Karaoke Forums

It would seem this is all a very elaborate legal scheme for CB to avoid paying a large debt as well as legal awards, and still in some way maintain the ability to sue in court. Have a blessed day.

......And that is where the dispute that I mentioned lay. How would Worldwide Digital Entertaintment be involved in any suit unless they lay claim to the copyright/trademark that PR now claims to own?

Like I said, a serious sorting out is required before these two entities can dive headlong into the slimy litigation business model the the failure of a karaoke producer known as SC created.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

The certification expired after a year, but the drive has no expiration date. It is a medium just like a disc or a thumb drive. Purchasers can use the contents of that drive as they see fit. There were no limits on how long it could be used.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Just watched the summit it would seem the trademark and the copyrights for the CB product is divided. Worldwide Digital holds the copyrights and PR holds the trademark rights. Roby Robinson the lawyer representing CB really couldn't answer the question of abandonment when put to him. There were some questions that could be asked once the trademark expired, or three years had passed without new product under the CB label. They did offer an updated number as to how many hosts and venues are out here, 45,000. That is a 10% increase in a down economy. The theme seems to be suits drive sales, If you are using CB discs there should be no problems. If you are using a computer based karaoke system the best way to protect yourself is Cloud. From what I gather they think it is cheap insurance at $99.00 a month to keep the from going to court. It boils down to just paying into the system, and Cloud providing you a path to legality. The picture they paint is one where the manus will eventually triumph, though they do have a long way to go with only about 100 suits and 1,000 defendants settled so far one in 45. The numbers I heard for illegal hosts still is somewhere between 90 and 95% of the 45,000.

i didnt get to see it,
did they actually say this?
"If you are using CB discs there should be no problems. If you are using a computer based karaoke system the best way to protect yourself is Cloud. From what I gather they think it is cheap insurance at $99.00 a month to keep the from going to court. It boils down to just paying into the system, and Cloud providing you a path to legality."

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

I can not vouch for word by word but yes something close to that was said...the youtubes will be up in a day or two

I don't see how it could be looked at any other way. It was indicated as long as you came in voluntarily and joined you would be treated with the same respect as a long time customer. One aspect I found very troubling was the idea of getting the publishers to sue for copyright of material no longer under license. It is a different take on the acquiring orphans stance, which has never happened. Rather than have the defunct manus adopted, they would get the publishers to sue for expired license on copyright, from the way I understood it. That way even if you eliminated all SC and CB product from your library, you wouldn't be able to use your orphan brands either. This is very dangerous because every hosts library would be reduced to two brands, and those two brands would have to be currently licensed. If I understand this right. In other words everyone would be compelled to use either SC or DTE/CB/Cloud. Some tracks only found on other labels would no longer be allowed. The suing manus would provide leads to the publishers so they could deal with materials out of the control of SC and CB.

If you missed it and or are interested, the 2013 Summit was playing from the following link:

http://new.livestream.com/accounts/4348 ... ts/2168578

Another "Copyright Infringement" lawsuit filed by Piracy Recovery LLC 10 days ago.

A local TV News in Knoxville TN has reported the June 16th filing publicly.

http://www.wate.com/story/22685499/comp ... fringement

They link to the complaint, with exhibits here:

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wate/new ... wsuits.pdf

This is 2nd lawsuits within 2 months that PR LLC has filed, this time not just for trademark but for copyright as well.

The hits just keep on coming!

_________________
-- Mark

In light of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, the hits just might stop. Especially if the first-sale doctrine is applied by the defendants. As long as they have original product and proof of purchase it might be difficult for the manus to claim rights over the sold product. First-sale "is a principle that the legal purchaser of a copyright-protected item may dispose of that property anyway he or see sees fit". This would certainly mean the shifting of that material that is still in the purchaser's possession.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/garyshapiro ... iley-sons/

This is a good example of taking one piece of essentially true information and stretching it beyond its capacity in order to try to make done other point.

Kirtsaeng has nothing to say about PR or CB's lawsuits. Kirtsaeng was about lawfully made originals first sold in foreign countries. It also absolutely and certainly does not stand for the proposition that the owner of a disc can make and use a copy of that disc.

