Karaoke Forums

You are wrong.

Its about motives and intent.

The classic troll scoops ups patents and trademarks that they never had a hand in building for the sole purpose of scaring people into settlements. The key here is that they never contributed anything of value to the patents or marks.

SC/PEP spent more than two decades build a quality product and establishing a brand. Kurt, has a personal interest in something he built whereas the trolls do not.

We can argue over the methods and how things appear, but for those that know the history here, they should understand Kurt's motivations.

Now......I am not speaking for Kurt here. I am only expressing an opinion based on what I know about people who create things that mean something to them.

Kurt created excellent content and a quality, recognizable brand. Then people stole it. If I were Kurt, I would be pretty pissed off and I would want to do something about it. I might even be vindictive about it.

As an example......I feel pretty confident in saying that Chip would be pretty pissed off if his kiosk software ended up on the Internet. Given his online temperament I also suggest he would want to know who and want some attribution, if not compensation. Perhaps even sue someone if he could identify (through rigorous investigative practices of course!) who the culprit(s) are.

Why shouldn't Kurt want the same?

Again......we can debate the methods all day long, but if you ignore the reasons and motivation, then you are blinding yourself when you get pissed off about why and how PEP does what it does.

So, while the process and end results of what PEP does is very similar to what a patent troll does, the "why" and the motivation behind it are entirely different.

PEP is legally justified in doing whatever the law allows to protect their IP - IP they created - even if it pisses people off.

The way I see it, people are going to remain pissed off so long as they don't understand that motivation (or so long as their hands are tied and they can't use SC product for fear of being sued).

_________________
-Chris

I can Understand what PEP is doing in regards to protect the Sound Choice Brand they created...

So what about the Chartbuster brand then? Last I checked, PEP had zero to do with that brand, and now it's on the PEP.Rocks website. I don't know if they sued anyone over it yet, but PEP is charging people to register CB products with them.

You bring up an interesting point how does CB figure into all of this? It is going to be much harder to enforce PEP's rights to the Chartbuster label since CB was engaged in several practices that SC wasn't. CB let their product be placed on SCDG's which SC never did. All of that material is protected by the CAVS SCDG trademark which is not going after hosts. Also there was a huge dumping of CB product on the market prior to it's demise, despite stories that they destroyed large amounts of product, which turned out to be totally false. They also allowed their product to be downloaded something SC has also never allowed. Not to mention the super 12,000 song drivers that were sold. At one time Pirate Recovery remember those guys? They were responsible for protecting the CB label and filed suits in Tennessee even against non-profit organizations, all of that just fell off the radar screen. Evidently PR has been folded into PEP efforts, and PEP is collecting for CB product registration, but I haven't seen any real effort to file suits for CB infringement like SC infringement. I think they are keeping a low profile hoping some hosts will just pay and not ask too many questions.

No, they did not create the CB brand and No, they don't have the same vested interest from a "creators" perspective. But they aren't treating CB product the same way either. The process is entirely different and far less expensive that the SC brand.

In spite of what you and others may think, I do understand the frustration with "having to pay again". I think it sucks. But I think it sucks for different reasons.

Had people not stolen all of the content in the first place, there would be no need for any of this crap. But the fact is - people stole and continue to steal it.

_________________
-Chris

Well, no, my friend. I'm absolutely correct... in my definition of trolling and who is doing it.

YOU.. on the other hand, make some tired old, ridiculous, deflective straw man rebuttal that has nothing to do with what trolling is, let alone the OP.

I do not, incidentally, disagree with most of what you said, other than people (like me, for example) who are pissed off about what PEP is doing. I couldn't care less as I'm legal, and you, more than most people on this board and other places know it. If I didn't have SC or CB original products, I simply wouldn't use them. But that's just me.

No matter how you decide to spin it, according to the definition, trolling is trolling.

_________________
DJ Don

Then we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't see what PEP is doing as trolling. It's their IP and always has been. They made it, they have a personal vested interest in it beyond the money.

Your standard patent troll doesn't offer a way out without paying them money. PEP offers a way out that costs zero dollars. It's up you how to proceed and ultimately up to you whether to choose to be pissed off about it or not.

The choice is yours. Own YOUR choice instead of putting the blame on PEP.

