Karaoke Forums

1) That is assuming, of course, that the karaoke mfr. has the right to grant permission to media shift a track in the first place, and that said mfr. actually stays in business after selling a certification that is only relevant to THAT mfr.

2) A- No. Were it in a LEGAL fashion ( required by law, and enforced by a government agency), yes, but compliant ( bending my will to another private party rather than that of legislation of any sort), no.

B- Paying to give my venues piece of mind?

In my neck of the woods, it is not uncommon to have a couple of guys walk into a bar and nicely request "security" payments from the owner. The owner usually blows them off the first time. The next time, the same two guys come in with a couple of others. The original two go sit by themselves, while the other two or thre sit together elsewhere. The second bunch eventually starts getting loud and aggressive. Then they start to fight, pretty much wrecking the place in the process. At some point, the original two jump in and "break up" the fight.

After it's over- with the owner knowing full well what has happened- they ask the owner if it isn't worth it to pay for his peace of mind....

Maybe it's just another way of creating a market for a non-product. No actual service is truly offered, but intimidation is used to disturm the owners "peace of mind"

Just an observation on the phrase "give your venues peace of mind", and how it can be understood in regard to the bar/restaurant business....

As for my own peace of mind- I already have it.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

That is a straw man. The manufacturer is already a party to things, since their intellectual property is in use on the premises. So your little story is bogus and meaningless, and even faintly offensive with the semantic tarbrush of implied Mafia involvement.

Nice try, though.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

Still waiting on that case cite, by the way. You know the one--that case where it says a trademark becomes legally invisible if applied to a product the manufacturer didn't have the right to make. I happen to know an attorney in Florida who is eagerly awaiting the fruit of your legal research so he can spring it on me at the last moment.



It's awfully inconvenient of you to write out practically the whole civil side of the law, as though conduct that requires private action to correct is somehow legitimate because the government does not dedicate specific resources to correcting it.

"I can infringe this patent because the government doesn't have an agency dedicated to enforcing it."

"I don't have to honor this contract because there aren't any contract police that will force me to."

And so on.

I'm not sure how the Lanham Act, and the very thorough system of trademark enforcement it sets up, doesn't qualify as "legislation of any sort," but so be it.



[incredibly inappropriate racketeering analogy excised]

Apparently some people think that being sued is the end of the world for a business. I'm not one of those people, but the fact remains that SC will never sue a venue for hiring a certified KJ. If a venue is concerned about being sued, then yes, getting certified has value because it says to the venue, "You're not going to get sued for hiring me."

Is it me, or do you seem a bit less "moderate" than most moderators? While I understand that you have found reasons to "debate" me almost since my joining several years ago. However, one would think that upon the assumption of moderatorship, this might have mellowed a bit. Negative personalizations aren't helpful from anyone, but one would guess that a moderator would hold himself/herself above the fray.

If you disagree with my statements, simply say so. No need to use diminutives, or to claim implications that were never made- Again.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

1) Yes, we are both waiting for definitive proof of that ( which I have stated on several occasions is my - and some advisors- opinion). Maybe after Sound Choice actually argues a case against a media shifting KJ in court court ( I think it's four years now?) the answer may become more solid.

2) Interesting, as I have never stated that the incidents mentioned were "OK", and being an ethical person, I don't believe they are. I have no idea why this was posted otherwise. However, also because I am an ethical person, I don't believe everyone should be accused of something and sued over it, simply because:

A- A single manufacturer changed their policies post-sale of their product, in hopes of generating an income stream that they were no longer capable of producing and KEEPING in their original business, for MANY reasons.

B- Simply because someone uses the very same equipment that the majority of people in the U.S use every day in their homes to run their karaoke shows.

It is also my opinion only that SC is, on some level, aware of all of this, but finds the income stream through "settlements" too lucrative to give up.

3) My statement was neither inappropriate ( though it may have been an extreme example), nor was it meant to imply a comparison. It was meant to show that "peace of mind" does not come from bending to the will of others of absolutely no legal authority simply because of threats of any sort, including that of what many believe are lawsuits without basis.

Go to court and SHOW US that what Sound Choice is basing their suits on also has ANY basis in LAW, and opinions may change, at least as far as the case itself.


Note to MickyJ57: Please note that though Jim Harrington and I strongly disagree, there have been no negative personalizations from either one of us. If there is to be a debate, it can and should be had without taking personal potshots.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I would have to guess at the number of law suits that have been filed by Sound Choice against various KJs all over the country but I would have take a shot in the dark and say at least a thousand of them. It strikes me as odd that not one person has fought this all the way until it got to a court room. As soon as the "Good Fellas" out in Vegas decided to stand up and fight; the law suits, for all intents and purposes were abandoned by Sound Choice. Seems to me that the threat of losing a case in an actual court room scared trhe bejesus out of them and they just decided to move on to the next set of targets. It's like a car thief passing by the cars with the CLUB on the steering wheel and move on to the lower hanging fruit down the street.

