Karaoke Forums

There may or may not be a confidentiality clause--that's decided on a case-by-case basis--but the phrase "can be negotiated out with the cash purchase of a gem set" does not compute.

Going forward, settlements will require deletion of all pirated content. (It may take some time for this to work through to all of the settlements.) Here is the standard language from the agreement:



When we do an "industry exit" settlement, that clause isn't in there because the KJ is going to turn over all of his karaoke equipment (including discs, hard drives, laptops, etc.). Otherwise, the clause stays in, whether the KJ receives a GEM series package or not as a result of the settlement. The only situations where we settle without the KJ receiving a GEM series package are (1) when the KJ demonstrates ownership of a very substantial amount of legal SC material, such that the GEM series acquisition would be duplicative of that material, or (2) when the KJ passes a post-suit audit, in which case the KJ isn't paying anything.

***************
***REALLY LIKE***
***************

thanks for posting the clause Harrington Law

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

"Theory?" You're basing your argument on "theory?" Usually you demand case law and precedent from others... something a little more substantial than "theory."

How about a disc-based KJ sues SC "on the theory" that their lawsuits have cost them sales since clubs no longer want to use karaoke as an entertainment medium? Or I sue a Gem-using-competitor "on the theory" that because they suck, their giving this business a bad name and therfore damaging my future sales?

Theory, theory, theory....

That's a really big stretch, as I've stated before in regards to your "theory", and anyone with two brain cells to rub together would challenge. I'm also willing to bet that they would win and be able to have that portion of your suit, if not the whole thing, thrown out.

And it's quite often that the "the principle under which a litigant proceeds" is less than nothing...

And it's quite often that the "the principle under which a litigant proceeds" is substantiated...

You know, when I read something like this, it's pretty hard not to take it as an unsubstantiated insult, particularly when you can't manage to cite any specific reason why it doesn't work, other than that you just don't like it (or because SC is doing it; I haven't really been able to figure whether your opposition is to SC specifically or enforcement generally). For someone who claims to be anti-piracy, you sure have a funny way of showing it.

Of course, I expect the defendants to challenge us. We have an adversarial system. If we could only make arguments that couldn't be challenged, there would not be much litigation at all, and a lot of disputes would go unresolved. It's the outcome that matters, and ...



Funny that you should say that, because it has been challenged in that suit (in the form of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, which is the proper way to go about having a suit thrown out of court) and the judge ruled that we had stated a claim. Here is the entire text of the order.



Note that the order expressly references § 1125 (which is § 43 of the Lanham Act) and finds that we have stated a claim under that statute. So it will not be thrown out.

I probably should have taken your bet before revealing that fact, but that wouldn't really have been fair because I already knew the outcome.

1) When you say "most people" to whom do you refer specifically?

While all parts of piracy may be included in legal terms, the "most people" in my experience ( in regard to karaoke) use the term to describe stolen tracks- period. This is because stealing expensive music instead of paying for it allows those KJs an unfair pricing advantage. That's what anti-pirate people (including myself) care about.

SC is not concentrating on pirates - as described above- but is simply going after anyone they can find running a PC based show, based on Trademark Infringement. TI gives absolutely no unfair pricing advantage, and does not affect the other KJs' businesses one whit- so they couldn't care less.

Intimidating uneducated KJs into paying settlements might be a working business income for SC, but it doesn't make the tiniest scratch on the surface of what those in the karaoke business consider piracy.


2) Who says that you CAN control other manufacturers' content?

Filing a suit is just that. You do so in HOPES of having a judge see it your way- but it has yet to happen.

You have also filed suits against a bunch of KJs, but setting a legal precedent reqires seeing a case through in court- and this too has yet to happen.

BTW- if you are hoping for second hand damages, I have a question:

I'm wondering if an original mfrs'. disc based host would have a viable similar "second hand damage" case if they lost possible business because venues either stop, or never start karaoke because they feel that they don't want the waves caused by SC in other venues?

