Karaoke Forums

"3. The Defendants had the ability to control and exercise control over the use of infringing products, had knowledge that infringing products were being used to provide services, and they derived a direct financial benefit from the use of the infringing products."

-- Page 4, Paragraph 1

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 67357/119/

7 defendants x $44,378 = $310,646 - A close Third Million!

_________________
-- Mark

Big deal if SC loses the copyright infringement case in New York they will have to pay $24,000,000.00. That close to a third of a mill won't even put a dent in that potential bill. Also as CAVS found out when they won the court award from CB, it's harder to collect the money than be awarded it.

This judgement should be a heads up to venues who hire KJs running media-shifted SC content to confirm that their contracted KJ is legit or run the risk of lawsuit.

_________________
-- Mark

It appears this should be more of a "heads up" to venues not to DEFAULT. Again, none of the facts claimed were contested and they are not up to a court to decide one way or another if you don't show up. The court automatically assumes you admit they are indeed fact and awards judgement. Silly bar owners !!

Either that or just tell the KJ they hire not to use any SC material at all period.

Or use original discs or have permission to have their discs shifted. It really isn't difficult but some people (and really strange they don't even use the product) have to try to make everything SC does evil, immoral or illegal.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Also very true! I can't argue with that.


More like stupid bar owners!

_________________
-- Mark

Well at least you can't say it's fattening.

As a practical matter, this is not correct, even though it appears from the rule that it is.

In order to obtain a default judgment, you still have to present proof of the claims. Judges do not like to be rubber stamps. When we present a motion for default judgment, we still go through all of the steps we would undertake if we were at trial, including testimony (which we present via transcript). Every indication I have had from these judges is that they carefully consider what we present and come to their own conclusions about liability and damages. We have certainly not always gotten everything we asked for.

And I have never heard of a civil case where the lawyer(s) involved didn't ask for an excessive amount, usually the maximum under established standards, and hope to get north of 50% of that amount, and quite often pennies on the dollar requested...

The maximum amount in these cases would be $8 million. We asked for $100,000 each, and were awarded $44,380 each.

Not sure if it was intended, but the statement/restatement of the numbers involved could be seen as case and point, figuratively and literally...

No. We didn't ask for an excessive amount. We could have asked for $8 million. We asked for $100,000.

Do you think it is unreasonable that having karaoke shows 1-2 times weekly at each of those locations for five years prior to the suit, plus the amount of time the suit was pending, which was another 18 months, would result in $100,000 in increased revenue over that time period?

At an average of 6 shows a month, we're talking about around $214 of increased business per show to accumulate $100,000 over 78 months. If the bar isn't earning at least that much additional revenue from karaoke, why have karaoke?

One can reasonably assume there was profit, but not so easily assume what percentage is predicated upon use of SC product. I have watched the resulting judgements of other such cases range from zero to excessive, which unfortunately is a characteristic of our court system design. This is why so many lawyers find a judge that they like or is empathetic, and ride them 'til the cows come home...

Better check what you just wrote.

Cue aren't they asking for $150,000 for each unlicensed track and there are 160 tracks, I get $24,000,000.00 plus the court costs, right?

Let's try this a different way...
1. I did not read the case details with the URL provided. Too much legal mumbo jumbo and double talk for me to go back and forth on and try to interpret.
2. Based on what you posted AND NOTHING ELSE, $24,000,000 does NOT EQUAL close to one third of a million.
3. REREAD what you wrote!!!

I don't see the problem, the 1/3 of a million dollars won't even come close to paying the potential $24,000,000.00 SC has pending in the New York copyright infringement case. Is that better.

Then I am totally lost as to what you are talking about. What is the $24,000,000 figure that you are talking about, and what is the (almost) one third of a million dollar figure? I understand that, at a fine of $150,000 per infringed track multiplied by 160 tracks, would equal $24,000,000. What is the (almost) one third of a million dollars that you are talking about? Please clarify.

I was reading your statement as the 2 figures are the same, and they are not.

Lone is saying that the $44K award each in the recent default case (total to 1/3M) won't help much with the $24,000,000 case against SC. That's assuming they lose and assuming the amount awarded is $24,000,000. Lot's of assuming going on there, but I guess it is possible.