|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
Author |
Message |
toqer
|
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:15 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:15 am Posts: 905 Location: San Jose CA Been Liked: 33 times
|
I should also mention...
It wouldn't *just* involve mailing checks. We would need someone to act as a "lobbyist" for our group to talk to politicians (well, bait them with a promise of campaign contributions) before any checks are mailed out..
|
|
Top |
|
|
diafel
|
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 4:51 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:27 am Posts: 2444 Been Liked: 46 times
|
timberlea wrote: Diafel, true, with the exception of commercial use. This is why DJs in Canada have to pay AVLA if they format shift to computer. Private use, you can have and play as many as you want. If you never play the files in public, and the only reside on your drive, how can you say it's NOT for personal use?
|
|
Top |
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 6:17 pm |
|
|
Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am Posts: 4839 Location: In your head rent-free Been Liked: 582 times
|
MtnKaraoke wrote: Can this be right?
Say I have a thousand stolen cars parked in a private lot. I'm okay as long as I don't drive them?
I think being in possession of stolen goods might still constitute criminal activity and create probable cause for an investigation.
Of course, I don't know how you'd verify those zillion tracks and their status. I never said anything about "stolen." You added that in order to justify your scenario. Remove the word "stolen" above and you'll see how ridiculous it is.
|
|
Top |
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 6:50 pm |
|
|
Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am Posts: 4839 Location: In your head rent-free Been Liked: 582 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: c. staley wrote: rickgood wrote: Or better yet, the really clever ones will buy 2 hard drives, one loaded with everything, one with their legal stuff. No forensic data on a drive that never had those files on it in the first place.... It doesn't matter if you have the tracks on your drive. Simply having the tracks on your drive is not - unto itself - illegal at all. They display nothing. You can have 3 zillion on your drive, if you never display the trademark there's no violation and certainly no damages in my opinion. Remember the SC's "mama's" saying when it comes to HarringtonLaw: RBTL I find it humorous that you always end your conclusive assertions with "in my opinion," as though that insulates you for being incorrect. Simply having the tracks on a drive is not a trademark infringement, but the minute that drive is used for a commercial karaoke performance, the drive--which has been "marked" by having the marked tracks stored on it--is being "used in commerce" and is therefore subject to the Trademark Act. So, sure, you can "have" those tracks, but you can't legally use the drive they're on, so do you really "have" them? Of course, in order to get them onto the drive, you had to make a copy, which is a copyright infringement. Thus, it is not accurate to say that it is "not...illegal at all." Excuse me? If you read what you wrote you'll find that you are actually agreeing with me. First of all, we aren't discussing copyright remember? Besides, I already have permission from sc to create an archival copy and I'm not playing them so there is no foul or damage being done. Second, no display of a trademark is also not damaging at all. Third, you are under the assumption that these are stolen tracks. You have confirmed again that dropping your client's brand is a prudent decision.
|
|
Top |
|
|
timberlea
|
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:03 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:41 pm Posts: 4094 Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada Been Liked: 309 times
|
Diafel, can't you read? That's what I said, private, ie personal use, you can have as many as you like and play them til the cows come home. As soon as you format shift for commercial use, you need an AVLA Licence. At home fill your boots. Using a computer to play shifted music in a club, get your licence.
_________________ You can be strange but not a stranger
|
|
Top |
|
|
diafel
|
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 9:15 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:27 am Posts: 2444 Been Liked: 46 times
|
timberlea wrote: Diafel, can't you read? That's what I said, private, ie personal use, you can have as many as you like and play them til the cows come home. As soon as you format shift for commercial use, you need an AVLA Licence. At home fill your boots. Using a computer to play shifted music in a club, get your licence. Then why "remind" me of it? As you well know, I am VERY well aware of what the law is in Canada. Or were you just wanting to argue with me for the sake of arguing yet again? **sigh**
|
|
Top |
|
|
ed g
|
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 8:30 am |
|
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:55 pm Posts: 185 Location: saylorsburg Pa Been Liked: 54 times
|
Going back a little to identifying the KJ. Most people around here who are not legal and claim to have 130000 songs etc. do not print books and have you tell them what you want to sign up to sing. They do not print slips either, so there is not a lot to go on. I have a fairly large library. One system has 24000 songs and one has 20000. But locals know how big my library was before I went digital. I have been in contact with Pop hits, cb and have been trying to verify w sc for a couple of months. I have books, slips, cards etc. Inside my books I have photos of the disk piles i have amassed over the years(not that that is proof positive). Every large library show I have stopped at around here has no book, no slip, no card, and they started in the last 2 to 3 years so It's obvious they have no investment either.However figuring out who they actually are could still be a challenge.
