Karaoke Forums

Just to clear this up for anyone new. We were named in the first lawsuit here in Florida and sent a letter of intent to sue. Because we are incorporated the letter was sent to our registered agent and had a delay reaching us leaving 1 business day to respond and request our audit. We called that Monday (our last day to reply) and we treated with respect and the process was started. We underwent a skype audit within 3 days (and was dropped from the lawsuit and certified) and after much nastiness from people on the forum I had found and posted on at that time we followed up with a in person audit at SC in NC where we were also audited by CB and received our certification from them...a few months later we had a Stellar/Pop Hits audit during the short window when SC and stellar had an agreement of audit reciprocity. We will be under going our Re-certification with Chartbuster within the week. We educate venues and customer on the pitfalls of piracy and all of our venues know they have no worries of any lawsuits. I donate 2 or more hours per week searching and flagging craigslist nationwide as well as auction lists...I mail KIAA info to venues...when you are fighting for what you know is right and you have morals you dont mind spending a little time.....of course there are those here that have said often I am unprofessional....and maybe in some ways I am ....but I am earning the karma I want to have come back to me
Bright Blessings to all

kjathena - I'm fairly new here so I might have missed this - why were you named in a lawsuit and sent a letter in the first place?

We had a couple of similar instances in Raleigh - same investigator being "misinterpreted" I imagine.

Not if you're using discs or show your discs. Yes, you may be named but once you are checked 1:1 then it will me dropped.

This statement is yet another one of those zombies that feed on people's brains.

1) A person who is sued based upon the use of media-shifted karaoke tracks at a commercial show, but who is otherwise in compliance with SC's media-shifting policy (i.e., 1:1 correspondence, but not having had the notification and audit), can--for no money at all to SC--demonstrate 1:1 correspondence, get released from the suit, and be certified as a legal operator with respect to SC's material.

2) That is not an "attempt to make an income from anyone...who displays their trademark from a source other than their discs." It is an attempt to differentiate technical infringers from people who did not buy the music they use, and to get the former category out of the suit quickly and for no money.

3) It DOES matter to us whether the host is using tracks ripped from original discs owned by the host or not.

)4) Aside from that, what on earth is the difference between "trademark infringement" and "piracy," in your mind? I see trademark infringement, particularly where it involves counterfeiting, as a form of piracy. Most people in my profession, who have an understanding of intellectual property and the laws governing it, see it that way, too.

Wait a minute- The existence of zombies hasn't been proven, yet you presume expertise on their diet? Ah well, we don't need no steenking evidence...

1) Since it isn't SC who can give permission to media shift the music and lyrics, what you are really saying is if the KJ satisfies SC's demands, SC will look the other way in regard to the media shift, and not pass on the information to those from whom permission might be received, if they cared to do so- the owners/publishers.

Let's say I saw someone rob your house, but told him that if he paid me $50, I wouldn't pass on the information.

Where would I stand then? To me it seems like I would be condoning wrongdoing. Now, you believe that media shifting your logo without your written permission is wrongdoing , therefore you must believe that media shifting the greater content of the tracks without the owner/publishers' permission must be wrong too- yet you are willing to let this go unreported and unpunished as long as SC get's theirs? Nice.

2) Nothing in your statement negates my opinion that SC is out to earn a major part of their income in the manner described.


3) It may matter that the host has the discs in regard to the outcome of the suit, but having them has no effect on whether you sue them in the first place. See a PC, initiate a suit....

4) Your Trademark Infringement hook is based media shifting of your logo. That's it.

Many, if not most of us in the karaoke business view piracy in the practical sense- stealing karaoke tracks without paying for them- or paying the real value- either buying pre-loaded HDs, or downloading from the internet, or simply copying another's HD. In other words, a pirate is someone who steals, not someone who BUYS discs, then just happens to media shift.

I am glad to see that Harrington law responded to the question as to why Kjathena's company was named to begin with

Just like your "errors" and "misrepresentations", eh Chip. You are just as bad or worse than others on this forum to stir up the pot with your "professional" opinions. But I know you'll response in some snarky way trying to make yourself a victim.

And so he blathers on. I guess they won, they got your money.

....but I understand that you rely heavily on the brand as a replacement for hosting skills, but you "gotta do what you gotta do" I guess.

I'm sorry that you haven't the confidence to make any kind of stand for what you believe in.

Someday you might.

Between the economy deteriorating as it is and the "cancerous" Politicians that don't give me any hope for the future, I could make about $25,000 selling all my SC discs and another $4,000 selling the CB discs.