Karaoke Forums

In all seriousness, here's the problem I have with Johnny Reverb:

(1) I've stated a policy on how I'm going to operate with discs that are brought in.

(2) I've even stated WHY this is happening; because of the current trademark lawsuits that have been instituted by Sound Choice.

(3) Chartbusters' Karaoke own C.O.O. David Grimes confirmed that if you play a disc you do NOT own.... even if Johnny Reverb brings in an ORIGINAL disc that he's been practicing with, you run the risk of a lawsuit.

Apparently, this is not acceptable with Johnny. I'm in NO WAY expecting him to agree with me because frankly, I think it sucks too. I'M the one that has to deal with all the singers that used to bring in their discs, so I'm the one that has to catch the crap from all the "johnny reverbs" out there... over and over again.

But I'm not about to risk spending several hundred dollars in legal fees just to tell a judge that the investigator was correct; that I played a disc I did not own. It doesn't matter that Johnny owns it and brought it in with him.

So is Johnny adult enough to say that he disagrees with it and perhaps would never visit a show like that?

In a way he does, but first he wants to expound that just because he's entered a karaoke bar carrying a disc he's been practicing with (and has done nothing wrong) that somehow I'm now obligated to do exactly what HE wants me to do because he has some special "rights".... And he should know he's been "singing karaoke since you were sh**tin' yellow."

I'm pretty sure that the only person on these forums that has been a KJ longer that I have is Lonnie. But Johnny doesn't want to even remotely understand what it's like from a KJ's point of view. He wants what he wants and he wants it now and he doesn't care how disrespectful he has to get to demand it.

Sorry. This is MY business.
The minute he starts telling me what to do is when I start telling him where to go.

If I'm doing the wrong thing, then he doesn't need to worry about it because it will put me out of business right? And if HE is doing the wrong thing he won't be able to find a karaoke place to sing in more than once.

And don't make it sound like you're going to get railroaded just because you have a public defender. That's just simply not the case, no matter how you present it. Yes, hours are limited, but if the lawyer is competent (and most usually are at least that), then it really shouldn't be an issue.
And yes, I agree with the others who point out that your comparison, like so many others you tend to present on this forum, doesn't work here. We are talking about CIVIL cases, not criminal ones. Once again, you're comparing apples to oranges and talking like you know it all.
Just because you were once an MP does not make you the end all and be all as far as knowing the law goes. As you well know, military law and civilian law are two COMPLETELY different things, with totally different applications in many cases.
Legal aid doesn't cover this kind of civil case. You're on your own as far as hiring a lawyer goes, so if you get sued, it DOES cost you money, unlike criminal cases, where you can at least get legal aid if you don't have the funds to cover a lawyer.

I think the conflict has come about because of the classification of singers who bring their own discs as "divas" or "insecure singers" or of some other personality type or performance type that was undesirable to a show. Seemed rather insulting.

As for the Sound Choice issue, you either believe that they would go around setting people up and trying to entrap them over one song (which as Tovmod pointed out they must know they will never prove was ever on your hard drive) or you don't believe it. If there is some evidence out there that they are actually doing that, then maybe we should all hear about it.

The comment by the CB CEO struck me as being more pot stirring than a valid legal opinion. Wonder if he is really on board with his own company's plans.

Frankly, it doesn't matter whose disc it is, as far as legalities goes, doesn't it say on each and every disc that they are not for public performance? What do you call a nightclub? Or a tavern? Aren't these basically places where the public can come in and sing? So if technicalities are the issue, then they have ALL of us who do shows in public places.

And frankly, if we do not have permission to play ANY disc in a public place, it seems to me, then, that it doesn't matters whether it is a disc I paid for or a disc someone else paid for. And frankly, I didn't pay for the disc itself, I paid for the right to use the song. Am I the only one thinking this way? Give us a break manufacturers, we're giving you information on the people who are really screwing you over. Go after them.

diafel gee thanks for letting me know that Military law and Civilian Law is different. Unlike the civilian forces, we were required to also know civilian law as we had to enforce that too. MPs spend a lot more time in civilian court than military. As for civil suits, I have been involved in many of them as an investigator.

Further there are good lawyers and bad lawyers in both civil and criminal cases. My point being that public defenders are on a slim budget and that can mean the difference between a conviction and an acquittal.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

It did seem to degrade rather quickly didn't it?



Don't expect to hear about it, it wouldn't ever be that obvious. And "how" they got the evidence is simply photographic evidence... {click} you don't have it in your book and {click} it shows up on the screen.

