Karaoke Forums

...or not?

I just purchased my 8000th unique Sound Choice song and ripped it to the computer and am intending to use it at my shows.

Happy discussing! And no, I don't care. Meaning let them come and drag me to court. I will show up with my original disks and see what the judge will do about it.

I would do the same if I were a KJ And don't worry, no one will ever bring you to court for that

It wouldn't get to court. After you are named in a lawsuit you would enter discovery where you would show your discs then be dismissed.

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

You've somehow forgotten that discovery can be objected to and that not all discovery requests are automatically granted.

Discovery also works two ways, not one. The defendant's attorney can ask for their investigator's information as well as their investigation methods and results to insure that their client's rights have not been violated with an empty accusation based on speculation and (God forbid) hearsay and not direct evidence.

Then the shoe would be on the other foot wouldn't it?

The defense may also ask for proof the tracks were legally produced, and not "Overage" on the contract. (If any contract existed)

Then "Let It Be"

Hmmmm..... I don't have permission from Northern Songs to post that copyrighted lyric. Oops!

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

man, what happened to innocent till proven guilty. why should i have to prove my innocence to be able to prove im not guilty.

i think i would drag it all the way to court and and let them prove i don't own all my original disc's.

then i would counter sue slept-tone or whomever for coercing and extortion.

coercing and extortion - using scare tactics by threatening to sue me if i don't do the audit in advance and then offering me the option to pay for a "voluntary" audit for a piece of paper that says they won't sue me in court.

it seems to me with my loyalty over the years of purchasing disc's (2500 + original discs), that they would do the audit free of charge.

and then offering a settlement to pirates if they purchase their gem package they will drop the lawsuit. i know that i have well over 300 + sound choice disc's. and paid way more than any gem package they offer. do you think they would treat me any different then a pirate.

just seems wrong to me.

_________________
It's all good!

Go for it!

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

Eh.. no.

Not "as illegal as can be," but not fully legal, either.

Assuming that the song came on an original, authentic compact disc, congratulations, and thank you for your purchase.

Since you've decided to operate outside Sound Choice's Media-Shifting Policy, you're of course subject to being sued for making unauthorized copies of your tracks.

If Sound Choice does sue you, we hope you'll come forward with original discs to demonstrate that you do have 1:1 correspondence. When you do, Sound Choice will conduct an audit of your systems, and, if you are 1:1, you'll be dismissed from the lawsuit. No intervention from the judge will be required. Of course, if you refuse to submit voluntarily to the free post-suit audit, it will be handled through the discovery process to the same effect.

"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in criminal cases. This is a civil matter. You don't have to "prove your innocence"--the burden of proof is still on the plaintiff--but in a civil suit, the discovery process requires that certain information be turned over to the other side upon request.

Also, if you are sued, you will be given an opportunity to demonstrate 1:1 correspondence to end the case early.



That is not an accurate statement. The pirate who settles is required to pay more than the price of the GEM package--in fact, in the most recent suit, defendants are being required to pay $8500, for which they receive a 4800-track GEM package (that package retails for about $3600, so it's almost a $5000 premium), AND they are being required to delete non-1:1 copies from ALL manufacturers, not just SC. They are also required to disclose their source for unauthorized material, to disclose the identity of other pirates of which they are aware, and to submit to future audits at SC's request. So, yes, you're being treated very differently from the way a pirate is treated.

*****LIKE****

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

So settlements have gone up & defendants are required to DELETE ALL manufacturers content as well as rat out their sources in order not to be hit with a similar $750,000 judgement? Awesome!

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

And that works two ways....





It is a perfectly accurate statement if you're a KJ that has purchased discs from the beginning. You and your client are not the least interested in "fighting piracy" nor are you out to "help the industry" in the least. Because if you were, you'd be shutting down pirates and hard drive sellers - not keeping them in business by easy-financing their overpriced purchases. Shutting down pirates and hard drive sellers is the only thing that will help the KJ's that purchase your music and use it commercially.


"Disclosing their source" is nothing more than another way of saying "give us more sales leads" so you can settle with them too. You also have nothing to say about tracks from other manufacturers - period.


Right. You don't get the easy-financing they do.

Really???

Read on a little further WOS... I think you missed this from Harrington's "Introduction" thread (see Page 10 and 11). I'll repeat it for you right here... It appears to me like Mr. Harrington has contradicted himself (see the responses he gave below).

What about this???????










Referring SPECIFICALLY to the KJs who purchased Hard Drives that were fully loaded with illegally obtained Karaoke tracks, how do you intend to enforce this statement "they are being required to delete non-1:1 copies from ALL manufacturers, not just SC.", when you made the other statements above (regarding NON-SC tracks that could be found on those KJ's Hard Drives as well)???

Unless something has now changed, either you CAN or you CAN'T force a KJ to delete other illegally obtained tracks (NON SC) from their Hard Drives. Which is it???

After the discussion of that issue, we re-evaluated whether we had standing to pursue that activity. After some research, we decided that we could pursue it on the basis of its impact on legit KJs' ability to get shows and afford to buy our music.

As I have said before - delete all your SC files, and this BS becomes a moot point. Seems as if SC has given themselves the authority to do whatever they please once they name you in a suit.

How convenient.
Must be nice to just decide one day that you have legal standing to police something that is not yours and never was.
I would love to see that argument hashed out in court. I'm willing to bet that no judge would side with it. If it was the case that you did have legal standing (and shaky at that!), on that basis, then why don't we see any other suits, even from other industries on the basis of your supposed "legal standing"?
Got any case law to back that up?
BTW, might I remind you that your client is not a KJ? Therefore, your client cannot claim unfair competition on that basis.

Keep in mind he is referring to the pirate who settles. The legal standing for these extra requirements means nothing until it goes to court. As long as the pirate voluntarily agrees to a settlement the settlement could have many sorts of restrictions on the pirate that a judge wouldn't or couldn't order. I'd like to see a public apology added to the list.



If the pirate goes to court instead of settling, the consequences of a loss would be quite different from the settlement offer although unlikely to include the surrender of tracks that don't belong to Soundchoice.

A true pirate would be a fool to take the fight to court, so I look at these new restrictions as an improvement and a move in the right direction if Soundchoice wants to claim they are helping the cause of the legit KJ.

Of course, with the confidentiality agreement built in to the settlement it will be difficult to know if any of these extra conditions were actually met.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

OUTSTANDING! I look forward to advertising that I have the largest SC library in my area as pirates start deleting!

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"