Karaoke Forums

Why on earth would 10 days be insufficient for a host who's 1:1 to contact us to show it? We even give additional time if they want to consult with an attorney.

If I were sued and the packet included a cover letter that explained that I could get out of the suit by showing I followed (most of) the rules, I couldn't get on the phone fast enough.

I don't know James didn't you say that sometimes it is difficult to identify the host, and serve them papers? If you don't know who the host is exactly and where he lives, how can you possibly give him or her the 10 days notice? Shouldn't the notification be send certified mail and have the person it is addressed to sign for it, that is called restricted delivery. If you would have done that with Bob Paynter in Florida he won't have walked in the Panama City case would he? Have a legal day.

Only an idiot would assume that the 10-day period runs from the filing of the lawsuit and not from the date the papers were served.

James, to be fair, not an idiot but someone who does not understand the legal system and only know what they see from shows like Law and Order or Judge Judy.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I have to agree. It didn't register with me when I read it.

I personally can be out of town for weeks at a time. So the 10 days AFTER being served sounds fair.

_________________
KingBing Entertainment C'mon Up! I have a song for you!!! [font=MS Sans Serif][/font]

And to be additionally fair, it gets harder week by week to avoid thinking of and eventually calling some people idiots because of the crap that gets posted here.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

OK, but what if you sue the Venue first? Didn't you say (a long while back) that if you couldn't find the real identity (real name or company name) of the KJ to be served, that you go directly after the venue? Now, assuming the venue hasn't decided to take the easy way out and just fire the KJ (regardless of whether the KJ is a pirate or just a trademark infringer), and the venue tells the KJ that they are being sued because of him/her, do you also notify the venue if that KJ is no longer a person of interest (as I detailed in my prior post/question to you)?

That really doesn't happen anymore. We've gotten better tools for identifying KJs, and our investigators have gotten better at getting the information needed to make those tools useful.

That would be your opinion, as well as only your "rules".

Still wondering why Taka-O was not allowed an audit when they requested it....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

The point is James you can't even serve the person in question in the first place, because during your investigation you haven't identified them, or where they are located. According to you these are minor details, but in the case of Bob he walked because you hadn'
t followed through properly has far as his notification. Who was the idiot handling that case? Have a legal day.

Go easy, Chris. Keep in mind that this is an internet forum filled with people who are, in most cases, complete strangers. No one is trying to date your sister, or plans on dinner at your house. No reason to personalize.

Also, remember that this part of the forum is more devoted to debate regarding a single subject. This means that posts here will almost always be adversarial in nature.

That doesn't mean that the same people that you disagree with here ( even vehemently) aren't terrific folks outside this forum.

I can attest to the fact that I have had very pleasant contact with people opposing my point of view in these debates ( even vehemently ), finding all to whom I have spoken to be pretty good, friendly folks.

Not all that one perceives while reading an internet forum is what it seems....

Of course, sometimes it is- but no involvement with your real life, so why get worked up?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

The discovery process, the two way street where Slep-tone is asked about the basis of the lawsuit and it responds with bogus objections which are essentially "we will not tell you the actual basis for the lawsuit against you because our attorney/investigator has that information and therefore it is privileged." This is what the tobacco companies were exposed for in running everything through their attorney so they can claim all facts about causing cancer where privileged and therefore were not required to be divulged. Seems this is a favored tactic in that region to hide the ball. Actually, Slep-tone has been sanctioned for this very kind of improper conduct. Robert Kossack on the Las Vegas blog recounted the ruse an excerpt from which follows:

I quote Mr. Kossack: "Readers of this website will recall the post “Is Slep-Tone’s attorney Harrington an unapologetic, mud-slinging obstructionist?” wherein it was discussed how Kurt Slep, appearing as the corporate person most knowledgeable, was asked in deposition what evidence Slep-Tone had that the defendant had done what was being alleged. Kurt Slep could not answer without deferring to Harrington, and Harrington asserted an attorney work product privilege and instructed Kurt Slep not to answer. The deposition was suspended, and the defendant filed a motion to compel. Slep-Tone was sanctioned $2,026.50. Harrington then paid the $2,026.50 sanction by check writing in the memo “to be held in trust.” The defendants’ attorney demanded clear payment and Harrington refused."

Here is the link to the story. http://soundchoicelasvegaslawsuit.com/h ... nama-city/

I wonder how many hosts Mr Kossacks has represented any of these cases, either for a fee or pro bono and what, if any were his results.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Since Mr. Kossack was not there, he doesn't have the whole story.

We did not object to providing the information from the report in the deposition, and in fact we did provide the information to the defense about what had been discovered during the investigation. What we did not do is to produce the report itself, which contained instructions from me to the investigator, and which were certainly my work product. The judge agreed that the document itself was work product.

