Karaoke Forums

And the countersuit would begin.

On what grounds? The host saying he had discs (and none in evidence at the show) and the manufacturer didn't believe him?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

what some here like to ignore is that you are only able to use converted tracks with prior permission from SC....it is not a right you are granted without proving 1-1 status in advance with SC.....why is this so hard to understand ? you may not like the truth but that does not make it untrue

_________________
"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

Lots of grounds. Start with malicious prosecution and move right on to tortuous interference if the manufacturer sent a letter to his venue(s) stating they "believe" he "may" be infringing and the venue could be legally exposed. Not to mention loss of reputation (I believe SC claimed that against Nigel) and a host of others... that's just the tip of the iceberg.



A manufacturer can "request" anything they want, however they can't "demand" to search YOUR disc collection. (maybe in Canada they can). Keep in mind that their current complaints are 10% trademark and 90% piracy. They sue for trademark then prosecute on piracy.... it's a racket as far as I'm concerned.

Show me the written law and I'll believe it.
(Not your interpretation of a law, either, but a definitive law.)

Here you go. This should spell it out for you.

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1114.html

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

The court can allow the corporate veil to be pierced if there is evidence that personal assets have been comingled into the day to day operation of the corp. It happens all the time. Being incorporated does not guarentee personal protection.

_________________
No venue to big or too small. From your den to the local club or event, we have the music most requested. Great sounding system!

Given that statements made in lawsuits, pertaining to the subject matter of the lawsuit, are the subject of absolute privilege against liability for defamation, and given that statements made to the beneficiary of an asserted infringement are subject to qualified privilege against liability for tortious interference (i.e., the countersuing defendant must show actual malice to prevail) as well as an affirmative defense of business interest, and given that malicious prosecution requires a showing of actual malice (intent to cause injury without claim of right), I think we can safely put your "grounds" into the category of "wishful thinking."



I'm not sure how you think you can differentiate between "trademark [infringement]" and "piracy." The latter is a general term that can include the former. It's like saying a complaint is "10% libel and 90% defamation." Libel is a form of defamation. Trademark infringement is a form of privacy.

Regardless, the discovery process is available to search the disc collection.

I disagree.

I agree with the person who passed the bar exam!

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

HALF of them (50%) LOSE.

Yes it's possible. It's hard to guarantee you have done it 100%, but it isn't that hard to do the vast majority.

What would be difficult is finding and parsing reliably only targeted content. You could easily delete all MP3 and ZIP files, even scanning ones that have different extension names for the right "file magic". But deleting only Sound Choice and Chartbuster, reliably? Quite a bit harder.

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

so...SC sues me and i have to prove i was right
i sue SC and i have to prove i'm right?????
at what point would SC need to prove they are right?

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

They are always right - or have you missed reading this forum for months?

No. SC sues you and you have to submit your materials for inspection through the discovery process. The burden of proof remains on SC to show infringement--after inspection of your materials.

Time to clarify this counselor..... let's say that SC sues a KJ that has NOT defaulted, has not failed to respond, has not failed to appear, etc...

"SC sues you and you have to submit your relevant materials for inspection...."

If your investigator claims that the saw a KJ play SC's "My Heart Will Go On" by Celine Dion, then the disc SC8147 that contains the "Songs of Jimmy Buffett" which were NOT played, which did NOT infringe on your client's rights and are NOT relevant in your "trademark infringement" suit. You can bet that your "request" to see everything else NOT directly relevant to your investigation would be objected to in a heartbeat. And it would seem to me that it would be reasonable to object to your request for ANY (and all) other materials -- which would be irrelevant and burdensome.

Contrary to popular belief, just because you file a lawsuit does NOT give you carte blanche to see everything you want. You can ask for the moon all you want, but that is no guarantee a judge will allow it. Any more than a KJ requesting that SC prove that every single song they've ever made was licensed properly and prior to any sales - which would also be burdensome to SC. However, if they are asking for proof only on the discs which they've already purchased in good faith then their request does have some relevancy because your client did receive direct, commercial financial gain from the production and subsequent sales of the relevant evidence.

This is where having a law degree and experience actually litigating cases makes a difference.

Sure, they can object to production, and we will move to compel production, and we will win that motion because the existence of tracks on a hard drive for which the KJ does not own a disc is directly relevant to whether the display of the trademark was legitimate or not.

Media-shifting (including displaying logos from media-shifted tracks) is only tolerated IF the KJ has full 1:1 correspondence for ALL tracks on the hard drive. That puts ALL tracks on the hard drive in play, not just those that the investigatory happened to witness. Even if the KJ can produce a disc for every track that was witnessed, we will still be able to examine the hard drive.

Moreover, the term "relevant" as it is used in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (applicable to discovery) has a broader scope than the term "relevant" as used in Federal Rule of Evidence 401 (applicable to trials). In discovery, matters are "relevant" if they are responsive to a request that is "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Relevancy objections in discovery are almost never sustained, and usually only when the burden of production is extremely high in comparison to the probative value of what would be obtained. There is not a court in this country that would deny a request for us to examine whether the defendant KJ has the means to commit infringement in the future, because injunctive relief is a major part of this and any trademark infringement lawsuit.

As to proper licensing, considering that the defendant would not have the right to raise that as a defense (unless he were the songwriter, and I am pretty sure we are not suing anyone who is an author of anything we've done), there is no argument that the discovery is reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence, and, as you admit, it would be burdensome to be required to produce the thousands of license documents that have been generated over the years.

Really interesting thread.
I don't know if over-written data can be recovered from a modern hard drive because I haven't opened one in 20 years. Just when you say it can't be done someone figures out a way to do it. SC sued a guy who probably doesn't have two dimes to rub together and got a judgement for a three quarters of a million dollars. What can they recover but a used PA system. I have no sympathy for pirates but what did this guy really do? He played some music in a bar so drunk people could bellow through a microphone. If this guy was interested in being hard core criminal he would have blanked the copyright information in the CDG file and changed the screen colors which is not too hard to do. What are the actual damages? Statutory damages without actual damages is an abuse of power.

_________________
Okay, who took my pants?

I disagree. And it's also true that 50% of those with law degrees miscalculate what they believe they "will win." Your statement above relies on the assumption that a KJ does not own a disc and that is where we differ.


I disagree. And a reasonable court may disagree as well.




The operative word here is "relevant." (You must have inadvertently missed the beginning of that sentence when you copied and pasted.) Tracks not licensed by, created by, sold and/or distributed by your client are in fact, irrelevant to your claim of trademark infringement.

In any case, it will be the determination of the court of what is and what isn't relevant in connection to your client's claim of infringement.

You quoted rule 401, but I believe 402 is more appropriate:


And, as it is in any case, the court will determine what is and what isn't "relevant." We can argue the finer points of what we think might happen, but nothing is a certainty.



Interesting how you can claim that tracks not belonging to your client on a hard drive can somehow be relevant evidence but oppositely, proper licensing for the creation and sale of these products obtained by your client is suddenly not just as discoverable by the defense. How convenient.

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.

He illegally obtained the music. Stole it! Like a thief! That's what he did. I don't care who it is, a thief is a thief.

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