Karaoke Forums

WOW, what a deal acquire some defunct trademarks and then sue people for using them. I wonder just how many defunct trademarks are out there not just Karaoke but others. I can think of a few. Tower Records & Circuit City, Desoto, and I'm sure that there are many more.

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

I don't seem to recall a Record Label named "Tower Records" when I went to their B&M store. I also don't seem to recall them selling any record needles or tape cleaners under the Tower Record name. Has anyone here ever bought a new PC or Stereo System from Circuit City that had the Manufacturer name of Circuit City on it?

Now, if you had used Radio Shack in your example instead.....

Wow, what a potential can of worms, if for no other reason than CB made media specifically designed for computer use (SD cards). 'Doesn't jibe well with PEP's policy of 'sue for computer use, and ask questions later' protocol.

If that were our policy, you might have a point.

if you are seen displaying the trademark from a computer, it is counterfeit and PEP sues.
PEP does NOT offer anything ahead of time because as you have informed us several time in the past, you don't want to give time for them to destroy evidence BEOFRE filing suit (after is ok because then it is officially destroying evidence). YOU told us this. so he is accurate in that 'sue for computer use, and ask questions later' is the policy. my external hard drive is mounted in the rack case so it is never seen. the SD cards were loaded and kept at home. i am displaying the CB trademark from a computer and did not call PEP ahead of time for an audit (not ME in the literal sense, just from a customer point of view) and now the first thing that happens is PEP sues me for displaying the CB trademark in the way it was intended, which after paying numerous fees and legal retainer (as is reccomended by PEP in the law suit letter) i can be let go. please tell me you are not going to suggest the same thing you did for SC discs of holding up the SD card and saying that "this next song is being played directly from CB original media."

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

if you are seen displaying the trademark from a computer, it is counterfeit and PEP sues.
PEP does NOT offer anything ahead of time because as you have informed us several time in the past, you don't want to give time for them to destroy evidence BEOFRE filing suit (after is ok because then it is officially destroying evidence). YOU told us this. so he is accurate in that 'sue for computer use, and ask questions later' is the policy. my external hard drive is mounted in the rack case so it is never seen. the SD cards were loaded and kept at home. i am displaying the CB trademark from a computer and did not call PEP ahead of time for an audit (not ME in the literal sense, just from a customer point of view) and now the first thing that happens is PEP sues me for displaying the CB trademark in the way it was intended, which after paying numerous fees and legal retainer (as is reccomended by PEP in the law suit letter) i can be let go. please tell me you are not going to suggest the same thing you did for SC discs of holding up the SD card and saying that "this next song is being played directly from CB original media."[/quote]

It's the "ask questions later" part that isn't right. We ask plenty of questions before we sue. The fact that a KJ may not know we're the ones asking doesn't mean we aren't asking them.

As to the rest, you may recall that a very substantial proportion of CB's sales were direct, especially at the end. We will have access to those sales records. It won't be 100% perfect, of course, but that's why we ask the questions we ask.

By the way, if you genuinely have 1:1 correspondence, there's no reason why you can't do the audit without having to "pay numerous fees and legal retainer." We have no interest in wasting time with someone who legitimately purchased everything they use.

I'm really sick & tired of the rhetoric.

Put up or shut up.

If you DID NOT purchase the original disc, then you have no basis to stand upon. FACT.

If you DID purchase the original disc, then you have NOTHING to worry about.

If you DID NOT purchase a digital file from a "legit" source then you have NOTHING to defend your possession of a counterfeit file.

It ain't rocket science.

If you did IN FACT purchase a digital file from a legit source, then you have NOTHING to fear, worry or concern yourself/your business about.

I am standing on the grounds that I took the necessary steps to legitimize my library and, despite the indignant opposition, I have profited exponentially, above and beyond without any concern, repercussion, nor penalty for more than 10 years.

I have a cert from CB. I obtained that without a fee. I am among the few that can interpret the writing on the wall without outside influence.

From what I have observed in our "pleasant valley" in this forum, I am evidently one of the highest paid single ops in the country.

Don't accept limitation.

Don't accept contradiction.

Forge your own path.

Give your venues (customers) the best you can.

PAY FOR YOUR MUSIC. DON'T MAKE COPIES THAT ARE > 1:1

I truly respect an adversary that is not simply a knee-jerk apologist nor a reflex-fighter.

Someone that I truly respect an consider to be admirable recently posted about the difference between private and commercial use of an original artist's material being unfair.

I would propose the perspective of: we are using material that WAS NOT created by US.

I simply do not think it is fair to STEAL someone else's material. It is not up to you or me to determine what is legit, but it is up to us to do whatever is possible to maintain integrity.

I am comfortable with PEP's decision to include Chartbuster in their pursuit/intention to recover from theft and deter the same actions from occurring in the future.

