Karaoke Forums

Well, since you asked, it's a real-time recording of the investigator's comments as the investigation is being conducted. If the investigator fills out an affidavit saying that the logo was displayed, and it's backed up by a time-coded audiotape that includes his remark, "and there's the logo" or some such statement, that's pretty strong evidence.

Evidence of what? This kind of "evidence" seems pretty useless to me in this kind of case.

First of all, it's hearsay - even if it's the "investigator's" own voice on a tape. (Did he also tape; "He's loading another disc in the machine..." to use as "strong evidence" too or is that "privileged" or conveniently missing?)

Second, it's not "evidence" of trademark infringement in Rodney's case is it? He uses discs. It would be just as useless if you had the same tape to use again Joe Chartreuse.... who uses discs and a few others being sued that use discs... Sure, you can have an audio tape of Abraham Lincoln saying the same thing, there's no evidence in that audio tape that any kind of infringement took place.

Remember, the case revolves around displaying that logo from an "unauthorized source" such as a hard drive so the phrase; "There's the logo" on a television says nothing of the originating source.

I'm sure you have this same "strong evidence" to use against Rodney?

It appears that these lawsuits are based against anyone with a sizable library - whether or not you use discs.

What difference would it make? Even using SC's extremely weak Trademark Infringement hook, the requirement would be that someone actually witness the TRADEMARK being displayed from a source other than a disc. Having a PC on site means nothing. Why ask? If they based their suit on a visible PC alone, they are doing the same as accusing a disc based host.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

1) Why should he have to? SC is a gnat of a company, not a law enforcement agency. If nothing else, they should pay private event rates to the KJ for audit time. This way an innocent KJ gets compensated, yet a guilty KJ gets the price added back in the settlement- fair for all, RIGHT?

2) Of course not. We're talking about a company whose business plan seems to be based on intimidation for settlements. How would they gain from prior notification?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

C'mon, seriously? The bottom line is that SC has PROVEN themselves and their investigtors untrustworthy time after time. Paradigm's post alone showed 5 blatently lying "investigators". NO ONE has shown Rodney to be dishonest, and Cue vouches for him among others. Logic demands that a person with no black marks be believed over a proven liar- in this case SC "investigators". I don't consider this "jumping to conclusions", but rather making logical choice based on past record.

Look, Kurt and SC discredited themselves- no one did it to them. They could have done things differently, but S was looking for a quick return over morality and ethics. This is the result.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

No kidding? An unauthorized AUDIO tape of a performance? I know you're the legal guy, but I strongly suggest that you double check that. It's a no-no, counselor. You can't record the music without permission from the OWNER/PUBLISHER, nor the vocals without permission of the singer.

This is why making recordings of singers' performances for sale or giveaway is illegal.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I have to agree with Chip on this one.... What is this evidence of???? I could audiotape myself saying (and have it time-stamped too), "And there goes that News Van again!". So, what does that mean? Where's the News Van going to? Is it going to a story (to report), or coming from a story (that was just reported), or is someone just using it to drive to a Gas Station to fuel up?

Yes, that was a direct quote from an old Eyewitness News Commercial... So sue me for quoting without permission.

An unauthorized recording be it audio, video, or both is what you call "pretty strong evidence" Well ok if you say so but when you can't prove the electronic souce that displayed the trademark on the screen it looks pretty weak as evidence. Oh and you also have to prove with that one tape the location the audio and video came from. Really, does someone trust you to bring them evidence that will hold up in court or is this just to intimidate those filed on?

The evidence is the investigator's testimony. The video is 1) an aid to memory and 2) some corroboration that they didn't make the visit up out of whole cloth.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

What testimony? You have to go to trial and court to do that! Simply allowing a payoff helps no one but a pirate and SC not the legal KJs that buy SC products. This just makes the pirates compete legally!

What testimony? Well it would be during the Discovery, under oath or affirmation.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Let's see, pay $25,000 plus to hear crap so-called investigators call proof or $7500 to payoff SC who will make a legal KJ with their Gem series discs and there will be no further repercussion on the one the lawsuit was filed against. This is my point - you have to proceed with a lawsuit to hear testimony not settle!

The settlement does not make a legal KJ.
It makes a pirate KJ with no worries of being sued -
a fearless pirate.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

New settlements require the destruction of all pirated tracks, not just SC tracks. So yes, the settlement does make a legal KJ.

or be a pro-active pirate and pay $3500 to license the GEM series today.

Then this means it would include SC8125.....

In reality, you can "ask" for the destruction of anything, however you cannot enforce any product created by anyone else. It's not your product to govern. I'm sure you get plenty of unrepresented pirates that don't know any better.

In a settlement you can ask for anything and get it if the other party agrees to it. But agreeing to delete all other tracks doesn't mean they won't put them all back later.
I would like to see a copy of this settlement agreement.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I have all my original discs but have removed the few SC I had. My answer to "pro-active" and I'll leave the "pirate" stuff to you along with the "$3500 license"!



Surprise! Surprise! Better believe what SC and their reps are saying, for a few thousand dollars any pirate can go from pirate to legal with no REPERCUSSION after the fact! Few will know and even fewer will care.

Just pointing out that $25000 v/s $7500 are not the only options. There is a third.

Right. If you want to sign away some of your rights and pay whatever the amount - forever. And I realize that's not a problem for some people.

It's just not my cup of tea.