Karaoke Forums

After repeated attempts on appeals, playing a karaoke track off of the computer, desktop or laptop, CAVS machine or any other method that requires that you rip the disc, has been declared by the federal courts as not trademark infringement in the following states:

District 7:
Wisconsin
Illinois
Indiana
District 9:
Washington
Montana
Idaho
Oregon
Nevada
Arizona
California

While this has opened the door for great number of pirates and legal KJ's to play their tracks – without having to pay anyone a fee for the display of a trademark, it has also apparently simultaneously slammed the door on the current round trademark infringement lawsuits.

So with the elimination of this trademark infringement it appears that mediashifting as a concept is dead in the water.

The plaintiff promises to continue filing lawsuits with "service mark infringement" as the basis for these new suits.

Do you believe this will be a viable method in order to continue filing lawsuits against venues?

I think that getting your legal advice from a court videographer is about as advisable as getting your gall bladder taken out by a barber.

It's not "legal advice" genius... but it is factual. Sorry if you don't like it.

I think the truth sounds worse though:

and I believe getting legal advise from the plaintiff's attorney is just plain idiocy also!

you in no way are here to help us at all! your interpretation of the law favors your client, not use at all!

and chip is not giving advise he is just stating the precedence set forth by courts in different states.

_________________
It's all good!

I have never offered anyone legal advice on this forum at all, not once.

I have never suggested that anyone should follow my legal opinions as expressed in this forum, not once.

Can you say the same for Mr. Staley?

but you sure offer an opinion in favor of PEP/SoundChoice.

and chips opinion is his in favor of the people.

If your information and your interpretation of the law wasn't so one sided then I would not have an issue with your postings as so with chip.

Am I right chip? just asking.

_________________
It's all good!

ONE HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND ONE DOES NOT. VERY SIMPLE TO FIGURE OUT WHICH IS WHICH.

Wow! Why are you yelling?

Let me tell you something, young man... I have found Mr. Harrington to be an asset to this community. I have learned a lot from him. He has provided useful information, and I for one, appreciate his contribution.

You may not agree with him or with any of the people who post here for that matter. Hell, you may not even agree with me when I say you need to grow up and get a life.

_________________
Electro-Voice Evolve 50... Taking Sound To The Next Level.

Well, were you expecting some sort of objectivity from Mr. Harrington? Don't hold your breath because he works for Kurt.... as the "lead attorney" in every single one of hundreds of lawsuits against KJ's and venues. His job is to write contracts and sue people. If there's not enough contracts being signed, he gets fired.. If there's no venues to sue, he gets fired. You're really not going to get much objectivity here.
I find it interesting that while Mr. Harrington claims above that he has "never offered anyone legal advice on this forum" he's once again, using his practically patented "Linguistic Information Exchange Services" on you. The operative words are "on this forum" right? Well, sort of...

He's the victim (again) and I'm the "bad guy" again.... right? Just take a look at his signature
I'll point out the important parts.

1. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer.
Boy, I'll say he's not your lawyer... After hundreds of lawsuits over the years, I can't think of a single time that he's not been sitting directly across the table, in the plaintiff chair, suing a KJ or venue or both. Because that's his job.

3. If you have questions you'd like answered officially, you are welcome to email me at jim@phxep.com or send me a private message here.

Say what? I thought he just said he doesn't offer legal advice here?....
#3 looks a LOT like a standing offer (solicitation) to provide legal advice..sshh... quietly..... in private messages.... or on his private email. And using this forum to market that. (He is the "marketing vice-prez" right?)

I don't use the brand, I haven't used the brand in 6 years, he can't sue my venues or me, but I'm still the bad guy?....

Yeah, whatever...

BILLBOARDS are always done in ALL CAPS.....and I only wish that I was a young man.. I'm already a grown-up. I promise.

Jim has a dual conflict of interest not only is he the plaintiff's lawyer, he is also a partner in PEP, probably since Kurt could no longer afford to pay him. If he is still being paid then he is collecting twice. Twice the reason to give everyone information that is favoring his interests.

I try to offer an opinion that's well grounded in the law and the facts, but yes, you're right--I have a perspective.



Mr. Staley's opinion is in favor of his viewpoint. He is not with "the people," or against "the people," because this is not a matter of Phoenix vs. "the people." He is with people who want to use Sound Choice material without paying for it. He is very much against the people who think that you ought to pay for the material you use.

It is "my viewpoint" without an expectation of a second monetary gain. I don't make a dime expressing my viewpoint(s) so it doesn't matter to me one way or another whether anyone at all agrees with me or not.

A perfect example of how Harrington lies by simply telling you what my position is (in his mind). Obviously still angry every time he has to make a payment to a publisher on his copyright infringement settlement, because it was his firm that has been "using material without paying for it."

But he's partially right because he often tells his lies by omission like in the first sentence above... Let me demonstrate by completing the sentences the way they should be:


So you decide who has a monetary incentive when they express an opinion. Money is a powerful motivator.

Although I do try to be objective, I have never made a claim that my opinions are objective.



False. I am not the "lead attorney" in even most of our cases. I am currently the lead attorney in three active cases.



