|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
Author |
Message |
PyleDriver
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:45 pm |
|
|
Advanced Poster |
|
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 12:35 am Posts: 361 Location: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas Been Liked: 8 times
|
Well Joe, per my coversation today, CB has there own contracted firm doing investigations now. They call them their Tiger Squad. Won't name the firm, must mean they don't have one, right Chip?...
Jon
|
|
Top |
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:01 am |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm Posts: 5046 Been Liked: 334 times
|
PyleDriver, there is a misunderstanding. If you say there is a "Tiger Squad", I believe that is what they told you.
What I posted was that they will not be taking any legal action ( except for possible spurious suits like SC, if and when they do) for a couple of years. In other words, they may well start doing what SC is ( strong-arming money out of KJs), especially if it turns out their company is in the same boat as SC's, if they need money. However, you won't see them in court anytime soon. The difference is that SC's case seems to be baseless ( which is why I believe we haven't seen them in court), whereas if CB starts similar proceedings, they have yet to announce on what they will be based.
If they ARE in the same boat as SC, then they too will no longer have to worry about maintaining a customer base, so anything can happen.
_________________ "No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
Top |
|
|
PyleDriver
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:17 am |
|
|
Advanced Poster |
|
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 12:35 am Posts: 361 Location: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas Been Liked: 8 times
|
Joe, there not waiting for 2 years or 2 days. Their active now. I think they intend to run there stings with more finesse than SC. They don't plan on waiting until their sales drop to zero. From what I heard there planning on using the State and Federal entities more. I didn't get a heads up on just how...
Jon
|
|
Top |
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:34 am |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm Posts: 5046 Been Liked: 334 times
|
PyleDriver wrote: Joe, there not waiting for 2 years or 2 days. Their active now. I think they intend to run there stings with more finesse than SC. They don't plan on waiting until their sales drop to zero. From what I heard there planning on using the State and Federal entities more. I didn't get a heads up on just how...
Jon Jon, allow me to clarify. They will not be showing up in court against KJs in the near future, due to issues of their own. This is not to say that they won't: 1) Attempt to do what SC has been doing- hey, SC hasn't proven a case in court either, yet keeps collecting money from the uneducated or easily intimidated. I'm not saying CB WILL do this, only that they may.. If it works, it works. 2) They may certainly pursue criminal, as opposed to civil, suits against HD and other pirate distributors with the help of government agencies. I only hope that they do!
_________________ "No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
Top |
|
|
PyleDriver
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:46 am |
|
|
Advanced Poster |
|
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 12:35 am Posts: 361 Location: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas Been Liked: 8 times
|
Not very clear at all Joe. What are their other issues you speak about?...
Jon
|
|
Top |
|
|
Paradigm Karaoke
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:27 am |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm Posts: 5107 Location: Phoenix Az Been Liked: 1279 times
|
imho, CB will be more careful based on the backlash against SC. they have been watching what is happening, and if they are smart, taking notes of what went right and what went wrong. my hope is that they will be more worried about the multirigging 30,000+ libraries that are more prone to be actually stealing the material and costing them and the industry money and less on the 10,000 libraries that are more likely to be media shifters not costing anybody money.
stick with the big ones that are costing money and leave the small fish alone for now.
_________________ Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens
|
|
Top |
|
|
Bazza
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:32 am |
|
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:00 am Posts: 3312 Images: 0 Been Liked: 610 times
|
JoeChartreuse wrote: Jon, allow me to clarify. They will not be showing up in court against KJs in the near future, due to issues of their own. Joe, how do you know this? Or are you guessing? Please clarify as the tone of your posts insinuates this as fact.
|
|
Top |
|
|
Lone Wolf
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:03 am |
|
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 10:11 am Posts: 1832 Location: TX Been Liked: 59 times
|
I don't think that CB will let the pirates slide by like SC does.
I think that they will nail them to the wall with big settlements (even if they never collect) they can force said pirates to hand over their equipment and put liens on everything they own or will ever own until the debt is paid.
I know they had a couple of suits in TN but have never heard the outcome of them.
Seems there can be lots of stuff found out about SC but no one ever posts about the CB suits!
_________________ 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
|
|
Top |
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:41 am |
|
|
Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am Posts: 4839 Location: In your head rent-free Been Liked: 582 times
|
PyleDriver wrote: Well Joe, per my coversation today, CB has there own contracted firm doing investigations now. They call them their Tiger Squad. Won't name the firm, must mean they don't have one, right Chip?...
Jon And again, you're going to believe them as though it is fact just because "they told you so?" How about waiting until they actually do something with the alleged "Tiger Squad" before confirming anything? (Tiger Squad is also the name of the local high school's cheerleading team.... how ironically appropriate is that?)
|
|
Top |
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:34 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm Posts: 5046 Been Liked: 334 times
|
Bazza wrote: JoeChartreuse wrote: Jon, allow me to clarify. They will not be showing up in court against KJs in the near future, due to issues of their own. Joe, how do you know this? Or are you guessing? Please clarify as the tone of your posts insinuates this as fact. Please allow me to re-phrase my statement as my opinion only, though I believe it to be fact. There are things that don't belong on a public forum. Tell you what- if CB goes into court for a full trial against a KJ based on TM Infringement in the next year or 2, I will rescind my statement and eat crow. Best I can do.
_________________ "No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
Top |
|
|
timberlea
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:47 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:41 pm Posts: 4094 Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada Been Liked: 309 times
|
Joe, why are you forgetting the Discovery process. As Mr Harrington and others have pointed out several times, it will be at this point where the library will be examined. It will not be examined in a court room. If the library is legit, as again pointed out by Mr Harrington, the suit is withdrawn. If it is not, the chances of the Defendant deciding to fight it in court is nil and none.
BTW "Tiger Squad" is no sillier than some of the names of operations conducted by various governments or private enterprises (Hollywood comes to mind, George Lucas anyone?).
_________________ You can be strange but not a stranger
|
|
Top |
|
|
jdmeister
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:03 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 4:12 pm Posts: 7705 Songs: 1 Location: Hollyweird, Ca. Been Liked: 1089 times
|
timberlea wrote: Joe, why are you forgetting the Discovery process. As Mr Harrington and others have pointed out several times, it will be at this point where the library will be examined. It will not be examined in a court room. If the library is legit, as again pointed out by Mr Harrington, the suit is withdrawn. If it is not, the chances of the Defendant deciding to fight it in court is nil and none.
BTW "Tiger Squad" is no sillier than some of the names of operations conducted by various governments or private enterprises (Hollywood comes to mind, George Lucas anyone?). That name seems to be taken.. Perhaps someone will get sued? Attachment:
kalendar2.jpg [ 156.91 KiB | Viewed 18422 times ]
|
|
Top |
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:03 pm |
|
|
Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am Posts: 4839 Location: In your head rent-free Been Liked: 582 times
|
timberlea wrote: If the library is legit, as again pointed out by Mr Harrington, the suit is withdrawn. If it is not, the chances of the Defendant deciding to fight it in court is nil and none. Don't bet on it. In the United States, (Canada may be different), if a KJ is represented in court by an attorney, that KJ must stipulate (agree) to allow them to voluntarily dismiss them. If they don't, the case continues.... and most likely not in a "good way" for the plaintiff. And it is at this point that the KJ would also most likely file for sanctions, attorney fees, etc. The proverbial shoe appears on the other foot... There is a risk that the plaintiff would have "hooked" a fish that refused to let go.....
|
|
Top |
|
|
Cueball
|
Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2013 7:35 am |
|
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:55 pm Posts: 4433 Location: New York City Been Liked: 757 times
|
Since the following quote from HL was just brought up in a topic thread about Bar Venues.... HarringtonLaw wrote: Actually, our process is as follows:
1) We investigate an operator and make a determination that he is committing infringement. 2) We sue that operator and serve the lawsuit on him. We also provide a letter that outlines settlement options and provides the operator with the opportunity to prove 1:1 correspondence and be certified and dropped from the suit. 3) If the operator does not do so, we write letters to the venues that operator is servicing, informing them of the lawsuit and telling them of our intention to hold them accountable if they continue to allow the operator to infringe on their premises. 4) If the venue drops the operator, that ends the question as far as the venue is concerned--for the time being. 5) If the venue continues to use the operator, we will sue them or add them to the operator's suit. 6) If a venue drops the operator but adds another pirate, they would probably draw a lawsuit without further warning.
HarringtonLaw wrote: ...The only difference is that when a venue isn't doing it directly--they are merely providing the place and deriving a financial benefit from it--then they have to be on some sort of notice that it's occurring. Once that notice is given, they have an obligation to stop it from occurring, or they will be subject to the same penalties as the direct infringer.
We don't have to prove to the venue that it's occurring. We have to notify them that we believe it's occurring...
..."Ignoring it" = "allowing it to continue to occur after having been notified that it is occurring"
And under those circumstances, yes, that notice puts the burden on the venue to investigate and prevent infringement. If they want to run the risk of a suit, so be it. And what if the KJ you are suing is just a "Trademark Infringer" but not a Pirate? What happens if the KJ who is sued is using a computerized setup that contains SC material, and he/she never had SC's (prior) permission to use it in that format (of which he/she owns the originals), and this KJ decides not to pay for an audit and removes all SC material from his/her hard drive instead? Haven't you (Mr. Harrington) stated several times, that if the KJ chooses to remove SC material from said hard drive, and only use SC in disc format, that it is OK? Since you have stated SC notifies the venue that, HarringtonLaw wrote: If the venue continues to use the operator, we will sue them or add them to the operator's suit.
does SC then follow up and notify the venue that they (SC) have become aware of the fact that the KJ in question is no longer a person of interest, and that they (the venue) can continue to use that KJ with no fear of repercussions? Or, is that KJ now S.O.O.L., because he/she has already been fired by the venue before having a chance to resolve their case with SC? After all, you posted HarringtonLaw wrote: that notice puts the burden on the venue to investigate and prevent infringement. If they want to run the risk of a suit, so be it. The venue could decide that it would be easier to just fire the current KJ because they might feel any sort of investigation is too complicated for them. If the venue has already fired said KJ, it is highly unlikely that they will rehire him/her. They probably would say that "you're more trouble than it's worth."
|
|
Top |
|
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:25 am |
|
|
Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am Posts: 3011 Been Liked: 1003 times
|
cueball wrote: And what if the KJ you are suing is just a "Trademark Infringer" but not a Pirate? What happens if the KJ who is sued is using a computerized setup that contains SC material, and he/she never had SC's (prior) permission to use it in that format (of which he/she owns the originals), and this KJ decides not to pay for an audit and removes all SC material from his/her hard drive instead? Haven't you (Mr. Harrington) stated several times, that if the KJ chooses to remove SC material from said hard drive, and only use SC in disc format, that it is OK?
Part of our post-notification verification process includes making certain that the conditions that led to suing the KJ are still in effect after the notification. cueball wrote: Since you have stated SC notifies the venue that, HarringtonLaw wrote: If the venue continues to use the operator, we will sue them or add them to the operator's suit.
does SC then follow up and notify the venue that they (SC) have become aware of the fact that the KJ in question is no longer a person of interest, and that they (the venue) can continue to use that KJ with no fear of repercussions? Or, is that KJ now S.O.O.L., because he/she has already been fired by the venue before having a chance to resolve their case with SC? After all, you posted HarringtonLaw wrote: that notice puts the burden on the venue to investigate and prevent infringement. If they want to run the risk of a suit, so be it. The venue could decide that it would be easier to just fire the current KJ because they might feel any sort of investigation is too complicated for them. If the venue has already fired said KJ, it is highly unlikely that they will rehire him/her. They probably would say that "you're more trouble than it's worth." The operator has an ample chance to resolve his case with SC before his venues get notified. They get 10 days to contact us, and only if we're unable to work it out after that does it result in a venue notification.
|
|
Top |
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:36 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm Posts: 5046 Been Liked: 334 times
|
JoeChartreuse wrote: Bazza wrote: JoeChartreuse wrote: Jon, allow me to clarify. They will not be showing up in court against KJs in the near future, due to issues of their own. Joe, how do you know this? Or are you guessing? Please clarify as the tone of your posts insinuates this as fact. Please allow me to re-phrase my statement as my opinion only, though I believe it to be fact. There are things that don't belong on a public forum. Tell you what- if CB goes into court for a full trial against a KJ based on TM Infringement in the next year or 2, I will rescind my statement and eat crow. Best I can do. Just thought I'd bump this 2012 post for a smile. Looks like no crow in my diet in the near future.... BTW, when are "all the other manufacturers" jumping on the bandwagon again? Not saying they won't, but not until they also fail as karaoke producers, not while active.
_________________ "No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
Top |
|
|
The Lone Ranger
|
Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 3:53 am |
|
|
Extreme Plus Poster |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am Posts: 6103 Been Liked: 634 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: Smoothedge69 wrote: If I am running off a hard drive, BUT not using your product, then you have no reason to sue. I have no intention of using SC products just because I don't want to give your inspectors anything to look at. What do you have to say about that?? I could use ALL Tricerasoft songs, and your inspectors can't do a thing about it. I believe SC's response to your scenario is appropriate: If you can't follow the rules associated with using the product, we would rather you didn't use the product. Good luck. Which is perfectly alright with me James, I don't like your rules, I don't like your methods and I don't need your product, so we are on the same page, and I should never hear from you or the company you represent. Have a legal day, somewhere else.
|
|
Top |
|
|
The Lone Ranger
|
Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 3:58 am |
|
|
Extreme Plus Poster |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am Posts: 6103 Been Liked: 634 times
|
PyleDriver wrote: Better put you CB away also, maybe your SGB also because their going to be following closely what SC is doing also with their Tiger Squad...Also theres the FBI on the other stuff, our local Justice Dept. office seemed very interrested in what I had to say about copyright infringment here locally. Don't forget SC and CB arn't the only ones going broke, the Feds are too...So Bobby don't get tempted to get your HD full of stuff, the Feds are turning their attention that direction also. And they arn't going to mearly ask you to buy the Gem. No they'll tell you that where your going they have a Gym...
Jon Please if the Feds were going to get into the act, SC wouldn't have had to resort to this legal process in the first place. It is because they were not interested that SC had to start their own legal mill. As far a protecting defunct labels good luck it has been floated for a long time that is going to happen, still nothing on that front. Have a blessed day.
|
|
Top |
|
|
The Lone Ranger
|
Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:08 am |
|
|
Extreme Plus Poster |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am Posts: 6103 Been Liked: 634 times
|
PyleDriver wrote: Well Joe, per my coversation today, CB has there own contracted firm doing investigations now. They call them their Tiger Squad. Won't name the firm, must mean they don't have one, right Chip?...
Jon Yeah, APS probably changed their name to Tiger Squad, just kidding. That would be a way Steve could raise money to pay SC off though. What happened to PR I thought they were supposed to protect the CB label for DTE? Seems like there is no end of organizations working for the manus, too bad the manus can't take care of their own problems. You mean DTE has contracted a firm, since the CB label is now owned by them, right? Have a blessed day.
|
|
Top |
|
|
The Lone Ranger
|
Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:25 am |
|
|
Extreme Plus Poster |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am Posts: 6103 Been Liked: 634 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: cueball wrote: And what if the KJ you are suing is just a "Trademark Infringer" but not a Pirate? What happens if the KJ who is sued is using a computerized setup that contains SC material, and he/she never had SC's (prior) permission to use it in that format (of which he/she owns the originals), and this KJ decides not to pay for an audit and removes all SC material from his/her hard drive instead? Haven't you (Mr. Harrington) stated several times, that if the KJ chooses to remove SC material from said hard drive, and only use SC in disc format, that it is OK?
Part of our post-notification verification process includes making certain that the conditions that led to suing the KJ are still in effect after the notification. cueball wrote: Since you have stated SC notifies the venue that, HarringtonLaw wrote: If the venue continues to use the operator, we will sue them or add them to the operator's suit.
does SC then follow up and notify the venue that they (SC) have become aware of the fact that the KJ in question is no longer a person of interest, and that they (the venue) can continue to use that KJ with no fear of repercussions? Or, is that KJ now S.O.O.L., because he/she has already been fired by the venue before having a chance to resolve their case with SC? After all, you posted HarringtonLaw wrote: that notice puts the burden on the venue to investigate and prevent infringement. If they want to run the risk of a suit, so be it. The venue could decide that it would be easier to just fire the current KJ because they might feel any sort of investigation is too complicated for them. If the venue has already fired said KJ, it is highly unlikely that they will rehire him/her. They probably would say that "you're more trouble than it's worth." The operator has an ample chance to resolve his case with SC before his venues get notified. They get 10 days to contact us, and only if we're unable to work it out after that does it result in a venue notification. Yeah you have 10 days to arrange and audit or license the GEM product from us, then this will all go away. Nothing like a little friendly persuasion. Have a legal day.
|
|
Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 100 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|