Karaoke Forums

Pep.rocks is a good company, I've spoke to a few people on phone and they are very friendly. Maybe pep needs to take a step back and re-think what they should do with CB stuff.

Give them a chance.

No, you're not banned. I'll look into it and get back to you ASAP.

The first sale doctrine applies to the physical thing purchased. If you copy the contents onto a hard drive, you're making a new thing and using that, which is not covered by the first sale doctrine.

If you want to use the original discs, go ahead.

If you want to copy them and use the copies commercially, you need our permission.

If PEP sues you for trademark infringement, your attorney will most likely add CAVS USA as a third-party defendant.

It would become a very interesting case at that point....

Sorry, but my "Pinocchio Meter" just red-lined.... again.

I think you'd find it rather difficult to convince a jury of that since TPC originally sold the product to CAVS knowing full well that the product would be copied in order to be played. There is -nor has there ever been- any restriction on playing these tracks with a CAVS machine either privately or commercially. The first issue(s) were bundled with machines. You'd have a helluva time convincing a jury that copying these discs to play commercially or not, was not "authorized."

But please prove me wrong and start suing all the CAVS machine owners for trademark infringement because you want to "change the rules" again. I don't think you'd want to re-label their machines or exclusively-distributed product as "illegal" or even "infringing" would you? Because that's exactly what you're saying.

You know what happened last time....

And this proves you don't even read the very words you write. Here in the USA, once you sell a car and the title has been transferred, you're out of the loop completely. The cops will NOT "be going to you" for anything whatsoever - civil or criminal.

Don't be obtuse.

You know very well that the machines these discs were designed to be played on have no internal storage. There is no need to make a copy of these discs to play them on a CAVS machine.

The first sale doctrine DOES NOT APPLY to copies, period. It applies to the physical item purchased.

And we are back to square one.... Arguing whether or not you can or can't..

I say you can, you say you can't. But you cannot point to a single instance in 6 years where you successfully sued a technical infringer to the completion of a trial where a judge made the final determination. Because you drop those hot potatoes so you're not the one burned, but you want to make it look like you did someone a favor. You know there's a big difference between what is "written as law" and "how the law is interpreted" and "how the law is applied." That's why we have courts, judges and juries.

What's interesting here is that with the SC label, you claim if the technical infringer submits to an audit, you release them from the suit... but you will not do so if it's the CB mark.

Now, I wonder why that is? Why are they not treated the same?

It seems that the pattern remains the same: if it appears that a case involving a "technical infringer" is headed to a trial, it magically and quietly gets settled... And it's not always the KJ that does the settling.... You've had your share of "walkaways" as well..

Expressway Music out of New York comes to mind.... (1:12-cv-00834-ALC-MHD Expressway Music, Inc. v. Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation Inc.) which very quietly seemed to fall of the face of the earth...

[Warning: speculation ahead]
I can only surmise that since the KJ brought the suit against SoundChoice for a declaratory judgement, the last thing you wanted was media shifting to be officially declared as lawful. That would have given your lawsuit machine one helluva flat tire.
[/speculation]

There's probably a really good reason for that like, the defendants SC have sued simply don't have the cheddar to fight it. I would call reaching a settlement in SC's favor (buy the GEM for $6,000, for example) successful. Has there been a precedent set by a judge or jury ruling? No. Will there be? If you got da money and want to fight it... sure.

Contrarian, contradictory, adversarial statements in 3, 2, 1...

_________________
DJ Don

There is no need for us to sue a technical infringer--defined as someone who has 1:1 correspondence but who has not gotten our permission to make and use the copies--to the completion of a trial. In that situation, we have no interest in anything other than making sure the defendant has 1:1 correspondence and that the copies meet our quality standards.

If someone truly has 1:1 correspondence, we will find that out in discovery if not sooner. Why would we continue the lawsuit against someone who has done everything we asked except submit to an audit, once we have the information we would get in an audit?

You cannot provide me with a case that says that the First Sale Doctrine applies to a copy, because no court has ever held that, in the entire history of the doctrine. It's not a question of interpretation: the statute could not be more clear:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord."




Actually, here is what we said:

If you are commercially using media-shifted copies of Chartbuster Karaoke media, and you don't register, you run the risk of being sued for trademark infringement if our investigators determine that you are infringing. We cannot guarantee that you will be released from such a suit without a payment if you had the opportunity to register and refused to do so, even if you have 1:1 correspondence.

We did not say we won't release them. We did not say that we won't release them without a payment. All we said is that we can't guarantee that we would release them without a payment. It will be handled on a case-by-case basis.



They actually are handled the same.



There's nothing magical about it. If someone has 1:1 correspondence, we aren't interested in getting a judgment against them. They aren't our target. They bought their music. All they've done is wasted everybody's time by not following the process.



It "fell off the face of the earth" because we settled our differences. We were able to reach a solution that satisfied everyone's needs.



So, let me get this straight: If we settle a case, it's because we're fearful of losing, according to you. But it takes two to settle, so doesn't the same "logic" apply to the defendants as well? Aren't they fearful of losing?

