Karaoke Forums

Yep.... I wanted to wait to see if anyone would notice since this order was dated Oct. 25th....


All of the summary judgment motions were GRANTED against SC and ALL procedural motions (including SC's) were DENIED.

SC's hat was summarily handed back to them as they were shown the door.

It takes real evidence, not just a hope of evidence later.

So, I spent a couple bucks for you, and here's some interesting reading for you directly from PACER: Here is the full document above, start at page #6:
http://dkusa.com/CHB/OhioSuit01.pdf

And just a couple days ago:

The Doc: http://dkusa.com/CHB/OhioSuit02.pdf

To preface this next document, we hear over and over again about the "spoliation of evidence" where SC is concerned that a named KJ will simply go out and purchase the discs needed to look legal..... so, way back from May of this year, we get this "turnabout is fair play":

The Doc: http://dkusa.com/CHB/OhioSuit03.pdf

An appeal has been filed.

Okay all you "armchair judges"... have at it....

This would appear to be a major set-back to Slep-Tone's trademark infringement business.



This is why suing pirate KJs for trademark infringement will have no standing in court. The KJ with a pirated library is unlikely to be the originator of the infringing material, and evidence of that origin must be provided.

Speaking of evidence, I found it interesting that Slep-Tone was scolded for trying to introduce hearsay as basically their only form of evidence.





It's really a shame, because if they really were selling hard drives with copied music, this is a case Slep-Tone should have been persuing and should have been able to win. But throughout the documents it can be easily seen that the whole thing was handled in a very sloppy manner. Slep-Tone did not even offer any true evidence! In a case like this, real evidence would have been easily aquired with the application of some common sense.

Applying patent trolling techniques to trademark infringement isn't going to yeild courtroom results in their favor when challenged. That's why it is all about the out-of-court settlement.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

be curious to see what harrington has to inject.

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

I was not involved in this case at the district court level, so I don't have a full grasp of the precise facts. I do know that there was a problem with the private investigator who conducted the pre-suit investigation and made the equipment purchase and that he was unavailable for some reason, but I don't know why. I can tell you that the "motion to reconsider" was withdrawn at SC's specific direction to make way for the appeal.

I will be the lead counsel for SC on this appeal. When I have fully digested the file I may have more comments, but for now, suffice it to say that we disagree with the judge's order granting summary judgment for reasons that we will make clear in our brief on appeal. I would also suggest that anyone looking at the above rulings without looking at the underlying papers should hesitate before drawing conclusions about the broader litigation.

Interesting.......


Hmmmmm.....

85 "READS"

only 3 responses.....

So they aren't allowed to look at the hard drive (assuming) in question?

_________________
KingBing Entertainment C'mon Up! I have a song for you!!! [font=MS Sans Serif][/font]

Not necessarily. You can look at a hard drive all day long, but one of the biggest problems that the court had was the production of "evidence" because all that was presented was hearsay. I think one of the other problems from reading the paperwork, is that it appears when the defendant filed for discovery of this hardware, the plaintiff claimed they did not have any hardware:


So in my opinion, it appears as though the plaintiff filed a suit claiming infringement with no real evidence to support their claims and was hoping to use discovery as a method to gather the evidence – which is also known as a "fishing expedition" – and most courts really don't like that tactic.

But I guess we will find out what will happen once the appeal is ruled on.

what did i do wrong?
why did my response to Harrington get deleted?

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

You sure you posted/hit submit? Nothing was moved or deleted from this thread today according to logs.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

Isn't this the same case that the FBI is involved in?

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

That's what I thought too....

This is also the case with SC's audits. The audits are a way for SC to gather evidence against a KJ. Without the audits, there IS no real evidence, only hearsay as presented above. Ergo, any of the accused or named that submits to an audit is actually helping SC to create the case against them.

In other words, the audits themselves are fishing expeditions.

As for the case in question: Whether it be points of law, lack of evidence of wrongdoing, or "investigational error", the case was put before a judge and found baseless at this point.

