Karaoke Forums

And they will continue to run them.... Because they can simply create a backup drive that contains NO Sound Choice material and send the rest in. They have not been ordered that they cannot operate their business without other tracks and/or software.

Consider this. If Sound Choice has complete access to everything on their drives for 30 days, does Karaoke Miami run the risk of having Chartbuster follow up with another suit for the same infringements? Don't think for a minute that SC would not turn that evidence over to CB.

If Karaoke Miami has a large library of Zoom & Sunfly, it may be possible that Sound Choice can pursue on behalf of Zoom & Sunfly as well. Sound Choice had a press release in the July 2011 issue of the Northwest Karaoke Guide stating their talks with Zoom & Sunfly to perhaps represent them in the U.S. regarding piracy of Zoom & Sunfly products.

"Since investigators for Sound Choice discovered a growing level of Sunfly Karaoke, Zoom Entertainment and Mr. Entertainer songs being played, they are in discussions with these UK companies to represent their Intellectual Property interests in the U.S., with possible lawsuits for these brands in the future."

You can find the quote on page 13 of the July 2011 issue of the Northwest Karaoke Guide here:

http://www.themedallion.net/publicftp/2 ... 207-11.pdf

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

This is what you don't understand: They do not have "complete access" to anything on the hardware that is not theirs. They are restricted to removing their material only....

SC telling CB that there are tracks is hearsay (or illegally obtained) at the least and if they are legal tracks it would be useless.



Doesn't matter what the "discussions" were. It would be a bad decision for any of these companies to allow a foreign competitor to "represent them" in a court case....

Of course there is that pesky little matter of $750,000 and when they start confiscating property to pay it, it would probably put a little cramp in their style. In lawsuits I've seen homes, vehicles, equipment, etc, to cover. The number of times I've seen people say you can't take this or you can't kick me out of my home, etc is ridiculous. Not to mention credit problems.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Are you projecting your interpretation of Canadian law into the U.S. again? Really?

You really think SC will collect anything off this judgment?

I perfectly understand. I'm not saying that they can delete other brands. But they will have "complete access" to "the container" that holds the "counterfeit SC mark".

However, if SC representatives witness that CB, Zoom, Sunfly, etc files exist in digitized form on these seized devices, they can document it, through proper legal protocol, in sworn affidavits, thus eliminating the argument of hearsay. The only statement would be that "these other manu's digitized files were witnessed on the devices". Of course then, the other manu's would have to take action if they choose, but it would still be evidence of digitized material of these other manu's present on the devices.

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

Wall Of Sound wrote:

I perfectly understand. I'm not saying that they can delete other brands. But they will have "complete access" to "the container" that holds the "counterfeit SC mark".

However, if SC representatives witness that CB, Zoom, Sunfly, etc files exist in digitized form on these seized devices, they can document it, through proper legal protocol, in sworn affidavits, thus eliminating the argument of hearsay. The only statement would be that "these other manu's digitized files were witnessed on the devices". Of course then, the other manu's would have to take action if they choose, but it would still be evidence of digitized material of these other manu's present on the devices.

Doesn't matter. It's trademark remember? No violation unless displayed and witnessed. Nothing happens, thanks for playing.

It's still a collection of evidence.

These pirates are just going to have a really crappy life dealing with the worms released out of all this even if SC doesn't collect anything.

I'll bet a $7500 settlement along with a GEM collection sounds like a pretty good deal to these scumbags now!

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

I disagree. It's nothing.



Just mail me the check. I'm sure you already have my mailing address.

i don't know about the US but here if u are a registered corperation, then the separation of assests can make it really difficult to collect anything because i don't think someone can touch personal assets

With a judgement of this size "first in line" it's unlikely any other company would devote resources to sue for damages they would have to wait to collect. I'm guessing if they had assets to collect from they would have settled with a gem purchase. Some of people think that $8000 is something anyone could cough up to make a lawsuit go away, but for those who can't it might as well be $750,000 either way the money and assets do not exist.

At this point all they have to do is refrain from playing soundchoice tracks and they are back in business basically untouchable. Especially if the business is incorporated.

They could even hand soundchoice a flash drive with all of their soundchoice tracks on it for erasure and ersae their soundchoice tracks off the original drive without ever giving it up because there is probably not any evidence proving any specific drive that contains the tracks.

While this is a small moral victory for soundchoice it is effectively meaningless to anyone else because nothing changes for anyone else yet. This is a pirate that can stay in business as a pirate without concern for any worse consequences.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I have actually been to this company's shows. The last one I went to, he was no longer playing SoundChoice tracks to show on the screen at all. When I put in a song, I got MusicMaestro even though the book said CB.

What was odd was that for some of his regulars, he would turn off the screen visible to the audience and the music sounded a lot better.....

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

Yes, it's a step in the right direction, but once again, like drugs, go after the user while the pushers continues to sell the goods.
Not to mention we forget there's more to the planet, than our sparsley inhabited countries......China for one, would laugh at such a lawsuit, or any of our laws for that matter... can Harrington speak Chinese?.....

If the equipment is delivered to SC as per the court order, SC will definitely have "complete access" to all the data contained on that storage media. They will be in possession of the equipment and will be able to access any data (even deleted data) on that media.
It is well-known that erased data can be recovered from disk drives and other storage media.
So, if SC just erases their tracks, and returns the media to the Defendant, is it not possible that the Defendant can still recover those erased tracks?

SC telling CB there are CB tracks (or copies thereof) is not hearsay. It is SC stating a fact that they have directly witnessed or observed.

On the other hand, CB telling a Judge, Jury, or anybody else that SC told them there are CB tracks, is hearsay.

Just to be clear, the reference to destruction of "equipment" did NOT mean the destruction of the drives themselves, or anything else on them.
Read here:

They are only permitted to delete their own material and nothing else. If they wish to destroy the devices themselves or anything else on the drives, they will have to go back to court and get an order allowing them to do so.
If they don't, and go ahead and destroy other files or the drives themselves without first asking the court's permission, then Chip is quite correct that the owner of the drive(s) now has cause for legal recourse.
As for telling CB or another company what is on the drives, it may or may not be permissible. The judge may find that that goes too far.
And again, Chip is correct. The files sitting on the drive and not being used infringe on nothing. CB would still have to go and witness said files being used. It's really a moot point anyway, since the case is public record and CB et al , who probably are already aware of it, can easily make an educated guess that perhaps the company is infringing on their rights as well, go take a little trip to the show and gather their own evidence from there, which they would have to do in any case.

Yes

As cheap as drives are these days, who is to say how many back-ups are tucked away in the closet?

This is a no-win for the manus, as they will not be able to ensure complete deletion of suspect files..

(IMHO)

Or downloadable from torrent sites!

Horse-hockey Murray C. and you know it. I'm a programmer and I know full well that it is possible to "erase data" without trashing the whole drive and that the erased data will no longer be recoverable.... and I really don't care what recovery software you attempt to use.

Would I testify in court to that effect? In a heartbeat. Ask Mckyj57 or ExweedFarmer, or Tricerasoft if you want confirmation, because they are programmers too.