Karaoke Forums

Ahh Yes! I suspect that THIS is REALLY where one could say" Now which tracks did you see played?"
Once the discs for the tracks were shown, it wouldn't get very much further before it became painfully obvious that SC's case would be going nowhere.
And the key here is that it would NOT be under SC's onerous "contract". It would be unbiased and fair and would most likely stick to the tracks seen to have been played, not the fishing expedition that SC would be hoping for.
Now THAT is something I would go for!

It was a civil case and I prefer to leave it at that. I very much value my privacy.

Promise?

Fine. Limited, yes, yes.

Correction:

Discovery would most likely be limited (in the U.S.) to the actual tracks that they claim were played. i.e. "We saw that track, now show us the disc that contains that track."

It will ultimately depend on the judge but you can bet they'd have a tough time convicing any judge that they should be allowed discovery on something that can't prove you even own.

all of this could go away if we could find out if the ugly contract for submitting to an audit is still being used or have they disposed of it? if it is no longer a requirement of the audit, for me at least, i would feel a bit better about the whole thing. if it is just a Skype thing of showing disks as they ask for them like was said by KJ Athena, i may even voluntarily go through it on a day off to get the letter ofr compliance for my press kit. but the contract that SC was using would make the audit as described impossible.

E. During the audit, each disc will be marked using an indelible method. This marking will not interfere with your
ability to play the disc but will prevent that disc from being re-used in an audit of another company.
F. Sound Choice may employ software designed to examine any hard drives in your possession to determine whether
songs have been deleted from the system after Sound Choice’s investigation began. A deleted track file may
indicate an attempt at spoliation and constitute evidence of willful infringement, as well as an audit failure.

does anyone know if the agreement to audit is being used?

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

On another forum one user that was audited has stated that he received a letter of intent, which SC is sending out now instead of just filing lawsuits, which asks you to prove that you have the discs in question, if you decide not to answer the letter then they file the suit. According to this user there aren't any stipulations for the audit, just show them the discs for the tracks they want to see (as per printed in your songbook) and they go on their merry way.

The way that they were doing things has gone away and a new phase is in effect.

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

But also on that same forum, SC gave a "free pass" to someone who got such a letter when they found out that he was what they are calling a "SC cheerleader" (he was a member of that forum and very supportive of SC).
Favoritism?
Really?
Hardly seems right, does it?
But it happened.
And then the KJ in question insisted to go through an audit anyway, but at that point it's more for show and really means nothing. You KNOW that no matter what SC found, he was going to pass, because if he didn't, SC would be seen to be making yet another mistake.
Can't have that, can we?
In any case, why not save a bunch of paperwork, hassle and stress and just ASK AT THE SHOW to see the discs?
There's nothing more efficient and time saving than that.
If the discs are not present at the show, make an appointment for the next day or a mutually convenient time to see them. It's not hard and certainly less time consuming and less expensive than the way they are going about it now.
If a KJ can't or won't show discs, THEN name them in a suit.
That's fair.
But SC doesn't want to do that, because then they can't pressure people into paying up and buying their new library when they don't respond to the letter for whatever reason.

SC gave the "free pass" after the person provided them with their real name along with their "karaoke name" plus a letter detailing their 22 year history of purchasing SC discs including all of the companies he bought from and the number of Customs.

By asking for an audit, one thing he proved was that he passed by being truly legal and not just for being a "cheerleader."

I'm not trying to be mean or snide, but if all it takes is to send a letter detailing purchases over 22 years, etc, then why can't anyone just send in a letter like that?
Seriously, it definitely wouldn't be hard to just fake such a letter. It definitely wouldn't be rocket science.

Do you recall that somehow SC has come up with purchase records of people they have accused--from EBay, other distributors, etc. When they had the legal name of the fellow, they saw from their records that he was, indeed, a long time purchaser.

thanks Wolf, nice to know that ugly piece of work is gone.

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

The heart of this debate doesn't have anything with SC lawsuits. It has to do with nature of personal liberty; this is perfectly demonstrated by lehidude's remarks.

To a man like lehidude, it is not just tolerable, but actually necessary for innocents to suffer breaches of their personal liberty under the banner of crime-fighting.

"Can I search your car, sir? Rifle through your glove box? Dig under your seats? Sift through items in your trunk? Stand over there, please. Keep your hands where I can see them. Good. Here are these handcuffs, I'm just going to detain you, while I search your car--don't worry, you're not under arrest. *15 minutes later* Okay, you're good to go. Have a nice day."

That's a necessary inconvenience, for lehidude.

For me, it's an outrage!

For guys like me, (and Alan B?) call in your damn police dog.

As a matter of perspective, it's nothing at all like cutting off our nose to spite our face. Quite the opposite, in fact. Some things are profoundly more important than convenience.

Here's something I've learned studying Western Civilizations: people who don't exercise their rights shouldn't be surprised if they wake up one day without them.

Papers!! Just show us your Papers and you may go on your way.......................(spoken in my best Gestapo voice) Peace

_________________
"I think people should be allowed to do anything they want. We haven't tried that for a while. Maybe this time it'll work." George Carlin R.I.P (May 12, 1937 – June 22, 2008)

If there in fact exists a breach of your personal liberty, then wouldn't you have grounds to make the cops accountable for breaching your liberty? Well you don't, since they're not.

So as I stated, feel free wasting your time, under the banner of "personal liberty." In the meantime, me consenting to an audit (or a search) doesn't make me a pushover, or whatever subordinate to "necessary inconvenience" as you label me. It means that I've weighed my options, and that I'd rather be burdened with a 5 minute inconvenience than a 2 hour inconvenience.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

EXACTLY!
And the same for the reverse opinion is also true. It doesn't make you a pirate. It just means you feel differently about the situation and are willing to "waste your time" to protect your"liberties".
As I stated. There are valuable arguments to BOTH sides of the argument.
Those that want to submit to an audit are obviously free to do so, but don't denigrate those that don't.
And again, the reverse applies. Those that don't submit are free to do so and again, don't denigrate those that do.

Apologies if I denigrated .

Is SC= cop?

_________________
I can neither confirm nor deny ever having or knowing anything about nothing.... mrscott

So as stated earlier:

If you would like to submit to an audit, go for it. Have a blast!

But I, as well as many others, will not subject ourselves to the many rules and stipulations that such an audit will bring. We will fight for our rights. And that's more important than giving in and giving up your rights so it can be over in five minutes.