If this WAS a case where the FBI was involved, where were they? Were they STILL involved at the time of presentation, or were they unable to substantiate the claims made by SC against the defendant and dropped out, leaving SC to present the case on it's own? If they WERE still involved, does that mean an actual criminal case is pending? What happened?

As for Mr. Harrington's statement that it may have been investigational error that lost the case, I would ask whether that wouldn't negate past statements that SC's investigational techniques have improved dramatically.

BTW- If the defendant really was a pirate HD distributor, not only am I NOT happy about the outcome, but am also upset that the case was allowed to be presented in such a way that the court found it without merit. That's CERTAINLY doing more harm than good in regard to karaoke piracy ( track theft).

If the defendant was NOT guilty of any wrongdoing ( I have no way of knowing one way or the other) then I guess justice was served, no matter how it happened.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Hmmm, should we all get our own hard drive of music?

_________________
KingBing Entertainment C'mon Up! I have a song for you!!! [font=MS Sans Serif][/font]

Ok, so go after the sellers of the hard drives. There's the real slime!

_________________
KingBing Entertainment C'mon Up! I have a song for you!!! [font=MS Sans Serif][/font]

Not if all that music is in MP3 format.
You'll have to pry my discs from my cold dead fingers...

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

[quote="JoeChartreuse
If this WAS a case where the FBI was involved, where were they? Were they STILL involved at the time of presentation, or were they unable to substantiate the claims made by SC against the defendant and dropped out, leaving SC to present the case on it's own? If they WERE still involved, does that mean an actual criminal case is pending? What happened?.[/quote]

The FBI served warrants on Dan Stearns/Bill Bene who was a major seller of hard drives on Craigslist/EBay. This is not the same case. I don't know if the FBI was involved in this one.

I do want to be very clear that I do not believe that it was investigational error that led to summary judgment. The problem with the investigator I alluded to was that the investigator disappeared along with the evidence he had gathered. In any event, the investigation was completed long before I made that statement. Notwithstanding the problem, there was ample evidence upon which to go to trial.

As for the investigator disappearing with his gathered evidence....ah, you know what? Nevermind. It's self-explanatory.

In regard to having ample evidence to go to trial, it looks like you and the judge are in disagreement.


While it may be that you are in possession of evidence, but said said evidence was presented in an unclear manner to the court. However, at the end of the day it equates to the same thing.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I agree 100%. Since they are the source of pre-loaded HDs, this would make an actual dent in real piracy (track theft).

The thing is, I would have thought that they would be easier to find, gather solid evidence against, and charge legally as well as civilly. They list on public sites, pretty much advertise what they are doing, and even provide contact information.

Unfortunately, if the case against the Karaoke Kandy Store is an example of how it will be handled, I really don't see the light at the end of the tunnel.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Now that Chip is wringing his hands in glee, let's analyse what happened.

1. Just because this case was lost, doesn't mean all cases will be lost or there is something wrong in the law. This case was lost, not all cases.

2. This case started a few years ago (as stated by many on here) and probably one of the first, so it is logical that mistakes were made. This also happens in criminal courts when new laws/protocols are introduced. So not a big deal and that SC has improved the way they are doing things show they are learning.

3. Two of the three witnesses were ex-employees of the Defendant so there will be aspirgens of what/why they testified to. The third witness is described as a purposed expert (an expert on what isn't stated) but is not a private investigator otherwise they would be described as such.

4. The biggie here is what is known as the chain of evidence. Evidence has to relate back to the Original Complaint. The evidence given was ruled as vague and that the hard drive wasn't proven to come from the Defendant. This is not surprising as none of the three witnesses seem to have any training in reference to evidence.

5. What I mean by number 4 is that someone could see you standing above a body with a bloody knife in your hand but it doesn't mean you killed the person. However, as further evidence is gathered show you did do it (for example a diary written in your hand saying you were going to kill amongst other evidence) then a chain and relationship to the crime is established.

6. SC has learned and wil continue to learn what is required to win. They will win some and lose some. That is the nature of the beast.

Now this is a simplified analysis of the case as I see it.

So IMHO, this ruling though against SC is certainly not the nail in the coffin.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger