now" or "I have no dog in the fight" a valid reason to spread misinformation or an excusable explanation for having done so when presented with the truth?

The reason the Harrington plan was problematic for us is because it was indiscriminately applied, effecting everyone including the innocent. They made a lot of noise in an effort to frighten everyone into compliance with their ever changing demands whether a pirate or not. It simply was not fairly executed, and had negative ramifications on the industry that was not limited to only those who participated in piracy.

Here we have an example of a company protecting its own interest in its own property, in a way that only affects those who participated in the piracy of their product. They've obviously learned a lot from observing Harrington's failed Scorched Earth approach.

If you have ever complained about hard drive sellers and KJs that use these hard drives, you should be applauding the news of these lawsuits.
Had you been paying attention to the goings on in this industry of your choice, you would have already been aware of these suits and not been caught by surprise to the point you'd make ignorant comments.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I never complained about the hard drive sellers, since they really never effected me one way or another. Even though Stellar is only going after those who are guilty, in the early stages most hosts also supported SC, then changed their minds. Sorry if I feel that this is just more of the same. I know this time it is going to be different. One thing that hasn't been explained to me is how Stellar is going to make this work financially, so they can continue the recovery process? In the end that was PEP's problem they just couldn't make the numbers work. Stellar is still faced with the same legal costs, and the problem of collecting the judgement, after it is awarded. I wish someone could tell me how things are different this time? PEP finally had to go after venues, since there wasn't enough meat on the bones of the hosts they sued, I'm sure home user abusers are even thinner.

It hardly seems worth the time or bother to explain anything to someone who constantly declares that none of this makes any difference to them.



However, for the sake of the rest I will explain:
Different people make the difference.
Snap out of it, man.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

That is it different people make the difference.

That is the explanation? There isn't anymore to it, nothing about how this will work practically, financially, that it is just going to be
different this time. If it is so different this time, why does it seem quite a bit like what went on before? Only time will tell if this is really
different or just more of the same.

Yep, that's it.
The real question is: why does it matter to you?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Perhaps it's too soon to ask, or perhaps it's information you'd rather not disclose, but I hope the case is that there's no harm in answering, and you'd be willing to feed my curiosity.

Once established through discovery, have you been surprised by the number of sales these sellers generate? Can you give us some idea of the numbers?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

You are right it shouldn't matter to me. It just doesn't matter. I seem to remember that most hosts thought what SC/PEP was doing was right and just. After awhile not so much. The same financial problems associated with SC's recovery process will also happen to Stellar, it's baked in the cake. All I have to do is sit and wait for it to happen. So far there have only been two court cases any information has been released on. It is still too early to see where this is all going to go. My guess is the waters are going to be worked up, and we will see how many defendants settle out of court for $8,000.00. If enough settle this will go on for a while, if not it will collapse under it's own administrative weight. Simple!

Actually, it does matter to you. It just doesn't affect you.

Can anyone explain to me why I keep getting a 403 error? For some reason I'm able to post this just fine but I've tried posting a reply to another post but the 403 error keeps popping up?

So how would you know these things when according to your own admission you've never sued anyone or been sued? How would you know what is "practical", or as usual, are you just "assuming" to know what is practical. Evidently you think that everyone but you is stupid and hasn't thought any of this out, and because YOU can't comprehend how something like this would work, evidently you feel like you're entitled to an explanation so that you can give your stamp of approval. Do you think that we just fell off the turnip truck yesterday? Do actually think that this is the first time anyone has avoided service? Do you actually think that all of the possible outcomes haven't been considered prior to initiating action? Do you think that lawyers haven't had to deal with these kinds of things before in the 30 or 40 years they've been practicing? Are you even aware of the various types of recourse that are available in cases like this? Do you actually think this will end well for them?

How does someone who's lived as long as you have make such a stupid generalization like this. If they didn't have any money they wouldn't be settling or hiring lawyers to defend themselves. But the answer to your remark is that some do and some don't, but in the end it doesn't matter. Willful infringement is a non-dischargeable offense (in bankruptcy), meaning if I get even a small judgment against you, I can basically follow you to your grave to collect that judgment. If an infringer wants to not be able to get a loan or engage in other endeavors that require a good credit rating, then they can go to their grave with the debt from the judgment.

Aside from your ignorance you are also offensive and insulting. Do you honestly think I derive some sort of joy out of suing someone who has infringed on my intellectual property? Please don't impugn my character. You don't know me or anything about me. If I really wanted to ruin someone I would seek statutory damages just like the publishers do to the producers when they file suit against us. Evidently your sympathies lie with the infringers but you have none whatsoever for those who have been aggrieved by these illegal actors. It evidently is of no concern to you that my company and those that it employed were "ruined" by their illegal activities. You are so damn clueless yet you rattle off at the mouth like a 5th grader. 73 going on 10! What's that saying ... there's no fool like an old fool.

