PR's One Day Audit

The Lone Ranger · Post by **The Lone Ranger** » Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:29 pm

For the modest price of $175.00 you can sign up for PR's brand new one day audit. It can be done on line and if it takes over 3 hrs to complete you have to pay for the extra time it takes if you go over your 3 hrs. The kicker is the audit is only valid for the day of the audit. This would be great if the host plans on only being in business for one day. You see where this is going to be on the vetted list of verified host, you really need to subscribe to one of DTE's products. This will keep you out of court and away from any nasty law suits they maybe planning. So once again the manu has changed the rules and the host have to give in and pay up or go out of business. At first they maintained that "SCDG's are also not valid for this audit!!!!" They changed their minds however when some of their former certified allies complained about this omission. It is quite plain that the host that wants to use the CB product and stay out of court will have to pay monthly for the right to use their product in a commercial setting. I calculated if the estimated number of hosts all paid for Cloud, that would net PR/DTE over a quarter of a billion dollars over 10 years. Not bad for a label that went into foreclosure to avoid paying CAVS it's settlement.

mnementh · Post by **mnementh** » Sat Sep 07, 2013 3:52 pm

For the even more modest sum of $0.00 I can tell PR to go p*** up a stick

Sandy.

The Lone Ranger · Post by **The Lone Ranger** » Sat Sep 07, 2013 8:34 pm

Yes having your operation overseas does help at not having to deal with all the baloney that is being sliced and served up in the good old U.S.A. The supposed land of the free.

The Lone Ranger · Post by **The Lone Ranger** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:05 am

Just found out the price of the audit per hour if it goes over the 3hr limit is $75.00 per hour. That is pretty expensive for a one day audit.

Post by **wiseguy** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:59 am

Is this audit's primary purpose to clear someone if they get named in a law suit?

The Lone Ranger · Post by **The Lone Ranger** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:48 am

It is more of a proactive type of move for the nervous legal host that wants to avoid being named in a lawsuit. The audit itself is only good however for the day it is preformed. For long term peace of mind they want you to subscribe to cloud or some other DTE service so you will be placed on their official verified vetted list. Hosts on this list supposedly will avoid being sued by mistake. Actually subscription relieves the host from having to have an audit. The drawback is you will have to pay monthly 99.00 for the Cloud service. I think it would be easier just to drop the CB product myself. Since I only have till Oct 31st left in the business I'm not going to worry about it. Also I sent an email to CAVS to find you what the status of the CB SCDG's legally. I want to find out if CB can audit and control basically what is a CAVS product. When I get a reply I will let you know about that as well.

DanG2006 · Post by **DanG2006** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:49 pm

Media Pro users are not included in the vetted list since it's not considered a subscription. As of my next show I have stopped using Compuhost and Media Pro out of protest and have switched to JustKaraoke. Thank god it has a kiosk feature.

Post by **wiseguy** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:04 pm

DanG2006 wrote:Media Pro users are not included in the vetted list since it's not considered a subscription. As of my next show I have stopped using Compuhost and Media Pro out of protest and have switched to JustKaraoke. Thank god it has a kiosk feature.

Sooner or later you will have to realize that the manufactures you so staunchly support are not concerned with best interest of the karaoke hosts and don't give a damn about their long time customers.

The Lone Ranger · Post by **The Lone Ranger** » Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:26 am

Well I sent a email to CAVS and they sent me a reply.

Call 1-562-777-1846

"We will enlighten you on this racketeering scam".

Needles to say I was very interested in what they had to say, since they were the company that filed the RICO charges against SC.

What CAVS told me was there has been a recent court decision Slep-Tone U.S. v.s. Light Year Music aka The Kandy Store. This decision establishes the basis for trademark infringement of SC's product and would apply to the CB label as well. You must have both elements to be guilty of trademark infringement.

1. You must copy the trademark.

2. You must be trying to create confusion, such as trying to sell your material as SC or CB original product. Most hosts I know use their product for their shows and are not trying to sell them at the local swap meet.

