Karaoke Forums

See...welcome to Kindergarten. This is the kind of crap I'm talking about. You don't like what I say, so you try to hit below the belt. What's next...a wedgie???

Not that it's any of your business, but I was off work today. L'Shana Tovah.

_________________
Birdofsong

That would only be true if the BOTH sides comply with court-ordered discovery requests.

I find it interesting that HarringtonLaw can claim that they have the right to examine everything they want from a defendant, but when it comes to producing the actual infringement evidence, it's ignored in the discovery request and then explained as some kind of "secret."

Yeah, it's "secret evidence" I'm sure. I'll keep an eye on the case because I'm now very interested on how this discovery drama will unfold. And right now, I'm siding with the defendant because if you want to sue me for infringing the trademark -- SHOW ME the infringing action. What is it that makes this keystone evidence priviliged? Nothing.

And you also have to remember that "it will be settled" ONLY if BOTH sides agree to settle anything because there is nothing to preclude the defendant from filing a countersuit.

You act like it's all SC's decision; far from it.

What identifying marks were on the scans? Maybe the defendants driver license perhaps? Do you even know?

I could get a scan of a SC disc online like this:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/320738577625

My face was on the webcam as I held up my discs during audit.

I believe Athena was there in person showing hers after she was named in a lawsuit.

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

No reason to get so defensive. If you were at work logged into KS I thought perhaps you could show a lawyer what's going on in here & have them comment.

I'll still take the one who passed the bar exam over anyone else.

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

Wall Of Sound wrote:

c. staley wrote:

The point of the defense is that SC got the scans of the discs

What identifying marks were on the scans? Maybe the defendants driver license perhaps? Do you even know?

I could get a scan of a SC disc online like this:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/320738577625

My face was on the webcam as I held up my discs during audit.

I believe Athena was there in person showing hers after she was named in a lawsuit.

Let's review:
It's obvious from the paperwork that SC asked for --and received-- proof in a form they agreed to with the scans of the actual discs. If that was not acceptable, you can bet that they would have filed a motion to compel which is not in the file. SC has no complaints about what they have received as part of their discovery action.

But, this is not about what you want, it's about what SC agreed to. You are the only one having a problem with the scans, no one else has a problem with it.

And, at the time of discovery, SC agreed to produce the field report. Now suddenly, the KEY portion of that report - their only real evidence - is somehow a secret?

Why is it a secret? Is SC afraid that the defendant will go out and buy the songs that they claim were played if they don't already own them? It's certainly a possibility isn't it? (psst: the complaint has nothing to do with buying them, it's about display remember?)

And it's just as possible that SC has a list of the defendant's cdg discs and now fabricates a field report to support their claim. It's certainly a possibility as well isn't it?

Remember, this was "an employee of Sound Choice" that produced the report, someone with a vested interest in the final outcome - not a licensed private investigator.

In any case, would it matter even if the KJ owned them? I thought it was a simple "prove you have them (1:1) and you're dismissed" right? What's the hold up now?

BUT, LET'S SIMPLY REWIND: This case is "trademark infringement" remember? Not about proving you own them at all - it's about displaying the trademark from a computer without permission in advance - which is the HOOK. It should be an open and shut case so I would expect that the least evidence in this case would be at bare minimum a list of those tracks that they claim were infringing and the BEST evidence would be a photo... or video... but now it's a secret?

Baloney!

It's my opinion that in this case, the real evidence - if there is any at all - is in fact, being hidden/withheld and simply labeled as "priviliged" as a technicality.

However, consider this scenario: The KJ plays a customer's disc from the cdrom drive of his computer. You have video of the trademark and the computer, but not the loading or unloading of the disc. The KJ doesn't own the disc. Now what do you do?

Sidenote:
Jews all over the world are celebrating Rosh Hashanah, the New Year. When coming into synagogue, they say, "L’Shana Tova" to each other, which literally means, "To a Sweet Year." Might give you a little insight on why Jewish people were not at work or school... they were in synagogue.

I wouldn't expect one anytime soon.

If you are looking for the whole truth, you will not find it in c. staley's posts.



There you go again. These three "points" of yours illustrate how ignorant you are of both the law and the facts.

First, service of process may be completed by any person who is at least 18 years of age and not a party to the lawsuit.

Second, I do not believe that anyone has completed service for free. Where you are getting this is that the return of service form--the official form from the Judicial Conference--is a fillable PDF that defaults to $0.00 if you do not put costs in before you print it. Only an idiot would assume that the process server was working for free.