Please stop holding up the SC/PEP model for me. I don't really give a rat's behind as to what they did. So why do you continually present their model as the de facto standard, especially when you claim that it was a big failure. What was it that Einstein said about insanity? Our approach has absolutely nothing to do with what SC did, does or will do, and we never once looked at what SC/PEP did. Legal wouldn't have even known about the SC efforts except for the few times that I told them about what I read on this forum and some of the things that Chip had posted, nor did it seem to rouse even a little bit of curiosity. What they did just doesn't matter to us one way or another.

Being the most presumptuous individual that I've ever encountered, it doesn't surprise me that you've assumed that there's a magic number of $8,000 for everyone. The amount sought in damages from an individual depends on numerous circumstances but quite frankly is really none of your damn business. I can't prevent people from disclosing what we initially seek in damages, but we do include non-disclosure statements in all settlement agreements which could be considerably more than the $8,000 you've assumed to be standard, especially after they have lawyered up, and the cost to litigate increases. Having said that, even if the $8,000 was some sort of a sweet spot ... so what? What does that have to do with the price of milk? Finally, I appreciate your concern about the financial aspects of this, as I suppose for some reason you're unable to fathom the idea that it would be impossible for another entity to make it work financially seeing that SC couldn't if that's even case. Oh and BTW, if Cajun's lawyer told him "not to sweat it", then if I were him I'd seek a new attorney faster than a speeding bullet (if indeed that's what his lawyer did tell him). If it's true, I'd bet the farm that he is not an IP attorney. Have yet to hear that kind of advice from a qualified IP attorney. Any lawyer worth his salt who has looked at the evidence and these documents knows or should know that this is serious stuff and this isn't just going to go away by ignoring it. It would be most unfortunate for any defendant to think this is a "bluff".

So I found the reason for the 403 error. Evidently I used the word p-o-k-e-r in one of my posts and that's what triggered the 403 error. Hmmm .... I found that to be rather strange but perhaps it's intentional to discourage any discussions about gambling or gaming, etc.

Me thinks you protest to much Bastiat! For a person that doesn't agree with the SC model seems like you are very similar in approach, at least as far as threats go. I wonder where the mods are? I though we were supposed to discuss facts and not make personal attacks? I guess that only applies to certain posters. Even by the examples that have been given here, as far as this legal process goes, there is no indication that you have collected anything yet. With the type of sums involved a defendant could request a jury trial, if they decide to fight it. Really by the way you react I see very little difference from your approach and Jim Harrington's. Just saying.

I don't think they are similar at all. Stellar does a true investigation. PEP simply bluffed people into believing they were investigated. BIG DIFFERENCE.

In actuality Lone Ranger, you started the insults comparing this action to PEP, so don't act victimized when you get called on it.

While the operative word is "yet," whether he collects nothing or a million bucks a week is really none of your business nor is it a reason to cheer or criticize. If you disapprove of his protecting his IP then that's too bad and It's his to defend and protect. So if you "don't have a dog in the fight" you really shouldn't berate those that do. Just sit back and watch because that's all you can do anyway.

Then it's apparent that you really haven't done any research of your own. The only similarity between these two is that the cases are filed in federal court. Other than that, they are drastically different.

Just sayin'

Gents, please re-read the rules of forum behavior..
Additional slanders/insults/random guesses will not be in your best interest.
Just sayin'

I can only assume that this post is directed toward me and one or two others. While I don't recall if I've ever read the rules of the forum I think it's fairly safe to assume they require posters to maintain a certain decorum and civility among their exchanges. I've never been one to hurl insults and prefer a polite exchange however I have my limits as well. It's perfectly okay to disagree, however it's not okay to be disagreeable, and I won't allow myself to be disrespected in this manner. Nevertheless, when someone calls me a scammer among other things, makes backhanded insults and does not have a single good thing to say, then it's obvious that this poster's only ability to exchange ideas lies only in the pejorative and unfortunately its been my experience that people like this can only be dealt with in kind. They don't know how to have a gentlemanly exchange, and in this case I feel justified in defending my character in terms the offending poster can understand.

Nevertheless, I understand your position and it's your forum. You can impose any rules and/or interpret them in any way you see fit. Whether or not I feel justified in my behavior is irrelevant, it's your forum, your rules. However as forums go, this is a two street and I certainly don't need to post at all in any forum nor would I care to if I'm required to play by separate rules. It doesn't put money in my pocket nor benefit me in any way. if my posts are outside of the parameters of what you find acceptable behavior to the point where you feel you need to threaten me with statements like will not be in your best interest. then let's part as gentlemen. There won't be any hard feelings and I won't be angry, nor engage in any of the behaviors that you've mentioned, but just politely thank you for the opportunity to post on your forum and be on my merry way.

Assume = A$$ out of you and me.
Assume nothing gents, as the parties in question have received an email regarding conduct.
If you didn't get one, perhaps you complain too much..
Carry on..