Karaoke Forums

Um...no. If tracks were produced withoout a license, the logo would have been attached without permission- not legally there.

You can sue for it all you want, but if the defendant is smart enough to bring a list of those tracks to court the judge will have to toss the case. It would be like SC painting their logo on my door without permission, then suing me for displaying it. Good luck with that.

This is why all defendants should include a request for the song name that the "investigator"...um..."witnessed" in their own interrogatory (sp?) documents. Could only be helpful- not that the alleged "investigator" would be able to supply the information....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

And the legal support for this theory is...?

Case law? Statute?

Joe you do understand that in court, criminal or otherwise, that reports are very seldom, if ever, put in as evidence during a trial. About the only time I can think it may be is if the writer is dead or is in some way completely incapacitated and a judge allows it. Read some books on evidence, discovery, etc.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Don't know how many have been following the other "troll" case in Judge wright's court. (He is the federal judge in Los Angeles that said in his order that Slep-tone took "trolling to the next level" and that its suit was nothing more than a "shakedown"). It's the Prenda case where lawyers for Prenda have purportedly represented copyright holders in adult films and sued hundreds of defendants for downloading their material without authorization. The case has very ugly against the Prenda lawyers for potentially engaging in fraud on the court. When Prenmda smelled that the court was onto its shenanigans, they ran and voluntarily dismissed many of their cases, but the court retains jurisdiction over them nonetheless. In Prenda's LA case, Judge Wright found that an inadequate pre-filing investigation was done. "Plaintiff has none of this—no evidence that Defendants completed their download, and no evidence that what they downloaded is a substantially similar copy of the copyrighted work. Thus, Plaintiff’s attorney violated Rule 11(b)(3) for filing a pleading that lacks factual foundation." Here is the link to what is becoming a very fascinating story of how Prenda's business model has come crashing down around them, if not directly on top of them. Indeed, many of the Prenda lawyers have now taken the 5th.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201302 ... ions.shtml
What struck me about the Prenda case is that rules require attorneys to have a factual foundation to file a law suit. It is improper to file a case without it and then rely on fishing for infringement in discovery. In Slep-tone's cases, what they seem to be saying is that they do not need to have facts to support infringement beyond a 1:1 correspondence because that is a technical infringement and therefore is enough to sue. However, based on Slep-tone's clear indication everywhere that a 1:1 is OK, that is tantamount to a defense of permission for such a technical infringement (even if it can be proven). So to succeed in defeating a defendant's rule 11 motion for sanctions, it seems to me that Slep-tone must provide actual evidence of infringement beyond a 1:1 correspondence. While Slep-tone avoids answering such questions in discovery, defendants might wish to press them hard on this under Rule 26 disclosures. If Slep-tone cannot produce such evidence, at this early stage, well, it could be bye bye case and hello yet more sanctions.

In case you were wondering, trademark use requires lawful use in commerce. The illegal use doctrine has been recognized by at least the 9th Circuit. CreAgri, Inc. v. USANA Health Scis., 474 F.3d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 2007) (only lawful use in commerce can establish trademark rights - court ordered the mark cancelled and the infringement case dismissed for illegal use of trademark).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... as_sdt=2,5

Although CreAgri was a case about illegal labeling, perhaps evidence of a lack of underlying license in music and lyrics, such as evidence for example from the publisher confirming same, might well extend the doctrine to such a case. That nearly occurred in United Phosphorus, Ltd. v. Midland Fumigant, Inc., 205 F. 3d 1219, 1225 (10th Cir. 2000) ("shipping goods in violation of federal law cannot qualify as the "use in commerce" necessary to establish trademark rights.")

I think you will find that case to be a dry hole. CreAgri dealt with a very narrow category of violations, in which the whole of the purported use in commercial was against federal regulations that implicated the plaintiff in criminal misconduct, and in which the question was which party had priority with regard to the mark in question. No other circuit court has followed CreAgri. The Second Circuit has questioned it, and McCarthy, a widely cited commentator and author of the leading trademark law treatise, has opined that the Ninth Circuit erred in its application of the defense.

