Karaoke Forums

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/north- ... 122/62238/

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/florid ... 069/61251/

Sweet!

and the letters have started going out in AZ. have an aquaintence (sp?) who called asking what to do. i know she has well over 140,000 tracksand not 1 disc so i gave her her options. she wants to tell SC to shove it and go to court so we may have a real precedent coming finally.

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

She doesn't own any discs?
Well, if she does go to court, it certainly will set a precedent, one way or another. Should be very interesting indeed!

just went on ebay and bought foundations, bricks and brickettes, thinks thats all she needs. told her about the software to look for deleted stuff and said she is a programmer so she can beat that. mentioned using trademark as the violation and said she can remove the trademark from the tracks..........140,000 of them???? all i could tell her is good luck.

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

I could just see it all now....Karaoke hard drives on e-bay and craigs list with all of the manufacturer's logos removed....for the 21st century pirates.

BruceFan4life that has been tried already....a dead give away...they can still prove manu due to screen color and font.....and SC was smart they pop the logo in the middle of songs so fast you can hardly see it...to edit that out you would ruin the songs...

As far as the Arizona person saying she was gonna tell SC to stuff it...that's how the pirates here started out talking....they are singing a diffrent tune now. I hope the Arizona person does take it to court.....cant wait for a case to make it tru the legal system.

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

I understand that is what one of the KJ's in the Richmond area did also and Sound Choice simply tracked his purchases online and is still going forward with the suit and adding spoilation to the case, which doubles any award given by the court and possibly carries jail time as well.

She ain't real bright now is she? Why would she ask what she shoud do and then not like your answer so she decides to tell SC to shove it? She is less than bright. Sometimes the truth hurts!

_________________
No venue to big or too small. From your den to the local club or event, we have the music most requested. Great sounding system!

Does she not realize that by the time she got the letter SC already has a pretty good case against her? She had better remember what songs she played from what disc and make sure she has those as well as the foundations.

Even doing that she had better make sure her purchases can't be tracked ie. E-bay etc. or her goose is cooked!

While the KJ isn't operating intelligently ( actually, she must be a few short to pass on info like that anyway) it would be wise for SOUND CHOICE to make sure they know what tracks were played as well, and make sure they weren't from, say, SC8125, SC8438, SC 2163, etc.., and make sure that any track that was witnessed being played was licensed in the U.S. - otherwise the KJ walks.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Speaking of AZ people wanting to fight, whatever happened to DanDan The Taxi Man? I thought he was going to slam SC to the ground in court since he stated his legitimacy & refused to do an audit. Wonder if he is singing the same tune? Hmmmm....

Dandan is still in the fight. The wheels of the court system grind oh so slowly. Nothing happens overnight. Oh, and he's not the only one fighting. There is another one as well. Just waiting for the court system to drag on... When I hear more, I'll be sure to let you know.

Here is the way I see it and bear with me as I might be longwinded with my comments.

Sound Choice is not suing for copyright infringement. They are suing for Trademark (logo) – I think you are mixing apples and oranges. The trademark is validly registered even if there might be some “issues” with the underlying composition copyrights. I have learned a lot working with Chartbuster here. So many of you forget that the manufacturers only need a valid reason to file a suit. The real information and details are learned during the discovery phase of the lawsuit. They probably can find plenty of songs on her system, not just the ones that were played the night(s) of the investigation. Defendants have three choices: Settle, proceed with the case or default. When you default, you basically admit all the allegations in the lawsuit and then the plaintiff requests whatever damages they believe they can successfully argue before the judge. The judge will then grant them some amount and then will also usually direct the Federal Marshals to assist in the collection of that debt.


If you decide to proceed with the case, after spending about $5-$10K in retainer fees (hmm seems it would be cheaper to settle), the next step is to go into discovery. The plaintiffs can demand to see EVERYTHING related to your business – and I mean EVERYTHING. How you get paid, taxes paid, purchase and expense receipts; if you have other KJs working for you, whether or not you have issued 1099s or if you have collected FICA and SUTA and paid them out to the government. This is where many KJs are going to be toasted. Unless your business practices are squeaky clean you’re much better off settling with the manufacturer before you NEXT have to deal with the IRS, state Department of revenue, the ESC, etc. And Btw, did you know there are rewards for reporting income tax evasion?

_________________
No venue to big or too small. From your den to the local club or event, we have the music most requested. Great sounding system!

A Detailed update from Dan:


The SC case has actually just started kicking up again. They've hired
an agency here locally who has been sending out this intimidating
e-mail to various karaoke hosts:

Dear Rick,

Case number: AZ11-30113

You are being contacted due to possible trademark violations. You have
the opportunity to settle this matter before a suit is filed against
you in Federal Court by contacting APS and Associates immediately, or
you can submit to an audit of your karaoke systems.

Attached you will find information that will explain APS’s position
pertaining to this matter. For more information go to
www.apsandassociates.com/soundchoice.

Contact us immediately or we will be forced to file suit against you
in Federal Court and have you served with a copy of the suit. Refer to
your case number when you respond.

Best Regards,

APS & Associates
3120 W. Carefree Hwy. Ste-1-#301
Phoenix, Arizona 85086
office: 623-434-1838
web: www.APSandAssociates.com
Licensed, Bonded and Insured
Providing Service Since 1988
--------------------
Their webpage at www.apsandassociates.com/soundchoice is absolutely
ridiculous. Be sure to check out the link on it to the pdf file for
the audit consent form and questionnaire. It's even more outrageous
than the one I sent you last year that I got from Harrington, SC's
lawyer.

It still blows my mind that any self-respecting karaoke host would
stand behind SC's greedy gestapo actions or participate in any of
their mafia-esque "protection" programs and agencies like KIAA, KAPA,
or their most recent farce, "Safe Harbor":
http://www.scsafeharbor.com/aboutlawsuits.php

Here's what's happened since December in the actual lawsuit:
Trey got served. I didn't find out until recently as SC neglected to
serve me a copy of the affidavit of service. Trey responded with a
letter that the court has chosen to accept as an "Answer". There's not
much to it, but it makes one thing very clear: Trey hosts directly off
discs and has never used a computer for playback of karaoke tracks. I
went to his show last Friday and sure enough, there was no computer
there, just two CD+G players, only one of which was connected to TVs.
It was a good time
The judge set a Scheduling Hearing (what I was thinking of when I'd
said a Settlement Conference would happen soon), and then passed the
case on to another judge who in turn passed it on to another judge in
Alaska. The Alaska thing kind of threw me but a clerk at the
courthouse explained that they do that a lot with cases that are
mostly just paper shuffling to give the judges in Alaska something to
do since the Arizona judges are busy with real cases. The case still
remains in Arizona and the documents are simply sent via e-mail back &
forth to the judge in Alaska, and any pre-trial hearings get conducted
telephonically.
The new judge in Alaska vacated the Scheduling Hearing that was set
before Judge Murgia, but confirmed her order that SC's attorney needed
to conduct a scheduling conference with all defendants and prepare a
joint report of the scheduling conference, and gave them 14 days to do
it. He also stated in that order that while I had filed an answer, I
had not filed an answer to the amended complaint and should do so.
This surprised me, as I'd discussed this with SC's attorney, who told
me that since the only change relative to me was properly identifying
me which I did myself in my answer that my original answer would stand
and be sufficient.
SC's attorney conducted the scheduling conference with Abe's attorney
and neglected to include or notify either Trey or myself.
In the meantime the judge ruled that SC's motion for default judgment
against Debbie Simmons needed to be mailed to her to give her a chance
to respond to it before it would be granted. She ignored it the same
as she did the complaint, and the judge entered the default order that
SC proposed which was for $150,000, an injunction against her playing
any SC music, seizure of all her equipment by US marshals and
destruction of all her data-storage devices. I have not spoken with
Debbie in like 4 years, and have no idea what's up with her. She
should have answered in court. Even if she didn't have discs for the
music on her CAVS units, the burden of proving that would've still be
on SC.
When SC's attorney submitted the scheduling conference report which
only included one defendant, the new judge entered an order stating
that they appeared to have neglected two se defendants and ordered
they submit to the court how they intended to proceed against us. I
was unaware most of this had happened until I got that order, which
prompted me to go to the courthouse to see what I'd missed. That's
when I got a copy of the letter Trey had submitted to the court and
contacted him. I also submitted an amended answer as the judge
requested, which was not really any different than the one I sent you
in December of '09; my position hasn't changed any.
SC's attorney responded to the judge's order regarding Trey and I, and
it's laughable. While in it they claim their intention is to proceed
against the pro se defendants that same as the represented defendant,
their excuse for not including us was the court's order that "counsel"
conduct the conference. They suggest that if either Trey or I have any
objections to the already submitted plan from the conference we were
excluded from that we lodge them in writing or scheduling conference
conducted by the court. The (@$%&#!) up thing about that is in my plan
they submitted without my participation they claimed there was no need
for the court to conduct a conference since the parties were in
agreement. That was filed last Wednesday, so I'm waiting to see the
judges response to that and researching what my options are so I can
fine a proper and useful objection. If it's an option at this point,
and I think it is, I'm going to try to force arbitration or the
appointment of a special master. I want to put an end to any further
amendment of pleadings or the addition of any additional parties. I
also want that court to conduct a conference, but half expect that's
going to happen whether I ask for it or not.

It's no surprise to me that SC is stepping up their out of court KJ
scare tactics and trying to get people to (@$%&#!) themselves with Safe
Harbor, KIAA and Gem Series contracts as they are likely close to
actually losing case number one here in Arizona. And once news of that
gets out, and scare tactics won't have much scare to them, as the 9
other identical lawsuits will likely follow in much the same way. Were
it not for all the people who have been scared into settling or
otherwise giving money to Sound Choice, they probably would not have
had the funds to carry things as far as they have.

