Karaoke Forums

What is that at most? 60-some odd tracks for a four hour show?
I doubt the court would find that burdensome as well.
I find it funny that what Harringtonlaw quotes as his opinion, people are taking as fact of law. That just isn't the case. It's only his OPINION of what he THINKS will happen in court. People need to remember that. Until it hits a court room and a judge rules on it, it's nothing more than conjecture.
Like c. staley said, 50% of lawyers lose their case.
Everyone here would do well to remember that and look at things a little more objectively.

If by that you mean that in every case there is a winner and a loser, then your formula is simplistic. Part of being a lawyer is knowing when to fight and when not to fight.



I assure you that I don't need to "copy and paste" from that part of Rule 26. And, once again, you miss my point...it's not enough to read the rule. You also need to know how the courts interpret that rule. And the courts, with a great deal of uniformity, interpret the term "relevant," for purposes of Rule 26, to mean "responsive to a request that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."



I cited Rule 401 because Rule 401 provides the definition for "relevant evidence."



We do actually agree on that.



Tell me, c. staley, if you think that the licensing was somehow improper, even if you were correct about it, on what theory do you assert that provides a defense for trademark infringement? And while you're at it, please show me some case law that says that a company cannot put its trademark on a product that it, alone, makes.

This is not accurate. About 80% of all lawsuits terminate with a settlement agreement, in which there is no winner or loser.

OK, then, If you want to play that way, of the ones that actually make it to court due to no settlement, what percentage wins and what percentage loses?
You can twist the words and meanings of things to suit your purposes all you want....

Ah, but the goal in every one of these cases is settlement. The cases that make it to a courtroom will either be won by Soundchoice by default, or dropped by soundchoice and dismissed. Soundchoice will maintain a zero percent loss in court. That's what makes this kind of litigation a profitable business.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

You are suggesting that any company can expect trademark protection on "unauthorized" (read as; stolen or pirated or unlicensed if you like) production of intellectual property?

You want me to clue you in? Aren't you the one with the law degree?



Sure... they can.... if it's their own... if not than they still can... if it's fully licensed.

So I'll wait for you point the way to the case law that provides trademark protection for stolen, unauthorized, unlicensed and/or pirated intellectual property sold for commercial gain on a worldwide basis.

That would seem to imply that half of them win. In which half are you?

Chip try to use The London Symphony Orchestra's recording of Beethoven's Fith Symphony (Public Domain) and displaying their trademark in a commercial setting without permission.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Now you are confusing copyright and trademark.... Copyright on the "sound recording" (not public domain) of the symphony (public domain) and trademark on the logo (not public domain).... Obviously, you don't have a clue as to what you're trying to compare. Is your interpretation of Canadian law like playing horseshoes... you only have to be close?

Nice Try.

Apparently whichever half you're not. But we weren't discussing me... we were discussing them...

And to think... we almost, sorta, kinda, somewhat had almost barely an inkling of an agreement one day.... (sigh)

I didn't mean to defend this guy if he stole the tracks, then there should be some sanction. Maybe the guy is just profoundly stupid and didn't know any better. Let the punishment fit the crime. He apparently was playing the tunes at one show, not reselling. $750,000 for stealing property that isn't worth a hundred seems a bit out of line to me. Might as well have him shot.

_________________
Okay, who took my pants?

Hey wait, don't be supplying them with any more ideas...

i can re-record Beethovens 5th symphony and slap my trademark on it no problem. it is public domain so no one needs to be paid. but i can NOT re-record Adelles Rolling in the deep and slap my trademark on it without paying Adelle for it. Public domain changes things quite a bit.

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

Why not, works for me! I had my cdg's for my then mobile rig (2nd system) stolen back in 96, if I would have seen the a-hole breaking into my house, he would have been shot on site! A thief is a thief.
I ended up selling that karaoke rig to the club I was working at and they replaced the lost discs, it was only 100 or so discs at that time.

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

Why not?

Afraid they might use unlicensed bullets?

Isn't the traditional punishment for theft removal of one or both hands?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Isn't that like saying, "The Defendant owns a gun, therefore he has the means to commit murder."?

Sure, and while you're at it, why not prosecute him for unlawful carrying, discharge, intent to distribute, etc... these are all "the means to commit (any unlawful act) in the future."

Gem series owners have that same means....

Surely that would depend on it being a copy-cat murder or not!

Tragically, almost dangerously misguided..... tsk, tsk....