Karaoke Forums

Thankyou for your clarification and informative insight birdofsong. I was obviously under the mistaken impression that a default judgement could result from a trial, especially where oral evidence and cross-examination by a judge is involved. I am of the understanding that a default judgement can also be granted by a judge on the basis of the filed claim without the need for a hearing. I am not sure if that is correct, but regardless of whether a hearing is held or not, the judgement is made by a representative of the court, correct?

If that is so, then the trial/not-trial argument is moot, in my opinion. JoeChartreuse's question was in regard to a case being decided in a court of law...
...and I responded with a case (Case 1:11-cv-22481-CMA) that had, in fact been decided by a judge in a court of law (United States District Court, Southern District Of Florida).


If the case had gone to trial and the defendant had admitted the allegations during that trial, I don't think the judgement would have been any different.

Objection your honor, calls for speculation.

Simple logic really. Something a programmer should know about, I would expect!

Programming logic does contain "ifs" and "ands" however, your speculative scenario above does not directly correlate to "simple logic" in a courtroom setting. If all the scenario's in the world were as (one-sided and) "simple" as you've illustrated, we would have no need for a court system would we?

Let's look at another "simple" scenario as well:

#1. You purchased a karaoke track. Why? Did you purchase it for the trademark, the audio portion, the lyrics, the synchronization or perhaps a combination?

#2. You might rely on the trademark as a "mark of quality" before you make your purchase but I'll bet you buy them for the audio, lyrics and synch.

#3. The mfg. does NOT own the original composition. While they might have some copyright protection to the "sound recording" they created of the original composition, it is not a derivative work and quite the opposite; it is recorded to reproduce the original composition in every way possible. It is in fact, recorded to be "as close to the original" as possible to avoid a derivative work, right?

#4. The mfg. does NOT own the lyrics. They didn't write them, they have no copyright on the lyrics correct?

#5. The mfg. does NOT even own the synchronization to the music. The artist that popularized the song is the one that set it in place.

Which of these elements is not necessary in the normal course of use of these tracks at all?

"Simple logic" dictates that it is the trademark that is not needed.

This is incorrect.

For example:

If-then(-else)

The if-then construct (sometimes called if-then-else) is common across many programming languages. Although the syntax varies quite a bit from language to language, the basic structure (in pseudocode form) looks like this: (The example is actually perfectly valid Visual Basic or QuickBASIC syntax.)
If (predicate)
Then
(consequent)
Else
(alternative)
End If

As for and:

10 most cited programming languages are (in alphabetical order): C, C++, C#, Java, JavaScript, Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, and SQL. They all use "and" within their language structure.

What language do you use? Are you simply being argumentative because you can't resist the compulsion?

_________________
Never the same show twice!

MtnKaraoke wrote:

c. staley wrote:

Programming logic does contain "ifs" and "ands"...

This is incorrect.

For example:

If-then(-else)

The if-then construct (sometimes called if-then-else) is common across many programming languages. Although the syntax varies quite a bit from language to language, the basic structure (in pseudocode form) looks like this: (The example is actually perfectly valid Visual Basic or QuickBASIC syntax.)
If (predicate)
Then
(consequent)
Else
(alternative)
End If

As for and:

10 most cited programming languages are (in alphabetical order): C, C++, C#, Java, JavaScript, Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, and SQL. They all use "and" within their language structure.

What language do you use? Are you simply being argumentative because you can't resist the compulsion?

It is not incorrect. My statement above are the plural usages of "if" and "and." If you want to use that syntax, go right ahead.... the common denominator to all of these is that they BEGIN with "If" and contain a "then" and are terminated with an "endif" (not, "end [space] if").

However you also left out the usage of "Elseif" as well as "AND NOT":




Below is some actual code from an error handler (from years ago):


There are about six ways from Sunday to perform the same logic without using "ifs" or "ands".....

Not so. This case was not decided by a judge, it was decided by procedure. The judge applied the damages by law due to a procedural default.







Soundchoice applied for a default judgement and it was granted, because those are the rules of procedure.


While this is a victory for Soundchoice, I feel justice was not done in this case because the pirate was not forced out of the business and Soundchoice will probably have a difficult time collecting the damages.

The case that I and others are hoping to see is a case that will decide whether trademark display and media shifting for a KJ that is 1:1 is "fair use". I personally doubt we will ever see that because it would require going to court with a KJ that did not pirate his music. It's unlikely that Soundchoice would allow that to happen. So in the future, all we are likely to see are settlements and default judgements.

Both are victorys for Soundchoice, but the settlement that includes the purchase of a Gem set is the bigger victory for Soundchoice because the ridiculously large judgements are impossible to collect unless the defedant is very stupid and very rich.