Bring it. I have nothing to hide.

Stay out in front of the bullshit.

--- coming from a guy who just got home from his 6th show of the week with their biggest revenue after our initial 6 week engagement on Saturday nights.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

It's interesting that you are one of the proponents for always demanding "facts" for everything however, you can sit there and think it's perfectly fine for PEP to sue someone for using CB on a computer with no "facts" at all when they know for a "fact" that the product was -- and still is -- sold in a digital format specifically for playback on a computer.

FACT: Being "named" in a lawsuit is really called; being "sued."

They have no "fact" that the KJ's and the venues they are about to sue are using anything counterfeit. There is a BIG difference between claiming that SC tracks played on a computer are counterfeit (since they were only manufactured on discs) and CB tracks that are still sold in a digital format for playing back on a computer. I would think it would be fairly difficult to assert that there is any preponderance of infringement at all because a KJ is using the tracks on a computer -- in the form in which they are intended to be used -- that they are counterfeit. PEP suing in this case -- without an SC trademark but only CB -- is not a preponderance of evidence at all, it's a shakedown. I can only hope that the first KJ's or clubs that get sued, fire back with a countersuit and don't let go.

Now is when you need to remember that Harrington specifically said that he wouldn't sue me for "playing discs" as though playing from a disc is of itself some type of infringement, but that there was a distinct possibility that I could be sued "playing discs in a club" --- by mistake because of the "human factor" of his crack investigative squads scouring the country for venues to sue first.

The "fact is" if this is the kind of company you want to do business with, lacking in integrity and ethics, then knock yourself out. So far, they haven't produced anything but lawsuits.


This is a simple untruth because he wants to use the court system to extract an additional payment and a ridiculous contract from everyone and anyone that uses these brands. I would expect the next news to come out of him is that the "audit costs" will go up because now there are more discs, drives, and SD cards to check. So if you're honest and purchased the material to begin with, you get to pay even more for it.

You are welcome to believe him all you want but it's apparent that their targets have changed in the last year: Now it's extract audit money from KJ's but sue the venues for settlements first.

Rule of thumb: When in doubt, follow the money.

Then all that is left for you to do is embrace KaraoQ and roll in all your new found wealth.

To be fair I do believe that an IP owner has the right to take action against illegal use of IP that they created, but not the right to defend IP they had no part in creating such as the latest lawsuit disaster in the making.

"...you can sit there and think it's perfectly fine for PEP to sue someone for using CB on a computer with no "facts" at all..."

Not what I am thinking at all.

Unlike you, I am reasonable.

I understand that mistakes were made. I see no evidence that the same mistakes are being repeated.

I use ALL of my CD+G's, including CB (I was audited by them as well) and SC, in MP3+G format at my shows.

If a trademark holder requires permission to duplicate their trademark, I have no problem obtaining that permission.

If this acquisition provides further deterrent for piracy and that pushes more thieves out... then more power to them.

In the last week, I met two (former) KJ's at my shows. One blatantly told me that he has over 100K tracks that he took from his former employer. He was bragging that he worked for the largest entertainment service in the state. When I asked him if he had the discs, he looked at me funny and then mumbled something about having the "masters"... whatever the hell that means. The second guy said he used to work for a well-known karaoke bar in Denver and that he too had a copy of their entire library on a hard drive. The subject came up when he asked for a song by Childish Gambino and I located the disc on-line. I purchased it that night and will have it by the date of that show - next week. He kept asking why he couldn't just bring his HD to my show and give me the track(s) that I don't have.

If this latest development can stop guys like that from trying to operate in competition with me, then I have no problem with that.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

I've come across several KJs as well that wanted to swap drives... I was like, you HAVE GOT to be kidding me right? I paid for my stuff thank you, I don't NEED your stuff, and you aren't getting mine.

I'm all for PEP/SC trying to protect its brand, and even understand the lawsuits. I hope that when they get someone in a lawsuit who has supported them (as in buying product), they will be helpful as opposed to making them feel miserable after doing the right thing.

The CB product on the other hand... I guess I'd be happier with it if it wasn't PEP/SC pulling the strings by buying just the trademark, it comes off a bit shady to me. If the original manus took the playbook from PEP/SC and ran with it, I would be OK with that too. The feeling is this isn't to protect the industry, but a play to just make more money in fees, audits, licensing, etc.

Depending on how this venture plays out for them, I think finding out of business karaoke trademarks, buying them and then repeating the process again and again, is a real possibility. KJs who want the convenience of having hard drives instead of CDs might be paying heavy repeated audit fees, or forced to remove items they own simply because they can't afford it.

Mr. Harrington:

There are a couple of things that need to be addressed. I'm sure I speak for others in a similar situation regarding Chartbuster.

