Karaoke Forums

People assume too much.

Exactly. I've been in courts long enough to NEVER assume what a judge is going to rule or what a sentencing will be.

A judge may throw the whole thing out, rule completely with the Complainant, or something in between.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I'll assume so. But what exactly is the "too much" that you are referring to? I haven't a clue!



Exactly "what"? What does "exactly" refer to?

And the things that you pointed out that might happen at a trial, are "givens" and the very reason there are those posters who don't believe SC actually is desirous of going to trial!

[quote="diafel @ Tue May 04, 2010 7:06 am"]
Explain to me how a KJ can be unfair competition to SC?
Pirate KJs host shows, they don't manufacture discs and then try to sell them.
SC is not in the business of hosting shows, they are in the business of manufacturing discs, and therefore they cannot prove unfair competition and therefore financial loss caused by the people they are suing.

Pirates actually do reproduce the songs put out by SC and sell/trade them. They duplicate hard drives to multirig or sell to other hosts, they share downloads at file sharing sites, they make discs for singers, etc. So they are distributing SCs product at a cheaper or even free cost which competes with SCs ability to sell them at a fair price. Not sure how trademark fits in but yes--pirates are reproducing SCs songs for distribution.

Can an individual be prosecuted for using or being in possession of stolen or illegally acquired property?

Agreed, but this is NOT what SC is suing for! They aren't claiming any of that against the people they've named! Where in ANY of the legal documents filed have you seen the word "distributed" or any derivative thereof in reference to the activities of the defendants?

It most certainly is in Canada and I would wager that it is in the vast part of the world and most certainly in the Western countries.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

But just go ahead and tell a cop about the pirate KJ and ask for him or her to be arrested.
It's all good on paper, but......

I was actually answering your claim directly, that pirates don't compete by distributing the stolen songs. But, as you asked, here is at least one example from the Virginia suits, page 20, item 75. (site won't let me copy/paste)

"75. Many KJs, such as some of the present Defendents, obtain, copy, share, DISTRIBUTE, and/or sell digitized copies of the songs via pre-loade hard drives, USB devices, DC-Rs or the internet."

Thanks for the "heads-up" regarding this matter being mentioned in the SC suit. And, clearly, if it is happening this would be the most obvious and egregious defendant to pursue!

HOWEVER, neither Kurt Slep (Sound Choice CEO) nor any defendant who has posted to any forum has EVER discussed this issue. That's not to say that there isn't at least one of the accused that is selling SC files.

And they are going to have to prove it against each and every defendant, too! Good luck with that Sound Choice!
Just how are they going to do that when all that has apparently happened is "investigators" going to shows and observing music being played?
I sincerely doubt that much copying is going on at shows, if any. KJ's generally are far too busy working to start burning off copies to sell or otherwise distribute.
And SC "investigators" would have had to observe it going on. Not very likely.
In the odd one that they can prove it against, they MIGHT have a trademark infringement case, but I suspect that this will be the VERY RARE exception rather than the rule in these lawsuits.
I would also point out that that statement from the lawsuits is the background outlining the case, not an actual claim against the KJs named.

You have a link to the actual paperwork? I looked and found a lot of press articles but no link directly to the court of record and the public filing. I'd love to read how they constructed this.

Good point, Diafel. That explains why such terminology appears in the SC suit while at the same time none of us seem to be aware of any of the accused being specifically named in that regard!

Try this link. While it relates to SC's activities in Virginia I doubt that the complaint in Florida isn't exactly the same.

http://www.virginiaiplaw.com/uploads/file/karaoke_complaint.pdf

Please note that since the original info was made public regarding those specifically accused in the Virginia area, the list of accused seems to have increased dramatically.

Also note, and I find this most interesting, that the specific complaint primarily includes the following claim by SC:

The defendant "was observed displaying the Sound Choice Marks without rights or license" during a particular Karaoke show named in the suit!

http://www.virginiaiplaw.com/uploads/fi ... plaint.pdf

_________________
Dave's not here.

I also see where they have put in that those using unauthorized copies is unfair competetion to those using authorized copies. They filed suit with their allegations and now each Defendant can decide whether to fight or not.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

But the issue is that SC does not have the right to claim unfair competition in such a situation on the behalf of the KJs affected. Only those individuals who can show a loss have the right to sue and claim compensation for damages. Otherwise, to use the famous McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit, I could sue McDonald's for the hot coffee spilled on someone I don't even know. Now how would that affect me, personally and why would I be able to claim damages for it?
Of course, the individual who had the coffee spilled on them could sue in such a case, and so it is with unfair competition in this case.

They aren't suing for unfair competetion on behalf of others. It is mentioned in support of the suit.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Yes, Virginia

There is a difference between those of us who try to read every post and are contemplative about what we find vs those of us who misread postings and/or ignore postings, even ones that directly precede their latest offering!

They ARE, as part of their suit suing for unfair competition. If said KJs cannot be proven to be distributing, and I seriously doubt that few, if any can, then they quite obviously have no case in that particular regard.
As you stated, they mentioned it in support of their case, however, it really has no bearing on it, since unfair competition between KJs has no bearing whatsoever on SC's manufacturing business. I doubt any competent judge will give it much weight, if any, when considering the TRADEMARK lawsuit.
What is happening in one industry, even if closely connected, with another industry, should have little to no bearing in the courtroom. A competent defense lawyer can easily have the judge disregard it.