Karaoke Forums

Still clinging to that discredited theory that we don't perform actual investigations, I see.

The Health Inspector is a local goverment official whose priority is working to ensure a healthy environment for the preparation of food that will be dispensed to the public. Not trying to make a profit..

SC is a private remnant of it's former self attempting a different strategy and profitable income source as a business plan, with no official government office.

I have no idea why this sort of comparison keeps popping up. Amusement?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Then how about federal legislation gives them the authority to do it. Remember, the AMA, ADA, Bar Society, and other entities investigate and can revoke licences, suspend and fine their members and they are NOT GOVERNMENT departments.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Sincerely glad you're feeling better, Jim!

Nope, not this time, and actually sorry it came across that way. I was trying to explain that the cost of the investigations ( no matter WHO did them) vs the amount of copied disc pirates - plus the difficulty-around in those days meant that it just wasn't cost effective to do then.

Sometimes I actually DON'T harp......

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

All of the above still work within the Public/Government structure. AMA and ADA under Public Health and the Bar under Justice.

Though not government themselves, their oversight of their professions is still REGULATED by the government.

SC's audits are regulated by SC, as proven by the many policy changes made internally since the inception of audits.

No government, or government emowered regulatory agency requires a KJ be audited by a private company hoping to find extra income.

ADDITIONAL TO Bazza: In regard to the cost of time- if it's worthless- why do/did the mfrs. charge for theirs?

You know what's fun? A couple of years of these debates, right? My total collection of SC discs take up maybe 4-5 double sided (4 per side) binder pages out of several binders designed to hold 600 discs each.

Don't mind me- just thinking out loud...

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Excellent post, Joe. I have to say, you are one of my favorites on this site.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Well thanks but then how come you're the one with the great looking wife?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Just got REALLY lucky there. And thank you for noticing.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Again Joe, Smooth, etc, the Federal Government gave copyright and trademark owner the power to protect their property. I don't know why you don't get that.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Protecting your copyright, which they are NOT doing, (they are protecting their logo and trade dress), does not mean trolling for lawsuits.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

No it is their trademark. Try to educate yourself on the legalities and not just your assumption or what you wish the way things should be done. The world doesn't revolve around your show or wants.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

So you think it revolves around you Cheerleaders, and you should have final say? I could have quite a few choice words about that, but I will be nice. You and your Capitalist pig ideas. I bet, if you were from this country, would have voted for Romney.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Their logo IS their trademark!!!

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

No Chit, Lonnie. I'm not the one who said that. Timber said that. Notice I said logo and Trade DRESS. That's two different things, though part of the whole.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Well if you don't like capitalism then why are you running a karaoke hosting company. You know there are places you can go where capitalism does not exist. North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba come to mind but two of those examples do have some form of capitalism.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

They have just as much right to go after their trademark as they do their copyright. As a matter of fact it's easier to do.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

I have a theory that your investigations are not conducted as properly as they could be. As far as discrediting the investigation process, didn't you James state that some of the suits were dismissed, because of holes in your vaunted investigations? In some dismissed cases, they were dropped because you couldn't serve the suspects the court summons. Your investigators failed to properly identify suspects, and establish where they live, so they could be served by the court. If your minions can't handle simple tasks of investigation, how are they going to deal with the more complex problem, of trying to determine whether a host is legal or illegal? You like to give the impression that you are large and in charge. The truth is the Emperor has no clothes, feel the draft? Have a nice day.

Lone that is an asinine statement. It's not as if police investigations don't have holes in them or mistakes were made or any other number of problems. So why are you trying to put Jim's investigators' standards above the police? Afterall LAPD screwed up the OJ case and they're supposed to have some hotshot investigators.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

They might have made mistakes but at least they knew who the suspect was and where he lived, before they tried to take anything to court. I don't think it is asking too much for the manu's investigators to at least have some of the basic facts right, do you? It brings into question what other little things the manu investigators might have gotten wrong. Taking a person to court is serious business, and should not be something taken so casually. What I think is really asinine is to file a suit, when the proper research to support the charges has not been made. It gives the appearance the suits are nuisance in nature forcing the business to settle, to avoid the cost of answering the bogus charges. Have a nice day.

Let's see how this "theory" holds up...



No. On another forum, in a specific case, I stated that we voluntarily dismissed defendants whom we could not serve for one reason or another. In that case, the allegations were against a specific business enterprise--a rather large one, with approximately 18 KJs and an unknown number of venue-operated systems under common control. The head of the enterprise and several of the KJs are participating in the suit. We could not get service on several other KJs--we suspect--because they were advised to avoid service and because their role in the organization was not significant enough to justify the expense of other steps we might have taken, like having the process server stake out their homes. Through the discovery process, we will get additional information and seek to add them back into the suit later, or file a new suit.



The court doesn't serve summons. In civil cases, that falls to the plaintiff to arrange. My investigative team identified all of the named defendants and established home addresses for virtually all of them. I cannot force someone to answer their door, and their value as defendants is not sufficient to justify staking them out at a cost of $200-$300 a day, each.



I don't have "minions."



That is not a complex problem in the slightest. In fact, getting good, up-to-date identity and location information is far, far more complicated than determining whether a host is operating legally or not. Legal operation is a question of easily verified fact: (1) Is the operator using SC tracks from non-original media? (2) Does the operator lack permission from SC to do that? If the answer is "yes" to both questions, the operator is committing trademark infringement. By contrast, people who are behaving illicitly have a strong incentive to avoid being found.

So much for your "theory."