good for you Chris, nice to see some morals in today's world
| Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums https://mail.karaokescene.net/forums/ |
|
| Famous Names Have In Common? https://mail.karaokescene.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=23134 |
Page 1 of 5 |
| Author: | c. staley [ Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Famous Names Have In Common? |
What do these famous names have in common? ELLIS ISLAND CASINO & BREWERY; FAME OPERATING COMPANY, INC.; HOT SHOTS BAR AND GRILL (a/k/a KELLEY‘S PUB); THE PUB, LLC; JOE; DAN; BIG NAILS, LLC; BEAUTY BAR; CAFÉ MODA; CAFÉ MODA, LLC; WILLIAM CARNEY; LAS VEGAS DJ SERVICE; JOHNNY VALENTI; E STRING GRILL & POKER BAR; PCA TRAUTH, LLC; KARAOKE LAS VEGAS; JACK GREENBACK; BILL‘S GAMBLIN‘ HALL & SALOON; CORNER INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC; IMPERIAL PALACE HOTEL & CASINO; HARRAH‘S IMPERIAL PALACE CORPORATION; ROLL ‗N‘ MOBILE DJ‘S AND KARAOKE TOO; KENNY ANGEL; PT‘S PLACE; GOLDEN-PT‘S PUB CHEYENNE-NELLIS 5, LLC; PT‘S PUB; GOLDEN-PT‘S PUB WEST SAHARA 8, LLC; PT‘S GOLD; GOLDEN-PT‘S PUB CENTENNIAL 32, LLC; GOLDEN-PT‘S PUB STEWART-NELLIS 2, LLC; GOLDEN TAVERN GROUP, LLC; STEVE & RAY KARAOKE; STEVE; RAY; LEGENDS CASINO; PUGDAWGS, LLC; STARMAKER KARAOKE; DEBBIE HARMS; DECATUR RESTAURANT & TAVERN; DDRT, LLC; PUTTERS; LISA/CARRISON LTD; DJ TARA KING PRODUCTIONS; TARA KING; KIXX BAR; BOULDER STATION CASINO; NP BOULDER, LLC; NPPALACE, LLC; PALACE STATION; DANSING KARAOKE; KIRK; GILLEY‘S LAS VEGAS; TREASURE ISLAND; TREASURE ISLAND, LLC; HALF SHELL SEAFOOD AND GAMING; HALF SHELL, LLC; JAMES BELLAMY; MEGA-MUSIC PRODUCTIONS; MR. D‘S SPORTS BAR; SPORTS BAR, LLC; RICK DOMINGUEZ; SOUND SELECT; ISLAND GRILL; OFFICE 7 LOUNGE & RESTAURANT, INC.; JAKE‘S BAR; DOC, G. & G., INC.; MIKE CORRAL; DAVE CORRAL; SHOWTYME KARAOKE & DJ; CALICO JACK‘S SALOON; MIKE R. GORDON; RED LABEL LOUNGE; RED LABEL BAR, INC.; TERRY CICCI; TERRY-OKE KARAOKE; KJ‘S BAR & GRILL; L.T. BOND, INC.; TIM MILLER; VISION & SOUND ENTERTAINMENT; THUNDERBIRD LOUNGE AND BAR; ARUBA HOTEL AND SPA; IRVINGTON PROPERTIES, LLC; THUNDERBIRD BAR & LOUNGE, LLC; AUDIO THERAPY DJ; MATTE McNULTY (a/k/a ―DJ Matte‖); AUDIO THERAPY;GSTI HOLDINGS, LLC; GOLD SPIKE HOTEL & CASINO; GOLD SPIKE HOLDINGS, LLC; MARDI GRAS LOUNGE – BEST WESTERN; THE NEVADIAN, LLC; BEST WESTERN MARDI GRAS INN; Yep. They've all been sued by Sound Choice.... Case 2:12-cv-00239-KJD -RJJ Filed 02/15/12 |
|
| Author: | chrisavis [ Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Famous Names Have In Common? |
Not so famous - I am only recognize 4 names on that entire list. Only one of those would I consider famous and only because I am a Texan and also saw Urban Cowboy. -Chris |
|
| Author: | Bazza [ Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Famous Names Have In Common? |
The first three are right on the strip in Las Vegas. They are those low-brow joints where you see the rednecks in tank tops playing penny slots and drinking foot long frozen margaritas. It doesn't surprise me one bit they would also have crappy/pirate karaoke. |
|
| Author: | c. staley [ Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Famous Names Have In Common? |
Bazza wrote: The first three are right on the strip in Las Vegas. They are those low-brow joints where you see the rednecks in tank tops playing penny slots and drinking foot long frozen margaritas. It doesn't surprise me one bit they would also have crappy/pirate karaoke. I'll have to check the complaint, but I'm sure I read Harrah's and Ceasar's in there as well.... not such "low-brow joints." Yep... here's the part I inadvertently failed to post above because it was located on the final page list of defendants: Quote: J.P.P.J. OF NEVADA, INC.; HARRAH‘S LAS VEGAS; CAESAR‘S ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION; TJ‘S ALL-STAR KARAOKE; JOHN MENNITI; and JOHN DOES NOS. 1-10 INCLUSIVE, IDENTITIES UNKNOWN, And TEN "John Does" again? Where do they find these "professional investigators" who can't even get a real name? After "over 1,000 suits" they still can't get a name? |
|
| Author: | timberlea [ Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Famous Names Have In Common? |
So what. It's irrevelent. Show me a law or case law where what SC is doing is illegal. Further Ralph Nader (personally or on behalf of organizations) has sued many many corporations. Again, so what. What is your point? |
|
| Author: | c. staley [ Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Famous Names Have In Common? |
timberlea wrote: In other words Chip, you don't have a legal point other than your anti-SC diatribe. But not to worry, with Harrah's et als high priced legal teams, surely they will slay the SC dragon. Aren't you sure that the "high-priced legal teams" will simply pay the small fee rather than the much larger cost to go to trial?..... (If I was SC, that's exactly what I'd be hoping for....) I stopped counting defendants at 30.... |