After that, nothing else matters and it simply becomes an argument of semantics:

(a) Customer A. brings in an original disc and you play it.

(b) Investigator photographs opening screen then looks in songbook and doesn't see it there and photographs where it "should be" to show it's missing. Especially if it's someone who has brought in an entire case of their own discs... (and we've all seen them).

(c) You get sued.

(d) there is proof you played discs you do not own and it IS in fact, true.

(e) You lose, and at this point it doesn't even matter if you are disc-based because (a) will be irrelevant to the court.

It doesn't matter to the court what the customer does, they are not a party to the suit. It only matters what YOU did.

The REAL question here is whether or not this would be legal and IMHO, as unethical and immoral as it might be it is still technically "legal" because it all fits within the scope of the lawsuit. They are not suing for "public performance" or copyright or even how many customers own the discs you play. It's strictly trademark, period.



And you could possibly be correct, I don't know. He certainly hasn't elaborated and he hasn't been back to answer other questions, which damages his own credibility in my book.

Well then, just have each singer sign a release with a date stamp for when the disc was played and their contact info in case you need them to be a witness.

At this point I would consider it no different than a cover band performing the same songs in a club & being covered under ASCAP/BMI/SESAC - provided the club paid those fees in the first place.

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

An enticing idea to say the least.... however how long would it take for a singer to get pissed off about it and walk up to the owner/manager and say something like: "I just want to sing MY song, off MY disc and that karaoke guy wants me to sign a "release" everytime I do it! I didn't do anything wrong and I spend money in here every week! Can't I just sing my song or should I go somewhere else?"

Believe me, it will happen sooner than you think and frankly if I was the singer, I'd pretty much feel the same way. I ain't happy about it either believe me.

That's fine Lonnie, and most part, I'd have to agree with you. However it's not what "you consider" it's what the "court will consider." Plus, these suits are strictly trademark with SC, so ASCAP/BMI/SEASAC licensing and fees have NOTHING to do with SC's trademark. The cover band is not displaying anyone else's trademark. You notice that SC is not suing for copyright -I believe they know better than that- nor are they suing for lyric reprint - the lyrics don't belong to them - or any other typical "license" that has to do with the manufacture of a cd+g disc. The only part of a cd+g disc that belongs to them (anymore) is just the trademark. Nothing else matters and they know that too.

Yes, SC has explained a dozen times that the whole "authorized for public performance" statement has meant the ASCAP/BMI/SEASAC licensing in the clubs; if they're paid then the disc IS authorized.

And while it's true that some courts will look at the "big picture," in federal courts, they tend to put on blinders and look only at what is listed and nothing else, no big pictures, only microscopes.

Going back over the posts, it kinda seemed like johhny got exicited about, what you called them?.....disk toting divas or something like that.......something about them wanting to preform the few songs they practiced at home. Seemed to me you felt that practicing was a foul, and that these kind of people are undisirable at a karaoke show......and something about they might as well bring their own food and drink to a show.......but he shouldn't get upset over one person's opinion.
Doubt if he's gone for good. Sometimes I find him annoying, and annoying people can't stand to leave a good argument...... I usually try to stay out of things, and I don't think I'll miss him. You can't let things said on here get to you.

karaoke discs are sold all over the place these days and I think a judge would have to give the benefit of the doubt to the KJ who claimed that many of his singing customers bring their own discs in to the venue. If I bring in my personal Sound Choice disc, the KJ is only allowing me to excercise my "personal use" of said CD. Instead of asking me to sign a release, the KJ could simply state over the microphone that I would be singing a song from a disc that I brought to the venue. If an investigator was in the venue and he didn't check out the validity of the KJ's disclaimer, then I would think their law suit wouldn't hold much water. They have a responsibility to do their due diligence before taking someone to court.

I know the hassle of being sued probably isn't worth it but I think that Sound Choice isn't going around filing lawsuits against KJ's with what would seem to be the "normal amount" of songs for a legitimate KJ. I think that they are targetting the KJ's that are advertising those six figure song books and the KJ's only been in business for a short time.

They are sold all over the place these days, but a judge cannot "give a benefit of the doubt" in federal court - they can in traffic court and they do - but not in federal court. The judge is strictly required to interpret the law as it stands. He cannot create a new "exception."

If you bring your disc to a "public" karaoke show, where a KJ gets paid to do their thing for you to perform it "publicly" I'm sure it would no longer fall in the "personal use" catagory.