Third, what's your point? Why can't a competitor who's interested in seeing these lawsuits move forward complete service of process?



What you're quoting from is a motion by Abraham Cortez, which was filed on 9/19. Not sure why you thought it was necessary to censor the name. It's a public document. We'll file our response before the deadline. Needless to say, we disagree with Mr. Cortez's view of the facts, since we made no such promise. I told his attorney that we would consider turning over the report on an attorney eyes only basis IF there was a protective order in place. He did not press the issue (until now, with discovery closed). He also did not consult with us (as required by the rules) before filing this motion.

So, let's see...you excerpt a one-sided statement of facts from a motion that was filed against the rules, and conclude that we "broke a promise" that we never made. I have never turned over an investigator's report and I will not do so without a protective order, and only then to an outside attorney. But I have a time-coded scan of the investigator's report.



This was the second suit we filed in Florida. The defendant in question is Bernard Ravelo. In addition to Mr. Ravelo (who is associated with Karaoke Miami LLC, against whom we recently obtained a $750,000 judgment), we sued three of the venues he serviced after notifying them several weeks in advance that Mr. Ravelo's operations were infringing our intellectual property rights. They declined to do anything about it, so we sued. Unfortunately, Mr. Ravelo apparently told them that he would take care of it, and he tried to answer on their behalf. The court struck his answer, because only an attorney can represent someone else in court, and Mr. Ravelo is not an attorney.

Mr. Ravelo contacted me and asked what it would take to settle with him. After consultation with SC, I made an offer to him. He asked what it would take to settle with his venues to get them out of the suit. I told him that they needed to be part of a settlement agreement to be dropped from the lawsuit, but if he wanted to pay the settlement amount, that was between him and the venues. He didn't like that.

This is not "protection money," and it is both offensive and libelous for you to call it that. These are defendants that we sued after giving them weeks of notice and opportunity to modify their behavior to avoid being sued. They chose to ignore our warnings, and they continued to allow open infringement to occur on their premises. Why should we dismiss them gratuitously, without a settlement agreement?

If SC holds the name of the song "secret," then, in discovery, ask for all 4 licenses for all SC songs. Then, pick one of the songs that was defunct and dismiss on that grounds. SC will have to say it wasn't that one and you argue it was. Eventually, SC will have to produce the name of the Song In Question if only to prove it wasn't the Song you chose.

Never keep a lawsuit one-sided. Always counter-sue to level the playing field. Because if, in discovery, SC wants to drop the lawsuit, you can get the evidence to come out in a JURY trial against SC...assuming the Judge has been an A-hole...get it out of the Judge's hands...after all, a Judge, most likely, was a LAWYER in the first place.

Any intelligent Flow chart will get to the correct result if you lead it that way.

BTW, no one is disputing that companies should be paid for their work or that companies have remedies to recover when ripped off. Rather, the argument is the means by which companies involve innocent people in their quest for justice.

Basically, the difference between a kindergartner's understanding of a problem and and intelligent adult.

The problem with this scenario is that the licensing status of SC's tracks is not even arguably relevant to whether SC's trademarks have been infringed. (If you think it is, cite some case law, or at least explain your theory, because unless the defendant is the licensor of the song, the defendant will not ordinarily have standing to raise that as a defense.)



Countersue for what? There has to be a cognizable claim.



The "innocent" people you are referring to aren't exactly 100% innocent. Even if they are at 1:1, they still have not followed the proper process for conducting a media shift. That may be only a technical violation but when you combine it with the near-universal refusal to produce discs when asked, we're left without any options.

Before I filed the most recent suit I filed, I telephoned the 10 of the defendants I had phone numbers for to offer them an immediate pre-suit audit at no charge. Of the 10, 3 returned my phone call. Only one of those agreed to meet with me for a disc check, and that one called the next morning and changed her mind and hired a lawyer. So we proceeded with the suit.

I for one am tired of hearing about "innocent" people caught in the crossfire. As far as I'm concerned, anyone complaining about that, after all that we do to avoid it, with almost ZERO cooperation from these supposedly "innocent" KJs, is on the border of disputing that SC has the right to be paid for its work and to use court remedies when ripped off.

harringtonlaw,
my posts do not contain names because it is against the policy of this forum to reprint any personal information.

So if it's not the WHOLE truth, then some of it is true, then?

Only an idiot would call someone else an idiot for taking the forms at face value after admitting that the forms stated that there was no compensation for service.
What else is anyone supposed to think when the form says they weren't paid?
Should we then assume that all your documents filed with the court are inaccurate?