|
| Author: | leopard lizard [ Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Famous Names Have In Common? |
And what if they don't? Many have said SC is just going after lowly KJs hoping they are too stupid to fight and will just turn over the money. Others have said they would never file in Nevada as they would be afraid to take on casino lawyers. This indicates a degree of seriousness to me. A bit nerve-wracking but serious. |
|
| Author: | Paradigm Karaoke [ Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Famous Names Have In Common? |
win or lose, it takes some stones to go head first after the Vegas casinos. this could be good, or someone may mysteriously disappear. |
|
| Author: | chrisavis [ Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Famous Names Have In Common? |
One man operation or giant corporate entity - it makes no difference to the legality of the situation. Theft is theft. The casinos may have more resources but that doesn't absolve them from liability. It feels good to know that after today, I will have done more and better due diligence than the big names on that list that should have had leadership that governed their affairs better. Maybe I should look at doing shows in Vegas after the dust settles. I do like the idea of driving instead of flying to see a new Cirque de Soleil show. -Chris |
|
| Author: | c. staley [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Famous Names Have In Common? |
chrisavis wrote: Maybe I should look at doing shows in Vegas after the dust settles. I do like the idea of driving instead of flying to see a new Cirque de Soleil show. -Chris If there is a hassle, good luck finding a job there. The casinos will most likely just drop it all together like a poisonous toad. Even the "certified locals" won't be able to work there thanks to SC's "crusade to help YOU." Casinos have better things to do than micro-manage their entertainment vendors - karaoke is so small in comparison to the big picture it won't even be missed. And if this were to happen, it would be a perfect example of SC "poisoning the market" even against disc-based KJ's. |
|
| Author: | MtnKaraoke [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Famous Names Have In Common? |
SC has made the sky fall. c. staley has taken over the role of chicken little. You all remember how Vegas stopped gambling after the feds gave them a hassle. Such a sad place. Same thing with alcohol. Vegas businesses are scared of a hassle and if they can't do something illegal, they will just close up shop. Even the circus won't come to town (sorry chrisavis). |
|
| Author: | chrisavis [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Famous Names Have In Common? |
@chip - Maybe. Maybe not. I am not going to predict that because I do believe Las Vegas is a unique market. They have plenty of entertainment alternatives. Here in my area, I am going to go back and take a better look at the KJ's and venues that got hit with lawsuits and also track down those that pulled SC and CB from their libraries to avoid a suit. I am going to aggressively pursue gigs with these venues. I will find out first hand if the SC actions have a positive or negative impact. -Chris |
|
| Author: | c. staley [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Famous Names Have In Common? |
MtnKaraoke wrote: SC has made the sky fall. c. staley has taken over the role of chicken little. You all remember how Vegas stopped gambling after the feds gave them a hassle. Such a sad place. Same thing with alcohol. Vegas businesses are scared of a hassle and if they can't do something illegal, they will just close up shop. Even the circus won't come to town (sorry chrisavis). Nice try.... No, the sky isn't falling - but with all the other "attractions" in Las Vegas, no casino "needs karaoke" at all. Do people go to Las Vegas primarily to "sing karaoke songs" or "to gamble?".... Dumping karaoke at the casinos won't hurt them at all. It's only going to affect the KJ's in the area..... No biggy. |
|
| Author: | chrisavis [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Famous Names Have In Common? |