I went into the local deli the other day and I offered to sell him a kosher certifcation for $150 and he laughed at me. I told him that if he paid for the certification, no one would ever question his meats or salads on their kosherness and he will do more business once everyone in the neighborhood knows that he is certified by me. He continued to laugh at me and then when I told him that he had to pay $150 a month for the super duper certification; I thought the guy was gonna have a heart attack from laughing so hard.

The next day I had my "lawyer" Joe Pesci stop by the guys deli and lo and behold, the guy's been paying me $150 a month, ever since for his "certification". It's worth it for the deli owner because he gets to keep on making a living instead of being "sued" into bankruptcy.

Joe, I like you in spite of myself. But I don't believe you are always on the up and up. For the most part, I have simply avoided wrangling with you when I feel you have made statements that are hooey.

As far as being a moderator, I didn't start this little dustup that's been going on for weeks, months, and years. But I have identified, I think, that there are certain people that are spoiling for a fight. You are one of them, in a nicer way than many. The point is, here we are with a thread that is about someone's belief that they don't want to patronize a pirate KJ, and you *again* have picked the same fight. Using doubtful tactics to do it, no less.

If you want to start a thread "Sound Choice compared to a protection racket" no one will have a problem with it. But inserting it into a thread that doesn't really pertain to that?

I have been posting in the way I have recently to try to communicate that it is clear what is going on, that the forum doesn't really want the same fight picked in every thread. I am trying to point out where that happens so that with luck, people won't do it any more.

So I am asking you to stay on topic. Please. Don't start attacking Sound Choice and what they are doing in *every thread*.


If you call someone a Nazi, that person is supposed to simply disagree with you? While I understand that you didn't say so in so many words, to use racketeers as an analogy for a legitimate business is what is sometimes called a semantic tarbrush. Guilt by association.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

LMFAO @ Joe Pesci.

Personal potshots? What name did I call you? I have suggested vaguely, at times, that I think you are full of it. That's my opinion, and others are welcome to reject it or share it as they wish. I don't do that all the time by any manner of means, but when someone so prolifically posts so much misinformation it seems appropriate to call that out from time to time. But I didn't offer that opinion this time. Here's what I did do.

* I said your post was a straw man -- it was. In other words, you attributed a position to someone that they don't hold, i.e. that Sound Choice walked into a bar without prior association and business and made threats.

* I said that your story was bogus and meaningless -- it was, because it was completely fallacious. It also, essentially, changes the topic by failing to address the real topic -- why someone would assume someone has pirated music and what certifications might do to allay that -- simply suggesting that Sound Choice's position is illegiimate and illegal.

* I said that it was faintly offensive. That is because it uses the semantic trick of associating an otherwise upstanding citizen with a something or someone greatly reviled. Check -- you did that.

So I took pretty vigorous exception to your hooey, which apparently you expected to have slip by like it was a real argument.

That is not a personal potshot. It is taking your argument and wiping the floor with it, which is what it deserves. It is nothing personal, other than that I don't particularly like it when people use not-very-nice tactics and fallacious arguments day in, day out.

As far as standing, it was my post that indirectly started this topic. So stop changing it to pick a fight!

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

Joe.....he said "nice try though".....that's about as big a complement from Mckyj, that I've ever seen.....

Unless said manufacturer doesn't own said rights to authorize a media shift.


Seriously? When's that last time you went back and did a double check on a KJ?
It's really a moot point if the answer is never.


NOPE!
As Joe already stated, "compliant" is not the same as "legal". Why would I pay someone for something that means nothing?
As for venues' peace of mind, I'm willing to bet most venues out there already have that without your worthless piece of paper.



And as for Chris claiming the value is that he got 2 gigs out of it, are you trying to tell me that he couldn't get 2 other equally paying gigs on his own without the papers?
If that's the case, Chris, then perhaps you need to sit down and do a rethink on how you're running your business and why.

So what exactly do you think the Safe Harbour Program is?

_________________
Birdofsong

Something easily ignored unless you do karaoke and your hosts use Sound Choice.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

A threat by any other name....

_________________
Birdofsong

It isn't a threat. Obviously doesn't apply if you don't do karaoke. If you don't use Sound Choice, doesn't apply.

I don't see why you care, you don't use Sound Choice. You can safely ignore it.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

It's not like we dropped Sound Choice simply because we didn't feel like using them anymore.

We dropped them because of the threat, which makes this very relevant to us whether you think it is or not.

_________________
Birdofsong

No, it's not just you

In this argument and topic as now formulated? Can't disagree.

Inserted into any random topic related to piracy or manufactuers in any fashion? No. It is a separate question and not "the question". No matter how much you think it is, no matter how much you *burn* to tell people constantly what cads Sound Choice are. It doesn't mean you can dominate a forum with that resentment.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

So why does the opposing side get to push "certification" any old time they want, then? It only becomes an issue to you when one of us points out the opposing view in response.
Perhaps you should put a stop to the pushing of certification, then, just to be fair to BOTH sides. Then, when it's not mentioned all the time, we won't feel the need to pipe up with the other viewpoint.

And APPARENTLY E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E ELSE HERE!!!