Karaoke Forums

How many pages they have filed is irrelevant.

You have posted pages and pages of crap when all you are trying to tell anyone is "Don't use Sound Choice products". The rest is just noise.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Yeah but Lone neglects to say that 45 pages of the complaint is a listing of songs involved by one or the other Defendants. The complaint is 16 pages with a number of those that deal with the usual legal stuff that's in most complaints, ie the court of jurisdiction, the Plaintiff has standing and identifying the Defendants. But by saying 61 pages it looks more egregious.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

And I believe you are correct in that statement. If the complaint was only the 16 pages, which is in and of itself an egregious set of accusations, then it would not have a list of the alleged infringing songs. Since the songs are listed in the other 45 pages, which is the actual material in question here, then by definition and fact the claims ARE more egregious, and mentioning the number of pages in and of itself is a nonissue. Mentioning the egregious 16 pages without the more egregious other 45 pages would be a misstatement of fact since the other 45 pages are indeed a part of the complaint.

It doesn't take an egregious number of pages to file a complaint. If I were a judge I would much prefer a complaint that contains the facts in question, which, in this case, contains a relatively concise 16 pages in base information, followed by 45 pages of raw data. In reading back throughout the forum, I cannot recall any case filed against a manufacturer with even 10% of the number of alleged infractions listed here, but I could have missed something. I have read complaints and heard opening arguments where the lawyer goes out of his way to make his entire case, and that just seems, well, just plain egregious...

All I know guys if I was accused by SC of having 160 tracks that didn't belong to me, you would all cheer SC and say I must be a pirate. If SC is accused of doing something illegal it must be some kind of mistake and we have to wait for the truth of the charges. Would any give me the same benefit of the doubt? Why is there such a double standard? If you are going to attack fellow hosts for questionable conduct, why not rail against a manu that is accused of being in the least a giant hypocrite. If piracy hurts our industry how much more damage to it's image can a manu do compared to an individual host. Shouldn't they be held to the same high or higher standards.

It doesn't take a accusation from Sound Choice for people to formulate an opinion around whether someone is a pirate or not.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Of the songs listed in the complaint, more than 90% haven't even been sold by SC in the last 3+ years. What does that tell you about the plaintiffs' basis for bringing the suit?

I was looking at that list and thinking, "SC made karaoke of many of these?".

100% false. IF you had the discs. Simple enough to show them, isn't it?



Absolutely I would. Everyone makes mistakes. Show the discs, all is well.



I don't believe there is.



Who exactly, is "attacking fellow hosts"? I must have missed that part.

It tells me maybe they didn't know SC was making the tracks illegally until the saw KTS list and compared to the copyrighted they had approved for SC to make. Are you saying James that if the material is over 3+ years it's ok since the time to do something about it has passed? Does that change the fact that the product was in fact produced without the proper licensing, that SC did indeed infringe upon the copyright of the publishers? If that is the case SC get's off on a technicality, SC still broke the law. I understand if you are willing to assume the risk it's all free, isn't that what you said? Have a legal day.

To use an analogy, waking a sleeping giant can be dangerous to the puny townspeople, but it can also be dangerous to the smaller, more vulnerable fellow giants...

Just one question James does that mean 10% was sold in the last 3 years, that would be what 16 tracks at $150,000.00 per track? So SC is looking at paying 2.4 million dollars plus legal expenses if they are just convicted on the 10% they could be liable for? Have a legal day.

It's nice to know Bazza at least you would give a host the benefit of the doubt. Have a blessed day.

You do realize that it's not an automatic $150k per track, right?

Sorry to disappoint you, but the range is $200 to $150,000. That's kind of a wide range.

It may be that they had second thoughts about getting entangled with a company that had so much pending legal actions against potential customers. Having cold feet and wanting to steer clear until all the dust had settled.

_________________
"You know that I sing the Blues and I do not suffer fools. When I'm on that silver mic, it's gonna cut ya, just like a knife"-The SWINGCAT

I have to disagree with you there Chris. I have to bring up old news here. When Rodney (from California) was listed in a SC lawsuit from APS, he came on this forum to tell us that there were others (on a different forum) who were falsely accusing him of being a pirate and spreading the word, and this was based SOLELY on APS's accusation (on behalf of SC). And, if memory serves me correctly, "Insane KJ" was one of the people leading that crusade. There were one or two others from here that also formed and expressed negative opinions of Rodney ALL BASED ON that 1 accusation.

i agree here Cueball.
there is a serious double standard and if someone is accused by SC they are a pirate hands down. if SC is accused there is a mistake.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

I read the first page here. And the 4th. I'm chiming in with a point that may have already been made...

First of all, I find it hard to believe that a publisher would want to take ownership of karaoke tracks. They don't need them. They have BETTER than re-created karaoke tracks. They have the real thing. In the production process, aren't vocals laid down last? All they would have to do is simply use file before they laid down the vocals and they have an original recording of the song, less the lead vocals. And, it's not like they would fret over the CDG aspect of creating a set of karaoke product. There's freeware that could handle that job.

Which brings me to my second point...

If ownership of the tracks has become an issue, it is probably because:

1) SC's "Trademark Trolling" has become an issue with the publishers; or

2) The publishers want a piece of the pie. Maybe they see all the money SC is suing for and they might be thinking "SC is making more money off of suing people than they are for the licenses we granted them".

And that's a pretty good deal for SC. Under the assumption that SC pays a fee for each track they sell, SC is almost better off having the tracks "stolen". They then sure for damages and they don't have to pay commission on the tracks they sued for, even though they were stolen while in the possession of SC. Why? Because they didn't SELL the tracks.

_________________
I'm not a cheerleader, but I paid for my pom poms with my own money!

This is not accurate. The publishers benefit from most settlements precisely because they receive a royalty on the replacement product that the settling operator receives.

SC settlements are calibrated to put SC in the position it would have been in if the operator had just bought the product. Extra money from the settlement merely covers the costs of the process, including investigators, filing fees, attorney fees, etc.

I want to reiterate this portion of Mr. Harrington's response:



With all due respect, if there is no replacement product, and assuming that SC eventually collects on some of those default judgments, would the publisher receive any portion of the proceeds?

Probably not.

And how many Gems are being sold compared to the number of default judgments?

I'll wager that, in the long run, SC will make way more off from default judgement revenue settlements (I say settlements because I know SC will take what they can get, if offered) than they will make from Gem sales to pirates.

Betcha!

_________________
I'm not a cheerleader, but I paid for my pom poms with my own money!

Not directly. But they've expended no effort to earn a direct benefit. They can pursue infringement actions of their own if they wish, and we will assist them. They also benefit indirectly because putting operators out of an illegal business raises the likelihood that more legal product will be sold.



The revenue from GEM license sales far exceeds the revenue from default judgments.