c. staley wrote: Nice try.... No, the sky isn't falling - but with all the other "attractions" in Las Vegas, no casino "needs karaoke" at all. Do people go to Las Vegas primarily to "sing karaoke songs" or "to gamble?".... Dumping karaoke at the casinos won't hurt them at all. It's only going to affect the KJ's in the area..... No biggy. I hope you aren't suggesting that nothing should be done at all just so that what few fully legal hosts there may be in Vegas can continue to work unencumbered. Maybe if the legal hosts had taken a more active role in keeping the pirates at bay, they would be at risk of losing their own legal businesses because of action being taken in the area. I know there are folks that balk at rocking the boat, making enemies or otherwise just staying isolated in their own working bubbles. But legal hosts are just as much of the problem as illegal hosts. Turning a blind eye to what they are doing and allowing them to operate illegally just because they operate far enough away that it doesn't impact your operations STILL impacts your operations over time. Now that I have all of my ducks in a row, I expect I am going to make some enemies in my area over the next 6-12 months because of the aggressive stance I am going to take in rooting out the illegal hosts. I am going to grow my business and if that means that illegal hosts have to be rooted out and I piss of some folks, so be it. I have no qualms pissing off and putting a pirate out of business. -Chris |
|
| Author: | kjathena [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Famous Names Have In Common? |
| good for you Chris, nice to see some morals in today's world |
|
| Author: | c. staley [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Famous Names Have In Common? |
chrisavis wrote: I hope you aren't suggesting that nothing should be done at all just so that what few fully legal hosts there may be in Vegas can continue to work unencumbered. Maybe if the legal hosts had taken a more active role in keeping the pirates at bay, they would be at risk of losing their own legal businesses because of action being taken in the area. The point is; the legal KJ's are just that: LEGAL They shouldn't be affected by anyone. They purchased discs and there's a possibility that venues won't hire them because all the venues will remember is that "Karaoke + MyVenue = Lawsuit." Many won't care about "certified" or anything else. By jading the venues in the area to this form of entertainment, it just seems to me that they're simply destroying the very demographic they continually claim to be "helping." In this scenario, the "legal KJ" who spent thousands on discs is the one that loses. But the manufacturer who is suing isn't about to make any money off the legal ones like this, they want the "newbies" they can sell (through settlement) an 8k set of gems.... chrisavis wrote: I know there are folks that balk at rocking the boat, making enemies or otherwise just staying isolated in their own working bubbles. But legal hosts are just as much of the problem as illegal hosts. Turning a blind eye to what they are doing and allowing them to operate illegally just because they operate far enough away that it doesn't impact your operations STILL impacts your operations over time. You consider a legal host is part of the problem? Really? I suppose then to MicroSoft, I'm also part of the software piracy problem since I purchased my operating system and haven't actively reported any pirates to them? No, I don't think a "legal customer" is part of the problem at all. chrisavis wrote: Now that I have all of my ducks in a row, I expect I am going to make some enemies in my area over the next 6-12 months because of the aggressive stance I am going to take in rooting out the illegal hosts. I am going to grow my business and if that means that illegal hosts have to be rooted out and I tinkle of some folks, so be it. I have no qualms pissing off and putting a pirate out of business. -Chris Are you going to spend your time "building your business" or are you going to allocate some of that time to build your business by "selling fear?" Are you going to try to "scare venues into hiring you?" Are you going to even bring up all these lawsuits, SafeHarbor, certified, and everything else? Don't you think that tactic would dissuade venues from hiring anyone at all? Hook, line and sinker...... |
|
| Author: | gd123 [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Famous Names Have In Common? |
chrisavis wrote: Maybe if the legal hosts had taken a more active role in keeping the pirates at bay, they would be at risk of losing their own legal businesses because of action being taken in the area. Are you kidding me. Ever heard of the word LIABLE. If you're going to say something, you better be prepared to PROVE it. Ever heard of SLANDER...it's where you communicate what you've heard IN WRITING...on paper...email. If you write something, you better be prepared to PROVE it. To PROVE something requires MORE than an "ACTIVE ROLL." How much does the average KJ make...and how many days do they KJ? If the dip s##t manufacturers would have encoded their songs with a serial number, the pirates wouldn't have gotten a foot hold. So, WHO is it that should have taken an "ACTIVE ROLL?" And now, SC expects us to be the Karaoke Police for them? I don't think so. Sort of like, hey why don't I recycle because it's good for the Planet. Uhhhh...why don't the people, who are making BILLIONS from the sale of PLASTIC, STOP MAKING PLASTIC? But, you know, if we, the consumer, would just take an "ACTIVE ROLL." The PLANET can CHOKE along with the Manufacturers. |