One might claim that the venues would have done so out of ignorance, but since SC doesn't FULLY EDUCATE the vendors when sending out letters, and said letters do not make a point of stating that SC is going after PC based hosts for TI ( kind of difficult to claim TI in regard to a host using factory original discs), might it not leave SC in the same boat they are trying to build with your current suit?

Your thoughts?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I am referring to most of the people I speak with about these issues--which runs the gamut from judges to defendants' attorneys, to defendants, to supporters, and so forth.



Do you think that a "pirate" as you are describing them above is not committing trademark infringement?

Because I strongly disagree. The cause of action for trademark infringement covers both the "pirate" as you define that term as well as the KJ who is 1:1 but commits an unauthorized media shift. The difference between the two is primarily with respect to damages, which is why we dismiss against KJs who request and pass the postsuit audit (as long as they have not committed other offenses, like selling copies of their hard drives). It is virtually impossible to differentiate, through observation, between a host who is 1:1 but has committed an unauthorized media shift and a host who is an outright pirate. I have previously explained the problem with performing a presuit notification. But, even so, in the last round, we attempted to do just that. After the investigations were complete, I telephoned each defendant who could be contacted (not everybody publishes their phone number), explained what was going on, and asked to see their discs. Exactly three ended up returning my calls when all was said and done. Only one of them agreed to a disc review, then called the next morning to renege. But four of the defendants who got messages from me and didn't call used that advance warning to attempt to avoid service by making themselves unavailable, which ended up costing us a lot of time and money to make multiple attempts to serve them.

Thus, what is going to happen in the future is that those calls aren't going to get made.

Now, back to the original issue...trademark infringement covers both types of conduct, so we are going to continue to use it. That doesn't mean we aren't going after "pirates" as you define them.



Fully 90% of the defendants who have settled with us had not a single disc. Are those pirates or not?



We're not seeking to control other manus' content. As you will see from the destruction clause I posted above, the other manus have full control over whether they will allow the host to keep their content. What we are controlling is hosts using pirated material to nullify our activities by continuing to use pirated material to compete unfairly with our customers and with us.

You might recall, by the way, that the GEM series is licensed, not sold. SC's licensees' activities in the marketplace inure to SC's benefit (and to the licensees as well). Unfair competition with SC's GEM licensees is unfair competition with SC. That's one of the purposes of § 43(a)--to prevent unfair competition through the use of false designations of origin.



The damage caused by unfair competition is direct damage, not "secondhand damage."

Aside from that, I would disagree with your assertion that SC doesn't fully educate venues on the issues. I don't represent any disc-based hosts, so I haven't considered whether they would have a cause of action against a theoretical manu that misled venues about something, and since I don't have a client who has done that, I wouldn't presume to offer an opinion on the hypothetical.

Maybe you should hire an attorney to look into that for you.

1) While all pirates commit Trademark Infringement, not all who are accused of TI by SC are pirates- they merely ripped legally purchased discs to a computer, and I might add, this was perfectly OK with SC in the late 90s to early 2000s as published- prior to them realizing that they could make money from settlements.


2) You are asking me to take your word that 90% of the people SC has named had NO discs. Quite honestly, prior experience with SC statements simply won't allow me to take you at your word. My apologies if this sounds harsh, but I have to go with my experience.

3) If you are attempting to have other mfrs'. product expunged from HDs as a matter of legal course, through more intimidation into settlement, then you ARE attempting to exorcise control over it, and your statement would show as false.

4) Since letters sent to venues do not specifically state that those who base their shows on mfrs'. original discs are exempt ( as they must be because you cannot claim TI), and it does not explain the process at all, AND it doesn't explain what "certification" actually means, and I HAVE checked with my attorneys, this statement by you is unequivocally and absolutely false. My suggestion to you and SC is to re-draft your venue letters to be more informational and accurate. If not, they may cause problems for SC in the future...


