Karaoke Forums

This is the single biggest issue I have with the SC process. The penalties are not high enough to be a deterent at all. Even the settlement "penalties" are hardly a penalty. A financed GEM series and stay in business. Total slap in the face of those that have been there for years and those trying to establish themselves legally.

Had Sound Choice done things differently from the start, or show any indication that they are re-visiting how they will do things in the future, I would consider buying GEM's or even Foundation/Bricks directly from them for additional rigs. This would put money directly into their coffers. Until them, I am content to just buy discs on the secondary market.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Exactly. We are all business owners, just like Kurt Slep. If someone ransacked your truck/van while you were doing a show and was later caught...would you just shrug and let them go?

Or would you want restitution?

We are working on getting the standard judgment raised to about $44,000 per system--after the judge in a couple of cases entered judgment for $10,000 only, we had an evidentiary hearing last month in the Middle District of Florida on this issue, and the judge has indicated that he will grant our motion (for technical reasons, we have to go through one more hearing, but no new evidence will be presented). We are also reducing the number of GEM tracks provided in the settlement while raising the price of settlement, and we are requiring that settling defendants destroy ALL pirated tracks in their possession, not just SC, as a condition of settlement. New lawsuits have that relief stated as part of the claim.

We believe the appeals court in the Panama City case will either adjust the damage award of its own accord or remand it to the district judge with instructions, but regardless, we have adjusted the way we pursue these cases to prevent this from happening again. Future defendants should not expect to get off as lightly.

And if your defendants can't afford $44,000 and have no way to pay it, since they may be out of work, now, what are you going to do?? It's disgusting. $44,000 is RIDICULOUS greed. How much do YOU get out of that, James?? How rich are YOU getting off the backs of these people? I have NEVER had any respect for people who go around suing other people as a way to make a living. I have known people like that, and Kurt is NO better than any of them. If he wants to make a living tell him to go back to producing something for it.

Sorry, I just hate this kind of stuff. Kurt Slep is becoming no better than the pirates, he's just doing his theft through the court system!!

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

It seems to me that the reason there were no profits awarded is because you did not offer a reasonable means of calculating the profits gained from displaying a soundchoice trademark.

By asking for all of the profits the bar earned during their hours of karaoke based on a percentage of total profits from all open hours of the bar, you were gambling that the judge would buy into the idea that the bar would have no profit during those hours without the display of a soundchoice logo.

Your argument was that people come running from miles around just so they can see a soundchoice logo on a big screen, and that the sight of a soundchoice logo on the screen would entice them into drinking. And of course, the more they see that logo, the more they drink. If you were to win that argument, and the judge agreed that the soundchoice logo had that kind of power, I would expect that to open soundchoice to litigation from those injured by someone driving home after viewing the soundchoice logo too long. In fact any venue or other person who had encountered a liability during an evening when a soundchoice logo had been displayed, would have an action against soundchoice because the soundchoice discs do not have labels warning of the great power and possible devastating effects that come from displaying and viewing the logo.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

smooth, give it up. Your argument is irrational and has no basis in fact or reality. Everything we do has consequences. If you steal, if you do wrong AND you get caught then you have to pay the piper. It's irrelevant whether you have the capacity to to pay or whether you're working or whatever.

Guy walks into a 7-11 and pulls a gun. He robs the place and gets caught. Do they ask "are you working?" "can you pay the court costs?" etc. Theft is theft and there are consequences to theft. The consequences aren't what YOU think they should be, there are rules of law and procedures already long in place to deal with these things.

Be truthful, people who run Karaoke shows know that someone bought discs-that's where the tracks came from. They buy a hard drive or someone gives them thousands of songs for free-it doesn't matter.

In order for Karaoke tracks to be made it takes a studio, musicians, clerical people a building etc. etc. It's a for profit business and they want to make money, just like you do. This is all basic stuff and it's ridiculous to argue about it anymore. Face reality. Buy the discs or get sued, simple as that. It ain't rocket surgery.

Greed? You need to consider the quantity of discs some of the pirates have and the cost to aquire them at retail prices when they were produced. Add to that a penalty for having done it in the first place and $44k is still getting off cheap but much more inline with what I would consider "fair" to those of us taking the high road from the get go.

Besides, why in the world are you complaining about how much a pirate has to pay when they get busted?

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

The problem with your theory--and with the judge's, frankly--is that the statute is explicit on the point: Our responsibility is to prove their sales of goods and services sold or offered for sale in connection with the infringing activity. The burden is on the defendant to prove all elements of cost or deduction claimed. If there is to be a deduction for some "baseline" profit they would have earned without karaoke--assuming that they could substantiate that in a non-speculative way--then the burden is on them to prove it. They did not offer a single shred of evidence as to ANY costs or deductions. The numbers we provided were THEIR numbers--the only things we did were to correct an obvious math error and to extrapolate a figure for the first half of 2012 based on the 5-year average.



No. It is not the display of the logo by itself; it is the display of the logo and use of the product to promote the sale of other goods. That is the way the defendants chose to make sales--give away the karaoke for free and sell the alcohol, just as the sell they alcohol and give away the mixers.

EDIT: I didn't make this clear before. 15 USC § 1114(1) provides as follows:

Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant—

(a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or

(b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or colorably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive,

shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter provided.

The bold parts are critical. First, you must have use in commerce of the infringing mark. Second, the use must be in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of ANY goods or services. The mark need not be attached to the goods. The mark need not even be the drawing point for the sale. What is important is that goods or services are being sold, offered, or distributed and that the mark is being used in connection with the sale, offer, or distribution of those goods.

It is fine for you to disagree that that is what the law should be. Regardless of your disagreement, that is what the law is.

That's a load of crap and you know it Harrington!.....

PROVE TO ME that they made ANY sales THAT TIED THEIR SALES TO YOUR LOGO anyway you think you can. [You think they had a "sound choice shot special?"]

You are the one with the SCDS (sound choice derangement syndrome) now. You think people go to these establishments to sing "Sound Choice Karaoke" and not just to "sing at a karaoke place?"

I'll bet you that more people come to my establishment because of the HOST and NOT the "brand of disc" you hold so precious. My clients (the clubs) haven't lost a DIME since I dropped that nasty brand.

HarringtonLaw,

How about you fight the case that would make everyone happy and put things right. Go straight to the U.S. Attorneys General office and file an unfair trade & anti-trust case against the American music publishers so that people like Kurt can simply give the KJs what they want, legal downloads. They have them in Europe and they're laughing at us for our outdated system. I think it would be more than a good case to say that the Music Publishers have colluded to prevent that here, and thereby making it impossible for Amercian karaoke makers to compete. Kurt would get millions in settlement (and not a bad fee for you either), he'd have enough to rebuild and start making music again, and possibly save his reputation. It's a win-win situation.

...or do they have you in their pocket as well?

You guys want to debate technicalities. The crux of the matter is that their product was stolen. The legal system isn't allowing them to sue based on that. So they have to sue in a circuitous manner, it's dumb. They should be able to go into court and say "your honor, we produce a product that has been stolen by this defendant" it shouldn't have to be how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Chip, why don't you tone down your anger and animosity? You haven't been back very long and your posts are as strident and shrill as they were before. How about showing at least some modicum of restraint before you get tossed out of here again and for good? It makes you look like an angry little man. If you have a valid argument then show that you are an adult and can argue your point without attacking like a rabid dog and going off the deep end on every post. If you get booted again you won't be here to give your side of the debate.

Am I just supposed to fall in line with you and how you think, Chris? REALLY? I just don't like people who make their living off suing other people. Sound Choice hasn't made a new disc in YEARS. By rights they SHOULD be out of business. They have stayed alive by suing people. To me, it's not a very honorable business practice. To me it makes them no different then those who run around suing everyone they can for anything they can. I have known people like that. You know the kind, the ones that will "fall" at a supermarket and sue the owners.

Whatever. We will NEVER agree on this issue. Putting pirates out of business, and getting rich off of them is two different things. You want to get rich, offer a good or a service, don't just sue people. It was mentioned in another thread about Inspectors letting people know they are watching as being a deterrent to piracy. I could see that working, and it would be a good way to weed out the bad guys. If you get caught using SC trademarks in an improper way a second time, you get sued. That would be the PROPER way to go about cleaning things up. Then SC could say that they are trying to stop piracy, and that they are in the business of helping KJs get a fair shake, and have some credibility. Kurt has said it himself, at the summit that litigation is a sales tool. That is a sleazy move. I'm sorry if, in your hatred for pirates you don't agree with me. You look at it from the point of view as somebody with a vendetta against Karaoke pirates. I am looking at it objectively, seeing the owner of SC duping you all into believing he's doing this for you. He's NOT. He's filling his pockets with money and hasn't made a product in 4 or 5 years. It's just a shame you can't see it.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Smooth, just because the Defendant doesn't have the money now doesn't mean he or she will never have the money. Awards in lawsuits do not go away if there is a bankruptcy. The Complainant can further have the wages of a Defendant garnisheed. If a Defendant wins the lottery or gets an inheritance, the Complainant can go after those too. Remember, in a Civil suit a judge can award punitive damages to the Complainant.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

The defendant can also go into hiding, work off the books, and never have "on the books" income again. Then he could die of a heart attack at the age of 90, never having paid his judgement.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Harper Lee wrote exactly one published novel. Does that mean that she shouldn't get continuing royalties from To Kill a Mockingbird, or that people who make unauthorized copies of that book shouldn't be sued?

Of course she should get royalties, but she doesn't have inspectors going to everyone's house looking for people to sue.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Is this a cross between rocket science and brain surgery?

_________________
Music speaks to the heart in ways words cannot express.

Smooth - You didn't answer my question -

Besides, why in the world are you complaining about how much a pirate has to pay when they get busted?

My question has nothing to do with the business practices of Sound Choice. It has to do with the penalties of making bad choices as a karaoke host.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Smooth, you can whine all you want. SC IS IN BUSINESS, whether you or anyone else likes it or not.

Civil law allows for awards to be made for not only actual damages but for PUNITIVE damages also. This is just not in the good old US of A, but in pretty well all democracies.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I did answer your question. I don't have a vendetta against pirates, as you and many others do. Yes, they should be out of business, but SC shouldn't be getting rich off of them. That makes them no better than the pirates. The only difference is that they are using the court system to do it. Harrington talks about upping the penalties to $44,000, well what if said pirates didn't make that much? Why should Kurt be entitled to that much from the pirate? Chris, as long as you have this deep hatred for the pirates you won't see where I am coming from. Your anger has allowed you to just accept what SC is doing. They have fully duped you into believing that they are doing this to help you. They aren't. They are doing this to get rich.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE