Karaoke Forums

Not quite. He keeps asking even though I keep telling him "no way Jose."

But I understand that you've said yes and are shopping for the $50 wedding ring.

Congratulations. He's been wanting to grab you by the nuptials for quite a while.

Chip...how is this deflection? you asked a question and he responded.

it IS about them because you made it that way.

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

His deflection is simple: He wants everyone to believe that because there haven't been any "judgments" in the copyright suits that somehow they have never infringed on any rights holder(s) and they are magically "pure again."

Like the self-rejuvenating virgin.
(1) Commit the infringement,
(2) If you get caught, pay the settlement and then
(3) try to convince everyone that because there was no "official judgment" that the infringement somehow never occurred in the first place.

The focus is on the lawsuits that publishers have brought against SC and PEP and not any lawsuits that SC and PEP have brought about against KJ's and venues. His pointing out that he might have judgments against KJ's and venues is the deflection that has nothing to do with the subject.


"them" meaning PEP, not KJ's and venues.

The comparison is to illustrate that even in their own cases, pirates -- that haven't bought anything -- have been sued... and there was also "no official judgment" against them either. Yet they paid a settlement. This does not mean that they never infringed in the first place.

Harrington is implying that because there were "zero judgments" in the copyright cases against SC and PEP, that there is some question on whether the infringements occurred at all. It's smoke and mirrors.... If you're busy looking at "zero judgments" then you might not notice the "paid settlements."

Logic dictates that if a defendant is paying a settlement to avoid a trial, it is more likely than not that the defendant feels a judgment will not be favorable and may be more expensive than the settlement costs. It's the Derek Slep philosophy (from a deposition transcript): "It's cheaper to pay the fine than it is to pay the royalty."

I'm not implying it. I'm stating it outright.

Every last one of those copyright infringement suits could easily be characterized as a contract dispute. All of them were resolved to the satisfaction of the parties. There have been no judgments.

Why is it that, in your eyes, when *we* bring a suit, it's "vexatious" and the innocent defendant is getting duped, but when we get sued, we're guilty no matter the outcome?

AND "every last one of those copyright infringement suits could easily be characterized" as an ice cream cone too, it won't make it the truth no matter how often you repeat it will it counsel? Maybe we should characterize them as "friendly arguments" or "meanies on a playground" or "alien spaceships." But I'm satisfied with "characterizing" them exactly as most of them were written: Willful infringement.

But, in order to characterize it as a "contract dispute," it would indicate that there would first have to be a contract as part of the dispute. Almost all of these suits didn't actually involve a contract of any kind and as a matter of fact, the suits were brought about because there was no (licensing) contract to begin with. Absence of a contract is not really much of a dispute and settling as restitution for willful infringement is more likely the truth.

But keep spinning....


First of all, "vexatious" was the wording from Judge Otis Wright. Ask him why your suits "could easily be characterized" as vexatious. And second; when you've gotten sued, the outcome was that you paid a settlement fee. That, in and of itself, doesn't exactly reek of innocence now does it?

And I believe that suing a venue or suing a KJ that has purchased the product for "format shifting" is in fact, vexatious, childish, and trolling. Especially now since your acquisition of the CB trademark.

I wouldn't expect you to agree because that's the only way you know how to survive.

Why aren't you characterizing your suits against venues and technical infringers as "contract disputes" too? Oh I see, it only works that way when you are the defendant.

It's really sad that the only way you can make a point is to lie.

Every single one of those suits involved plaintiffs with which SC had a contractual relationship. Every. Single. One.



That was one suit out of several hundred, and it was "handled"--and I use that term loosely--by an attorney who decided to disappear just before a major deadline in the case without telling anyone.



Actually, you don't know that we've paid anything. You speculate that we have, but you don't know that we have.



We've made it very clear for more than two decades that media-shifting and format-shifting require our permission--including by printing that right on the front of every disc we've ever sold.

Did you think we didn't mean it? Or do you think that the rules shouldn't apply to people when they're inconvenient?

We DO NOT have to dismiss litigation against a KJ who has disregarded that instruction, but we do, as long as they agree to follow the rules from that point forward. Sometimes it takes a lawsuit to get people's attention.

As for venues, before we sue, we provide ample warning via certified mail, along with a free method of avoiding being sued even if they are using the services of a pirate. Only after they disregard that warning do they get sued.



Because we don't have a contract with those venues and technical infringers, and that's the difference.

AND TRICERASOFT IS NOW BLOCKED TO THE US?

