Karaoke Forums

I don't post very often but do read a lot of comments. I can't understand why some people are upset over Sound choice lawsuits. If somebody was stealing money out of your checking account would u sue them. I know I would. I met Kurt at in Las Vegas (nice guy). It bothers me to know I spent a lot of money buying all my disc's and people are out there taking jobs away from the legal host who never paid a dime. I hardly ever have people at karaoke request other brands but always have Sound choice songs requested. They by far are my favorite manufacture of choice. I hope one day they start making music again. I would like to think all legal host would feel the same way. Just my opinion... take care

No one here has any issue with SC going after people who have stolen their product - actual pirates. The issue is with them trolling anyone who media sbifts with no evidence of actual thievery or wrongdoing. Unfortunately, this seems to represent the majority of their actions.
It may be a good idea to go back and readsome of the older posts on the subject?

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Joe,
For Sound Choice, they realized that because at face value the pirates (the ones running on a computer that never paid for the music or purchased a pirated hard drive) and the host that had just shifted their music there was not difference. So, SC figured that they would go after the computer host and compel those that were legal (several host in my market without fanfare) to have their systems audited for free then if they did in fact own their music the suit was dropped. Pretty simple. Prove to them you are not a pirate and they will move on. Fight them and they will fight back. For me, I can not understand why someone would not want to prove they do own the original media it was sold to them on.

If someone stole millions from you, what would you do? Probably anything you could do under the law to get what you are owed. Unfortunately, Kurt is trying to use analog laws in a digital age.

Rumbolt

_________________
No venue to big or too small. From your den to the local club or event, we have the music most requested. Great sounding system!

almost, but it is not for free, once they file it is $500.00.
For Universal Records, they realized that because at face value the pirates (the ones that never paid for the music) and the person that had just shifted their music there was not difference. So, Universal Records figured that they would go after Ipod users and compel those that were legal to have their Ipods audited for $500.00 then if they did in fact own their music the suit was dropped. Pretty simple. Prove to them you are not a pirate and they will move on.
the alternative is to pay $150.00 upfront to prove that you are not a thief.

no one is upset about SC suing pirates, it's the rest that people are upset about.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

The easiest way to deal with SC is just boycott the product, then you are not compelled to deal with them or their legal fun and games. You do not have to prove anything to them, pay for an audit, or risk them hurting your reputation with the venues that hire you. This becomes easier everyday that SC is no longer producing new product and their library becomes more dated. There is plenty of other product out here and you won't be financially supporting a company whose actions you don't agree with.

The crazy thing about all this is that nobody pirated Sunfly, Mr. Entertainer, Zoom, EZ Hits, Pop Hits, All-star, Party Tyme, Pocket Songs, or Priddis. That's why they have been able to remain in business through all this. Only Sound Choice and Chartbuster have had content placed on hard drives, torrent sites and IRC channels and widely distributed. So it makes sense that they weren't able to stay in business.

So my neighbor's house was broken into the other day. Someone stole a bunch of electronics, lots of jewelry, a lockbox with cash and personal effects including wedding photos and other irreplaceable items. The wife makes original jewelry...necklaces, bracelets, little trinkets that you can weave into your hair. Cool stuff. All gone.

I told them to check Craigslist.

Sure enough, a bunch of their stuff was being sold online. The wife's original creations were being sold by someone else who claimed they made them.

After showing them the logic in this thread, they decided it was no big deal. No reason to involve the police or even report the crime.

_________________
-Chris

Only one thing wrong with this analogy Chris we are not talking about a crime such a burglary. We are talking about a civil suit not a criminal case. What is sought to remedy the situation is monetary compensation for loss, not criminal penalties. This was the choice of the suing manu since that would set the bar lower as far as proof. Even with this lower bar SC has been unable to win in court. Unless SC can convince the DA to go after the defendant, they have to be satisfied with either obtaining before trial settlements or risk a civil suit going to trial.

SorryChris, you have missed the entire thread apparently.
To make your analogy correct, they would need to sue everyone selling jewelry on eBay to make them pay $500 to prove they did not steal your friends jewelry. not the ones who are BLATANTLY RESELLING IT TO THE CUSTOMERS YOU WILL BE SUING NEXT FOR BUYING STOLEN MERCHANDISE.

going after those that are reselling it to others is exactly what your friends should do, not take the SC route.

it has been said more than once in this thread alone that no one believes that SC does not desire to sue the thieves....just not suing everyone.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

One other thing about the "SC route" is that only one group is being sued. A very small visible group when compared to the vast market of pirated materials out in the mainstream. The karaoke host providing a service. Completely ignored is the pirated home users where the vast amount of pirated material and financial loss exists. The most unfair part of this whole legal process answer to the karaoke piracy problem, is that the hosts are being asked to shoulder the entire financial responsibility for everyone's bad behavior. The reason for this is their public high profile status. Ironically the group that suffers the most is a small sub group the legal host, the one group that tried to do everything right from the start.

look it's pretty simple:

SC's lawsuits are a scare tactic for the pirate operators to try to scare them into purchasing music. and if SC gets lucky the ones that don't purchase a song package
loose a judgement in court cause they didn't even show up for their hearings.

not a single host that own his disc has had to pay anything in these suits.

people have been using scare tactics for years in the courts.

if they can with scare a pirate into paying, then thumbs up to them. I have no problem with a pirate host becoming legit, because when he has to start paying more for music then
he's gonna charge more to run his shows.