Those are two aspects of my job.



. No.



Also . Also no.



No, the operative words are "never offered anyone legal advice on this forum." I do offer legal advice to clients. I was hired by someone on this board once to consult on a legal matter that has nothing to do with SC, but we did our business offline.



Let's get something straight. I am not your victim. In fact, you've done more to help Phoenix's cause than any other single poster on this board (excluding me, of course). Your victims are the people who rely on your half-baked, uninformed "legal advice."



So you're saying that my reminder that I am not the lawyer of anyone on this board is accurate? Good to know. (Also, see my comment above about "lead attorney.")

I guess #2 wasn't important.



Turns out #2 was important after all. "2. I am an officer of Phoenix Entertainment Partners, but my opinions on matters not involving Phoenix's business are my own and may not reflect the opinions of the company."

Context matters. The opinions I express on here, other than those relating to Phoenix's business, are my own. But what about people who have questions about Phoenix's policies, products, etc.? #3 is specifically designed to tell people how they can have their questions answered officially by Phoenix.



Only if you don't understand what "legal advice" means. Since you evidently don't, I'll clarify.

If you need the opinion of counsel about a course of action you are taking or are planning to take, specifically about your legal rights, about the potential consequences of such an action, about the state of the law, about whether it is advisable to take such an action, or about how to structure your actions to reduce or eliminate your exposure to liability for that action, you should hire your own attorney. By "attorney," I don't mean "your friend who was in court that one time," or "that guy who videotapes depositions," or "that guy who talks a lot on the internet and says things I like to hear." I mean someone who's been to law school and passed the bar--and, hopefully, who's been practicing for long enough to provide you practical advice.

If you want information about how Phoenix views a particular course of action, so that you can know how we'll react to that course of action, then you can ask me directly. The information I provide has nothing to do with any of the things I described in the previous paragraph. It may include information about my legal opinion (clearly identified by the words "in our opinion" or "in my opinion") but you should not assume that my opinion is how a court will view the question should we get into litigation later. It is simply information about how we view things, so that you (and your attorney) can use to figure out the best course of action for you by taking our probable reaction into account.

The third item in my signature is not a solicitation to offer you legal advice.



What makes you the "bad guy" isn't any of those things. (How many times do I have to say it before you'll believe that you are doing exactly what we want when you do those things? If you can't abide by our terms, we'd prefer that you not use the product at all.) What makes you the "bad guy" is that so much of what you post is based on premises—and in fact literal guesses—to which you have staked your reputation, that simply aren't so. Based on those premises, you encourage piracy, which hurts legal operators, and you give people bad advice that leads them into more trouble.

I am not a partner in Phoenix.

Two things:

(1) I note that you did not object to my statement that "this is not a matter of Phoenix vs. 'the people.'"
(2) It may not matter to you whether anyone agrees with you or not. I applaud your self-confidence. The problem is that when you offer "your viewpoint" to other people, even though you may not expect any monetary gain, you fail to take into account that following your viewpoint may have terrible consequences for people. Based on what I've seen, I'm not surprised that you would be utterly unconcerned about that, but it is not really a point of pride, in my view.



OK.



We don't ask people to pay for anything twice (unless, of course, they lose what they paid for the first time, and want to have it back, or if they want multiple copies).

When you bought all those discs you claim to own--hey, how about you go to wherever you have those discs stored, and pull out one at random, and read what it says on the front, just so you know I'm not lying?--they said, in every instance, don't copy this without permission. (A paraphrase, of course, but we're engaged in "plain talk" here.) That was the deal.

Lots of people wanted a new deal. They said, "We want to copy these discs we own." Eventually, we said, "Hey, we're going to let you do that, but we have this terrible problem with piracy, so here's what we can offer you: If you'll let us take a look at your discs and your hard drive to verify that you're not a pirate, and meet a few other conditions, we'll let you do it. The thing is, it's really expensive for us to do that, so, since you're the one who wants to alter the deal, we'd like you to chip in on that cost."

Most people who have discs think that's a pretty fair compromise. Even so, we don't always charge for it. If you want to get certified but can't afford the fee, we'll usually waive part or all of it. We also don't charge defendants for voluntary audits after a lawsuit is filed.

But let's be very clear: We don't charge a fee to make people pay twice for their music. We charge a fee to cover the cost of the extra services associated with getting our permission to do something the disc owner agreed not to do in the first place. If you don't like that, you are welcome to use your original discs all you like.

Interestingly enough, aren't you that same "attorney" that has been accusing me of instigating the EMI lawsuit against your firm?... The same lawsuit that concluded with a hefty settlement for you to pay??? If I take your word as the truth, then it's looking like the advice of "that guy who videotapes depositions" was pretty spot on....
Ah, but that was then and this is now... The 7th and 9th districts have made the entire media shifting concept of yours a dead horse. There is no trademark infringement and that issue is settled completely in these districts and you (being the wise attorney that you claim to be) know for a fact that districts usually follow districts. Even your threat of continued lawsuits on service mark infringement are already on shaky ground.... says the guy who videotapes depositions.

I don't "encourage piracy" at all and now you're lying again. If my so-called "advice" (if that's what you want to call my opinions) have been so horribly bad... you should be thanking me instead because "more trouble" translates to "more money"... for you. You should be sending me birthday wishes and holiday cards instead of whining like a beaten puppy.

But you don't. You constantly paint me as the bad guy because I disagree with your (admitted) swayed "perspective" and apparently, my opinions ("the guy who videotapes depositions") have cost you a lot of dollars.

A whole lot of dollars...

The rulings by the 7th and 9th districts effectively killing your entire media shifting/trademark infringement premise as a legal strategy has cost you even more.

Aren't your fees based on what you recover, like all the other lawyers you subcontract to? If that is the case you have an interest in what is recovered, that makes you a partner in my book. Seems like I remember on one of these posts you were listed as having a piece of the overall venture.

As you know, the terms of our settlement do not permit me to correct your misinformation.



*sigh*

One of the big mistakes that people often make is in assuming that other people are just like them. For example, people who cheat on their taxes are disproportionately likely to believe that cheating on taxes is widespread. People who engage in extramarital affairs are more likely to believe that other people do so as well.

You assume that I'm primarily, if not solely, motivated by money. I have no idea whether you are, generally speaking. But I'm really not interested in making a lot of money. I live in a modest house; I drive a 12-year-old car; I don't use credit cards. I'm pretty happy with my life because I work to live, not the other way around. (Don't get me wrong--I work a lot of hours because I enjoy the work I do, not because it translates into more money, because it doesn't necessarily.)

I recognize that you need to believe that I am greedy in the way you describe, because, in your view, I'm an evil person. I will leave it to other people to judge whether I am evil or not, but, all things considered, I would much rather you stopped giving out the bad advice that's hurt a lot of defendants. I am not looking to put anyone in the poorhouse. I would much rather people do the right thing up front than to bet it all on a half-baked theory from somebody whose motivations are primarily to destroy the Sound Choice brand, rather than to do what's in their interests.



I paint you as the guy who would rather cause damage than do what's right.

Let me ask you a question, and please give me an honest answer:

You seem to be casting yourself these days as a defender of people who own SC discs in 1:1 correspondence. (Why you're animated by that I have no idea, given that we've sued fewer than 10 such people out of more than 1500 and dismissed all of them. But no matter.) If we made the certifications process 100% free to disc owners, and thereby made it so that no disc owner had to "pay twice to use the material they bought," would you otherwise endorse our efforts to stop piracy through litigation?

Nor does it allow you to confirm it either.. that works both ways... But your "gilding the lily" by characterizing it as "misinformation" is just more smoke because you aren't allowed to even hint one way or another... But that's not gonna stop you is it?...

And those that claim 90% of KJ's are infringers of some sort are what????? (Yeah, I thought so.)

Here's where you put words in my mouth (again) and it's a very unbecoming habit of yours counselor that I wish you had the ability to control but your desperate need to shore up your credibility prevents you.
I don't believe you're an "evil" person and I don't know if you're a "greedy" person, but you are certainly employed by one who apparently is. And for a number of years, you've immersed yourself in dealings which can only be characterized as "unsavory" to say the least. It's your choice to work there, you're not an indentured worker are you?

I don't believe you are at all entirely honest with the members of this forum as evidenced by the information you share which doesn't make sense. I'm sure you're wondering what that could possibly be.

And no, you really don't want to put anyone in the poorhouse, because that would end your chances at trickling money out of them for a long time with a contract. A parasite that kills the host entirely is a pretty stupid parasite, while the ones that attach to their victim and just take a little for a long time are far more successful.

Once again, you accuse me of giving bad advice that "hurts defendants" but you show no examples, and if it "hurts" them then it must be "helping" you. So it's just more crocodile tears....

I haven't "damaged" anything. I'm not the one that been suing KJ's or their venues remember? I'm not the one that's been sued by publishers for willful infringement - repeatedly. That's all you pal. You've caused more "damage" to this industry by demanding to milk as much as you can from a catalog that was already sold off in its entirety to Stingray.

You're idea of "doing what's right" is signing a contract with you at the front door, while you license piracy with a convenient monthly payment with your "help license" out the back door. So you tell me who's "doing what's right" 'cause I really don't think it's you.

Not a chance.

There nothing that you do that doesn't require a one-sided contract in your favor. Nothing. I believe your company has been underhanded, unethical and dishonest for years. I don't believe you were honest with your explanation of how PEP came into being because corporations restructure themselves all the time. They only "take assets" from themselves to give to themselves when they can leave "liabilities behind" and you are fully aware of that. Chartbuster was a prime example so whatever assets Kurt gutted from Slep-Tone simply means that he abandoned some liabilities along way. And that usually means that someone, got screwed in the process. You know this is a form of "corporate bankruptcy" where you don't have to pay creditors but you get to keep all your stuff.

So no, I wouldn't support your "100% free Audit-with-a-contract" offer because it's not an honest or even close to an equitable offer. There's no benefit for any KJ that signs one.

Besides, using a computer and media shifting isn't infringement according to the U.S. Federal courts.

Go Fish.