_________________
You can never argue with a crazy mi-mi-mi-mi-mi-mind ----B. Joel
I have great faith in fools; My friends call it self-confidence ---- E.A. Poe
I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity ----E.A. Poe
I don't know, I don't care, and it doesn't make any difference! ----A. Einstein
Double bubble, toil and trouble ----W. Shakespeare & Walt Disney
I hate it when I get on FaceBook ----Me
Karaoke might be Groundhog Day ----?
Of All the Martial Arts, Karaoke Inflicts the Most Pain ----?

Tricerasoft has voluntarily blocked the US from it's distribution. There is no word on whether this is temporary or permanent. We'll have to see what happens at the end of the litigation.

I'm not sure I would characterize it as "voluntary."

Tricerasoft has been enjoined by the district court from selling any of the tracks over which it has been sued by Sony/ATV, except for 25 songs that were excluded from the injunction for various reasons (public domain, for example). Technically the injunction only applies to those songs, so withdrawing completely from the U.S. market was a legally discretionary act. However, Sony's litigation provides a detailed roadmap to any publisher whose songs were sold here by Tricerasoft, so I doubt very much that they had much choice.

We'll see in a moment who's lying and who's just not telling the whole truth, but first, this is the part of "reading between the lines" that is so important that most people overlook. Let's put 2 and 2 together:
I believe that you had a "contractual relationship" all right, I think your contractual relationship was -- just as the redacted sample I provided -- a contractual relationship in the form of a mechanical license only -- and not a contract to encompass "karaoke use." That is, as you stated, a statutory mechanical license that a publisher cannot refuse, but must be in writing.
But we all know that a mechanical is not enough. It requires a number of licenses to produce a karaoke disc:
(1) Mechanical
(2) Synchronization
(3) Lyric reprint

So it appears as though the mechanicals were obtained, but that's as far as it went:
So yes, it's entirely possible that there was a "contractual relationship" with the plaintiff, just not a "karaoke contractual relationship" with them. While it seems to be a small omission, it is however, one of the major reasons this suit was initiated.

And these kinds of things couldn't possibly be happening by accident since the company had been in the karaoke manufacturing business for about 20 years before this suit was even filed.
You might accuse me of lying to make a point all day if it makes you feel better, but it's apparent that when it comes to telling the truth, there are a few very important facts you have a tendency to omit, deflect, and dance around.

As Derek Slep said: "It's cheaper to pay the fine than it is to pay the royalty."

Now, I would appreciate it greatly if you would stop the name-calling and get back to the subject at hand which is Tricerasoft.

Well, here you go splitting hairs again. Looks like -- at their discretion -- they "voluntarily" took down the site.

And I don't think there's anything announcing that they have "withdrawn from the U.S. market" (though I can see how that would make you happy.) Until there is further word from Tricerasoft, I'm treating it as temporary, until the litigation is completed.

I'm not as eager as you to hammer a nail in their coffin.

"Somehow evolved into SC"

Management had to know this would take place when they decided to unban Chip......AGAIN.

_________________
-Chris

no, you said the KJ's, not PEP
"Every single pirate KJ, technical infringer KJ that bought the product and unknowing venue that has ponied up thousands of dollars over all the "vexatious" lawsuits you've filed for the last 6 years have had ZERO JUDGMENTS TOO. And I'll bet that's the numbers that "really matter" to you."


it does though, the same as all the suits you have "won" that we don't know that the pirate paid anything. we can SPECULATE they have, but don't know they have.

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

That is correct, but you're only looking at half the statement because it is a comparison of Harrington saying that PEP/SC had "Zero Judgments" against them from publishers. If there were "zero judgments" because of settlements, then it's also true that each of the pirates/kj's/venues that settled with PEP/SC also had "zero judgments" the very same way: by settling before any judgment would have been rendered.

The kicker is: If Harrington would like you to believe that there was no infringement because there was no judgment, then the same would be true of every single pirate case that settled with Harrington. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
And it would be a pretty "educated speculation" based on the admission by Harrington that the options are: (1) pay up, (2) pay & lease the Gem, (3) get out of the business. So 2 of the 3 options involve a payment, it is generous to say that 2/3 of his cases (66%) resulted in a payment. Read the complaint against APS and Boris and you'll see that they collected hundreds of thousands of dollars.

His consignment attorney's settlement letter in the Minnesota case states settlement options at "$9,500 per system for a KJ + Gem discs" and "$13,000 for venues"..and conveniently reminds KJ's there just might be coverage in their insurance policy to pay them but act quickly, because the KJ is given only 5 days to decide to settle on those terms.

So yes, it is speculation, but not uneducated speculation. Harrington won't confirm it, but he hasn't denied it either because that would not be the truth.

BUT, GETTING BACK TO TRICERASOFT:
It's beginning to look like the case against them has even farther-reaching implications than just a publisher going after a distributor. Tricerasoft - contrary to popular belief - is not a huge, well-heeled company. And it's my belief that the publishers in this case know that they can't afford to pay any sizable settlement so they are going "one step further up the chain."