On a case by case basis, none of these court victorys appear to be victorys for legit KJs because in the end the pirate is allowed to remain in business with most of his pirated library.

A true victory for legit KJs would be the shutting down of the distributors that are still putting new pirate KJs in business. It would be nice to see some more regular publicity on those efforts as well as some publicity on the numbers of pirate KJs that signed the "leaving the business" settlement.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

In honor of National Talk Like A Pirate Day - Arrgh! Sound Choice is doing exactly what is in their best interest, and I don't fault them for that. But some KJs on this board need to come to the realization that the actions SC is taking is not in the legit KJs best interest. They are putting your competitors on a level playing field with you. If a pirate deletes their SC tracks and goes right back to their venue with still 80,000 tracks but minus SC tracks, they still have more music than you and have now made themselves litigation-proof and the threat to shutting down their business is gone. Now what?

rickgood wrote:

In honor of National Talk Like A Pirate Day - Arrgh! Sound Choice is doing exactly what is in their best interest, and I don't fault them for that. But some KJs on this board need to come to the realization that the actions SC is taking is not in the legit KJs best interest. They are putting your competitors on a level playing field with you. If a pirate deletes their SC tracks and goes right back to their venue with still 80,000 tracks but minus SC tracks, they still have more music than you and have now made themselves litigation-proof and the threat to shutting down their business is gone. Now what?

In this area I do not consider a KJ without SC tracks on an even playing field - it still is the preferred choice to the majority. As a matter of fact there are some kj's deleting their SC library and we have had new people in looking for new shows to sing the songs they prefer.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

It all comes down to selling yourself. I tell my prospective clients that I carry nothing but the highest quality legal Tracks in the business. Landed me one gig so far. Am now searching for another gig to add to the one I already have.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.

That isn't selling yourself. That's selling the tools you have alone. There's nothing that even a spectacular library can do for a crappy host. A host can have every single disc from every library ever made and it won't provide any job security if they just suck to start with.

You've spent thousands of dollars to buy tracks from SC and CB and spent time and money for their audits to be "certified" and you have one freaking' gig? How's that ROI working for you? DannyG2006 aren't you concerned SC and CB aren't busting all the pirates in your area to free up some venues for you to work?

Obviously "highest quality legal tracks in the business" might not be the best sales pitch going. Then what? If your competitors all get audited and "certified" where does that leave you in the marketplace? Cheapest KJ? KJ with the most legal tracks? KJ with the oldest legal tracks? You have no unique selling proposition at that point so then what will make you different from your competitors?

Your interpretation is flawed.



Yes, as Judge Altonaga states, the clerk did enter the default as required ("must" is a mandatory instruction) by the "Rules of Civil Procedure". Entering a default not a default judgement!



Who has the discretion to grant the motion? Who determines (decides) whether there is sufficient basis in the claim(s) for judgement to be entered? It is not the Clerk. It is the Court.

So it is the Judge herself who decided there was sufficient basis in the claims, to award a default judgement in this case.

As far as I am aware, there is no "fair use" doctrine within trademark law. However, in fairness to KJ's wishing to media-shift, Soundchoice has made it clear that they will tolerate, without authorizing, the 1:1 media-shifting according to their policy (that is clearly stated in the Miami Karaoke case documented on this forum). So yes, it is highly unlikely they will proceed to trial against a KJ they know is 1:1 compliant. But if they don't know if a particular KJ is 1:1 compliant, they may well proceed to trial, although they may also move to dismiss once they find out the KJ is truly 1:1 compliant.

So what you're saying is that since SC defaulted- hence, LOST the case to Ernie, they have admitted that they didn't have one to begin with? Just askin'....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Just want you to know that I own the book written by the inventors of this day- and that my pirate name is "Slippery Dirk The Well-Endowed". Just sayin'....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

If I might add to the "simple logic" debate: Simple logic dictates that attaching one's logo to another's property without permission pretty much negates one's trademark infringement case. The trademark is legally invisible. Play SC8125, ( or any of the HUNDREDS of UNLICENSED SC tracks) and note the logo/TM added WITHOUT PERMISSION BY THE MUSIC OWNERS. Sorry, won't fly in court with an informed judge or defense lawyer. Want to sue about another track? Just show a long and strong history of SC abuse.

Sorry, but as stated before, it is neither legally or financially safe for SC to go to court- which is why they NEVER WILL.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I don't see how you can equate a loss to a settlement which preceded and takes precedence over any further court action. Ernie settled with SC before the judgement so the judgement of default is null and void.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Wondering where Harringtonlaw is? He's sure been quiet lately, did we scare him off or is he to busy with the Fla default thing.

_________________
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