Karaoke Forums

Posting this link for reference purposes:

http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trad ... r/summary/

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

they are coming fast and furious not aren't they? i also see jury trial demand (may have been on the others, just never noticed) maybe one will go all the way?

question for Harrington......no way to ask without sounding like i am jabbing, but this is not my intention......how does it work when you don't know the name of the host, owner or even company name? ABC inc 1-20 & John Doe 1-20.

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

Be advised that Harrington's firm is not handling the New Jersey suit.

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

Doesn't matter Wall, it's still a federal suit and the same rules apply whether or not it's in Jersey.... and Harrington seems to be the one directing the show so Paradigm's question couldn't be directed to a better person.

Check this out:

Judge Dumps Yet Another Mass Infringement Suit In Response To Single, Pro Se Motion To Quash

No argument there. I wasn't sure if Harrington would take the time since he is not involved.

Who knows, Kalikhman may come by & grace the Karaoke Scene pages.

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

When you see ABC Corporations 1-20 and John Does 1-20, those are usually "placeholder" defendants--they are not specific people that have been identified, whom we just don't know the name of. Let's say you sued the two general partners of a partnership, then you found out that there are actually 3 general partners. You might be able to "assign" one of the Doe slots to the third general partner through an amended complaint. That practice is really no longer necessary because of changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but old habits die hard. I don't use those any more.

There are two other kinds of "Doe" parties. One is the party whose privacy rights would be compromised if their actual name were used. By far the best-known example of this is the petitioner in Roe v. Wade. "Jane Roe" was a pseudonym for Norma McCorvey (who later identified herself publicly), and "Wade" was the Dallas district attorney, who was responsible for enforcing Texas's abortion law. Because of the sensitive, intensely personal nature of the subject matter, McCorvey was allowed to proceed under a pseudonym.

The other kind is a party whom the plaintiff has been unable to identify despite efforts. Generally, they will be named individually ("John Doe No. 1") and as much identifying information as possible is given (such as a d/b/a or an a/k/a). We do occasionally use that form, when we need to sue someone whose legal name is not known. The court does eventually require us to identify the party in later papers, and if we can't, they will usually get dismissed. Most of the time the process server is able to get the true name of the party out of them at the time of service, but not always.

thank you Mr. Harrington. although i may not agree with the use of these placeholders, i at least understand the usage of them now.

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

Well it certainly shows that SC isn't finished in New Jersey.

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

Because this is happening in NJ, I chose to display your post, so that I could read it, and I thank you for the information. Saved and printed. I also appreciated the lack of any biased comment. Let's wait and see...

I also have to admit that, after a couple of years and tens of reports by my local cheerleaders, they actually included a real honest-to-God pirate that I mentioned in another thread.

Of the people mentioned ( outside of the pirate, who I will not name), the ones closest to my area are Edgar Music Entertainment, Jersey GirlZ, and PT. Unfortunately, they are not close enough, physically, to be included in my local network, and so I have no idea whether they are really pirates, or merely another media shifted gold mine for SC. As far as I'm concerned, they got ONE.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Though also appreciative of the information, how does this work when you are dealing with a single-op host and still don't have a name?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Not to be flip about it, but it works exactly the same way.

We're actually more likely not to have a name when it is a single-op host. (Note that I did not say, or mean, that we are unlikely to have a name.) KJs often use stage names, and often it's just a first name. Some of them are paid in cash and don't give out their last names to anyone. Sometimes the investigator will get the full name, but it's not always possible to do so, and my investigators are instructed not to engage with the KJ if doing so may put them in physical danger. Asking a lot of questions in an unfriendly environment, often where alcohol is being consumed, can result in physical confrontations that we're not interested in having. Even where a physical confrontation isn't likely, asking for a full name can tip off the KJ to an investigation and lead to destruction of evidence.

Nosy people really raise my hackles. How many songs I have, how much I get paid, where do I get my songs etc. are all inappropriate questions and they are not met with a kind response.

Please define your term of "destruction of evidence" since it is not illegal in of itself to have karaoke tracks reside on a computer. That being said, it may be a civil violation of some sort to "display" SC's logo if played off a computer without permission, having them there - even if for my own personal use - is not a violation. If it is, please cite it.

