Karaoke Forums

The current status of licensing for individual tracks is irrelevant for an audit. The audit is a verification that you possess an original for every shifted version you have.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Lone, a call or email to DT or PR would most likely answer your questions.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

thats the point he is making, there is no one to call. they have no phones, no office, just a mail box in an empty office building in knoxville and licensed in another state (i forget which one) that does not require business to state the names of the owners or directors. PR, it appears, only exists on paper.

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

Digitrax Entertainment, LLC | 448 N. Cedar Bluff Rd., Suite 174, Knoxville, TN 37923 | Questions? Please contact us (865-312-7762).

Boy that was difficult to find. And I'm sure they can give you contact info for PR.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

If there is truly no connection between the Digitrax product and the business of the former Chartbusters/Piracy Recovery, why would Digitrax be interested in helping them by giving out (evidently) hard to find contact information? It would seem that any connection between the two, especially under the circumstances of Chartbusters' past legal woes, would be a negative association for Digitrax, and might even be viewed as some sort of collusion activity...

It just would be good to know when they will recertify those people with the 12000+ songs--there isnt a pirate I know that doesnt have the real music at home.It is a good selling tool in some instances.Why all the (dead air)?

nice try Timberlea, but only PR can recertify the CB tracks, they own the logo. DT has no claim to the CB marked tracks.
PR and DT have no affiliation nor common ownership. now see if you can find anything for PR that fast.

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

That's alright Chris since everything is irrelevant if there is no way to obtain an audit in the first place. There is no logical reason why PR has not resumed the audit process, unless PR itself is no longer in business. If it is true the company exists on paper only then it is only a paper tiger, right? Have a blessed day.

The logical reasons for the lack of audits are pretty obvious if you remove the blinders.

Only 1 karaoke company actively audits at this time, so it isn't as if PR, LLC is the odd man out.
There are costs associated with doing audits - Balancing cost and desired outcome takes some careful thought. Especially when....
There is a public relations aspect to doing audits. It is pretty obvious that some folks are just flat out against a karaoke company taking a look at their discs. Creating an audit policy that provides value to the people being audited is a requirement. So far, it has provided limited value to a limited number of people.

But the most obvious and glaring, logical reason is.....money.

The audits themselves are not a profit center. The audits have little to no margin and don't generate company saving revenue. If anything, audits are a money losing process unless there is something value added to the auditor and/or the audited. The value add for PR, LLC is using the audit as a filter to determine who to sue and who to leave alone. And there are more cost effective ways to determine this without an audit. The value add for the audited is presumably a certification which as noted above provides limited value to a limited number of people. Neither of these provide a big enough incentive in my opinion to warrant even doing an audits on content that is no longer being produced.

If I were to speculate, the PR, LLC business model will involve litigation only. Audits will be performed by PR, LLC only as part of a lawsuit. But maybe we will learn more when......





The paper company is sending a real life person to speak at the karaoke summit -

1:00 pm – Piracy Interdiction Efforts in the USA

Updates on Current Litigation and Strategy, by Kurt Slep, CEO of Slep-Tone Entertainment, and David Harb, Piracy Recovery, LLC.

Mr. Slep and Mr. Harb will update the group on how current efforts to curb rampant piracy of karaoke tracks is progressing.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

My God Chris we finally have a name a person, it only took over a year. If this is how fast the legal process is going to go I guess it is safe to say I won't hear from them before retirement. Where has MR. Harb been hiding out, at Big Mamma's in Tennessee, it's no surprise the summit is in Nashville is it? It's funny the same day you got us a name, is the day I called the last listed correspondent for CB Shauna M. Wertheim. She told me her firm The Marbury Law Group handled the trademark filing for CB back in 2009. That her firm was in no way associated with PR and that except for the trademark filing that was all they did for CB. She did let me know that the CB trade mark was due to expire next year, five years after the filing. To renew the trademark new CB product would have to be made, if not in two more years the CB product could be regarded as abandon ware. In your own words Chris " it is a content no longer being produced". It still makes me wonder why Mr. Harb has waited all this time to make himself known, since time seems to be not on PR's side. Have a blessed day.

Please explain what you mean by "time seems to be not on PR's side." Time is not on their side for what? The CB name? I don't think that that means anything. The CB product that is already out there still exists, and will continue to exist. Just because no more new product will be made under the CB name, doesn't mean that you have to throw out the old product. You can still use it. And, unless I am misunderstanding a lot of the things, the entity that currently owns the CB trademark name would still be able to sue for legal trademark or copyright infringements on a product that was made before the trademark expired, regardless of the current status of the trademark name now or in the future. It was still theirs (or transferred to them in a business deal) when it still existed. As for any new product that may be coming out, isn't that all under the new name of Digitrax?

Could someone please explain to me what Abandon Ware is supposed to mean? Please try to put it in simple terms (no complicated legalese).

The term comes from the software industry, but applies to pretty much any kind of Intellectual Property. In the simplest terms, create a product, sell it, then go out of business and effectively abandon your product.


From Wikipedia -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Thank you.
So this sort of supports what I just tried to say in my previous post... that abondonware or not, PR, LLC (or whoever may own the CB name in the future) can still sue on the product that was already made, for copyright and/or trademark infringement, now or 10 years from now (regardless of the status of of the name).

Cueball,

Dont worry, Lone Ranger is just trying to pupetuate HIS idea that PR will not be able to protect the CB trademark/product and thus have the product reach"abandoned" status.

PR has made it clear that they fully intend to protect the CB product/name and as long as they file ONE lawsuit every 5 years and renew the trademark they can do so.

You are reading things correctly.

"Where has MR. Harb been hiding out, at Big Mamma's in Tennessee, it's no surprise the summit is in Nashville is it? It's funny the same day you got us a name, is the day I called the last listed correspondent for CB Shauna M. Wertheim. She told me her firm The Marbury Law Group handled the trademark filing for CB back in 2009. That her firm was in no way associated with PR and that except for the trademark filing that was all they did for CB."

Lone you seem surprised that the only interaction PR had with Marbury Group is the Trademark. I'm not surprised at all. PR's regular lawyer probably referred his client to them as they most likely specialize in TM filings. It's not strange for a person's or company's regular attorney to get another attorney who may specialize in some aspects of the business.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Yup, just like the KIAA, out of a prestige building in a P.O. box ( BTW- the same as Harrington Law these days, per his public website www.harringtonlawpc.com ). This is why Jim claimed he had no knowledge of how to contact PR, despite the fact he coordinated a supposed "joint suit" with them and SC.

Anyone willing to guess who created this corporate entity?

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Digitrax is a karaoke producer. PR is a litigation company, like SC. Why would you give DTs info as PR's?

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Chris explained abandon Ware pretty well, one thing that has been not mentioned, if no new product is made in a three year period it is considered abandoned. This is where the time limit comes into play cue. While DT will be still producing old CB material it will be under their logo and they would have to sue themselves to protect the DT logo. Have a blessed day.

I don't call filing one suit every 5 years exactly protecting the CB product/name. If anything it is a straw dog setup to try and scare hosts. They have one year to renew the existing trademark according to the attorney who filed the application for the original trademark back in 2009, Shanuna M. Wertheim. Part of requirement for the trademark renewal rests on still producing product under that trademark, which is not happening. Any new CB product will be made under the DT trademark. No renewal, no trademark ownership, no case. Have a blessed day.

One thing you are missing cue is the requirement that new product has to be made to keep the trademark effective. Why do you think it has been so critical for SC to have new product licensed? Without new product being made the trademark expires and also the protections and rights that go with the trademark ownership. The reason abandon ware cases rarely go to court is they would be very difficult to win. Most lawyers would not even consider starting them since they would be a waste of court time and client money, at least the ethical lawyers. Have a blessed day.