|
|
Top |
|
|
Paradigm Karaoke
|
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:12 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm Posts: 5107 Location: Phoenix Az Been Liked: 1279 times
|
how did you get Stellar? i have been trying for months and they wont return any of my many calls and e-mails.
_________________ Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens
|
|
Top |
|
|
rickgood
|
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:37 pm |
|
|
Super Poster |
|
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 7:09 pm Posts: 839 Location: Myrtle Beach, SC Been Liked: 224 times
|
Paradigm Karaoke wrote: how did you get Stellar? i have been trying for months and they wont return any of my many calls and e-mails. Doesn't sound like they are very interested in "certifying" any KJs.
|
|
Top |
|
|
jclaydon
|
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 2:40 am |
|
|
Super Duper Poster |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:16 pm Posts: 2027 Location: HIgh River, AB Been Liked: 268 times
|
avla license is a moot point anyway cause it doesn't cover karaoke at the moment.
altho, I wonder if u could argue that a video license would cover karaoke, since karaoke has been labled an 'audio visual product' in North america.
|
|
Top |
|
|
timberlea
|
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 5:20 am |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:41 pm Posts: 4094 Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada Been Liked: 309 times
|
Clayton, I wrote AVLA on that and it has to do with the sync licences.
_________________ You can be strange but not a stranger
|
|
Top |
|
|
ed g
|
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 12:52 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:55 pm Posts: 185 Location: saylorsburg Pa Been Liked: 54 times
|
I ordered a number of disks missing from my second rig direct from stellar (off ebay) and spoke to them at that time. They did call my regular retailer that I have been purchasing from for almost 20 years. He called me to tell me, but i am not holding my breath expecting to "certify" with them. They seem much more concerned with people who own nothing than people missing a few. I have been trying to get the certification guy from SC to call me for over 2 months before I go through the trouble. I have not entered songs with numbers into my database in over 10 years so I want to find out what they want me to do. called 10 or 11 times and got his answering machine every time. I've finally decided forget it and I'll show up in court with over 8000 cdgs mp3g discs and a gem set set. I might even bring 300 lasers just for the heck of it.
|
|
Top |
|
|
Wall Of Sound
|
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:35 pm |
|
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:35 am Posts: 691 Location: Carson City, NV Been Liked: 0 time
|
ed g wrote: I'll show up in court with over 8000 cdgs mp3g discs and a gem set set. I might even bring 300 lasers just for the heck of it. You have a GEM set & you are going to court? You are named in a lawsuit?
_________________ "Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"
|
|
Top |
|
|
Paradigm Karaoke
|
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 2:30 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm Posts: 5107 Location: Phoenix Az Been Liked: 1279 times
|
i believe he is saying that he has been trying to be proactive and get an audit, but they wont return his calls. this seems to be an issue right now as i have the same problem with Stellar. being proactive and seeking them out before they seek us out may be the right thing, but if they wont let us do that, then what?
_________________ Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens
|
|
Top |
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:31 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm Posts: 5046 Been Liked: 334 times
|
timberlea wrote: Quote: Did anyone bother to get a phone number that can be traced on line in seconds? Can you name a KJ that won't give out a phone number?
While you were pulling names out of a hat/ web sites, did you bother to get a traceable IP?
Did anyone bother to check if KJ Pirate was paying taxes on his income, and under what name?
How about a pretty girl to ASK the KJ his name?
How about- not that an SC rep ever actually visits a show, but if they actually did- the rep walking outside and getting a license plate number off of the KJ's transport?