And you would be incorrect. If the song played was, say, from the Eagles- for which SC NEVER had licensing,- then there would be no case. Without the license to produce the song, the addition of the logo would have no legal standing- in other words, the logo would be legally invisible. It was added without the permission of the music owners.

The word "piracy" comes to mind, but that's just my opinion. However, IF my opinion is correct, a pirate simply has no legal basis for sueing another pirate.

Let's say you wrote a song. I recorded it without your permission AND added a pic of my ugly face (TM). Then someone copied MY recording without MY permission.

While YOU may have legal grounds to sue both of us, I have no legal grounds to sue someone who copied a recording that I made without permission- or the pic I decided to add to that pirated recording because MY recording is illegal, and the addition of my TM is equally so.

C'mon. Yes, my TWO IP guys have advised me, but really- it's just common sense.

Now, I'd like to address what HarringtonLaw describes as the "Protection Money" issue.

The hook used by SC is that since media shifted product is a COPY, then the logo is technically a counterfeit ( which is why piracy means nothing to SC, and they will go after any PC host). They say that if you are "1:1", or you have paid a settlement, the may not sue you.

In other words, if they get the money they want ( either through sales or payoff), they are willing to OVERLOOK the fact that you media shifted a COPY, and will not report that "counterfeit" to the music owners/publishers.

To clarify: They say that your media shifted copy is a counterfeit ( the basis for their suits). This means that they think you have an illegal copy. This also means that they say that if you pay them off, they will not report your "illegal copy" to the music owners.

To simplify: Pay us off, and we will not tell anyone (music owners) that you are doing anything that we consider actionable by them.

To over-simplify: Pay us and we'll keep our mouth shut.

Trying to think of a name for that.....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

These points ARE facts, no matter how much you'd like to characterize them differently.



You'll notice that I've refrained from name-calling, I would kindly ask that you do the same.

Here's the problem with your statement above: It simply doesn't add up, but I'll at least allow you to clear up any misconceptions because something is missing:

Either the process servers got paid - which is what you are implying above - or, the forms you've filed with the court are truthful "under penalty of perjury" stating that the process server was not paid.

Which one is it?



I never implied that they couldn't. The issue was whether or not SC has enlisted the help of competitors in their lawsuits. The paperwork filed with the court shows that it is in fact, true.

That was the point in it's entirety. Sorry that you didn't like my commentary.





Then that settles that doesn't it? Thanks.


This is what doesn't make sense and perhaps you can tell us why. If your suit is for "trademark infringement" it certainly appears that the substantial or key evidence - proof that a song that contains the trademark was played - is all you need to prove your case. Over and done... A picture of the screen displaying your trademark or a video of the infringement in process would be all you need. Otherwise the credibility of your investigator's field report goes right down the tube and it becomes nothing more than a "he said, she said" case. Wouldn't you agree? How else can you substantially prove that any infringement had ever occurred?



So your client's offer was simple: Pay the settlement for the venues yourself or we'll get it from them directly. Correct?


The term is not one that I conceived with your suits. It had been brought up in various forums. I apologize if you thought otherwise. As you can see below, the concept and description from the defendant's motion didn't seem correct and even I questioned it:


What still doesn't make sense to me is why you would sue for trademark infringement and then refuse to produce undeniable evidence that any infringement actually took place. Whether or not the kJ owns the disc, don't you still have any case at all with the infringement?

Your reluctance to provide evidence of the actual infringement would seem from an outsider's point of view damaging to the very credibility of your case.

it is a good question........
"your honor, he stole my car"
"which car did he steal?"
"that is privileged information"
"he owns several cars, which one did he steal?"
"that is privileged information, just make him show me titles for all of his cars"
"can you prove he stole any car at all?"
"i don't need to , he has to prove he didn't"

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

How about:

SC: "We did an undercover investigation, and the defendant was using counterfeit karaoke tracks marked with our trademarks. We want to look at his entire system to see exactly how many counterfeits he has."

Defendant: "I want to see his investigator's report."

SC: "If we give that up, our investigative methods will be rendered ineffective because other counterfeiters will see them and take steps to avoid detection, and our investigator will be unable to conduct further investigations. But I have a detailed sworn statement from the investigator that we will show the Court and to the defendant's attorney, if he has one, as long as there is a protective order that prevents it from being disclosed publicly."

In the one case where a judge was asked that question, he granted our protective order and sealed them from further disclosure.