The reason the deposition was adjourned was because I instructed the witness not to answer questions about the licensing status of the tracks that were in the report. Opposing counsel was probing for information for use in an unclean hands defense. That information was irrelevant to the case because any unclean hands defense has to relate to the subject matter of the lawsuit--such as misconduct relating to obtaining the trademark registration. The licensing status of any particular track is irrelevant to the lawsuit, is highly sensitive business information, and was not even arguably identified in the notice of deposition. The court agreed with us that those kinds of questions were off-limits.

It's true that the court imposed sanctions against us. It is also true that the defendants in that case refused for four months to cooperate with us on discovery. We had to file three motions to compel to get them to allow us to examine their computer systems and discs. And they had exactly zero excuse for refusing to cooperate. Yet the court declined to sanction them for their misconduct, and it failed to offer any reason for not sanctioning them.

I also note that to date they have not paid a penny of the damage award. But nobody's writing blogs about how horrible they are for that.

One that I know of.

"10/24/2012 101 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Robert J Kossack on behalf of Defendant Tara King. (Kossack, Robert) (Entered: 10/24/2012)"

http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trad ... cket-text/

_________________
-- Mark

i'm sure though that you can see why it would look funny to the outside. wouldn't it help to stop all those questions by providing proof of legal licensing of the tracks they were questioning just like you advised us all to ask for from manus?
"Mr Harrington do you have a license to practice law?"
"that is privilaged information"
while yes it is, wouldn't you rather say "yes and here is my license, now can we get back to business?" and skip all the time wasting?

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

Litigation is not a game. Whether the tracks were licensed or not is 100% irrelevant to whether the defendant committed any trademark infringement. They might as well be asking if SC paid its unemployment insurance premiums for 2009. Whether it did or not, it's just not relevant.

This is a problem not because of any problems with licensing but because it is an extremely complex question that also has competitive business implications. SC's licensing files contain more than 400,000 pages of contracts. Some contracts cover more than 1,000 songs. Some songs have 5 or 6 publishers, each with a separate licensing agreement. Most songs have gone through multiple iterations of licensing.

It is unbelievably unfair not to list those issues in the notice of deposition, then to demand that the person testifying have penalty-of-perjury knowledge of the intimate details of those 400,000 pages, and to demand sanctions when they decline to testify.



My license to practice law is a matter of public record. If you'd like to verify it, you can call the North Carolina State Bar at 919-828-4620 during normal business hours and ask if James Harrington, N.C. State Bar No. 30005, is an attorney in good standing with the State of North Carolina. They will tell you that I am.

SC's licenses are private contracts between SC and music publishers. They contain extremely sensitive information about rates, restrictions, and requirements that, in the hands of SC's competitors could allow those competitors an unfair advantage. I am not going to turn over that information to some KJ who is looking for something to confuse a judge or jury with, and I am not going to spend weeks going through 400,000 pages of documents looking for stuff that's not relevant to anything in the lawsuit.

Just look at what happened when SC paid the sanctions award in Los Angeles...the attorney who received it, Craig McLaughlin, scanned in the check and posted it publicly--with SC's financial account numbers shared with the public. If that had been a filing with the court, he would have been sanctioned for filing without redacting the account numbers. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2.) Luckily we were made aware of it quickly and were able to get it pulled offline. But that should give you some idea of the tactics that people will employ--even after they complain about our supposedly rotten tactics.

Someone offered to sell me a copy of that check when I asked about it on another site.

Is that any cause for concern?

_________________
-- Mark

But Slep-tone is suing for trademark infringement. And a trademark is an indicator of authentic quality which presumably includes a representation that the lyrical and musical material is made available under license from the music publisher, correct? And if Slep-tone had no rights to the underlying music and lyrics (i.e. was copying them illegally onto their discs without proper license) than what would the trademark represent? Something far less than it led the purchaser to believe. In such a case would it not be a misrepresentation of quality and therefore the suit could be subject to a defense - what is it called? "dirty" or "unclean" hands? It would seem to me that the legitimacy of the underlying material is quite relevant to whether Slep-tone has any trademark rights at all or at least could fairly assert them if they did. Or am I missing something?

i get that, is he unsure that he is doing business ethically and legally with respect to the licensing of the song he was accused of stealing?
the answer of "how can i be asked to remember all of my 400,00 pages of contracts?" as opposed to "did i pay proper licensing for the tracks i put on that disc? your damn right i did jack now let's move forward."



i am not questioning your standing at all, i have no reason to do so. it was just a comparison.
i am just debating for the sake of debating and understanding why it makes sense to act like there is something to hide.

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