According to CAVS only the original holders of the copyrighted material, the publishers can sue for the contents of the tracks period. Therefore when a host is paying off the manu, they are only paying for the right to display their logo. The publisher's can still sue for tract content. So if the manus can't sue for tract content, and logo infringement requires two items to be claimed, it would seem a scam has been played on the industry for the last four years. Also CAVS told me if any host has any hard printed material from PR/WWD/DTE/CB, claiming they have the right to audit and verify CAVS product they want you to talk with them about it, they want to turn it over to their own lawyers.

It was also relayed to me that any host that paid the manu for anything more than their product have wasted their money. Makes me feel good that I never paid for one of those audits, or any of that other product they have been trying to push. With the threat of the legal process gone it would seem that sales will dry up as well. After all "suits drive sales". I also found that this verdict was a unanimous jury decision, let's hear it for the people. The documents confirming this decision are on pacer, I don't have an account. I wish someone on this forum who has a pacer account could make public the docs. I'm sure all hosts would be grateful and their fears at last laid to rest. To think the manus all this time were running a bluff and if more hosts would have believed them they would have soaked hosts for millions in bogus fees and charges.

Post by **wiseguy** » Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:44 am

The trademark infringement ploy smelled bad to me from the start. To win a law suit you need to prove damages and I could never understand how SC is damaged when their trademark is displayed from a file on a hard drive but not damaged when it is displayed from the original CD.

The Lone Ranger · Post by **The Lone Ranger** » Tue Sep 10, 2013 2:23 am

In the Panama City Florida case which Jim Harrington appealed and lost, the total amount of the damages was the fair retail value of the product. Roughly about $5,000.00 per defendant, hardly worth the cost of going to court.

The Lone Ranger · Post by **The Lone Ranger** » Tue Sep 10, 2013 8:19 am

I did find some links confirming that SC did indeed lose a jury trial to Light Year Music aka the Kandy Store.

http://soundchoicelasvegaslawsuit.com/w ... mment-5486

For some reason it is not going directly to the numbered comment. No problem hit the were back thread, then scroll down to the bottom of the comments, you will see what Chip wrote about the unanimous jury verdict against SC.

Aslo for legal document of the decision you can try:

Free Forum (it's on the list of Karaoke Forums) look on the thread titled PRLLC and Digitrax Audits-Page 3. Insane KJ posted the link for rfcexpress a legal documents provider. For some reason I can't get their link to come up when I give it. My bad, not being raised with computers.

Bigdog · Post by **Bigdog** » Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:37 pm

I said this a while ago...that I am not claiming to be Sound Choice. I'm not trying to steal their logo or their music and claiming it's my original work.

So there could not be a lawsuit for copyright infringement.

Case Closed.. frivolous lawsuit..

It still smells like a Mafia type operation..

I say we are actually doing free advertisement when we display the SC logo...we should be charging them for every display.

If we sent legal notification to them stating that they owe us money for every time we promoted their porduct ...we could ask for restitution...

So if we remove the sound choice logo from each track does that negate their claim of infringement...I'm still not saying it's my music ...I'm just not acknowledging it's theirs...without some type of advertising compensatition..

Bigdog · Post by **Bigdog** » Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:40 pm

A one day audit....so just do it on the day of the hearing....Here Your Honour...I'm legal....it's hot of the press...

What idiot would ever pay for a one day audit....

How can they even ask for such a thing....??

Don't you think a resonable Judge would find that to be a CRAZY & unreasonable request.

DanG2006 · Post by **DanG2006** » Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:47 pm

Bigdog wrote:I said this a while ago...that I am not claiming to be Sound Choice. I'm not trying to steal their logo or their music and claiming it's my original work.

So there could not be a lawsuit for copyright infringement.

Case Closed.. frivolous lawsuit..

It still smells like a Mafia type operation..

I say we are actually doing free advertisement when we display the SC logo...we should be charging them for every display.

If we sent legal notification to them stating that they owe us money for every time we promoted their porduct ...we could ask for restitution...

So if we remove the sound choice logo from each track does that negate their claim of infringement...I'm still not saying it's my music ...I'm just not acknowledging it's theirs...without some type of advertising compensatition..

Removing the logo would be considered illegal as well. trade dress, the way the words swipe, font etc would give it away as Sound Choice.