_________________
It's all good!

The problem is wiz it is not only the illegal hosts that are scared but also venues who hire KJ hosts. One thing you are looking for when you run a business is certainty. You want to know what to expect as far as taxes, material costs, labor costs etc.etc.etc. If you need entertainment to run your business you have several options. DJ's are not sued like the KJ's are, so it would be prudent to hire the DJ instead of the KJ. This all has a ripple effect, the bottom line is fewer gigs for KJ hosts, because of the fear factor generated by the legal process manus. Suits drive sales, also it drives away potential customers that might want to hire a karaoke service provider.

P.S. it is simply not true that legal hosts have not been hurt. At the least if they have been merely named in a law suit it has damaged their reputation even if the case is dismissed. They carry the stigma of being accused of piracy, that has to effect their ability to get gigs and earn a living. They are also required to pay for an audit 150.00 before a suit, that goes up to 500.00 doesn't it to clear one's self after being sued? Some just pay up because licensing GEM or buying a Cloud subscription is cheaper than legally fighting the suit. This idea that no legal host has been hurt financially by all of this is simply hogwash.

This is one of those lies that Joe is hoping to make seem true by repeating it often enough.

The truth is that the wide, wide majority of the people we sue have stolen a substantial portion of their music. You don't hear about them because (a) most of the time, they settle or default, and (b) we don't often comment on those.

As for Joe's complaint, I have invited him on many occasions to suggest ways in which we might refine our techniques to ensure that people who do actually have 1:1 correspondence don't get sued. After all, it is ultimately a waste of our resources to sue those people because we don't want anything other than compliance with the media-shifting policy out of them. The most substantive response he has ever given us is "do a real investigation." Since we already do real investigations, that's not helpful, and Joe has refused to elucidate what he means by "real investigation" so that we can make changes to our investigations on the chance that he's thought of something we haven't. So my conclusion is that Joe is perfectly fine with us pursuing claims against the operators who steal SC's music; he's just opposed to any technique that would allow us to identify who actually did steal the music and who did not.

I see Jimmy you are refining your techniques to ensure that people who are legal aren't sued. Does that mean in the past you have sued legal hosts, before? What about the agents that were hired to exclusively represent SC in the recovery efforts, APS and their sub contractors, didn't they do a few naughty things to hosts? Then there are still hosts like wiz that say no legal hosts have ever suffered! You know that in your one size fits all suits the innocent are scooped up with the guilty, a regular dragnet approach to the legal process. What is it that is said in criminal law "better 100 guilty go free than one innocent person suffer".

[quote="mightywiz"]

not a single host that own his disc has had to pay anything in these suits.[/quote]
Incorrect, every host that owns his discs has had to pay. if they have been sued they had to pay $500 to sound choice, and any other fees for any attorney they got.if not sued and just being proactive to avoid being sued for being honest and buying all their music, it still costs them $150.


@ Jimit has been said before, if a host passes the audit you say thank you and apologize for bothering them. those fees get applied to the vast majority of hosts that are illegal that you are catching in their settlements. make the illegal ones pay for the trouble they are causing the legal ones and are causing SC. the only way that would not work is if either the illegal to legal ratio you are saying is not the, or you see not winning against the illegal ones.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

Audits cost money. The KJ is the one who made the decision to shift to another medium, so the KJ needs to pay for the audit that legitimizes that. As it is, SC loses money on audits.

According to you Jim the mere fact you have taken your discs and shifted them is a no no. Only to SC and PR/CB, all the rest of the manus on the planet don't use the legal process to solve their problem with piracy. This shifting could also be taking an original disc and making a backup disc, for performances, keeping the originals in a secure place. All you are doing is shifting your costs of recovery onto the backs of all hosts no matter if they are legal or illegal. Just by shifting you have committed a non authorized reproduction of the original purchased material.

So what if one or two or fifty do it, it is within their rights to do so. For example, say Sony decides it will give away its movies but Fox doesn't. does that mean Fox has to do what Sony does? No, because they are separate and the holder ALWAYS has the right to decide whether they will enforce their rights or not, including Trademarks. It is up to them, not you or me or anyone else to make their own decisions.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I'd course they cost money, and you feel they are necessary (and it is on you, the test of the music and karaoke industry disagree with the idea) because of the pirates. in that case shouldn't the burden of the cost be on their shoulders, not ours?

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

One would think so, but that's not necessarily true.