5) I notice that you haven't replied in regard to the original mfrs'.disc based host having a case against someone who costs them business due to vendor intimidation. Interesting....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I thought he did answer you... right here.




Mr Harrington... Correct me if I am wrong, but, wouldn't the above scenario you describe be considered a conflict of interest, therefore, you would not be able to represent a KJ for something like that (especially since these letters everyone is referring to have come from SC (or their representatives)).

Joe, you keep making references to the uneducated KJs out there who are being forced into settlement agreements with SC. Who are all these "uneducated" KJs that you know about through YOUR experiences (which you keep talking about)?

I can understand your disdain against SC for the methods they are using to investigate and bring about a settlement, but I have to say that I don't see how SC can force even an "uneducated" KJ into purchasing/licensing their GEM series if they ARE 1:1 already. I know that if I were PC operated, and had all my originals, I wouldn't allow myself to be pressured into getting the GEM series (unless I were to consider obtaining a 2nd system). As for those that don't have the discs, I couldn't give a Rat's A$$ if they were uneducated or not!!! Let SC pressure them into anything that makes them pay (and then some).

Now, as for SC's settlements with the illegal KJs (and I am JUST REFERRING to the KJs that are NOT 1:1), I would like to believe that because of some of my prior posts and responses to/from Mr. Harrington (where I egged him on for some specific answers), he has modified that settlement agreement to include the clauses about destroying all materials not 1:1, and not just SC's materials that are not 1:1 (which is something he recently added into the mix after I got him to admit that he couldn't legally do anything regarding the enforcement of other material being destroyed). Now, as to whether or not that's actually been implemented, it's yet to be seen, and that's where some of my disdain would be.

Thank you for admitting that the pirates--as you define that term--are committing trademark infringement. I'm not sure why you have a problem with us using trademark infringement, which we can prove rather easily, as our mechanism for enforcing trademark rights.

Ripping discs to a computer was not "perfectly OK with SC in the late 90s to early 2000s." Making a backup copy of your discs was tolerated during that time period (and now).

What percentage of KJs operating from a computer today, in your estimation or experience, "merely ripped legally purchased discs to a computer"?



I really wish you wouldn't change my words to try to make me sound like a liar. I said that 90% of the KJs who have settled had no discs. A KJ who is 1:1 and gets dismissed after an audit doesn't "settle" with us. They just get dismissed.



If anything, forcing other manus' product to be deleted is an impediment to settlement, because it makes it theoretically harder for the KJ to operate. We've gotten some pushback on that point. But we're not trying to control the other manus' product. We're trying to control the unfair competition that harms SC's licensees and SC directly. If any of the other manus want to allow their product to be pirated, they can say so in writing (either generally or for the specific KJ) and that will be the end of the discussion.



I think that the letters that we send, when read in conjunction with the Safe Harbor site that they reference, are perfectly clear, accurate, and complete. But since you have brought it up, I will take another look at the letters and, if warranted, make a change. I disagree that the letters would "cause problems for SC in the future" because, to be perfectly frank, they are the subject of qualified immunity. We are entitled to contact customers of the people who are using SC's material to inform them of potential problems with the unauthorized use of that material.



What I find interesting is that you chopped out several lines from my post, did not indicate in any way that you had done so (and in the process rendered the quote misleading), then complained that I did not reply, when my reply was in the part that you chopped out.

While taking a look at the material presented please keep in mind your audience. Many of which no little to nothing about karaoke much less industry specific terms.

I think Joe would like to see something in a prominent place within the materials similar to this:

"If you're karaoke host is using original karaoke CD's that contain a manufacturer's trademark and copyright marks you have nothing to worry about."

I'm sure some legalease is necessary, but I think you get the idea.

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

I await the day they come for me, ive prepaired a show just for them.

I keep a few SC discs in my case, and a raided external for only SC files. when they ask, i will show them... then allow my audience to destroy the discs and drives, then i will purchase no more.

ALOT of the KJ's here are fed up with this door to door accusation method. Many of the area clubs and bars are banning SC, pirated or not, as a precaution. Hence eliminating the need to buy SC discs.

