|
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
| Author |
Message |
|
timberlea
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:27 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 4094
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
Been Liked: 309 times
|
|
He's no more misguided than you Chippy. You have more twists and turns than the roads through the Rockies.
_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:37 pm |
|
 |
| Extreme Poster |
 |
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
timberlea wrote: He's no more misguided than you Chippy. You have more twists and turns than the roads through the Rockies. Which are also not in Canada... thank you for noticing.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:47 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
|
c. staley wrote: timberlea wrote: Chip try to use The London Symphony Orchestra's recording of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony (Public Domain) and displaying their trademark in a commercial setting without permission. 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. Aren't you doing the same thing? The licensing that you seem to think is deficient in some way is a copyright license. Let's break this down: A writes a song and records and publishes it. B re-records A's song in karaoke format without express permission, but pays a mechanical royalty on sales. B puts B's trademark on the track and sells a copy to C. C makes 30 copies of B's karaoke track, leaving B's trademark on it, and sells them to others. B sues C for trademark infringement. C says, "I did it, but you didn't have permission to make that recording." In that scenario, what makes you think that C wins that suit? Does your answer change if A never asserts copyright against B? Now, I'll help you out here by suggesting "unclean hands" as a defense...and I agree that "unclean hands" will play a role in how this gets resolved...but not in a way that is helpful to your position.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Wall Of Sound
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:58 pm |
|
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:35 am
Posts: 691
Location: Carson City, NV
Been Liked: 0 time
|
c. staley wrote: HarringtonLaw wrote: This is where having a law degree and experience actually litigating cases makes a difference.
I disagree. And it's also true that 50% of those with law degrees miscalculate what they believe they "will win." And it's also true that those without law degrees miscalculate most of what they believe they "will win." I agree with the person who has passed the bar exam. Also I believe that most intellegent people would as well.
_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
timberlea
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:01 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 4094
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
Been Liked: 309 times
|
|
Seems like Chippy also failed geography in school.
_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Wall Of Sound
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:08 pm |
|
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:35 am
Posts: 691
Location: Carson City, NV
Been Liked: 0 time
|
diafel wrote: c. staley wrote: In any case, I don't believe a discovery request to produce the licensing for those tracks witnessed by your investigator - even if a KJ used exclusively SC tracks for a single evening - would be burdensome at all. 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. At least HarringtonLaw's opinion is an educated opinion & certified by passing the bar exam unlike you or c. staley's opinion with is merely a layman's point of view & any intelligent reader can clearly see that, but carry on.
_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"
Last edited by Wall Of Sound on Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:46 pm, edited 5 times in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Wall Of Sound
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:10 pm |
|
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:35 am
Posts: 691
Location: Carson City, NV
Been Liked: 0 time
|
 Edited above to remove ads using FireFox 7 with Ad-Blocker add-on.
_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"
Last edited by Wall Of Sound on Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
exweedfarmer
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:11 pm |
|
|
| Super Poster |
 |
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:34 pm
Posts: 1227
Location: Completely Lost
Been Liked: 15 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: Aren't you doing the same thing?
The licensing that you seem to think is deficient in some way is a copyright license.
Let's break this down:
A writes a song and records and publishes it.
B re-records A's song in karaoke format without express permission, but pays a mechanical royalty on sales. B puts B's trademark on the track and sells a copy to C.
C makes 30 copies of B's karaoke track, leaving B's trademark on it, and sells them to others.
B sues C for trademark infringement.
C says, "I did it, but you didn't have permission to make that recording."
In that scenario, what makes you think that C wins that suit?
Does your answer change if A never asserts copyright against B?
Now, I'll help you out here by suggesting "unclean hands" as a defense...and I agree that "unclean hands" will play a role in how this gets resolved...but not in a way that is helpful to your position. So then would it be less actionable if the trademark was removed? That seems rather silly.
_________________
Okay, who took my pants?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Wall Of Sound
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:19 pm |
|
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:35 am
Posts: 691
Location: Carson City, NV
Been Liked: 0 time
|
timberlea wrote: Seems like Chippy also failed geography in school. Yeah, I see that too! But then again tell him that! 
_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lonman
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:32 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22978
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2126 times
|
c. staley wrote: timberlea wrote: He's no more misguided than you Chippy. You have more twists and turns than the roads through the Rockies. Which are also not in Canada... thank you for noticing. The Rockies are both in Canada (around 900 miles long on the Canadian side) & US. _________________ LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:38 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: Aren't you doing the same thing?
The licensing that you seem to think is deficient in some way is a copyright license.
Let's break this down:
A writes a song and records and publishes it.
B re-records A's song in karaoke format without express permission, but pays a mechanical royalty on sales. B puts B's trademark on the track and sells a copy to C.
C makes 30 copies of B's karaoke track, leaving B's trademark on it, and sells them to others.
B sues C for trademark infringement.
C says, "I did it, but you didn't have permission to make that recording."
In that scenario, what makes you think that C wins that suit?
Does your answer change if A never asserts copyright against B?
Now, I'll help you out here by suggesting "unclean hands" as a defense...and I agree that "unclean hands" will play a role in how this gets resolved...but not in a way that is helpful to your position. "B." is incomplete and misleading: Add to that, "No Lyric reprint license, no synchronization license....." The "mechanical royalty on sales" that you're speaking of is the $15 compulsory fee to the copyright office. Nothing in your scenario above indicates that the copyright OWNERS get a dime from this manufacturer directly nor does it indicate that any licenses were negotiated. If "B" was all it took, there wouldn't have been so many lawsuits against them for so many HUNDREDS of tracks from the copyright owners.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:47 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
|
c. staley wrote: HarringtonLaw wrote: Aren't you doing the same thing?
The licensing that you seem to think is deficient in some way is a copyright license.