_________________
-Chris

It does suck Chris and it will continue to try and suck dollars out of hosts pockets as long as we put up with any of this crap. As far as CB is concerned I have several discs I bought, and I also have 2700 tracks on SCDG's that are protected under the CAVS trademark. CAVS is not actively going after hosts, and at least here in the 9th Federal District PEP has been stopped cold. I have the perfect right to use my CB material and I will not pay one penny to PEP as long as the courts in California protect my rights.

The purpose of trolling Chris is to obtain money, just because they are willing to take a lesser amount doesn't make them any more noble. My point is at least in the case of CB especially the CAVS SCDG's they have no legal standing and even if they charge zero dollars have not right to try impede my business what so ever,or really require me to prove anything to them. Putting the blame on PEP is squarely where it belongs after all they are the one's bringing the suits.

That's great. So exactly what do YOU have to complain about?

_________________
-Chris

And they are bringing suits because......

1) They have a right to protect their IP
2) They have legal standing to protect their IP
3) They are protecting their IP

Again....you don't have to like it, but it also have zero impact on you. So what do you have to complain about?

_________________
-Chris

But they did make a deal for it, and now to be "registered" you have to pay for it, or possibly get involved in a lawsuit. It doesn't matter if it's $50 or $500, its still paying again for a product that was never PEPs. They haven't sued anyone YET, but it doesn't mean they WON'T. PEP didn't want the label to die simply because they knew if the #2 karaoke manufacturing company became freeware, they would lose a TON of money on their own product. Who would want to buy the GEM series for $4500, when the Chartbuster equivalent is out there for next to nothing, if not free.



I think it sucks too... and when it comes to SC product, they have every right to try and pursue pirates. I know they have a list, many of us reported them! In the case of CB, that's how it goes, the label is "dead". If anyone should be making a play to try and recover loses, it should be those who created the CB product in the first place.

And why should I or anyone else who bought CB products have to pay again? They aren't offering a HELP license so you can play any CB track for a monthly fee. You can only register what you actually own, not got on off the Internet. Since the registration only affects those people who bought CDs, this isn't going after pirates, this is going after legit KJs 100%.

PEP bought the CB label with one thing in mind, to make money off of registrations and/or lawsuits. That's kinda being a trademark troll in this case.

PEP did not buy the CB brand for the purpose of trolling people. They bought the brand for the purpose of keeping it from being orphaned like all the other brands out there. This is why they aren't actively suing people for CB use and why they have different policies for it.

Of course they may change the policy in the future. And if they do, I am free to change my opinion. but for now, I have no problem with any of PEP policies.

_________________
-Chris

It's still 'orphaned' as you put it. There are, and most likely never will be, new tracks under the Chartbuster logo. They have yet to release anything for their main line. Please don't call the public domain stuff they "released" (which I no longer seem to be able to find anymore) support for the brand.

Quite honestly, if it fell into "Freeware" it wouldn't be competition for anyone at all... other then PEP trying to sell it's GEM series. We always talk about the merits of the KJ here, so if a pirate KJ and someone like you both had the same stuff, it falls on those merits, your experience, your equipment, etc. right? It can't 'cheapen' a show if everyone has equal access to it.

Again, this is a total troll move on PEPs part. You can defend PEP all you want in regards to Sound Choice, and I can't fault for there. But with Chartbuster, its completely different animal.

If Chartbuster fell into freeware, it would be competition for all of us. The pirates would have a very high quality brand they could use with impunity.

This whole debate is entirely subjective, so we will likely never agree. But at this point, PEP has the rule of law on their side. They are allowed to do what they do. Unless or until someone changes the law, they will continue and I will support them.

_________________
-Chris

So many other brand good or bad has fallen into freeware. More then enough to do a show for any pirate without touching either SC or CB. And pirates have actually been using BOTH without what seems to be an Issue for 6+ years. Yes PEP gets some of them, but more often then not, the people we reported years ago are still out there running shows.

You are right, we never will totally agree about Chartbuster. But don't fool yourself in thinking PEP bought the trademark to protect anyone other then themselves. Thanks to branching out into MP3+G format, it's infinitely harder to prove someone is stealing Chartbuster just by using a computer. For them to sue anyone, it will most likely be part of any lawsuits that come up that includes their primary brand. While most pirates don't work this way, if one were just to play CB tracks, the likelihood of them being sued would be minimal. It's just easier for PEP to sue a pirate over Sound Choice.

It's true that we didn't have anything to do with creating the Chartbuster Karaoke brand.

However, after we acquired the brand, we began putting out products under that label. Those products are not focused on the commercial karaoke market per se (they're primarily children's and gospel songs, and they're marketed to schools and churches).

We do charge Chartbuster commercial users a small one-time fee to register their product with us and obtain a covenant not to sue as well as a listing in our licensee directory. There are several categories for fee waivers and reductions. We charge a fee primarily to recover the cost of collecting and storing the data. It's designed for us to break even, not to make money. The point of the registration program is twofold: (1) To create a database of legitimate owners of CB original media, so that we can avoid these operators when we investigate potential piracy of CB tracks, and (2) to give recognition to those operators who have chosen to not to step into piracy--a difficult choice in the current environment, but one that we want to applaud.

I don't think we've actually sued anyone yet on the CB marks. We have done a few settlement agreements that included a resolution of CB-related potential claims.

I have always viewed the term "trolling" as being sort of a loaded term. I see it used frequently by people who are simply upset at being sued for infringement. There is more to trolling than that.

Trolling, whether it's patent, trademark, or copyright, is the filing of lawsuits by entities that own but do not use the intellectual property in question, usually based on specious connections between the IP rights and the activity the entity is suing over, primarily to obtain a "cost-of-defense" settlement.

Early in my career, I had a client that was one of perhaps a thousand companies that were sued based on an early patent for certain computer technology that could be read to cover all e-commerce over the internet. The patent itself provided little useful information about how to implement e-commerce, but because it was issued at a time when the commercial internet was still in its infancy, the patentee was able to get some very broad claims. The patentee then threatened to sue (or actually sued) hundreds of companies but offered licenses for amounts that were far less than the cost of defending a lawsuit--say, $50,000 or $75,000 at a time, when just getting through discovery in a patent case might cost $1 million.

Probably the biggest factor in whether someone is a troll or not is whether they have actually developed the technology, the idea, or the brand and/or used that IP to create value through commercial activities, versus an entity that scoops up IP with the goal of making money by conducting arbitrage on the cost of litigation. Nobody likes getting sued, but not every entity that asserts IP is a troll--far from it.

As "marketing vice president" I would imagine that if this forum is not a viable marketing avenue(read that as "agenda") for your product (if you had one), you'd simply avoid it.

But it appears that you'd rather play "poke the bear" by insulting the admins here and taking your chances... Just don't play the victim if it comes back to bite you.

That being said, both trademark and patents fall under the category of "intellectual property" and that's why it's called the "United States Patent And Trademark Office."

And, in reading some of the responses above, I have to agree that "hoarder" is usually a trolling operation..... Those are the companies that acquire patents and/or tradmarks for the sole purpose of suing others for money.... And PEP purchased the "Chartbuster Karaoke" trademark for the sole purpose of suing KJ's and venues for infringement. It was transferred to them on the last day of the grace period after expiring, so I hope it cost a chunk. I really have my doubts (despite his claims) that they actually sell any product... even to schools and churches...

While I don't see that has materialized into anything substantial, it's still the thought (and main intent) that counts.

Take that with a boxcar of salt.

Wrong Chris they have no legal standing to protect CB material that was produced and sold under the CAVS SCDG Trademark. The reason they have not gone after the pirates using CB is because unlike SC they simply do not have a clear title. As difficult as it is to collect on SC it is even harder to collect for CB, if that wasn't the case why did PEP drop all of the old PR suits?

There is so much wrong with this it's hard to know where to start.

If a product bears our trademark, we have the legal standing to protect it even if other marks appear on that product.

Our title to the CB trademark is 100% clear. You can look in the records of the US Patent & Trademark Office, which are definitive as to ownership.

We have not yet filed any suits over the CB marks because we are working in other ways to enforce those marks and because we have been building our database of legit users before we begin filing suits.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you ask "why did PEP drop all of the old PR suits?" We are not Piracy Recovery. We were not a party to any of those suits except one, and we didn't drop that one--we took it to a jury verdict and won.

Inaccurate. (If that was our "sole" purpose, why haven't we filed any suits yet? It's been 15 months since the sale was concluded.)



Also inaccurate, and easily verified as such.



It really doesn't matter to me whether you believe or doubt. After all, you believe many things that are not true, and you doubt many things that are true, so your belief, or lack of it, is not an indicator of anything other than how much of a %^&* you are on any given day.