Sure they have a reponsibility for "due diligence." However, the announcement over the microphone is simply "hearsay" in a court of law... Because the "KJ said that the disc belonged to someone else" is nothing more than that; hearsay. And when you get down to it, if the judge wants to see the disc in question, you don't own it but you DID play it, right? (Right.) End of story, you lose. Not necessarily moral or ethical, but technically "legal."



Don't know that that matters at all. Lonnie's been in business since the invention of dirt, runs everything off a laptop and has his discs stored. Does he have a zillion songs? Nope. But he has a bunch - more than the average. And he has a bunch that are out of print.
Would an investigator know the difference? Probably not.
Would they care? Probably not.
If someone brought in a disc, could they sue him? Yep.

Economically it's in SC's best interest to sue as many at a time as they can because there is only 1 "filing" that costs $350 instead of 25 filings at $350 EACH. Here's the logic; "Sue them all, the rats will pay up, the legals will prove they're legal and we let them off."

Look at Florida: So far, 6 settled and 1 is off the hook. That's 6 x $6,500 or $39,000 PLUS, and very little "costs." It's a goldmine.

They've hit 2 towns so far, in relatively large karaoke markets. I think the local pirate in a relatively small town has absolutely NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT and behaves that way for the most part.

My "sign a release" thing was a joke.

I don't want to live my life having more fear of playing a legal song than a pirate does of playing a stolen one. There is nothing in it for SC to sue a KJ for playing a few songs that SC can't prove they ever owned when everything else about the library is in order. I don't believe they are setting up and entrapping people. And if they did, the judge doesn't decide after hearing just one side. Both sides get to present their case. This is much too blown out of proportion.

If I didn't know what I know about federal courts, I'd have no choice but to agree with you.... and I'll be the first to say that can be the stupidest senario on the planet.. but it can/does happen.

Let me give you an example from a state court (not federal) as recent as November '09:

Anyone here own a motorcycle? Got it insured right? Here in Michigan it's "no fault" insurance. Motorcycles have their own classification, you have to have a special license to ride them. Only certain ones are allowed on freeways and city streets, you have to wear a helmet, yadda yadda... AND you must have registration and PROOF of insurance....

So far, so good right? Well guess what happens if you get in an accident on a motorcycle? There are 2 different "kinds" of accidents:

(1) and accident with another "motor vehicle": Nothing unusual in this case, your insurance and their insurance will do what they are supposed to do under the law. Repairs are made, broken bones are mended and insurance pays for it like normal.

(2) an accident with ANOTHER MOTORCYCLE: Your bike might get fixed, but you won't because portions of the policy that you've been paying for are now null and void under state law. You pay for your own nursing and/or attendant care when in #1 above, the insurance company would be paying for it.

WHY?..... because under state law, a motorcycle is NOT classified as a "motor vehicle" and some of the medical is NOT covered under the no-fault laws unless you are in an accident with another motor vehicle... (a four-wheeled car or truck). I was there, I saw the jury wrestle with the decision and even they didn't like the law, but they had to make their decision based on the law after seeing the facts.


MY POINT IS.. that I wouldn't put it past a federal court to ignore the fact that a singer brought in a disc to play. The fact will be that the KJ "caused to display the plaintiff's trademark of a disc he does NOT own" period. Throw everything else out the window...goodl, bad or indifferent.

Actually, one multi-rigger with 30 shows a week in Miami paid about that much

Who got off the hook and why?

CHRISTOPHER SJOKVIST
1369 N LOTUS DR
DUNEDIN FL 34698‐5410

Deductive reasoning would indicate that the one person on the list as being dismissed "with prejudice" meaning SC can NOT bring the same action against them again. And we all know hw much SC wants KJ's to sign their agreement for an audit and leave the door open for future suits. My guess would be it's a disc-based KJ and another botched investigation.

But this is only an educated guess... you' have to find out from the KJ above, provided there's no gag-agreement in the settlement.

With ALL this talk about being sued, WHAT is the basis for the law suit if you play someone elses disc at your show? Sure, Soundchoice will say you displayed their logo, SOOOO. In what way were they harmed, in what way did they lose money, what are the MONETARY damages? You go to court, Soundchoice states that you played a disc that you don't own, and that cost them WHAT in MONETARY terms? If you didn't hurt their reputation, cost them NO monies, gave them FREE advertisement, where is the basis for a MONETARY judgement. The judge asks, "how were you damaged" what are they going to reply? I can see sueing for having an illegal library, but think it's a stretch to think they'll sue for playing someone's disc. My 2 cents.

Rosario