Your suits are based on displaying a trademark and karaoke tracks sitting on a hard drive not being played display nothing.

Since there are plenty of users that can play a karaoke DISC directly off their computer OR, have a separate karaoke player, I would suspect that your "evidence" is proof that the trademark displayed was generated solely off a hard drive and not a disc.

Remember, the suit is about the "source of the infringement" and I'm sure your evidence includes all that, right?

The fact remains that alot of people stole alot of songs from SC and are using them to make money. In light of Sybersound's suit where it was found that only the original copyright owner could go after damages for stolen copies, under what type of scenario could SC try to get damages for the theivery except for trademark? Is there no law to cover stolen music for a karaoke company other than trademark or is that what they are stuck with?

As for nosy people, they intrigue me--could they be "one of them?" I don't want to discuss what we make but any questions about the library are fine. It is right there for anyone to see. Last Sat. I was showing a singer how much each disc cost and he couldn't believe it--he had no idea what it cost to put on a karaoke show so as far as I'm concerned, library questions are a plus.

I'm always happy to discuss anything at my show be it how many songs I have or where I got them. To me it's just plain good old customer service.

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

And do you discuss how much you make with total strangers that do not appear to be a potential client?

i wont discuss money unless they ask about private events. but i will talk about my library, system, etc all night. why not? what could it possibly hurt to let them know i have a bit over 10,000 unique titles, yes, i have all the discs, no i can't just copy my buddies discs, yes, discs can be pricy, no i can't just dupe my drive to do more bars?

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

ditto

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

I thank you for the info above, but it leaves two questions unanswered:

The first is simply a clarification of "legalspeak":

Your statement- " We're actually more likely not to have a name when it is a single-op host. (Note that I did not say, or mean, that we are unlikely to have a name.)"

Is "more likely not to have" a different measure of liklihood than "we are unlikely to have"? That just left me a bit confused...

The second is the one that is continually - and still- unanswered:

Despite the difficulties that you have mentioned, I fail to see how a PROPER investigation wouldn't turn up the host's name ( especially a single-op), which was the purpose for my original question.

I'm afraid we will continue to disagree in regard to the depth of the investigations.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Well, I see number one as a convenient way of adding more names to a mass suit while still only paying the original filing fee, and I'd hazard a guess that it has been used that way by SC.

As for #3, we're back to proper and full investigation again.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Joe, I know quite a few KJs who go by an alias (whether it be a made up name or a nickname that they decided to use). By going under an assumed name (for example, “Cueball”), I don’t know some of their real names (let alone their last names). Cueball was a nickname given to me at my job (after I stopped wearing a wig.... I had graduated from "Grasshopper"). It is a name that I chose to use when I first started going out to Karaoke (and it seems to suit my personality). Steven (my real name) is a very common/popular name, so I liked being identified by a unique name when going out to Karaoke. There was never any question as to who “Cueball” was, when called up to the Stage (even if there were 10 other bald men in the room). When I go out (whether it be as a KJ or as a Singer), I am known by everyone as “Cueball.” Only a few people actually know my real name (and that’s because they cared enough to ask).

As for these other KJs which I am referring to (see statement above), all of them (that I know of) work for cash. So, if they introduced themselves to the Venue as “XYZ Entertainment”, or “Rockin’ Robin” or “Crazy Harry,” etc… (you get the idea), the venue may not have ever asked them what their real name is. You (Joe) operate under your real name. Many KJs that I know, don’t. So, when Mr. Harrington says that “it’s more likely not to have a name when it’s a single-op host,” it does NOT mean that they would be “unlikely to have a name.” I fail to grasp where you are having a problem understanding that concept.




Joe, with so many KJs out there that operate under a fictitious name, what would you consider to be a “PROPER” investigation to find out their real name? Using me as an examplle, as I stated above, MOST of the people that know me (in the Karaoke circuit), ONLY know me as “Cueball.” Even the places where I’ve done shows, they only know me by that name too. Some have contacted me via e-mail, and some have had face-to-face conversations with me. If the venue doesn’t know your real name, then how do you think an investigator is going to find it?