Karaoke Forums

What a strange judgement.
http://www.pdf-archive.com/2012/07/18/p ... dgment.pdf

The guy with no discs wins and gets off completely.
The guys with some discs lose and are only ordered to pay the cost of the missing discs.

This case was botched by both sides from beginning to end.

Not much to brag about for either side, however, many of Soundchoice's arguments held up.

Which indicates that the pirate with no discs would not have gotten off free except for Soundchoice's incompetence during investigation, discovery, and at trial.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

would be interesting to know who handled that case

Not really sure if this would be considered a win or not

Thought this was interesting:

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

Hitek, that was only part of it, the other part is just as interesting and important:

"The Defendants are now on notice That their use is subject to Plaintiff's scrutinyand are cautioned that their future actions must comply with applicable trademark laws."

In other words, if the Defendants continue their using the songs without correcting the problem, then they cannot claim the media shifting policy is not ill-defined for them now.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I handled it personally.

I will have more to say about it in the future at the appropriate time, perhaps as a formal statement, but for now just a couple of comments that I think articulate where we stand on this.

We are certainly disappointed with the damage award and the lack of a permanent injunction. We will appeal that portion of the judgment to the Eleventh Circuit. That being said, however, the final order effectively acts as an injunction by explicitly putting the defendants on notice not to do this again.

Irrespective of the damage award itself, Judge Smoak's opinion fully validates the position we have taken in this litigation project from day one:

1. That the use of karaoke tracks to put on karaoke shows at commercial venues is "use in commerce" within the meaning of the Lanham Act.

2. That the use of ANY copies of SC's tracks to put on those shows without SC's permission, whether or not 1:1, is a trademark infringement AND unfair competition AND actionable under many state-law unfair competition or deceptive trade practices statutes.

3. That multi-rigging from a single set of discs is a trademark infringement.

KJs who are 1:1 but who have been waiting to obtain an audit and certification based upon the lack of a court having validated our position would be well advised to do so on a short timetable.

Get ready for a whole new set of rules.....

IMHO the best "policy" is to simply dump the brand entirely.

It's Free....

It's immediate.

No Sound Choice is the new "sound choice." ---- Chip Staley

Yeah, that is probably the only thing left that you can argue regarding all this.

Not quite, there's still plenty to argue about. Especially since after all this time and zillion lawsuits, the judge still finds holes in their case....

But I've dropped the brand and there's nothing to worry about much less bother arguing about.

I also find it interesting how this seemingly liquid media shifting issue became a point of concern and cause for action in or about 2007--a point after which a product that has a limited useable shelf life is no longer in production.

The statement does NOT clear up the "ill defined" media shifting issue--the judge's statement merely informs the defendant that he is not released from possible liability if he continues to operate that way, and if future consideration is given to the issue. Typical "pass the buck" stuff that goes on in situations where precedent has not been set...

and yet the only damages found were the discs that the defendant did not own, the ones they did own caused no damages.
that whole document made my head spin.

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

Why should there be more damages? Just because some people want there to be more (and perhaps a person that needs there to be more) doesn't mean you can just invent more...

i agree. i was merely pointing that out.

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

In this particular case if the defendant would have had all his discs there wouldn't have been anything to base damages on?

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

Why did this guy even have to go to trial? I'm sure that he had his discs at discovery, or is it that he wanted to press the issue and he almost won the media (trademark/dress) shifting that SC is really going after?

Looks like the Judge chickened out a little when he said he would not rule on the shifting part when will we ever get a ruling on it?

_________________
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

The simple answer to your question is, because the statute says that the damages are to be the actual losses (i.e., lost disc sales) PLUS the infringer's profits.

Which is GREED on the part of SC to expect the money they made. I understand paying for what was taken, and legal fees, but anything above that is just sleazy greed on the part of Slep-Tone. Two wrongs don't make a right. Kurt doesn't want HIS profits taken by thieves why should he take someone else's profits? Typical sleazy businessman. I am glad the judge ruled as he did. If Kurt wants to make profit let him go back to producing something instead of being greedy and using the court system to do it.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

You should take it up with Congress. They are the ones who established the formula for damages in a trademark infringement action.

Typical lawyer. "don't blame me for the rules of the fight, as long as I make money from promoting the fight."

God forbid you actually have an independent thought outside of what is written in black and white. Of course, that would require a conscience, ...and legend has it that your head might actually explode, so be careful.

Damages in a civil case are like jail time and fines in a criminal case-damages are punishment for doing something wrong and compensation to the damaged party. smoothedge, you're off base here, you have your opinion, but it has nothing to do with reality. Whether you like Sound Choice or not, or agree with how they're doing things, the fact remains that their product was stolen on a wide scale and they are trying to recoup their losses.

If people got Sound Choice music by buying it instead of by just taking it, we wouldn't be seeing all the lawsuits. If YOU were the one who's property was stolen you would be screaming bloody murder. So I don't understand all the outrage against SC. They should have started sueing people a long time ago.

Stogie jus beat me to the post as I was typing the same thing. If all anyone has to do is pay for the discs if they get caught than why not just play the odds and see how long you can profit off the copies before you have to pay for the real thing? There need to be extra penalties to deter future offenses. If you rob a bank, you don't get out of jail time just by giving the money back.