Karaoke Forums

Sound Choice is filing law suits against people for giving them free advertising. I wonder if PEPSI would sue me if I showed a PEPSI logo on the TV screen during every instrumental section of a song? Hmmmm Maybe COKE would file a law suit against me for showing the PEPSI logo. I just don't see where there are any damages to Sound Choice in showing their logo. They're only doing it this way because they have no rights to file law suits over the "tracks" because they don't own them.

So I steal a Ford Mustang and Ford should be okay with it because when I'm driving it, I'm advertising the Mustang? You steal the Pepsi or Coke formula and sell it in Pepsi or Coke bottles, they should be happy because you are advertising them? If you're not happy with the term "steal", then replace it with "replicating for little or no money".

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

timberlea great analogy ****LIKE****


Athena

_________________
"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

Nice try,
Your little analogy/story is a little screwed up.... try this instead:

You BOUGHT a Ford Mustang. Ford gave you permission to make a second Mustang (years ago) as long as you didn't drive them both at the same time.

Now, years later -- while you're happily driving your copy AND always displaying a bright shiny "FORD" logo (because your original is safely parked in your garage), here comes Ford along to SUE YOU for USING THAT COPY. (The same copy you had permission to use.) AND they want you to submit to a SEARCH of your garage so they can stamp and deface the original car you purchased and have owned for years.....

So far, NOTHING has been "stolen" has it? Nope.

Did you only use the copy they said you could use?

Yep.

What's the problem?

Seems to me that if they really want to do "police work" then they should verify that the suspect is using a copy..... AND then verify that there is no original in the garage FIRST, BEFORE filing any lawsuit instead of using the court system to search for information they didn't already have.

As in the case of Rodney, or Michael M. or others that we might not know about.... They had either NO information or they relied on rumors which is another way of saying (again) they no information and HAD NO PROOF.

Their only "technicality" is trademark which they granted permission years ago and maintained as a policy for almost 12 years.

Exactly. Well said.

Chip, your spin attempt fails once again. You start off with the assumption that there was an initial purchase of some kind.

While there are always exceptions, we all know that the vast majority simply downloaded/torrent'ed their collection or copied a hard-drive without ever buying anything.

"Nice Try" indeed.

Tell that to Rodney... or to Michael M....

The problem is that direction - "you're ALL guilty until you prove you're not." That's always been the objection. And the most recent "oopsie" or "mistake" or "dolphin in the tuna net" bears that to be true, because it was none of the above.

If they want to "play cops and robbers" then gather real evidence FIRST, don't use the court system to do that for you because you have none - and when you get caught with no evidence - you simply claim "it was a mistake"....

Fat chance.

Agreed, I don't like Pirates, But don't want to be dragged through the court system for doing nothing wrong. The problem with the lawsuits is guilty until you prove your innocence. I am currently copying My disks (which is taking forever) I cannot be considered Legal or certified Until I spend the next year Burning My tracks to a drive. WTF? I have collected Discs for years. Yeah I dont have every disk made, But the disc collection I have is large and Intend to Put them ALL to a drive just to drop the Number system and have Instant look up ability. Soundchoice and Chartbuster Dropped the ball for years. Anyone remember Metallica and Napster? The Mp3 era was coming and could be seen coming for 15 years.

FYI I was copying my good versions first But I think I will stop doing the soundchoice ones for now. Being harassed for half a karaoke show/ half dance night isnt worth it to me.

Chip, I see you're still confusing criminal and civil court. OJ won in criminal but lost in civil. The rules are different for the courts for evidence, etc. You know that, but you would rather stir the pot.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Let's see..... weren't YOU the one started with a "criminally STOLEN Ford?" But you want to use that criminal scenario for a civil basis of some sort?

It appears as though you're the one confused here.

My scenario was civil... not criminal.

Nice try at the old "spinner-roo" though....

His spin fails due to an assumption?

Timberlea's spin was based on an assumption of theft and no purchase, and for that he gets a "Exactly. Well said."