Here how this works:
While Tricerasoft didn't "create the tracks" that they sell, other manufacturers (such as those in the UK) have created them and MCPRS has barred distribution to the U.S. and Canada. The violation occurs when the tracks go from the UK to Canada and even though Tricerasoft might have a license from the manufacturer, or paid licensing to AVLA in Canada, or even claimed it under some comparable "first sale doctrine," the tracks still should never have been transferred as a product licensed in the UK for sale in Canada or the U.S.

The publisher's theory is simple: If you create karaoke tracks (and it doesn't matter "where" you create them), but want to "sell them in the U.S." then the tracks have to be licensed from the publisher in the U.S. for karaoke use FIRST. If the tracks have not been licensed properly in the U.S. then they are infringing. The publisher is not seeing current "U.S. licensing" for their IP so they crank up the legal hammer.

But (my sources tell me) that because Tricerasoft doesn't have a aircraft carrier full of cash, the publishers have suggested that manufacturers that have been receiving payments from Tricerasoft for the tracks kick in for the settlement as well. This would include Zoom, SBI, Sunfly, Mr. Entertainer, etc. Naturally all Tricerasoft is hearing from that side of the world is crickets.

They may be hearing crickets from over there, but I am just glad we are almost ready to hear "Play Ball!" over here...am I right???


(That guy in the middle is doing the "Tomahawk Chop", for those of you who still believe there is an "America's Team"...)

dunno... I might have to take a trip to the UK and visit each manufacturer and purchase a boatload of discs.... ('cause I'm a collector you know) and then just sell the ones I don't want... on ebay... or direct.

As a "business trip" it's also fully tax deductible.

Not exactly sure how this relates to my reference to baseball, as opposed to "cricket"...

Sorry, I didn't get your reference to baseball.... "Batter up!"

I'm not sure why Mr. Staley seems to think it hurts me somehow to say that we resolved lawsuits with defendants in our cases. Generally speaking, yes, if we settle with someone, it wipes the slate clean as far as we're concerned. The point of these lawsuits isn't to punish people. It's to put the situation, as best we can, in the position it would have been in if the defendant had done things according to the rules.

If the defendant genuinely has 1:1 correspondence, we verify that with an audit and get them dismissed.

If the defendant doesn't have 1:1 correspondence, we try to reach a collaborative solution that fixes that problem, which might be that the defendant has to acquire some product, or that the defendant has to delete tracks that he/she doesn't have discs for, or that the defendant goes out of business, or some combination of the three. Once we're satisfied that the problem has been dealt with, the most we're interested in having to say about it is that we had a dispute with the defendant and that we were able to get it resolved.

The problem as I see it is that a lot of folks want to see these cases in black-and-white. This person is an evil infringer who needs to be buried under the jail, that person isn't. That's really not how it works. There can be a lot of gray area—not always, of course, but in many cases there are reasonable positions to be taken on both sides. The point of litigation is to force the affected parties to find a way to adjust their relationship in a way that they can live with, and, failing that, to have a neutral third party--a judge or a jury--decide how that relationship should be adjusted.

Trying to judge the character of a company or a defendant based on whether or not somebody sued them is a foolish approach. And determining that someone did a particular thing just because someone else said so in a legal document...that's pretty foolish, also. If the parties to a lawsuit are satisfied with the outcome, why can't you be?

That's the logical fallacy known as "begging the question."



When you're talking about permanent-download tracks, this is accurate, as long as the publisher in question can prove ownership of the underlying musical composition. The UK producers license their permanent-download tracks under the MCPS* LOML+ license, which is restricted to territories other than the U.S. and Canada.

* The actual name of the organization that issues the licenses is "PRS for Music." MCPS--the Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society--is part of PRS for Music, and it collects royalties for reproduction of musical compositions. PRS (not PRS for Music) is the other half of the organization, and it collects royalties for public performance of musical compositions in the UK, analogous to BMI or ASCAP. There is no such organization as "MCPRS."

By contrast, for hard-media tracks, the KAR license is used. The reason why the KAR license allows importation into the U.S. and the LOML+ does not is a function of the nature of the reproduction. A permanent download requires a server to store copies, and distribution is accomplished by making a copy directly onto the purchaser's computer. Hard media are created and physically transferred to the purchaser. Both LOML+ and KAR require that the copies be made and initially distributed in the licensed territory (i.e., not the U.S. and Canada). If a permanent download is delivered to a user's computer in the U.S., the copy is made in the U.S., not in the UK, so it's outside the scope of the license. If a hard medium is made in the UK, then first sold in the UK, that's a legal sale. U.S. law therefore allows it to be imported into the U.S.