I'll state this again for the record: I have zero interest in symbolism. I do not care about making statements through the litigation process. I am interested in gaining remuneration for my client from people who have not paid for what they are using, and in stopping people from using material in the future without paying for it. We can accomplish that in any number of ways. I am not afraid of trying cases if necessary. I have tried many cases. I suppose I qualify as a "trial attorney" in some sense. Trials are blunt instruments; they are expensive, in both money terms and energy; they are unpredictable. If I can reach an agreement with a defendant that satisfies our requirements, that represents a good allocation of our resources, and that accomplishes our goals, why would I subject that situation to an unnecessary trial?

As much as I enjoy the performance aspects of a trial, the game-like atmosphere, the back-and-forth with opposing counsel, I can recognize that it is an enormous expenditure of physical and mental energy that is often better allocated to other aims. It's just not a good way of resolving disputes. So we avoid trials where we reasonably can, not because we're scared of the possible outcome, but because it's almost always better to design a resolution ourselves instead of leaving it to disinterested third parties.

But you want to make something of it, like what we're doing is fragile and easily defeated.

It's not. Its intellectual underpinnings are solid and well-founded. It is based on a reasonable reading of the law. It's complicated, true, but many things are complicated. We are not inventing something new.

And over the last six, now almost seven, years that I've been doing this, we've seen pretty much every argument in opposition that's possible to see. And we're still here. What does that tell you?

We've actually tried something like 8 or 9 cases, and we've won most of them. One of them we lost because the jury didn't understand the word "preponderance," but that's on me for not making it clear enough to them.

Forgot to mention, in case you don't get notifications on PMs, that I responded to you via PM.

If that was the case then CAVS would have DVD players on ALL of there new products eg: all their USB Players.

ANSWER: from jim


I am considered a Technical Infringer, 1:1 because I have just my One system and One Set of CDS. Case closed for me... Wheeeew! Now I can enjoy my Tim Hortons coffee.

I just love it when someone who lives outside the U.S. borders can say for a fact what is going to happen here in the U.S.. When I sell a car I give the title to the new owner and I am done with it. I don't need his name, address or Email. The police would never come to me if it was in an accident or criminal offense as unless the car was found there is no way to tell who owned it, as here in TEXAS, when we sell a car we scrape the sticker off the window and take the license plates off. I have sold a few cars that I know went straight to Mexico and don't have a clue who bought it, do I care, NOPE, and I don't care what they do with them once I get the cash in my hand.

_________________
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

Please read the whole sentence without the interruption:

There is no need for us to sue a technical infringer to the completion of a trial.

That does not mean we would not sue a technical infringer. We are using the CB registration program to try to avoid that.

Just took this straight off the CAVS website:

I have several super cdg discs that I would like to have on one usb storage device or a hard drive. is it possible to transfer all the songs to one drive so I do not need to change discs?

Yes you can. Customers with CAVS DVD players (105G USB, 203G USB)CAVS Karaoke station (IPS-11G)CAVS Laptop players (PR101, PO101, EC101, CO101)CAVS Touch Screen players (TB101)CAVS PC Software (PlayCDG KJ Deluxe 64 LT) can store the Super CD+G discs into an external hard drive and play from only the external hard drive any and all songs of Super CDG. For the instruction on how to extract Super CDG discs into an external hard drive.

Can Super CD+G discs be played from a hard drive?

For use in PC karaoke program PlayCDG KJ Deluxe 64 LT
To use with the program PlayCDG KJ Deluxe 64 LT, simply copy the folder CAVS_MCG inside a Super CD+G disc onto a hard drive. After the copy, be sure to rename the copied folder CAVS_MCG to another name (such as SCDG01). The hard drive can be internal or external, and it does not need to be formatted FAT32. Using the Playlist in the PlayCDG KJ Deluxe 64 LT program, you can load the songs from the Super CD+G disc individually or in groups, and also mix the songs across other Super CD+G discs or any other sources of songs, such CD+G discs.

So I'm guessing that if CAVS had the right to make Super CB discs and they are giving you permission to transfer their material to a HD all is Hunky-dory.

_________________
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

Are the trial cases public? Were they trademark infringement cases? If not, what were they? Were any precedents set from any of the trials?

_________________
DJ Don

First, I'm not sure that what you're pointing to is actually "permission." It describes the technical process for moving tracks to a hard drive.

Second, even if CAVS can give you permission, that does not mean CAVS's permission is sufficient to make that copying legal.

This is especially the case when we're talking about copying a trademark that CAVS definitely does not own. Going one step further, CAVS does not have the right to give you permission to make commercial use of the CHARTBUSTER KARAOKE trademark from non-original media.

Yes, they were public. Yes, they were trademark infringement cases.

Trials do not set precedents. Trials are conducted to establish liability or non-liability and damages in specific cases. Precedents are set when courts decide issues and issue opinions, which is almost always a separate process from trials.

There have been hundreds of opinions handed down in our cases, and, speaking conservatively, in excess of 95% of those opinions have been favorable to our position.

So.. the settlements drive the opinions, or do the opinions drive the settlements? What would cause a trademark infringement case with SC set a precedent either way? Is that possible?

_________________
DJ Don