Karaoke Forums

A multi-rig KJ who used a remote computer server, that had copies of the KJs original SC discs on it to run 3 consecutive shows remotely, has been ordered by a federal judge to pay Slep-Tone for the amount of lost revenue for discs not purchased.

At a bench trial held in Judge Moody's court on February 13th 2013, it was found that unauthorized copies of SC trademarks had been created by Andrew and Patrice Couche and placed on their server in order to access remotely. The judge ordered that these copies were to be removed from an "internet-accessable computer".

However, it appears that Judge Moody has not mentioned in this order that the Couches can not use copies of their original SC discs on just one stand alone computer.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 60294/101/

Now since Slep-Tone and the Couches could not come to an agreed settlement amount for using 3 rigs with only one set of discs, the court awards Slep-Tone $26,000 for lost sales of product. Also the court reiterates the order above.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 60294/106/

_________________
-- Mark

I hope they actually get to collect it. They don't seem to pay off when they lose so who knows how they'll react when they win?

Care to back that up?

I hope they get to collect as well. I've never thought that sort of deal was legal or ethical.

Is this the same guy that posted the long winded eBay "auctions" a few years back solely for the purpose of slamming SC? The supposed auctions were for SC discs, but the price was crazy high and the auction descriptions were essentially a manifesto about his hatred of SC.

He spoke of his own innovative system that supposedly allowed only one song to be played at a venue at a time via an internet server. Hmmm.

Bazza,

I do not believe this is the same person that you refer to. I believe that person was also the author of the blog, soundchoicesucks.blogspot.com

However, when some of these people listen to those who try to circumvent the legalities, they most certainly get what they deserve!

Maybe the Couche's listened to that blogger and now will pay dearly.

_________________
-- Mark

Since it was called out in the filing, I wonder if they could have side-stepped all of this by putting a lockout on tracks that were in use at a location? It would not be that difficult to do actually. Basically check out the track or even the entire disc while the track is being used and prevent it from being used by another system.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

I still don't see the problem with that type of setup in all honesty. Other than not getting the permission to shift in the first place. If there was some sort of safeguard to insure that the same song absolutely could not be played simultaneously at more than one show.
There was a thread about this very scenario quite a while back, cannot find it now.

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

Lon is this it: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=23425&hilit=kroaky?

I have been to a couple of their shows and they use a wireless connection, at each venue, that goes direct to their server at home. It was my understanding that the songs were downloaded into a buffer (ram) and not streamed. I don't know if there were any safe guards to prevent playing the same song at the same time.

The Couche's are a wonderful couple with 4 young children. They are trying to make an honest living. They own more than 4000 original cdg's, and honestly thought that they were operating legally with their server. Judge Moody also believes that they were not willfully operating illegally.

These people are not hardened criminals that this thread seems to be leaning towards. Twenty six thousand dollars will potentially cause them to lose everything. Then what?

No i'm pretty sure it had several pages of discussion. I may be thinking of another forum too I was on too many at one time or another.

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

I wouldn't either if it could be verified like an audit.

Any ideas on how to monitor it? Perhaps the manu can create the software to ensure the track is played singularly during multiple connections.

Also should there be separate licensing and/or fee for each rig connected?

I guess it would be a kind of "personal cloud" server utilizing ones own purchased content provided proper permissions for use in that matter were authorized.

_________________
-- Mark

Well like stated, there would have to be some kind of safeguard in the program playing it OR in the server that does not allow more than 1 system to access the same song if it's being played elsewhere. That would eliminate needing to monitor.

The clubs would still have to pay PRO fees. Although I don't see why some sort of 'reasonable' cost for a multi rig (with one server supplying the music) per rig fee.


In a way.

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

Lonnie, I vaguely remember a couple of threads where the poster was talking about something like that. It's been within the last couple of years and I seem to remember where it was one where Nigel was involved. I believe, at one point, he proposed something like that (may be wrong though).

I believe I read something here that alluded to a particular Judge out West that ordered Sound Choice to pay someone's attorney's fees and Sound Choice's "people" tried to drag it out by writing something on the back of the check that kept the lawyers from cashing it. (escrow maybe) and the Judge wasn't too happy about that move either from what I read a month or so ago. Then the Judge labeled Sound Choice and their legal tactics as nothing but a shakedown scheme. That would be what I'm basing my statement on.

The couches will need to split the 4 thousands of discs into 4 systems SC will not allow the remote server option. Using a server has been found to be in violation of the law.Maybe they can male payments on the amount they were ordered to pay by the court or get a bank loan.

We also multi rig and paid for a separate disc for each system. Yes it is costly but it is the only way to be 1 to 1 One disc per system is required. I am sorry they did listen to old threads advising this option as a legal defense and I hope they are able to support their family in the future.

The best option for them may possibly be the "Karaoke Cloud" at $400 a month for the 4 systems they have may be the cheapest option after splitting the discs they now own into 4 systems.

It would seem to me that once a song was played at one venue, it shouldn't be available to the other venues the rest of the night, unless they owned more than one copy. I would think that once it's played in a venue, the song is in that venue for that night. Am I wrong in my thinking? Maybe so... I guess a KJ could take a laptop to two different venues on the same day but at different times. So I guess the question is, what is the proper amount of time between playing the song in one venue and another?

As long as its not being played simultaneously I honestly don't see the problem, but I'm not a manu. In the manus defense on this, it would cost them potential income if someone wanting to run multiple rigs wouldn't have to buy multiple copies.

_________________
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.

The court has ruled server options are in violation of the law as it stands.

I feel for those who did listen to some on forums and followed this path as an option. It was discussed in depth on the old (now dead) OKJT forums and the the manufactures did try and advise people on that forum it would not be a legal option and why. Now the courts have affirmed the law. This is a good example of following advise of people on forums instead of speaking with a IP lawyer. Things that make "make sense" to a regular person" is not necessarily what is legal.

I hope this couple is able to pay off the judgment and is able to find a way to keep all of the rigs running to support their children, they took a chance and now have to pay the for their choice.

Having 3 systems working with a 4th on the way soon. I do know how expensive purchasing music can be. We own 4 converted sets of LD's and over 25,000 CDG's between our systems and still buy new discs each month (times 3) and downloads from DT(times 3) and will soon need to do a large purchase a lot to fill out our 4th system. and have it ready.

One of the primary justifications for tolerating media-shifting is that it puts the operator in no better position that he would be in if he had to use discs, other than not having to haul around the discs.

If you have a server option that allows you to offer tracks at two locations--even if you have lockouts that prevent use of a track simultaneously--that puts you in a better position than if you had to use discs. That's unfair because it comes at the expense of manufacturer sales.

And what is wrong with that, hard work, ingenuity that puts you in a better position...it happens every day all over the world.

I don't know to reply to this statement other than being combined with the other statement above, as it was, this is a crock and you know it.

_________________
Music speaks to the heart in ways words cannot express.