Let's break this down:
A writes a song and records and publishes it.
B re-records A's song in karaoke format without express permission, but pays a mechanical royalty on sales. B puts B's trademark on the track and sells a copy to C.
C makes 30 copies of B's karaoke track, leaving B's trademark on it, and sells them to others.
B sues C for trademark infringement.
C says, "I did it, but you didn't have permission to make that recording."
In that scenario, what makes you think that C wins that suit?
Does your answer change if A never asserts copyright against B?
Now, I'll help you out here by suggesting "unclean hands" as a defense...and I agree that "unclean hands" will play a role in how this gets resolved...but not in a way that is helpful to your position. "B." is incomplete and misleading: Add to that, "No Lyric reprint license, no synchronization license....." The "mechanical royalty on sales" that you're speaking of is the $15 compulsory fee to the copyright office. Nothing in your scenario above indicates that the copyright OWNERS get a dime from this manufacturer directly nor does it indicate that any licenses were negotiated. I think most music copyright owners would find it very surprising that you think the mechanical license fee goes to the Copyright Office. I assure you that it does not, and not even as a pass-through. Mechanical licenses are handled by the Harry Fox Agency, a private company that happens to represent all of the major publishers (and many, many small ones). The second line is not incomplete or misleading. As I said, let's say that B does not get any permissions at all, except for a mechanical license, which B pays to A through HFA. That way, A knows about the use. With that out of the way, please answer my questions.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Wall Of Sound
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:35 pm |
|
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:35 am
Posts: 691
Location: Carson City, NV
Been Liked: 0 time
|
Lonman wrote: c. staley wrote: timberlea wrote: He's no more misguided than you Chippy. You have more twists and turns than the roads through the Rockies. Which are also not in Canada... thank you for noticing. The Rockies are both in Canada (around 900 miles long on the Canadian side) & US. Where is your citation on this statement Lon? Here, I fixed that for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Rockies
_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lonman
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:01 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22978
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2126 times
|
|
Didn't need citation, learned that one in grade school.
_________________ LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:14 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: I think most music copyright owners would find it very surprising that you think the mechanical license fee goes to the Copyright Office. I assure you that it does not, and not even as a pass-through. Mechanical licenses are handled by the Harry Fox Agency, a private company that happens to represent all of the major publishers (and many, many small ones). Yeah..... right... that would include the HUNDREDS of tracks that karaoke manufacturers (your client included) failed to license with the copyright owner and/or HFA and were sued. How many of the smaller publishers never knew? (I can think of some) HarringtonLaw wrote: The second line is not incomplete or misleading. As I said, let's say that B does not get any permissions at all, except for a mechanical license, which B pays to A through HFA. That way, A knows about the use.
With that out of the way, please answer my questions. Your questions are conditional that there is some type of licensing present, you'd have to remove that condition for them to be valid questions. You keep asserting that you are suing a KJ that owns no discs, I am using the opposite: that you are suing a KJ that owns discs. It's similar to you saying that you cannot use the tracks on a cdg disc that has become scratched or broken. You have the disc, so does that constitute 1:1? Is your client selling discs or songs? You can't conveniently switch sides every 2 seconds. Pick one side or the other... I'm getting dizzy here...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Wall Of Sound
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:34 pm |
|
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:35 am
Posts: 691
Location: Carson City, NV
Been Liked: 0 time
|
|
Sounds like Chief can't answer HarringtonLaw's questions. But what else is new?
YAWN.....
_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:42 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
Wall Of Sound wrote: Sounds like Chief can't answer HarringtonLaw's questions. But what else is new?
YAWN..... As soon as a valid question pops up that's not conditionally-phrased like the National Enquirer ( "excuse me sir, when did you stop beating your wife?") I'd be happy answer it. The problem is, you don't know the difference.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Bazza
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:03 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:00 am
Posts: 3312
Images: 0
Been Liked: 610 times
|
c. staley wrote: As soon as a valid question pops up that's not conditionally-phrased like the National Enquirer ("excuse me sir, when did you stop beating your wife?") I'd be happy answer it. You mean like this "question"? Funny how it's perfectly fine for you to play such games but when others do you cry foul, take your ball and go home. c. staley wrote: if you were suing hard drive sellers, you'd be publicly honking your horn all over the place as warning to all the other hard drive sellers.. they'd scatter like the cockroaches they are... and it wouldn't cost you a dime or a minute in court. The "good publicity" you'd garner would be worth it's weight in gold and that alone would do more to "help the industry" and to "fight piracy" than you are currently doing, so you must be suggesting that you're keeping the light off intentionally.... for what purpose? National Enquirer indeed.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Wall Of Sound
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:15 pm |
|
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:35 am
Posts: 691
Location: Carson City, NV
Been Liked: 0 time
|
Bazza wrote: Funny how it's perfectly fine for you to play such games but when others do you cry foul, take your ball and go home. I second that motion.
_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:11 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
Bazza wrote: c. staley wrote: As soon as a valid question pops up that's not conditionally-phrased like the National Enquirer ("excuse me sir, when did you stop beating your wife?") I'd be happy answer it. You mean like this "question"? Funny how it's perfectly fine for you to play such games but when others do you cry foul, take your ball and go home. c. staley wrote: if you were suing hard drive sellers, you'd be publicly honking your horn all over the place as warning to all the other hard drive sellers.. they'd scatter like the cockroaches they are... and it wouldn't cost you a dime or a minute in court. The "good publicity" you'd garner would be worth it's weight in gold and that alone would do more to "help the industry" and to "fight piracy" than you are currently doing, so you must be suggesting that you're keeping the light off intentionally.... for what purpose? National Enquirer indeed. Normally, I'd give you and wallofsound a "slightly warmed response" however, you'd be surprised who has asked that I not.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 281 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
