Karaoke Forums

Jim, some here have stated (speculated) that none of the Defendants had lawyers (ie they were bullied) or if they did, your client immediately or soon thereafter dropped their suit against them (ie the client was too scared to continue). Can you clear up any of these speculations just so we don't have to continuously hear it? I am talking about those Defendants who didn't prove to be 1:1 or ODB.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Just was when defendants do not hire a lawyer, the most common occurrence when a defendant hires a lawyer is settlement.

There is no discernible pattern associated with hiring versus not hiring a lawyer, except that a defendant who hires a lawyer is very unlikely to default.

All of our settlement offers and other settlement documents expressly encourage defendants to have a lawyer review the case and/or the paperwork. In fact, we expressly encourage defendants to seek out IP specialist counsel, because "regular" lawyers sometimes have difficulty with the finer points. Defendants who hire lawyers do not get different (more favorable or less) treatment from defendants who do not hire lawyers, other than the obvious logistical difference (as an attorney, I cannot negotiate directly with a party whom I know to be represented by counsel).

Just as a matter of personal preference, I prefer it when defendants hire an attorney for a couple of reasons. One, I usually don't have to explain the case in those situations, or when I do, there is at least a strong legal background to work with. Two, attorneys are usually pretty good at exercising independent judgment, so they can help their clients by getting them to agree to settle on mutually favorable terms instead of forcing us to spend a lot of time on the case, which in turn drives up the cost of settlement.

1) The point is that the Trademark Infringement suit is based on the display of the logo from a computer rather than the original disc, and has nothing to do with whatever is displayed with it.. It's JUST the trademark. SC cannot grant permission to media shift anything but - possibly- the logo. In other words, whatever else is displayed via the media shift is not SC's concern, nor do they have a right to be concerned.

Since all that SC is demanding is that a KJ be "1:1", then ripping a single original disc to the drive would provide use of the logo on that basis. Again, the LOGO is the only possible thing for which SC could provide permission to media shift.

That one rip would allow unlimited didplay of the logo from the PC, in the same way that one could play a disc over and over again.

While the use of the logo by KJs who steal their libraries is wrong, unfortunately it still doesn't validate the case.


2) Jim, you and I both understand that this is an internet debate, and nothing is personal. I am the first to say PUBLICLY that most of the one on one contact with you has been both helpful and a pleasure.

Would I think- from what I know of you one to one- that you would even take these cases? Absolutely not- yet surprisingly, you have. That being said, I would assume that you would handle them in a responsible manner, which would include never admitting a weakness.

While that is the professional thing to do for your clients, these weaknesses must be pointed out for the sake of the karaoke industry, of which I am a part.

I believe that THIS is probably the weakest point of several in the SC suits. I also believe that SC will walk away from all of the big guys cases ( probably the tiny ones too, but who knows) and pray for dismissals because the big guys have the resources to finish this in court. I believe that SC is afraid that if just ONE big guy decides not to motion for severance or dismissal, but decides to drag them into court for an example, the party is over.

I'm sure we'll find out soon enough how Vegas goes.....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Vegas is crumbling. 9 more Defendants were dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.

So glad the SC attorneys are right on top of things.

_________________
Birdofsong

I believe you are mistaken.

Where in the dismissal order does it state "WITH PREJUDICE"?

http://www.pdf-archive.com/2012/05/22/7 ... o-dismiss/

First of all, they weren't dismissed by stipulation by SC. The Court, itself, granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. That means they are OUT OF THE CASE ENTIRELY. Under these circumstances, since the Order did not state specifically without prejudice, Sound Choice cannot go back and add them back in or re-file. They would need leave of the Court to sue them for the same cause of action. Considering the Court gave them ample opportunity (twice) to respond and they failed to do so, and they have not filed a motion for reconsideration (which they have a limited time to do and would likely not be granted, either) or an appeal of the court's order (not a shot in h^%* that would be granted), the case against these Defendants' goose is cooked...it is pushing up daisies...bit the dust...bought the farm...kicked the bucket...cashed in its chips....gone to that big karaoke cloud in the sky....you get the idea.

_________________
Birdofsong

Perhaps Mr. Harrington will clarify.

Thanks.

it has ceased to be, it's metabolic processes are of interest only to archaeologists, flown the coop, THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!

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

It seems pretty clear, but the spin will be interesting.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Is this the same Harrington that said the Las Vegas attorneys were on top of it?

_________________
Birdofsong

Unclean hands...... it depends on how strong you truly believe your "media-shifting" creates a counterfeit argument is.
Let's assume you're argument has merit and there is no "fair use" in this scenario;

1. Soundchoice tolerates "media-shifting" after the shifter has undergone an audit proving their 1:1 status.
2. Soundchocie certifies the shifter as "legit" and gives them documentation and a promise not to sue.
3. Soundchoice displays their certified shifters on the soundchoice website.
4. Soundchoice clearly states that they can not authorize the "media-shift" but they have put together an entire program to enable it.
5. By soundchoice's own argument, they believe that "shifting" is counterfeiting.
6. The gem set, while licensed for CD distribution, is formated for easy "shifting" and comes with drag and drop instructions.
7. All of this and more makes soundchoice a material participant in the counterfeiting of the publishers' works.

That is known as Contributory Infringement......one of the possible unclean hands defenses if not a good cause of action for a publisher against Soundchoice.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

The problem with that scenario is that there is not any such thing as a countetfeit of a copyright. It's strictly a trademark concept.

Ah, but contributory copyright infringement is very real.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Here is the most simplified post I can give:

Were SC to go into court against a competent attorney and competent and unbiased judge, they would not only lose, but be humiliated.

1) The suit revolves around SC's trademark appearance on a display from a computer. If the KJ rips a single SC original disc, they are 1:1

2) SC cannot ( by their own admission) give permission to media shift a track- they MIGHT be able to give permission for the logo. Therefore the tracks themselves are inadmissable. Again, Rip one original disc, and the logo is 1:1.

3) SC has attached their trademark without permission to HUNDREDS of tracks that they produced- WITHOUT PERMISSION for profit ( think PIRATE). Though they may have settled with the owner/publishers, ( EDIT: I had originally erroneously made a statement about CURRENT licensing, when in fact I do not know what the current licensing status of all tracks are. I should have re-read my statement before posting. My apologies for the error as well as any misunderstanding that it may have caused, and my thanks for having it pointed out to me. )that MAY not indicate actual licensing.

4) SC must also prove damages caused by the simple display of their logo. Bunches of luck with that.....

SC has no case, never had a case, never will have a case.

Honestly, this "suspended belief" party is pretty much over. Only the very least educated KJ/businessperson could be intimidated by this absolute joke of a case.

As for you "wait and see" enthusiasts: We've been waiting for SEVERAL YEARS now- and seen NOTHING. Why? Nothing to see.

Additionally, feel free to watch them RUN from the Las Vegas "big guys"...

I realize that this post is a tad more aggressive sounding than my usual, and apologize in advance. I'm just amazed at how many still feel SC has any case whatsoever, and took a shot at a more direct approach.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

It's called poisoning the well.......

haven't i heard that phrase before?........

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

Unless of course the argument is completely dismissed by those.....like me.... who aren't afraid to play Sound Choice music at all.

My well is fine. I drink from it as do my venues and my singers and we are very happy with the taste.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris