The Lawsuits Have Started In Virgina

[Rockrz]

Then they only answer is to counter sue them for their false prosecution and mis-use of the court system.

This would have to be done by someone who was operating legally and had all physical copies of their digital collection and was willing to allow inspection by SC before being sued by SC and taken to court wrongfully.

Until somebody wins a suit against them, there won't ever be a legal precedent against their tactics...which enables them to keep doing it.

The government isn't going to help, only a civil suit against SC

[muzicman144]

Originally Posted by Rockrz

This would have to be done by someone who was operating legally and had all physical copies of their digital collection and was willing to allow inspection by SC before being sued by SC and taken to court wrongfully.
SC

Why on Earth would someone let SC to inspection anything without just cause, and then only on a court order. If SC asked to inspect anything i had under a threat to sue, i would show them where the sun didn't shine in no uncertain terms. If I had an illegal file, i would present the court a pristene hard drive and let them go at it. Then i would proceed to use every court in the USA to get as much damage money from SC as the law would allow. I think that is the best offense to counter SC charges.
They state they have permission from all other karaoke producers to uncover illegal use of their products and would use that if no SC files were illegal. Just a huge net to catch fish. The law cannot seize you property on SC's whim.
muzicman144

[Rockrz]

Easiest way to win a counter-suit is to do anything you can to avoid being sued by SC in the first place, which shows you are cooperating with the copyright holder who is making the public claim that you may be in violation of their copyright.

This way, when you tell this to the jury in your counter suit, SC will be looking like complete idiots which will help you win your counter law suit, which is the only way to stop this is by hitting them in their pocket book, hard.

Besides, all "just cause" means is they have a witness who claims you aren't running a legal show and they can demand to see your originals. If you refuse, then they do have the right to sue you based on their "eye witness"...

The courts convict people on murder (an many other crimes) based on the testimony of eye witnesses, so this is all that's really needed to take someone to court to enforce a copyright, especially if you refuse to show them you have originals.

[muzicman144]

Originally Posted by Rockrz

Easiest way to win a counter-suit is to do anything you can to avoid being sued by SC in the first place, which shows you are cooperating with the copyright holder who is making the public claim that you may be in violation of their copyright.

Besides, all "just cause" means is they have a witness who claims you aren't running a legal show and they can demand to see your originals. If you refuse, then they do have the right to sue you based on their "eye witness"...

Let's go through this again, The Slepps are private citizens, telling me if i don't allow them to search my personal belongings, they will sue me, and you say I should allow them to do so. Even the police cannot do that. They have to go to the court system and get a warrent. Having a "eye witness" doesn't allow the Slepps to demand to see anything you have, period. Do they have the right to sue based on "eye witness", absolutely, but, they do not need an "eye witness" to so. They still have serve one with a court order. Now who in the world is going to bring a illegal hard drive to court? Seems to me a person could ask what would it take to resolve this, delaying the process and proceed to hide any evidence. But to allow a private citizen to search anything one has, based on a threat to sue, just goes against what i see as one's civil rights in the good ole USA. Not perfect, But the best available at this time.
JMHO
muzicman144

[Rockrz]

Originally Posted by muzicman144

The Slepps are private citizens, telling me if i don't allow them to search my personal belongings, they will sue me

Since they have registered their product, that you are using under their terms, they have the right thru civil actions to enforce their copyright.

If someone refuses to show all their originals, that is acting quilty and will draw a lawsuit because they have no other way to verify you have originals.

Now, if you do have the originals and you show them to SC then they should not sue because they have no reason to sue.

If they sue anyway after this, then yes they are abusing their ability to enforce their copyright which can only really be stopped by counter-suing them in court and making them pay a large settlement.

Originally Posted by muzicman144

Even the police cannot do that. They have to go to the court system and get a warrent.

Not all the time...if they see a crime happening thru a window or by strange smells (as examples) they can come right in because a crime is in progress

Originally Posted by muzicman144

But to allow a private citizen to search anything one has, based on a threat to sue, just goes against what i see as one's civil rights in the good ole USA.