And the defendant isn't being required to prove anything--just to submit to an examination of his system.

If we were talking about counterfeit purses, no one would question whether we could look in the defendant's warehouse to see how many he had. But because we're talking about something that is small and easily copied, people seem to think defendants should not have to submit to ordinary and routine discovery.

Maybe you should have your TWO IP guys explain their theory, because what they are saying is directly in opposition to the Dastar case.



The "illegal copy" is a copy of the trademark, not a copy of the musical work.

Our view is that the music publisher does not have the right under copyright law to prevent you from media-shifting a copy on a 1:1 basis. Of course, the music publisher is free to take a different view, and we cannot guarantee that you will not be sued.

The resolution isn't "pay us and we'll keep our mouth shut."

It's "pay us and delete your counterfeits, and we'll provide you with legal material and you shouldn't have to worry about the music publisher coming after you because you'll be within the law."

Sorry you're having such a hard time understanding that.

I am curious as to why you feel you are you entitled to discovery on tracks that haven't been played and infringement that hasn't occurred.

This is a trademark suit, where you are alleging the infringement came upon the "display" of the trademark which may confuse people into believing that they had permission to do so, correct? Why are you entitled to search through unrelated tracks that didn't infringe on anything? Possession does not equal infringement in this case, and since discovery has not been completed on either side, it may well be that the KJ actually owns the discs for the tracks which you are asserting are counterfeit, correct?

It would make more sense to allow you to see the infringing tracks and (assuming the KJ had them) the corresponding discs.

Anything else sounds like a fishing expedition.

The other part of your quote above that I take exception to is " the defendant was using counterfeit karaoke tracks marked with our trademarks." I think a more accurate assertion would be that you believe they are using counterfeit karaoke tracks. As has been proven previously, sometimes the investigators are wrong.

I'm not sure why your report would need a protective order. It is related to this KJ, only, correct? So any tracks that your investigator deemed "infringement" would not be at all relevant to Sally KJ in another state, or even around the corner.

_________________
Birdofsong

But I have a detailed sworn statement from the investigator............

the same kind that swore that Michael Michael had 2 systems?
the same kind that swore that John Pavkovich runs shows at 2 venues?

is that the kind of detailed sworn statement you are talking about? i would figure it would be more effective if the investigators did not lie on them.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

These lawsuits are not now and never have been solely about the display of the trademark. A KJ may have the entire 18,000-or-so-track catalogue on a hard drive and play only a couple of thousand of those tracks over a five-year period, but he is still using the entirety of what he has by having it available. One of the big complaints we hear about pirate KJs is the size of the catalogue they are able to offer (illegally) in comparison to what their investment would have bought them legally. If a KJ goes to a bar owner and says, "I have 130,000 tracks," he is using those tracks--including all of the ones that have been marked with our trademarks--to market his services.

The display of the trademark is important for at least two reasons that I can think of. First, it is an overt and indisputable act of direct use of our trademark. Second, when we witness the display of the trademark, we then have an indisputable good-faith basis for believing that the mark is being used. But it is not about the display itself alone, and it never has been.



Suppose I represented Louis Vuitton Malletier and I went to a swap meet, where I see a knockoff of the famous "Cherry Blossom" handbag being offered for sale. I ask if she has other designs and she says, "I have all of them, anything you want." So I go to federal court, sue the purveyor for trademark counterfeiting, and demand access to her self-storage unit to see what other counterfeits she might be holding.

There is not a federal judge on the bench today who would deny that discovery request. Almost all of them would grant it ex parte if we followed the rules, so we could raid the storage unit.

This is no different. It's not a fishing expedition.





I've quoted the portion of the Trademark Act that defines the term "counterfeit mark." If a KJ has performed a media-shift, he/she (and not SC) is the "manufacturer" of the goods on which the mark is being used. However, SC, as the "holder of the right to use" the mark, can authorize the KJ to media-shift the goods and take it outside the term "counterfeit mark." ANY KJ who performs an unauthorized media-shift is committing trademark infringement involving counterfeiting. Since we know to whom we've issued a CNS letter (which functions as authorization for the use of the mark), and we don't sue the people we've issued those letters to, I'd say your statement is inaccurate.



I'm more concerned about the KJ getting the list and arranging to buy the CDGs after the fact in order to appear to have been at 1:1 at the time of the suit, so, yes, if for that reason alone, we need a protective order. Also, disclosing our investigators' reports would reveal the investigators' methods, which would reduce the effectiveness of those methods.