|
| Author: | chrisavis [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Famous Names Have In Common? |
c. staley wrote: You consider a legal host is part of the problem? Really? I suppose then to MicroSoft, I'm also part of the software piracy problem since I purchased my operating system and haven't actively reported any pirates to them? No, I don't think a "legal customer" is part of the problem at all. I simply do not understand how you can defend your position on this at all. Is there really some difference between a reportable theft and a non-reportable theft? 1) It doesn't matter if you purchased the same or similar product at all. If you know someone stole something, then it should be reported. Period. I am sure if someone stole your car, and one of your neighbors saw it, that you would appreciate your neighbor telling someone instead of turning a blind eye to it. 2) A karaoke host that knows another host is pirate and does nothing about it *is a part of the problem*. If a host knows the guy across town is a pirate and he doesn't do SOMETHING to rectify that, then they are harming the industry. They are giving up market share. They are allowing someone to operate illegally when a legal host could be there. They are allowing a pirate host to set an expectation for venues that 200,000+ tracks is the standard and that is only worth $50 a night. I will ask you point blank - Chip - What would you do if a pirate host started operating across the city from you? You know they are a pirate because they are downloading music from Torrent, iRC, etc. They say flat out in their shows they can download anything you want as long as it exists at all. They stream karaoke from YouTube. They claim 200, 300, 500+ Plus tracks We KNOW they are pirates. Do you really ignore this? c. staley wrote: Are you going to spend your time "building your business" or are you going to allocate some of that time to build your business by "selling fear?" Are you going to try to "scare venues into hiring you?" Are you going to even bring up all these lawsuits, SafeHarbor, certified, and everything else? Don't you think that tactic would dissuade venues from hiring anyone at all? What I am reading is "Better to have a pirate there, than no one at all." Regardless, yes, I would rather they hire no one than hire a pirate. Why shouldn't the pirates be fearful? They are in fact stealing and theft is in fact a crime. If I can "build my businees" by approaching a host, and in the course of conversation, ask them, "You have a pretty sizable collection, how do you store all those discs?" or "How can I download the song you just played?" or "Where do you buy your karaoke music at?" or "Did you really pay for all this music?" or "Did you pirate/steal all of this music?" and they become fearful.........of the consequences of their own actions..........then I can sleep well at night. Venues either have an existing karaoke show, or they don't. They also either know about piracy and the risk to their business, or they don't. For venues that don't know the risks have pirates running their shows, they deserve to know. I think it sucks that establishments can get caught up in the legal action by being ignorant of the consequences of hiring an illegal host. It might keep them out of trouble and I just might get a gig out of it. No problem sleeping there at all. If a venue knows they have a pirate running their show, should't they also be a little fearful.........of the consequences of their own actions? I can sleep well at night with that too. As for SafeHarbor, the Lawsuits, etc. I have been pretty clear that I am not a fan of how Sound Choice combats piracy. But I absolutely support the why. -Chris |
|
| Author: | chrisavis [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Famous Names Have In Common? |
