Karaoke Forums

Not going to be any court trials so I wouldn't bother showing up at the courthouse - HarringtonLaw has already made that clear here in this forum. They are exercising, once again, civil proceedings and SC is looking for either settlement of their complaint or default judgement, which is what just happened in Karaoke Miami. These cases can't go to "trial" according to Harrington Law, and of course SC DOES NOT want them to go to a trial because one loss in the courtroom IS precedence and they are out of the litigation business at that point and cheerleaders everywhere would be silenced.

Actually, even a judgment from a jury won't set a real precedence. It has to be from a ruling on the law. What is required is a decision by a judge (generally from a higher court) that is either new and compelling or goes against previous rulings on the law because of some change in circumstance that warrants a change in the law enough so to get the ruling published. A citable published decision becomes precedent in future cases. If it is not published, it can be used, but has less merit.

If you want to read up more on the concept, you can do so here:

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

_________________
Birdofsong

It would seem that, actually, there was a court trial, and that trial court used it's discretion to grant a motion for default judgement against a Defendant who did not "bother showing up at the courthouse".

Showing cause why a plaintiff should be awarded a default judgement is most certainly NOT a trial!
HUGE difference between the two!

The definition of 'trial' would seem to offer a contrary opinion.

Wouldn't the examination of evidence by a judge in a court of law qualify the definition? The judge stating "Granting a motion for default judgment is within the trial court’s discretion" seems to support the view.

Whatever makes you happy, Murray.

It certainly is a trial. Just because either a Defendant or a Complainant doesn't show, does not negate a trial.

A default judgement in a Civil Court, ie the Defendant fails to show would be the equivilant to a judge convicting a Defendant in a Criminal Court in abstentia. In both cases the Complainant have to present evidence to obtain the win. Both rulings stand until such time, if any, an Appeal is granted.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

They do not need to set a precedent here. Trademark infringement has a fairly well established set of parameters. Nothing new to set. Oh, according to one of my clients ( a corp attorney) by backdating the dissolution date of the corp in order to claim there were no lawsuits at time of dissolution karaoke miami has opened itself up to a number of additional suits and has lost much of the corps liability protection for the owner.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

One loss in the courtroom sets as much precedence as one win in the courtroom. I fail to understand why you believe that one loss in the courtroom would silence the "cheerleaders" when one win in the courtroom has not silenced the SC bashers one iota!

Because the only "win" SC has got is by default judgement. A win without a challenge means near to nothing and affects only the defendant in that particular case and no one else!
It's been stated several times already!
See if you can keep up will you?
BTW, just WHO are the SC "bashers"?

All I can say is the "SC bashers" are not the "cheerleaders" and the "cheerleaders" are not the "SC bashers". Might I add that not all who are not "cheerleaders" are "SC bashers" and not all who are not "SC bashers" are "cheerleaders".

a win is a win, but i see the other side as being solid logic as well.
imaging the superbowl, but one team doesn't show up. it is still counted as a win for the other team, but in the eyes of most, it doesn't really count as showing that they were the better team, they didn't beat anybody. same with this. it is a win for SC, but they didn't beat anybody, just got the default as the other team didn't show up. what i am waiting for is for the other team to show up and play ball, then we can see once and for all who the real winner is. not that i think it will silence anybody on either side, those for SC will see a SC loss as an incompetent judge misreading the law, and those against SC methodology will see an SC win as having better attorneys and strong arming the defendant.

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

Not sure if that is the best analogy. Does the other team have to show they can actually score points on the day, or do they just win by default without having to touch the ball?

A better analogy would be the Americas' Cup, where, if the opponent is unable to race, the other boat does not automatically win by default, but has to actually sail and complete the course according to the rules to be afforded the win. Likewise SC had to present their evidence/case before judgement was made in their favour using the applicable law.

When my kid was in soccer, if the other team didn't show up, my sons team won by default and the other team lost. It was marked on the win/loss stats as such. When the other team don't show, we pack up and go home. No points needing to be made or game to be played.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

well as has been stated by some here nothing short of an court of appeals ruling will be good enough for them......I agree it will be years before a federal court ruling but credit most of the readers on these forums with more common sense and intelligence......for most of those here the rulings do matter.... I personally intend to be in the courthouse when the cases are heard in my area as much as possible.....this is not the only default judgment in Florida just the largest.....I look forward to the collections from "our" local pirates and will be happy to post here after I have confirmed what has been seized

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

One civil court judgement, for or against, is never used in future judgements.

Only if the issue is reviewed by a higher court, (Supreme) AND they write an "Opinion" on it will it achieve the status of "Precedent"..

And they never hear these civil matters, so the odds of that occurring is lower than the lotto odds.

Murray, on that we agree. I don't want to bash SC at all, just find all the jumping up and down and high-fivin' to be a little childish. I take exception to the methods SC has used to collect their money and it seems odd to me that the folks who have been "certified" don't have a problem with SC putting the competitors in business with easy financing. Most of the ones caught in my market just dumped SC files and are still very active in the karaoke business, in spite of 5 "certified" KJs in one city, Raleigh. They have gained no advantage at all. It is an ongoing discussion that probably won't end.....

Right.

What I find amazing about all this is that here you have SC who wants to "sue the world" for whatever reason and has been virtually put out of business by piracy.... and yet, the "users and abusers" are not the ones in control of the karaoke formatting... the manufacturers are.

How many manufacturers can there be? Twenty tops? (if that many) Why haven't they all gotten together and created a new format --- screw the cdg players, let 'em die. As far as what's already out the door, you're not ever going to get it back...ever. Let it go and start with a new format that has an ironclad protection scheme that ONLY the manufacturers can decode. The remaining companies that sell cd+g machines will stop soon enough

Provide a SINGLE hosting program for playback that all the manufacturers have contributed to develop and get a share of each copy sold. Everyone's going to computer format anyway and every single manufacturer is getting their butts kicked right now by the internet downloaders anyway... how much more do they want to endure?

But here's the problem: The manufacturers still want the sales to the public and as long as they do that, they will be screwed and their tracks will end up on the net (like they are now) within a couple days of release.

You can't eat your cake, then have it too. They'll have to pick one or just go out of business. If they pick;
(A) Change the format to an encrypted standard then they will have to bite the bullet and forget the public sales, but they will be able to charge more for the professional KJ.
(B) Not change the format at all and let the public sales end up on the net just like they are now.... and plan on their own slow, twisting in the wind death...

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

While I agree with the above, would this not also apply to the Plaintiff- Sound Choice- who has done the same when they couldn't be sure of making a case?

I would suggest- again- that since SC can't afford to lose even a single case in court, lest a precedent be set that would deprive them of all future litigous income, that we will have to wait for an absolutely ironclad case to come up before they are willing to go the whole route.

I would then suggest that since SC's version of an "investigation" is extremely limited- if in existance at all- that they will never have the assurance of such a case. Thus, I do not expect them to make it to court in the near future...

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

" Disc based and loving it..."