Karaoke Forums

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A ... =oAQG491iM

who wants to open?

_________________
"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

This line from the article on the Hollywood Reporter kind of somes it up.

"Karaoke means "empty orchestra" in Japanese, but should really be translated as "legal nightmare.""

I'm a bit confused. I see KTS as referred to as a Distributor and then as a manufacturer. Are they the manu for the karaoke tracks in question or only the distributor of the tracks.

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

The actual link:

http://www.ltpacificlaw.com/2012/01/31/ ... et-a-test/

it appears to me that KTS is a distributor and Sony is suing them for distributing the brands listed and requesting they recall them IE (Legends, NorthStar, Star Disc, Backstage)

_________________
"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

From other articles that I have read about this, Sony tried to extract copyright infringement fees from KTS for selling unlicensed brands such as Legends, Radio Starz, Quik Hitz and the others Athena listed above. KTS filed a suit against Sony saying that they either shouldn't owe at all or at least should have what is asked for be reduced by what Sony already collected from the original manufacturers of the discs. KTS believes that Sony is double dipping by not only suing the manu but by trying to extract damages from distributors on top of what they already got. Sony responded by filing a copyright suit against KTS which challenges a prevous ruling about not double dipping.

What is interesting is the demand for a recall of the sold discs, also--although it looks like just a recall from any other deistributors they sold to and not hosts. But if Sony won, what stops them from then going after hosts for using the discs? How far down the chain would they stop and how far would the recall go? In any case, supplies of these brands might dry up and people avoiding SC and maybe later CB would have less to choose from. And maybe we need to get into that discussion of what do we buy and not buy again although I find it rather confusing when we have no access to who is licensed and who isn't.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but it is an interesting collision of two principles of law. On the one hand, every person who is involved in the chain of unauthorized copying/distribution of copyrighted material is generally liable as an infringer. On the other hand, most states have what is referred to as the "single judgment rule" or the "one recovery rule."

If I had to guess, I would expect the former to win out (since copyright law generally pre-empts state law) but that the damages for copyright infringement on a second judgment would take into account the damages awarded in the first judgment as a matter of equity.