To be fair, they are great for quality, but i will not trade quality for loyalty to my fellow KJ brothers/sisters, who will never be 1:1 due to lost/stolen discs, broken discs, house fires, ect. (in my case i lost the entire 1000-7000 series discs along with a few pieces of hardware to highway 95 @ 75mph) And there's no way im going to pay just to have them sitting around.

SOUND CHOICE!! Go after the people selling your stuff on 500-2tb drives and you will have less to worry about!

If SC people read this, contact me! If you will leave us hard working individuals alone, I will donate my time to helping you spot a pirated db from a mile away, without a 1:1 or evenseeing discs at all! Ive seen alot of pirated databases with my job as a computer repair person and one thing ican say is many are the same copy of whomever provided it first. AND if i can find someone selling full-HDD's im sure your people can easily meet them with the cops for a grand theft charge!
But Trading in the karaoke production for lawsuit earnings, is a bad way to do business.(don't think the legit one's like myself haven't noticed you added that "we stopped, cause you pirate" thing to your new discs page) and it is only helping your company fail.

just one of the nuances about the p-DB floating around is that it is redundant information so that the person buying only see's 498 gb of redundant/renamed data, and a billion files when it's more like 250 gb of actual data. and almost alsways a cheap japanese knock-off HDD (rarely is it ever a WD or Sgate). As ive said i repair alot of computers and modernize other KJs, and ive seen this repetitively, so the easiest way would be stopping the sales before they start....
Hell, i just looked @ 3 cities on craigslist and found 4 people selling their selling their karaoke hard drive because their quitting KJ. I will meet one tomorrow and see if they really even KJ. Might even buy it to see if im 100% right about the DB!

Yep..... because it doesn't matter if you have every disc they ever made - if you're using a computer - you will be sued. So, it's best to remove it as a precautionary measure. I have even offered to sell the discs back to sound choice, but even they don't want their own product.

I have thousands of dollars of their discs gathering dust. and I have stopped using their brand over a year ago (well over a year ago) it is not harmed my business one bit.

So it is by my understanding that if someone were to replace the sound choice logo with their own or "sound no-choice" then the trademark infringement would be a moot point. Because the rights to the song it'self still lye with the artist/label, and you could reproduce infinately (well till the artist themselves get involved). Sadly that is not a hard task with all the cdg editors out there.

I still have people who request the SC version, so i will not stop untill i have a way to show them why. Ive got a gameplan in place for them post harassment, that may have them paying me to shut up. "news @9 top story pirates of the karaokian" , horrid title, but i've already been interviewed by a local news station regaurding this as a back burner topic. Wonder if all the karaoke singers knew what was going on behind the scenes with SC if they would make any kind of money?

It would be much easier to get away from it without the need for legal hoops just to earn a living without pissing customers off.

Pirates are bad, yes, specially in karaoke. But, it makes no sense to me to prosecute everyone to find them. rather than eliminating their source. These large databases are not downloaded anywhere... sure someone may find a disc or 2 here and there (if it's not a fake)but that would not effect business. Could you immagine downloading a 500 gb file on the average 5mbs connection? they are sold by hand. (BTW 500gByes@ 5mbits would take something like 16-19 days - by the numbers 426 hours) and a transfer that long takes alot of balls with risk of a tracker.

IF they were to sell those drives themselves with pre-ripped content @ 320 kbs or even a exchange your discs for digital copies, im sure the ... let me get this so i dont have to rip them all...people wouldn't

Last time i helped some one convert i just copied over what discs had that i already had burnt vs the months it took me to do them all when i started. Anyone ever had to convert the 3 blocks from SC ? it takes a LONG while of half database half disc drive shows...

Your understanding is not completely correct, and it's also not worth the time. Many of the other manufacturers are doing a pretty good job of stepping up and filling in those missing holes. Karaokeversion.com is doing a pretty good job all by themselves.