This is where I don't agree with you James. First-sale doctrine helped make the VCR a legal machine, and gave birth to the Video rental business. If an owner can prove that he has purchased original legal copyrighted material "the legal purchaser of a copyright-protected item may dispose of that property, anyway he or she sees fit". We are not talking abut the owner of the property mass making copies and trying to sell them in direct competition with SC, at the local swap meet. We are talking about the owner determining how to use the product in his business. You are saying without permission he does not have this right. I think the decision says otherwise. When a host hires out his service he is renting out those services, much like the old Video rental business. He being the owner and paying for the legal copyright material can use the material as he or she sees fit. Only SC and CB/DTE currently maintain that the host does not have this right.

Ranger, have you ever seen a VCR or DVD player being used to show any program in any bar? When was the last time, if any time, saw a bar have a Movie Night where they showed a movie?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

The owner of the physical item may dispose of that physical item any way he sees fit, sure. The key phrase is "dispose of." The item can be sold, bartered, leased, lent, given away, or otherwise transferred.

The first sale doctrine does NOT extend to the making of additional copies of a purchased item (which is what occurs when you copy the contents over to a hard drive or another disc). It also does not extend to the public performance of the contents of a disc (i.e., playing that disc in a public setting such as a bar). The first sale doctrine only extends to those rights that are conveyed with the sale (in this case, distribution of the copy of the work), and NOT to those rights that are not conveyed with the sale (the right to make additional copies, the right to adapt the work into a derivative work, or the right to perform the work publicly).

For that reason, Netflix can dispose of the DVDs and BRDs it purchases by renting them out or selling them to third parties for private exhibition only. But Netflix cannot use the discs they purchase to put on public performances of the content, without getting a license from the owner of the content.

I assure you that SC and PR are not the only entities that take this position. All of the music publishers take this position as well, as do the courts. If you doubt me, check out what the RIAA has to say about this issue:



http://riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?cont ... ne_the_law

If the courts are in such agreement with you James why has SC had such a tough time winning any suits where the defendants have mounted any type of a creditable defense? Even Bob Paynter without a lawyer beat you, or do you want to forget that one? I think a few more cases will have to be decided before any of us can say how to court is going to rule. It is for sure the the manus are not going to be able to keep a host from using foreign legal product, even though their goal is complete domination of the U.S. karaoke music market. It remains to be seen if a host can use product he has legally purchased as he or she sees fit. I wouldn't imagine you would admit that the decision in the Kirtsaeng v John Wiley & Sons, is going to cause a problem for your legal process, since that would mean an end to your legal fees. Have a legal day.

There's your problem. Your assertion is simply not true.



He is the only one so far. He managed to do so by destroying the evidence (which he admitted to), but the judge said that we should have done more to try to recover it. Mistake made, lesson learned.



You mean, more than the couple of dozen cases in which the courts have ruled in SC's favor on the merits when a defendant challenged? How many is enough?



The manus have no problem with a lawfully made foreign product being used in karaoke shows in the U.S. The problem is the ones that aren't lawfully made.



No, it doesn't. The courts are unanimous on the point, and the Copyright Act could not possibly be more clear.



Only an idiot would think I had something to fear from Kirtsaeng. I was the one who brought it up to begin with, and if I hadn't done so, you wouldn't know the first thing about it. Far from posing us a problem, it is actually helping us solve one.

Just like I have solved my problem concerning SC by simply not using the product, as for CB I haven't heard anything from them it is almost July we are getting closer to Oct 31st, after that date I really won't have to be doing any more posting unless I choose to do so. When you said the judges have agreed with SC I'm sure you weren't including judge Wright in California. The one that called SC intellectual trolls and filing shakedown lawsuits. I know it was your hired legal guns that gummed up the works, but wasn't it SC who hired APS who hired Donna Boris, and SC is responsible for their actions? Isn't it true James that you really haven't had a full blown trial in the majority of your cases? That the defendants for one reason or another have settled with you out of court. That is the game plan isn't it? Convince them that it will be better for them in the long run if they cave in to your demands. Anytime like in California the defendants have fought back you have come off on the short in of the stick. Even in Panama City Florida case when you appealed the judges award, which you thought was to small it remained, didn't it? Have a legal day.

October 31st can't come soon enough!

_________________
-- Mark

Actually.....that date scares me because he will have more time on his hands to flood the forums with his diatribe.

Maybe I will retire from KS in October.....

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

I couldn't help but notice that this post was "Liked" by kjflorida and Insane KJ. I have to ask... Did you "Like" it because of what Chris wrote about The Lone Ranger, or because Chris said that maybe he'll retire from KS in October?