Around 90% of the CB tracks that I own have been purchased on disc. The other 10% come from:

1. Downloads. Since CB never provided you with a detailed receipt, something we've been fighting for, there is no way to prove their their purchase. They did not keep a record of your downloads on the website, nor did they provide you with a receipt showing the track, artist, etc. of your purchase.

2. I purchased their KJ Media Pro Hard Drive (supported by CompuHost) which enabled you to unlock songs by using credits that you purchased. When CB went out of business, the system was no longer supported and we were left with a paperweight.

3. CompuHost brought back the KJ Media Pro with DigiTrax and it is now incorporated into their software. You still have to buy credits to unlock songs but there is no longer a hard drive needed.

So, as you can see, it's more complicated than just owning the discs for your CB songs since CB offered many different ways to acquire music. And there is no receipt involved when unlocking songs from KJ Media Pro as well as from their website for downloads.

So as you can see, there is really no way to prove purchases that came from downloads or the KJ Media Pro system. However, I do believe with the original hard drive based system, whenever you unlocked a song, your name and a serial number was put on it. I don't know if it's still done now with CompuHost and Digitrax but I still use the new system. I haven't for a while, though. I need to buy more credits.

Anyway, how do you plan to address this situation? Because if you were auditing me and happened to choose a song that was a CB download, I would have no way of proving purchase.

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. This is a receipt I came across for a couple of downloads from CB's website. I have no idea what songs they're for.

_________________
Electro-Voice Evolve 50... Taking Sound To The Next Level.

We recognize that CB released music on more than just CDs, so we can't use and will not be using the sort of shorthand that we can use with SC that "songs on a hard drive without permission" are against policy.

I'll have more information about how things will work later this week.

We are far and away more concerned with people who never bought any of the CB they have and use than we are about making people who did buy prove it to the nth degree. The situations differ between SC and CB, so the policies will differ also.

I edited my post above after you posted your response. Please see the example of what they called a receipt above. As you can see, I have no idea what songs these are.

_________________
Electro-Voice Evolve 50... Taking Sound To The Next Level.

Further details may very well quell my concern. But, in the meantime, being a legitimate purchaser of CB's SD cards said concern is very simply this: a formal accusation of wrongdoing (being named in a suit), even when there is in fact absolutely no wrongdoing, is enough for many venues to disassociate themselves from a KJ.

I have digital content from CB as well...

Again, using what SC estimates, even as high as I think it is... it is STILL likely they will hit an Illegal hard drive more often then a legal purchaser of CB product.

So the "Sue first, find out after" policy is still a viable option.

I agree that what they've provided doesn't give us much to go on. I don't know for certain (although I can definitely speculate) why they wouldn't provide an itemized receipt. But even that much tells us some things that are useful to our purposes. For example, that tells us you probably paid for 3 songs at $1.99 each. We might not know what they are, but we know you paid for something.

Now, if you have 10,000 CB songs on your hard drive and receipts for 3 songs, that's potentially problematic. We recognize that not everybody keeps their receipts, especially when they don't have much information.

Above all, for all of you who have paid for your CB material, I don't want any of you to have any heartburn. We will be scrupulously fair with you. We want a dialogue with all legit CB KJs, and we want to accommodate all of you as best we can. Our goal is eliminate pirate uses, not to make legit hosts pay again.

I can't tell you how many hand written receipts I had from my old haunt that I couldnt tell you WHAT they were for, other then the price... pretty worthless in figuring out whats what on my CDs



I guess that's all we can ask for is how we can get a fair shake for BOTH the SC and CB lines. Maybe you will consider adding programs that include both SC and CB lines for a fair price as opposed to having to do audits for two lines.

I think you've missed the point:

PEP sees someone playing CB on a computer -- and sues the venue AND the KJ claiming they just "want to see that you paid for it."

That Bull****. There's no mistaking a shakedown and their methods to get a safeharbor agreement, another audit or anything else. They can't claim "mistake" for using a digital copy on a computer and to demand proof with no reasonable cause is simply extortion.

There are people that have the 12,000 song drives.... So what?... That's how they were sold. They have no right to demand to see a receipt for it or anything else. Period.

It's still the same old story: if you put the logo on the screen -- they will sue you -- and call it "a mistake" if they have to. But make no mistake, the KJ will lose their job and PEP doesn't care -- no matter what Harrington tells you.

I disagree with the premise that they'll sue merely for the display of trademark.

I disagree that they'll risk the backlash of a botched investigation ever again.

I don't "think it's perfectly fine" to sue anyone for anything without facts to substantiate a claim.

Frankly, I'm not worried. They know who I am and where to find me if they believe I'm in violation of their policies and/or our licensing agreement.

I do believe that policing the CB trademark is going to be much more difficult because of the several formats that CB supplied. I'm neither an investigator nor an attorney, but I do believe both will be under intense scrutiny as this chapter of the saga unfolds.

_________________
Never the same show twice!