It seems as though SC wants to lump everyone into one of two categories. You are either a certified (read: legal) SC KJ or your NOT (read: pirate). Unfortunately I see this way of thinking on the boards too.

Know your enemy!
The pirates are the enemy, not some other KJ or board member that disagrees with your ideas or a manu's tactics for recouping lost revenue.

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

If that were the case, we would not offer a dismissal for defendants who are 1:1 but unaudited.

Doesn't the offer of a dismissal include the KJ go through the audit process in order to prove 1:1?

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

Can the 1:1 KJ get that dismissal and remain unaudited?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

If I was named in a lawsuit, it's GAME ON. I would offer SC a chance to VERIFY, not AUDIT, my SC Disc library via my LAWYER...then, allow SC to slither away.

If they refuse, then I have it on record that I attempted, in good faith, and the counter-suit begins.

If SC goes away from a VERIFIABLE, NOT AUDIT, standpoint, then, that would satisfy a scenario of a dismissal without AUDIT.

Also, I agree with Chip's "FORD PURCHASE" scenario. Further, as a purchase, I would be free to REMOVE the FORD TM...as I am free to remove the SC TM from my purchased SC Disc.

The frustration is NOT with Pirates! The frustration is LEGAL KJs getting caught in the fray. In AMERICA this is unconscionable, and, as AMERICANS, we will fight tooth and nail and make the bastards PAY DEARLY for their "gross negligence!"

How do we know they are 1:1 without an audit?

And what is the difference between an audit and a verification?

Okay then, buy a Mustang then replicate it for next to nothing. Ford finds out, do you really think they wouldn't do anything because you are "advertising" their product? You people want to buy something once and want it to last forever. So exactly what product out there lasts forever or even a lifetime without cost of some sort? Then you're not happy with 1:1 because yuo want a couple of back ups. Again, what professional is able to replicate their tools of the trade for next to nothing?

So gd, you's rather pay a lawyer their hourly rate to verify your collection than SC to audit it. Verification and audit is the same thing but I bet it'll cost you a lot more for your attorney to verify it.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

The same way that we KJ's know that every single track SC sells is/and/or/was properly licensed at the time it was initially offered for sale.

We can't because SC won't "voluntarily" allow their licensing to be "audited" either without a lawsuit. And SC even refused to produce such licensing (after being compelled to in a duces tecum deposition) to a CAVS attorney at a recently scheduled deposition claiming they didn't have to because the attorney flew in from Alabama and not California...

So it appears that even your own client doesn't subscribe to the "audit process" when the shoe is on the other foot.



Audit = You look at all their discs....

Verification = You ASK ONLY to verify ownership of the discs in which those tracks your investigator can prove were - "publicly displayed." It is not an unlimited search of a library.

This is the part you continually (and conveniently) skip over:


"Ford" (i.e. Sound Choice) granted permission to make that "backup Mustang" provided you did not drive them both at the same time. Then, began suing for doing so.

Seem like a trap to you Officer?



Verification and audit are NOT the same thing. Anymore than "casual examination" and "search warrant" are the same thing.

In your answer quoted here:


you seemed to suggest that as a possibility with the wording of your response.
Otherwise your response should have been: "That is the case, we will not offer a dismissal for defendants who are 1:1 until audited."


Absent evidence proving otherwise, asking is a good start.



An audit is a methodic examination that is most often all inclusive while a verification is a confirmation of a truth that does not neccessarily require a complete examination.

Auditing to most is an intrusive act, while verifying can be done without the intrusion and suggests a degree of trust.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I am not concerned about money. I'm concerned about PRINCIPAL and HONOR. These terms are the CORE VALUES of true AMERICANS.

Verification and Audit are not synonymous. MS Word Thesaurus cannot find a match for the two terms.

To submit to a SC Audit, as they use the term, would be tantamount to accepting that SC had some right of procedure.

A Verification means I'll show what they request and be on my way without further adieu.