gd123 wrote: chrisavis wrote: Maybe if the legal hosts had taken a more active role in keeping the pirates at bay, they would be at risk of losing their own legal businesses because of action being taken in the area. Are you kidding me. Ever heard of the word LIABLE. If you're going to say something, you better be prepared to PROVE it. I have in fact heard of "libel" - Which is the written version of defaiming someone or misrepresenting something in a damaging fashion. I don't write letter to hosts or venues, so I feel pretty safe there. gd123 wrote: Ever heard of SLANDER...it's where you communicate what you've heard IN WRITING...on paper...email. If you write something, you better be prepared to PROVE it. "slander" is the non-written form of making a false or damaging statement. You can read for yourself the questions that I feel comfortable asking a host. Note, they are QUESTIONS, not statements. Regardless, let me worry about whether I am libelous or slanderous. That is something for me to manage, not you. gd123 wrote: How much does the average KJ make...and how many days do they KJ? Is this a trick question? gd123 wrote: If the dip s##t manufacturers would have encoded their songs with a serial number, the pirates wouldn't have gotten a foot hold. So, WHO is it that should have taken an "ACTIVE ROLL?" And now, SC expects us to be the Karaoke Police for them? I don't think so. I am not speaking for Sound Choice. I am speaking for myself. It really doesn't matter HOW the pirates got here. There are different groups that can help fix the problem and I believe legal KJ's shouldn't turn a blind eye to pirates they know or even suspect. -Chris |
|
| Author: | earthling12357 [ Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Famous Names Have In Common? |
There are way too many things said here to quote them all and respond back to each. My eyes lost focus shortly after I tried so I'm just going to hit a couple points of agreement and lay out my thoughts on the matter. chrisavis wrote: As for SafeHarbor, the Lawsuits, etc. I have been pretty clear that I am not a fan of how Sound Choice combats piracy. But I absolutely support the why. -Chris I feel the same way. c. staley wrote: The point is; the legal KJ's are just that: LEGAL ...............{edited}............. No, I don't think a "legal customer" is part of the problem at all. I agree completely. I don't think pirates and piracy should be ignored, but I also don't think the scorched-earth policy will be beneficial in the long run. We're talking about attacking venues here. This could have a more detrimental impact than the existence of the pirates themselves. Now that the venue lawsuits have begun to yield big monetary returns we are seeing more of them in every suit filed. How much do you think a venue will want to pay for a host after they shell out tens of thousands of dollars to get soundchoice off their back? What happens when those same venues hear that chartbuster is coming up the rear? Supposedly these venues are being used to leverage the KJs into buying a gem series so they too can be legal as they always should have been. But after a few venues have paid up doesn’t it make sense to just sue them all and reap the rewards of the law of averages just like they’re doing with KJs? After the lawsuits sweep through town and word gets around amongst the venues there will be fewer places willing to risk karaoke or just plain sick of the headaches it caused. Then you will have a situation where there will be fewer numbers of venues and greater numbers of certified gem owners to work those venues. If soundchoice gets their desired outcome of a settlement with purchase, the ratio of competition remains the same at best and becomes much, much worse at worst after the venues have been milked and educated of the dangers of karaoke. It’s going to take a few years for this scenario to unfold, but I believe a business owner should be looking years into the future for possible obstacles to staying in business. If karaoke manufacturers had done that, things could be different now. Instead, we are looking at this situation because pirate minded people saw easy money in hosting karaoke. Word spread and the pirate hosts multiplied exponentially. Now we have a manufacturer developing and fine-tuning a litigation goldmine. Word of the successful methods will spread and others will try to replicate it. That’s what happens with any profitable venture. And when word spreads of a liability risk, most business owners take steps to avoid that liability. Bar owners are notoriously cheap. Their cheapest and easiest way to avoid liability is to avoid the activity that opens them up to that liability. I believe that the effects of these lawsuits and the turmoil in the industry has already begun and is one of the reasons it’s getting harder for manufacturers to get licensing for good (popular) new music. Unless different methods are applied to resolve the piracy problem, I believe it will get worse, much worse. I am in favor of soundchoice suing the pants off a proven pirate. I wish they wouldn’t use the shotgun approach. I wish they would leave venues out of it except for the owner-operator. And I wish they would find a better way than using this bul****t trademark/media-shift thing to brand their paying customers as out-laws. |
|
| Page 1 of 5 | All times are UTC - 8 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|