Karaoke Forums

I'm curious how you define a rouge lawyer?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Maybe a red-in-the-face attorney?

a lawyer who cross dresses and wears lipstick??

-James

Called S/C to order a license, and no answer... Are they on holiday leave still?

Anyone that knows them could possibly poke someone there for me?

email - Brian Plyler <brianp@soundchoice.com>

He will take care of you.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Message sent.

Thanks Chris.

Stunningly unbelievable...

Why- even if one were the greatest fan of SC of all time, would one spend that money on GEMS while this suit is in process???? If one wanted to spend that kind of money for GEMS, why not wait and see how the suit turns out before paying for licensing that might possibly be worthless if SC loses?

Someone please provide ANY business logic to this decision?

The above has nothing to do with my feelings toward SC, but rather about what seems to be complete disregard to proper business practices. WHY NOW?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Oh, I don't know, people have bought from McDonald's, Ford, Wal-Mart and a myriad of other companies both small and large while they have been embroiled in a lawsuit. You make it sound like a death-knell when a company is sued. Even if SC were to lose this case, no one knows what the award will be or if insurance will cover it.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Why does someone walk into a casino and put $100 on red at a roulette wheel?

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Well, I don't own hundreds of discs. I own a few MP3Gs... I do not want to run discs. I'm building up my song catalog with what I need. SC is my clienteles preferred choice of singing, so I'm going to keep my people happy.

This lawsuit will end with a settlement I have a feeling, Unless EMI can show that SC did what they did with extreme malice.

Do I agree with how SC has gone about going after people? No. Is there a problem with piracy? Yes.

Am I going to blow the whistle on suspected pirates? No, I'm just going to run my show the right way.

Do you know for a fact tim that SC is carrying any insurance? It would seem to me that if they were, like KTS's insurance company wouldn't they have insisted on a settlement already? It would seem like from the insurer's point of view settling sooner would be cheaper than later. Before the threat of injunction and the destruction of SC materials, before the expansion of infractions with the large price tag for each infraction. Even if the full amount is not realized it could still be a hefty bill with over 4,000 infractions cited. You must remember tim SC is not as big as the companies you have listed. They only have one product to license, since the production of new product is denied them by these same publishers.

Which is why I used the word "IF". That word means I don't know. I don't know whether they have insurance for this (E & O, Errors & Omissions) or not or if something like this suit is covered by it. Further, if they do, it doesn't mean an insurance company is going to automatically settle. They would look at the complaint, assess it and then go from there. They could settle or they could fight it. Unlike you, I will not presume the merits of the case or what anyone involved will do.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Yeah, but, you're not licensing a Hamburger when you buy one from McDonald's.... of course, if you down a Bud with that HB....

ROFLMFAOAPMP!!! ... Hello Pot??????????????


My turn to SPECULATE... There is also the possibility that EMI's terms for a settlement could be that SC has to stop making and selling (licensing) the GEM series, issue a recall on any unsold sets, and destroy everything they have left of the GEM Series. They might not have any choice but to go forward with this case. Since this appears to be SC's main product line right now, agreeing to that kind of settlement could be just as costly as waiting for a final outcome from a Judge that might decide the same thing.

Maybe the guy just figures that once Sound Choice goes under; his GEM tracks will already be on his PC and even if he has to return the discs for destruction; he will still have a copy of them and the EMI people probably won't be trying to catch any of the small fish in their nets once they land their whale.

Good observation on the possible. You may very well be right Bruce!

now THAT would be interesting.
IF that does happen, would SC then require all GEM owners....sorry....former lessees to then pay $150 for an audit of the GEM?
i'm just going to wait and see how this all pans out.
rogue lawyer, i would describe them as this
http://www.ncbar.com/discipline/DHC_File_DHC_file_filename_bv.asp?DHC_file_doc=207
no client, but suing for them anyway just to get money.

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

If SC is compelled to move forward with the case it might be just a matter of trying to rearrange the furniture on the Titanic. Should SC be allowed to continue in business, you can bet a sizable chunk of what ever they recover will have to go to EMI the source of their material in the first place.

If GEM folks have to return product and have their hard drive audited, which idiot wouldn't have it already loaded on a second hard drive? Duh. Then watch the worldwide duplication begin.....

What ever happened to all of those new Sound Choice tracks that were going to be made available to ONLY GEM series "leasers"?

That there is some marketing genius. Pay for the GEM and receive access to some songs that nobosy else will be able to buy. How long ago were these exclusive tracks promised?