Karaoke Forums

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."

This is why people who do not have any experience and training in investigations and law shouldn't open their mouths. Some people watch CSI, Magnum, or any other police/law/PI show and figure they are experts. TV and real life are two different things. And making statements like "I think", "I suppose", "IMHO", and the lot means nothing and people who read such things should ignore them. You'd be better off to read the Legislation involved and know what is what. Some of what is written is interesting with aspects I agree with and the Legislation should be changed to reflect it but until that time we are stuck with what is there.

As for a case going to court (and if it does, people will then go it hasn't been ruled on by the Supreme Court), once the Discovery is done, one of two things will happen. The Defendant will either have legitimate music or not. If legitimate, it's over. If it is not, then pray tell me, on what basis/defence does the Defendant have in a courtroom. That is one thing no one has been able to explain. People just complain about the method used, which is completely legal under the Legislation.

And if you think it is illegal for SC to charge for an audit or if it is even legal for them to conduct an audit, then why not get together, pool your money and take them to court. Put your money where your mouth is.

it's because of the secrecy.........
an un-named investigator witnessed an unknown person playing a confidential track on an undisclosed date and time in a method that may or may not be from original media........ I would like to sue that person now.

And if you think it is illegal for SC to charge for an audit or if it is even legal for them to conduct an audit, then why not get together, pool your money and take them to court. Put your money where your mouth is.

Hehehe I can't help but laugh at you Smooth. You rant and rave about things that have absolutely no impact on you, or even on karaoke in your area (according to you). It seems like a lot of time and energy bitching about something that doesn't affect you. I spend less time typing about it than you do and I actually do business with them.

-Chris

They are exploiting their own customers to try and recoup money THEY lost by being complacent in the face of massive theft. We, as hosts, who have already paid for our music have no want to pay MORE for an audit..

I never felt exploited. Their policy is different than others for transferring to computer. If I didn't want to pay for the luxury of playing on the computer, i'd not have paid & continued to play off the discs. But I felt it was worth the little bit it cost for the luxury of doing something proper.

It's not proper. It's wrong to charge people more for stuff they already paid for. There is nothing that anyone can say that will change my mind on that.

Maybe, I should charge the bar a fee to run the karaoke and then charge each singer a fee on top of that.

As more download services open up, how long do you think they will be able to get away with selling 6000 songs for $4,500 or whatever it is now, which include songs that will never be sung..........ever, when most others are selling single song downloads so KJs can buy only what they need when they need it. THAT is a modern business model. SC may as well close their doors.

Just for the record "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" is a concept of CRIMINAL trials, as far as I know in CIVIL cases, the burden of proof rests with the accused party.

just saying

-James

There is nothing that anyone can say that will change my mind on that.

Tell us something we don't know. Further, it doesn't matter what you think is right or wrong what matters is what the law allows. Your continuous rantings won't change that.

You DO realize that you are a sheep, right?? Big Brother says it's ok, so you are good with that. I guess freedom is only good for business and not for everyone else.

How is only good for business?

Another asinine statement. Businesses do not have the freedom to do whatever they want. They, like us, have rules, regulations, and laws they have to follow. As long as they operate within those parameters, then they can operate accordingly. Just because YOU don't like it does not make it wrong, illegal, or immoral. You should really check into some businesses and see the restrictions some operate under, the inspections and audits they have to undertake, and depending on the industry, restrictions to whom they can sell to.