Karaoke Forums

Thank you MrBoo, and yes that is a lot of assuming. Have a blessed day.

Can you link to this NY case.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I have already posted the link for the sixty-one pages involved on this case on another thread. http://dkusa.com/CHBx/EmiSuit.pdf

While it is true GEM is not mentioned in the suit, there are tracks that appear on GEM listed as those that weren't licensed on older disc series. The reason GEM is not mentioned is due to MCPS group signing off on the tracks of that series. SC used MCPs to circumvent the publishers, which I'm sure makes them very happy, not. There are 160 tracks listed and the plaintiffs are asking for $150,000 in damages per track plus court costs. Have a blessed day.

You do understand that the actual complain is only 16 pages long and the other 45 pages is just the listing of tracks of all the Defendants involved that they allegedly violated.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Can you please take this discussion Ranger to the other thread and stop hijacking this one????!!!!!

Thank you.

The OP!

################################

Now, back on topic..............

Venues With Contracted KJs Ordered To Pay SC $44k

"3. The Defendants had the ability to control and exercise control over the use of infringing products, had knowledge that infringing products were being used to provide services, and they derived a direct financial benefit from the use of the infringing products."

-- Page 4, Paragraph 1

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 67357/119/

7 defendants x $44,378 = $310,646 - A close Third Million!

_________________
-- Mark

It appears now if a venue is aware that a contracted KJ uses copied SC content without adhering to SC's media-shifting policy, the venue is vulnerable to be named in a lawsuit.

_________________
-- Mark

While it is true the 45 pages are raw data consisting of the songs in question, it was all filed together as one piece. It is far more detailed than some of the complaints filed by SC against hosts, at least the defendants names and addresses are known. To me taken as a whole it takes in the full scope of the amount of illegal tracks not licensed properly by SC. Wasn't one of the reason's CB collapsed the failure to get proper licensing for their product. That is why DTE today can't fully use the whole CB library an inability to get licensing for all the tracks? I don't see this has hijacking your thread, since you are crowing about the amount of money SC has been awarded, I feel it is proper to point out the recovered money doesn't amount to much for one it has to be collected in the first place. Two it must be offset by any pending legal actions, such as SC suing Donna Boris and APS for the $200,000.00 with held from SC. Also this copyright infringement lawsuit which could end the ball game for SC. If it's not proper to mention this sorry Insane.

According to HarringtonLaw, he said that SC will first contact the Venue, and inform them that they have targeted the KJ the Venue has hired as a possible track infringer. Then, if the KJ has not settled with SC by doing any of the things we have discussed ad-naseum (sp?), and he/she is still working for the Venue, SC will sue the Venue as well.

Yes Cue, you are correct.

To my understanding, the only way for a venue to be sued for vicarious liability by SC is that the venue must have knowledge of the possible infringement. ie: Understanding of SC's media-shifting policies etc....

_________________
-- Mark

Just goes to show that when SC is not opposed it can win. However, when it meets actual opposition, it either obtains a miniscule recovery, none at all, or worse is ordered to pay defendants for its bad faith conduct.