As I've said before Joe real life and TV are two different things. 1) Unless a telephone is listed, you won't be able to get information on the user. ie my number is 555-1234 and I have it unlisted, how are you going to get my info? The phone or cell company are not going to release the information to you, even if I plaster my number all over the place. The same goes for IPs. 2) The IRS isn't going to release ANY information. 3) A pretty girl may work but that could take time too because when people ask someone for a name in a social setting they usually say I'm John, not John Doe. 4) Motor Vehicles/Police in most jurisdictions cannot give out information on plates to unauthorized people. EDIT: I originally gave a long reply to Timberlea's post, because I had missed HarringtonLaw's comprehensive answer. I have deleted my original reply, but offer the following: No disrespect, Timberlea. but I'm under the impression that you did this sort of work. If I'm wrong, I apologize. I wish Softjock was on this forum, just give a better explaination. As for 1 and 4, you are incorrect. Both pieces of information can be had either through personal contacts, or certain websites if one has access, or knows someone who does. I would be surprised if an attorney couldn't find these thing out. The others were well covered by HarringtonLaw, except that the tax mention was not to be directed at the IRS, but merely taking a shot at a listing of a corporation or LLC if one happened to exist.
_________________ "No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
Last edited by JoeChartreuse on Mon Aug 29, 2011 8:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
|
|
Top |
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:38 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm Posts: 5046 Been Liked: 334 times
|
MtnKaraoke wrote: Can this be right?
Say I have a thousand stolen cars parked in a private lot. I'm okay as long as I don't drive them?
I think being in possession of stolen goods might still constitute criminal activity and create probable cause for an investigation.
Of course, I don't know how you'd verify those zillion tracks and their status. The suits are for Trademark Infringement, not Piracy- therefore, no one is looking for stolen goods. They are only interested in a logo displayed from a non-original source, such as a PC. If they are never witnessed being displayed, those tracks can sit on that PC forever without any legal problems. Please note that I said " WITNESSED being displayed". This means that someone would have to risk a perjury ( if indeed it wasn't actually witnessed by the person that made the claim and whose claim would/could be used as evidence in court) ) charge and swear that they saw it.
_________________ "No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
Top |
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 8:08 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm Posts: 5046 Been Liked: 334 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: JoeChartreuse wrote: Did anyone bother to get a phone number that can be traced on line in seconds? Can you name a KJ that won't give out a phone number?
We do get phone numbers, but cell phones, which most of the KJs (whom we have trouble identifying) use, are generally not listed. JoeChartreuse wrote: While you were pulling names out of a hat/ web sites, did you bother to get a traceable IP?
Where they have a website, sure...but tracing an IP only goes so far--to the ISP, who will at least require a subpoena, which requires a suit first. The DNS record may or may not contain the legal name of the KJ. A lot of KJs use Facebook or Myspace for their website. JoeChartreuse wrote: Did anyone bother to check if KJ Pirate was paying taxes on his income, and under what name?
Where, pray tell, can we check for that information? "Hello, IRS? I was wondering if you could give me the real name of a guy who goes by the professional name of 'Joe Chartreuse'? No, I don't have his SSN. Listen, all I know is he plays Fridays at the Applebees on Jefferson Street. Can you help me? Hello?" JoeChartreuse wrote: How about a pretty girl to ASK the KJ his name?
When one is available, we do. Doesn't always work. JoeChartreuse wrote: How about- not that an SC rep ever actually visits a show, but if they actually did- the rep walking outside and getting a license plate number off of the KJ's transport?
In most states, that information is not available to private individuals. In the states where it is available, we get it. But even then, it's not foolproof, because just because the KJ uses the car doesn't mean it's in his name. So, after all of those things have been tried and have failed to produce the KJ's legal name, is it then OK with you if we sue under an alias? JoeChartreuse wrote: On the other hand: I'm guessing that SC, who would rather shut me up and flay me alive, has probably checked my show by now and noticed the original mfrs. discs in use. I can't be cetain, but I would guess that my big mouth would be a priority. HarringtonLaw? I have no idea. But don't you think that if I were interested in shutting you up, I would just ignore your posts? I thank you for a comprehensive answer. I have the feeling that Maybe I shouldn't generalize so much in regard to the separate entities of you and SC. I never thought YOU cared about shutting me up one way or the other. I merely meant that many of my posts may have raised questions that SC would prefer to go away. Also, I'm pretty sure Kurt and I won't be sitting down to a nice social dinner in the near future. I would also like to re-clarify something. In the beginning, my problems with SC were all about business. As I have learned more, I have found my sense of ethics offended, and it has also become somewhat personal ( not these debates, but my stance). However, I have never met Kurt Slep. I state unequivocally that I do not like the way he does business. However, people are unique. He may well be a charitable, giving, and loving person outside of work. I have no idea. What I am saying is that though my stance in regard to SC's methodology has become a bit personal, NONE of what I say here is in any way a personal statement in regard to Kurt himself. Never having met him, I simply don't know him.
_________________ "No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
Top |
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 8:20 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm Posts: 5046 Been Liked: 334 times
|
MtnKaraoke wrote: 1) HarringtonLaw has authority and direct knowledge relating to SC's position and actions regarding these lawsuits for trademark infringement. HarringtonLaw has made it clear to me that consideration and forethought have been applied as these investigations have taken place.
2) Joe C.'s tacit admission that these investigations are, in fact, taking place .
3) I am of the opinion that Joe C.'s speculations and predictions and critiques of "SC's methodology" have been revealed for what they are; Joe C.'s imagination.
1) You might also mention that he is presenting his information from his position as Sound Choice's attorney of record. While I happen to agree with much of what he has posted, I would also state that much of what he has posted has been incomplete, or more likely phrased in such a way ( think "spin") to shed the best light possible on his employer. No knock or disprespect to HarringtonLaw- that's the job he is SUPPOSED to do. 2) I don't even know how to reply to that- how about "that's ridiculous"? 3) It must be a mass hallucination then- or haven't you noticed how many others are posting similarly? Now...where's my darn foil hat?! You KNOW how loud those little voices get....
_________________ "No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
Top |
|
|
Paradigm Karaoke
|
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:08 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm Posts: 5107 Location: Phoenix Az Been Liked: 1279 times
|
MtnKaraoke wrote: 1) HarringtonLaw has authority and direct knowledge relating to SC's position and actions regarding these lawsuits for trademark infringement. HarringtonLaw has made it clear to me that consideration and forethought have been applied as these investigations have taken place. i can't speak for Joe, but from the one case (the only case i know anybody in) and the only two people in that case i know personally, both were wrong, and mistakes easily avoided if any investigation had ever been done. how could an investigator say that one has 2 systems when one only exists? they never saw a second.....ever. how could an investigator say one moves and does shows at other bars when the system has never left and he only works at his wifes bar? they never saw him running it elsewhere.....ever. so in this case i agree with Joe, unless someone can explain to me how an investigator could have seen these things happening when they did not. HarringtonLaw has avoided these questions from me, so if someone else can see a way, i will retract my statement and apologize to all involved.
_________________ Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens
|
|
Top |
|
|
Cueball
|
Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:08 am |
|
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:55 pm Posts: 4433 Location: New York City Been Liked: 757 times
|
I know that this is about the NJ lawsuits, but I had mentioned something in the NY Lawsuits section a while back.
Last week, I happened to run into one of the KJs in question (who is named in that recent lawsuit). I asked him what was going on with that (since I had e-mailed him a few weeks earlier, and asked him about it... I even provided the URL that named the 2 cases and all the Defendants). He tried to act like it was not him. He even went as far as stating that the name in question, was from Michigan. I told him that this was a NY lawsuit, so it couldn't be so. He then even boasted that they wouldn't be able to find him anyway, because the establishments don't know his real name... I let that one go (because I didn't feel like telling him there are other means for them to find him).
Then he tried acting dumb about the whole thing (when I spoke of what SC and CB are doing (with regard to requiring Audits)). He said that he has discs, and I asked him (knowing the answer already) if he had discs to match EVERY SONG in his library on that PC of his. I told him that that is what they are checking for... that the songs and discs match up.
Unfortunately, if anything happens to him (short of no longer doing any shows), I probably won't be able to find out. He didn't even want to admit to anything about his being contacted last year by SC.
|
|
Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 267 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|