Ernie of Wired For Sound came by my place a few weeks ago, and I gave
him a copy of the court's order granting his motion to dismiss from
early last year. He said he has stopped paying Sound Choice, although
I did warn him that if he signed any kind of settlement contract that
he would be putting himself at risk of suit for breech of contract
regardless of the judge having dismissed the original case against
him. He said he'd take that risk, and I'm curious to see what, if
anything, happens.

Sorry this was so long... But you asked
My shows are still rocking 5 to 6 nights a week and bigger than ever.
Feel free to disseminate whatever information here you want to on
karaoke and DJ forums. I have nothing to hide, and the more truth
that's out there online the better. Between my baby and karaoke
business I just don't have the time to be bothered by forums which
appear to be mostly full of closed-minded uneducated people who view
Sound Choice as some sore of karaoke messiah.

-- Dan Dan

First, we have BEEN talkinking about Trademark Infringement, not Copyright Infringement.

Second, and to repeat: If a logo is attached to something without legal authorization ( ln this case proper licensing by the karaoke mfr.) than it has been attached illegally. This makes it legally invisible. In other words, if SC brought someone to court for displaying their logo onscreen while playing and EAGLES track- for which they never had any licensing to produce- they would lose in court, pretty much instantly.

Also, if a KJ brought a few hundred of the tracks that weren't licensed for production to court, proving habitual mis-attachment of the logo- I believe the manufacturer would also lose- and probably put themselves in some legal difficulties as well. If a mfr. has no U.S. licensing for ANY tracks, then ALL attached logos are legally invisible because the logo was attached without permission from the music OWNERS.

Kind of like me sneaking up to your front door in the middle of the night, putting my picture there without your permission, then suing you in the morning for displaying my likeness. You aren't liable. However, I could get in trouble for putting it there. Hence the suits against the manufacturers.


Now, if a karaoke mfr. was careful to record which tracks were in use during the display of the logo, and those tracks were licensed by the music owners in the U.S. that MIGHT be a different story. Still, if a KJ could prove habitual mis-attachment of the logo it may still hurt the case. In the case of SC, they might be able to sue for trademark infringement in the UK- because THAT is where Kurt says they are licensed, and not the U.S.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Joe,

You keep saying this over and over, but you continue to fail to show us what tracks are not "properly licensed"!

Which tracks are those that would be in contention?

Diafel,

It sounds like Dan Dan would have been a lot better off with a lot less headaches if he had just gone through ther audit when it was offered instead of telling Sound Choice to go ahead and sue him, if he was a pirate then he should have simply settled. Even attorney's who testify in a federal court hire an attorney to represent them, it is unbelieveable that anyone would be so ignorant of the court process as to go into the court system without an attorney to do so at the federal level is beyond comprehension. Yes the courts do bend over backwards to afford a pro se litigant every opportunity to follow the rules but in the end they must still follow the rules.

I understand his take on things as it is what he understands to be actually happening but that is his take on it and what may be coming about could be something entirely different. If he wasn't a pirate when the case was filed he could have cleared it up in a matter of days without spending one dime, if he was a pirate he could have cleared it up in a matter of weeks by settling. From the appearence of things he has turned this thing into a 3 or more year saga where even if he wins he still loses because of all the time and energy he has spent fighting something that didn't have to be fought to begin with.

It is sort of like watching a cat crawl into a burlap bag and then exhaust himself trying to get out of it, fun to watch but sad at the same time.

Everytime I see one of the people who have been filed against in this thing say they are legal and are going to fight it I can't help but wonder about their IQ level, of course everytime I see someone who is a pirate say it I can't help but wonder the same thing!

Someone who settled with Sound Choice and signed a settlement agreement, the agreement is signed the case is dismissed, and now he is going to say screw you Sound Choice this doesn't say a lot about someone's inteligence level!

I read the informnation posted and the PDF of the audit agreement, I can't see anything wrong with it or it being out of line in any manner. What is the problem with it?

The problem is that at the time he was accused, SC REQUIRED that he sign an audit consent form that was very much different than the one you see now. That form REQUIRED that he admit guilt, and consent to future search whenever SC felt like it, among other things.
It;s not just about submitting because he's not a pirate. There's more to the story that you obviously haven't read up on. Do a search in this forum for dandanthetaximan and you will get the whole story. Dan has his discs, could prove it then, as now, but SC REQUIRED he admit guilt. Now you tell me, would YOU sign such a document? I mean you're not a pirate, so what's the problem?
Sometimes, it's about MORE than what meets the eye.
Sometimes, people actually care about principles.

The Audit document has not changed since I signed it. What we have is Dan Dan's side of the story, other people have signed that document gone through the audits and no problem, including during the first round of suits the others who went through it have a different story than Dan Dan.

Oh yes those letters were sooooooo intimidating. We must be reading two different letters. There was nothing remotely intimidating about the letter or audit agreement.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger