Karaoke Forums

In January 2012, Snappers Bar & Grill was named in a lawsuit brought forth by Slep-Tone and was accused of Vicarious Liability for allegedly hiring contracted KJ's who used unauthorized copies of the Sound Choice trademark to produce karaoke shows at their establishment.

In September 2012, Snappers was denied their motion to dismiss calling Slep-Tone's claims as "boilerplate allegations".

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 67357/103/

Now for some reason this week, Snappers Bar & Grill has decided to settle. I wonder how much money they spent trying to fight this?

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 67357/114/

_________________
-- Mark

but what did the settle on? Maybe they just agreed to no longer provide karaoke at all?

As far as what they spent onthis cae....who knows? Maybe they have lawyers on retainer or on staff and they would have had to pay them any way?

Just because a case has been closed doesn't mean any side won or lost in a big way. They could have settled for ONE DOLLAR for all we know.

Just because a case has been closed doesn't mean any side won or lost in a small way. They could have settled for TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS for all we know.

_________________
-- Mark

Insane it was settled WITH predjudice. So that indicates that nothing was really settled for good. SC can still go after them for the same thing...kind of like a mis-trial. Maybe neither party had reason to go foreward at this time?

It can go either way depending on what happens within the 60 days. After 60 days it will be WITH prejudice.

Also it was the defendant that informed the court of settlement, not SC.

The Court has been advised via Defendant's Notice of Settlement (Dkt. #113)

I'm just reporting what I have found to provide information to the readership and really don't want to be involved in the debate.

_________________
-- Mark

This venue was in our backyard so to speak. I do not know the amount of the settlement but the owners as certainly speaking will other owners in the area and warning them to insure the KJ's they use are not using stolen music, 3 of our venues have spoke with these owners.

The only answers I can give with absolute surety are:

1. that karaoke is continuing at that venue,
2.The bar owners have stated they settled and were not happy to have to pay SC and all the legal fees
3 the KJ in question is saying he will be using the Gem discs as soon as they arrive.

So part of the settlement was having to license the GEM series? They ended up paying SC to use their product? The KJ wasn't even fired so much for this legal process helping obtain new gigs for certified hosts, or raising pay rates for others. All of this still in Florida there are other states, aren't there? I still don't see how all of this helps SC if all they get is the licensing of their product out of all the time and money spent. Have a blessed day.

We don't know the extent of the "deterrent effect". One guy gets busted in town...how many other pirates in the surrounding area cleaned up their act and legitimatized in order to avoid getting caught?

Every now and again, a venue will come to the conclusion that it is just cheaper to agree to the shakedown price of 5 Grand than to continue to fight the good fight. And that my friends is exactly what Sound Choice counts on. Winning a case every once in a while also gives their Cheer Leading squad something to crow about for a while. It also takes the bright lights off of Sound Choice's methods being called a shakedown scheme by Judges out on the West Coast for a little while.

I think the settlements between the venue and the KJ were different settlements. The KJ settled and was purchasing the GEM. I do know that this KJ ended up paying over double what he could have settled for in the beginning. He is now however able to play SC at all his venues without putting them at risk. I do not know if he will be listed on the Certified host page some are listed some are not.

At some point the venue owners may leak what they ended up paying to SC, I have no way of knowing. One of our Venues owners had spoke with them and they had stated they wish they had settled in the beginning because it cost over triple (including legal fees). I do not know what the first offer from SC to the venue was however to even give an educated guesstimate.

As the O.P., can we please stay on topic?

_________________
-- Mark

I was rereading this post this morning, and just couldn't resist pointing out the obvious issues with it. The OP was concerning a settlement between SC and a venue. kjflorida then points out that he THINKS there was a separate agreement with venue and KJ. How then is it possible to KNOW (a very absolute term when used alone) of a settlement between SC and the KJ in question?

As a second, less definitive point, I do not believe it is a good idea to say you KNOW what someone paid in a settlement, unless you have seen the paperwork and/or settlement check in this case (which would be highly improper, especially if there is any type of confidentiality agreement in place, which is most common in settlements of this type).

I am always uncomfortable with folks who use absolute terms like this, because it tends to put the user into a position of unsubstantiated knowledge that a less informed reader might construe as being a complete authority...

I DO know that the other venues listed in the same case had default judgments filed against them for amounts that were over 40K each.

I DO know that the KJ in question is stating he settled and is using this status to canvas for work.

I DO know that the venue owners in question have stated to other venue owners that they paid much more than it would have cost them to settle in the beginning.

I have not seen the settlement agreements, therefore I DO NOT have exact amounts or details to post.

I am just listing the basic information I know to be true.

Thank you for the corrections/clarifications. I believe it to be important that the average reader of this forum understand that any information that is expounded here is either public record, ill-gotten, or, at best, irresponsibly distributed by the parties involved...

Personally I think that them getting in trouble means that they were caught red handed making a statement of some sort that they don't care about piracy or infringements. I have been to a couple bars that have come outright and said right to my face they don't care if a DJ pirates and personally they don't see it to be a big deal and one manager even told me that he does it him self and their house computer music library was all downloaded from frost-wire which is 99% seeded by the music industries with bad files infected files tracking Trojans etc...

And in my opinion from the standpoint of a Music Production Major with all the work it takes to produce a single track they get what they deserve if you pirate music than you must pay the piper when you get caught with your pants down and if you don't want to get caught with your pants down than you should do the right thing and pay for your music the right way legally not pirate it.

Sounds like this venue received bad legal advice from counsel and ended up costing them WAY more than it might have.

_________________
"You know that I sing the Blues and I do not suffer fools. When I'm on that silver mic, it's gonna cut ya, just like a knife"-The SWINGCAT