You are free to NOT show him your originals and go talk to them in court...that makes you look like you have something to hide.

Having all your originals and doing business ethically is how a professional business is run, so why scared to show them you have originals so they'll stay off your back?

The law gives them the right to make sure there aren't any copyrighted music of theirs out being used in public. Sorry.

What would you do if you became a musician and people were out there not buying your album but enjoying it anyway because they kept getting free copies from each other?

Wouldn't you discuss with your lawyers ways to cash in on what's being stolen from you, depriving you of alot of money?

[muzicman144]

Originally Posted by Rockrz

Since they have registered their product, that you are using under their terms, they have the right thru civil actions to enforce their copyright.
If someone refuses to show all their originals, that is acting quilty and will draw a lawsuit because they have no other way to verify you have originals.
Now, if you do have the originals and you show them to SC then they should not sue because they have no reason to sue.
If they sue anyway after this, then yes they are abusing their ability to enforce their copyright which can only really be stopped by counter-suing them in court and making them pay a large settlement.
Not all the time...if they see a crime happening thru a window or by strange smells (as examples) they can come right in because a crime is in progress
You are free to NOT show him your originals and go talk to them in court...that makes you look like you have something to hide.
Having all your originals and doing business ethically is how a professional business is run, so why scared to show them you have originals so they'll stay off your back?
The law gives them the right to make sure there aren't any copyrighted music of theirs out being used in public. Sorry.
What would you do if you became a musician and people were out there not buying your album but enjoying it anyway because they kept getting free copies from each other?
Wouldn't you discuss with your lawyers ways to cash in on what's being stolen from you, depriving you of alot of money?

What you are saying is the first way to lose our given rights. I have the right to refuse to let anyone search, inspect my property without assuming guilt or "looking guilty". If they choose to file a lawsuit. do so, it is their right.
By asserting my right to refuse search without a court order,does NOT mean i have anything to hide, just asserting my rights. Seeing a crime is not what we are talking here, completely different under the law.
Irregardless of all arguments, SC has no legal standing to demand to inspect, search, anyone's property without court orders. I, on the other hand, have the right to refuse per my civil rights, what is left of them.
I have nothing to hide from SC or anyone else, and i AM a musician and have cds out that have been copied. My feetling is the ill will i would create on my small scale is just not worth it. SC is feeling the results of their gestapo tactics on a much larger scale!
Guilt should not be assumed, let's protect our rights and let the chips fall. As for suits or countersuits, if you are right, you will prevail anyway.
NEVER GIVE UP ONE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, if you do, soon, you'll lose another.
Your stand is exactly the SC stand. Amazing
muzicman144

[Rockrz]

Originally Posted by muzicman144

What you are saying is the first way to lose our given rights. I have the right to refuse to let anyone search, inspect my property without assuming guilt or "looking guilty". If they choose to file a lawsuit. do so, it is their right.

The law affords you the right to refuse to show your originals, and the law affords them the right to sue just to be able to look at your collection. They won't issue a search warrant to SC up front since this is a civil enforcement of civil copyright holdings, so SC has no other option but to sue if you decide you have something to hide and refuse to show them your originals.

If someone truely had nothing to hide and were operating legally, then why anyone be scared to show them their originals? Refusing to show originals makes everyone think there's some illegal music in there somewhere

If it were me, I'd show them my originals and save myself the major hassle of being sued. Since I would be operating legally and I wouldn't be trying to hide anything, then I'd be good to go.

Since they have a right to verify you aren't engaging in piracy, they will sue you I guess. Hope you are operating legally, if not you'll get wacked in court.

Originally Posted by muzicman144

My feetling is the ill will i would create on my small scale is just not worth it.

I'm betting if your latest CD took off on the charts and your music became worth millions...you'd be doing what SC is doing because you'd want to get your fair share of money your music is earning, right?

Originally Posted by muzicman144

Your stand is exactly the SC stand

Actually, it's the copyright laws themselves that are to blame
because SC has the right under law to enforce their copyright.





.

[ddouglass]

Since I am sure neither one of you are lawyers your arguments are purely speculation. I think this has gone on long enough. Unless you have specific information concerning the on-going lawsuits, then please do not post anymore on this.

[Rockrz]

Actually, I have spoken at length with our company attorney concerning this and copyright holders do have the right to sue to enforce their copyright, especially in cases where somebody doesn't want to show they are operating legally.

It's the same with software, because software companies have sued just so they can come look at all of your computers and make sure no illegal copies are in operation.

I didn't say I like what SC is doing, but from what I'm being told by the legal industry is they have the right to enforce thru civil actions.

The attorney also said that anybody that gets sued is free to counter-sue if they feel the tactics are heavy handed and unfair and might have a good case.

[ddouglass]

You are both correct but repeating the same arguments is not necessary.
They can sue but at the same time you can refuse to show without a court order for discovery. It is up to the individual how they handle it. That is not an admission of guilt.
So now can we please curtail this or I will be force to close this thread.

[muzicman144]

Before the computer and karaoke disc, I used a cassette player and later a mini disc player on my one man show. Only the music played and you had to know the words to sing. One line of cassettes was a favorite of mine for the music quality and it was Pocket Songs, ironically produced by Sound Choice. Now I see Pocket Song releases in the karaoke disc format. Can anyone confirm if this is SC attempting to get around the marketing mess they have created with the SC Logo lawsuits by re-opening the Pocket Song line in hopes of avoiding the "boycott" of SC products???
just wondering
muzicman144

[Musicman51]

Before this thread ends up in the dumpster. Let me add just a bit of info to what admin stated:

I don't think so. SC's goal is to get as many suckers to settle out of court by paying them $6500/system, whether they have all the discs or not.

There isn't anything cool about that... if you are in their sights, you are their target.

Don't forget that the $6,500/system is the blue light bargain basement price. AS LONG as you don't fight them in court. The slepps have made it known several times, on several different forums. That if you make waves, the amnesty deal is off the table. Their shyster lawyers then get in the picture. It's then anyplace from $750.00 to $150,000 dollars PER SONG, PER RIG, PLUS PUNITIVE DAMAGES. So if you decide to fight for your rights, like you've been screaming you would. You had better have a leg to stand on. The slepp's attorneys git involved, and they have deep pockets. So if you do decide to fight them, you better have it all together..or you are history. They gotch'a.... Now....what was that you said about how you'd sue sue sue????

[ddouglass]

Originally Posted by muzicman144

Before the computer and karaoke disc, I used a cassette player and later a mini disc player on my one man show. Only the music played and you had to know the words to sing. One line of cassettes was a favorite of mine for the music quality and it was Pocket Songs, ironically produced by Sound Choice. Now I see Pocket Song releases in the karaoke disc format. Can anyone confirm if this is SC attempting to get around the marketing mess they have created with the SC Logo lawsuits by re-opening the Pocket Song line in hopes of avoiding the "boycott" of SC products???
just wondering
muzicman144

I don't be leive it is. Pocket Songs has been in business since 1985, starting with cassettes. The company is owned by Irv and David Kratka. Company is based in New York.

[Rockrz]

Originally Posted by Musicman51

Now....what was that you said about how you'd sue sue sue????

Their tactics may not be legal, and the only way to stop them is to counter-sue, which comes down to principles.

Apparently, SC hasn't yet run in to anyone with enough principles to shut down their heavy handed tactics

They will eventually, and they will most likely have to pay a large settlement

[muzicman144]

Originally Posted by ddouglass

I don't be leive it is. Pocket Songs has been in business since 1985, starting with cassettes. The company is owned by Irv and David Kratka. Company is based in New York.

I still have a few of the Pocket Song cassette and dug out a couple. You are correct that the company is based in Irvington, NY. Doesn't show any owner info except for MMO Music Group. Didn't mean to start any rumors, but, i guess ones memory fades in time.
muzicman144:

[ddouglass]

Sorry folks, but I am closing this thread because this is getting off topic and out of hand.