Karaoke Forums

Then I stand corrected yet again.

I now have no clue what your post was intended to convey.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Right here....

I actually do agree with you on that point. But the post I am referring to and the one I initially remarked on is this one.



At the risk of being rude, I would give your comments on the legalities of karaoke more weight if you actually had a horse in the race. By your own admission, none of this has any impact on you.

The only point I see you making here is what Harrington has said several times before, and what we all know already from reading these forums over the past year or more. The answers are already there.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Yep and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT says, "DON'T CHEAT ON YOUR TAXES", or we will AUDIT you....and again at no charge unless you CHEATED (copied).

If you believe that someone has COPIED, (cheated) then you aught to provide the AUDIT at no charge... If they fail then CHARGE THEM.

_________________
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

Yep and only those SELLING said trademarks are sued or put in jail. I do not believe that one should/can be FINED/SUED, for just having a counterfeit trademark. KJ's that copy their discs are not selling them to the public and no matter what you say there is NO CONFUSION to the customers that sing those songs. So your example above is hogwash.

If just showing your trademark is a violation then why don't you go after all those on EBAY and other sites that show the your COPIED trademark on their ads? Just about all sales I have seen show the picture of the discs they are selling....gee they took a photo of your trademark and are now using it to sell something. If copying the trademark is ILLEGAL unless authorized there are hundreds of thousands of potential lawsuits out there as I have seen SC's trademark "COPIED" and displayed all over the internet...

_________________
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

While you think there is no charge for an audit, the cost of audits is worked into the taxation system. So while you may never get audited by the IRS, you are paying, via your taxes, for the audits on those that do get audited.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Wow how do you know I pay taxes? Maybe I fall into that category that doesn't pay taxes!
Maybe I'm on welfare, unemployed and can not collect unemployment taxes and totally live off the government and guess what YOU pay for me....

All though the above is not true it could be. I do not believe that the audit fees are built into your taxes for the simple reason most people that get audited end up paying what they owed and PENALTY fees associated with false filing. With what I and my wife pay yearly in taxes wouldn't even cover the cost of a good meal for 4 at a 5 star restaurant in New York.

_________________
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

Cue, after that exchange, we reevaluated that policy and changed our position. We do now require deletion of all pirated material, regardless of manufacturer. We have also requested that relief from the courts (and it has been granted on numerous occasions).

Those who have been "enjoined" here in the middle district of Florida courts are prohibited from using ANY shifted files without permission of the manufactures in WRITING.
Will look for a file to copy exact wording later. So there is no chance of an audit from any company no longer in business. Permission can be received from companies currently in business however each company must be located and the requirements do differ.

From case 8:11-cv-01686-JSM-EAJ document 128 Filed 02/22/13 pages 5 and 6 of 9

8. An injunction forbidding the use of all unauthorized copies of karaoke tracks, whether belonging to the plaintiff or otherwise is an appropriate remedy for the federal unfair competition and FDUTPA violations and would be appropriate to protect the rights of the Plaintiff, its legitimate downstream customers, and the public at large.

further down the page

3. The Defendant, her agents and employees, and all persons in active concert or in participation with her and having knowledge of this order are hereby permanently ENJOINED (a) from using (including making, copying, sharing, distributing, selling or otherwise using, and in particularly including use to provide karaoke services),commercially or otherwise, any karaoke accompaniment track that is marked with either the mark in U.S Trademark Registration No. 1,923,488, and No. 4,099,045 for SOUND CHOICE U.S Trademark Registration No. 2,000,725 and No.4,099,052 for display trademark SOUND CHOICE & Design without the prior, express written permission of Slep-Tone or its successors-in-interest, if any, to the ownership of those marks, and ( b) from making, copying, sharing, distributing selling or otherwise using digitized copies of karaoke accompaniment tracks commercially or otherwise, which tracks are marked with any mark or other designation belonging to any person from whom the Defendant has not obtained written authorization from the owner thereof to make, copy, share, distribute or otherwise use the digitized copy.

Sorry I do not know how to type the circle R beside the registration numbers

It seems that the legality of such a requirement would be highly doubtful, especially if it is used as a coersion in settlement negotiations.

Lone, you also understand that the IRS, or here in Canada the Canadian Revenue Agency, can audit you anytime they wish and need absolutely no reason to do so. And yes, you pay for audits through your and other people's taxes. I can pretty well guarantee that even a simple tax audit will cost more than $150. A penalty isn't for the audit cost, a penalty is in fact a fine and I daresay will more than likely be higher than the cost of the audit.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

edited my last post with additional information, including wording from the LEGAL documents. Since this is signed by a District Court Judge, I would think it is solidly LEGAL

OK back to work now.

Seems based on what? I mean, you obviously have something more powerful in mind than the signature of a U.S. District Judge. Perhaps you could clue us in.

By the way, we don't "coerce" anyone.

I do not really wish to start an argument on this, but one judge's opinion in one state does not a law make...

And I cannot imagine citing this incident, which defies logic, much less the law, would be a wise thing in other states' courtrooms...allowing a company to police the assets of other companies is simply asinine...

Also, I do not read in this statement where it is designated WHO the one to police such a thing would be...that would make sense since there is no one who is legitimately in a position to do so...

The Judges statement IS his opinion of the law in his state as it is written. Your statement is "simply asinine" as you put it. Doowhatchulike do you have more legal training than a Federal Judge ?However anyone who wants to believe your opinion over a Federal Judge is welcome to do so. This is also only one of many injunctions entered in the state of Florida

Agreed. Except that it's been multiple judges in multiple states, all over the country. And that does sort of start to look like a law.



We're not policing the assets of other companies. We are merely (a) requiring defendants who settle with us to delete material from their hard drives that they don't own discs for (and if they don't want to do that, they don't have to settle), and (b) getting court orders requiring defendants to show that they have permission from the copyright and trademark owners to conduct a media-shift of that material.

As has been pointed out before, taking someone from 120,000 pirated tracks to 102,000 pirated tracks by forcing a defendant to remove the SC tracks doesn't really end the unfair competition. It's been pretty easy to get judges to see the logic there.



Ultimately, the court polices it. Usually, the U.S. Marshals Service gets involved if the defendant doesn't willingly comply.

Thank you for the clarification HarringtonLaw. I do not have time to keep up with all states. I only speak about those in my Federal District that I am watching.

doowhatchulike wrote:

Also, I do not read in this statement where it is designated WHO the one to police such a thing would be...that would make sense since there is no one who is legitimately in a position to do so...

Harrington wrote:

Ultimately, the court polices it. Usually, the U.S. Marshals Service gets involved if the defendant doesn't willingly comply.


OK...since this "fact" has been reported, would you also be willing to report if the adverse were true in any states, whether it be pre- or post-judgement assessments of judges? Acknowledging only one side of an argument if and/or when there is more than one opinion only seems fair...

OK...since this "fact" has been reported, would you also be willing to report if the adverse were true in any states, whether it be pre- or post-judgement assessments of judges? Acknowledging only one side of an argument if and/or when there is more than one opinion only seems fair...

I trust you all do not mind me presenting these thoughts and asking these questions. I have always considered myself something of a consumer advocate. I participate in over 30 forums representing a wide swath of the gambit of consumer topics, and I just like to comment on subjects that just appear to be overstepping boundaries. Thanks for understanding...

WOW! That would be cool, except that SC has absolutely no say in regard to other manufacturers' product.

You plan on suing in that regard? Nothin' but noise....

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."