Four things to remember: (1) SC has been accused several times of copyright infringement, but it has never been found liable for it; (2) copyright infringement is a private cause of action that requires standing; (3) SC's historical licensing practices demonstrate substantial compliance with the Copyright Act; and (4) a defendant who does not have access to SC's licenses would be extremely unlikely to have enough factual information to support such a defense under Rule 11.

Me thinks the doctrine is broader than the particular facts of CreAgri. The United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has adopted a "lawful use in commerce" doctrine, which provides that the shipment of goods in violation of a federal statute renders a federally registered trademark unenforceable. See Erva Pharm., Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 755 F.Supp. 36, 39-40 (D.P.R.1991) (citations omitted); Satinine Societa in Nome Collettivo Di S.A. E M. Usellini v. P.A.B. Produits Et Appareils De Beaute, 209 U.S.P.Q. 958, 963 (Trademark Tr. & App. Bd.1981). Maybe there has been no case that has held on the particular facts at issue in the Slep-tone cases, but you have not cited any authority that would preclude such a theory on the SC facts. In fact, you seemed so worried about this theory that you obviously did some research to come up with what you did. Are you saying that no court would dismiss a Slep-tone trademark infringement case and/or cancel the SC mark(s) if it was proven that SC did not possess the underlying licenses in the work upon which it places its trademarks? Me thinks too that you just opened the door to the defense of unclean hands and rightful exploration into whether Slep-tone in fact has the underlying rights by stating that "SC's historical licensing practices demonstrate SUBSTANTIAL compliance with the Copyright Act" (my emphasis) thus begging the question as to whether Slep-tone actually does have the rights in each of the tracks/CDs Slep-tone alleges have been infringed. (The unlawful use defense—has its origins in the common law doctrine of "unclean hands," see Erva Pharm., 755 F.Supp. at 39 n. 1.) Based on this statement, it seems defendants might now plead unclean hands as a defense and demand swift identification of exactly the tracks/CDs that Slep-tone alleges to have been the subjects of infringement and that Slep-tone produce all licenses that underlie that particular material. It does make one ponder Mr. Harrington, whether your statement above just made such requests relevant.

Whatever. I'm sure that if you manage to solicit some clients you might try it. You might want to read Rule 11 very carefully before you do.

Oh, and I don't have to "do research" to know about CreAgra or the TTAB's position regarding lawful use.

I have never seen a topic so beat to death with so many useless angles and so little real results--am I missing something?

It's just a blood feud. Dueling lawyers.. Carry on chaps.....

_________________
Still love to sing!

I am not familiar with soliciting clients. Given your track record of calling me a liar, Boris a thief, and having a coat liner of sanctions orders against you, good lord, haven't you managed to sully your reputation enough?

Raokeboy,

The one who appears most sullied is not Harrington but he who lurks and hides behind an anonymous screen name.

I would caution you to watch your postings as some have been banned from this forum for posting personal info that was less inflammatory than what you have posted about Harrington. Warnings have been posted on this forum and who knows when a MOD may be watching.

So "kjflorida," who among the nearly all here who use handles are you referring to?

Thanks for the heads up caution. Have you posted similar warnings to Harrington to refrain from insults and accusing members of lying? Has anyone? I am getting the sense here that some wish the rules to be selectively enforced dependent on view point. Anyone share this impression?

Most on this ,and, other forums have had no problems admitting who they are at least in my experience. I do believe that just about everyone here knows who I am and who my wife is by now.

I'd have to go with non-stupidity. The display of the logo is due to an ILLEGAL attachment by SC, and not through any intention of the KJ. While SC may have paid a settlement sor said illegal attachment, it only negated their liability- and NEVER gave permission for it. The display of the logo was due to an unpermitted attachment by SC, and therefore no liability can be attributed to anyone who plays the track.

While no KJ has been well-educated enough to bring this up in court, it's kind of a gimme per my IP advisors...

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

[quote="kjflorida"]Raokeboy,

The one who appears most sullied is not Harrington but he who lurks and hides behind an anonymous screen name.
quote]

Being married to Lady Athena, I thought you might have more class than that....

SO, like I asked J.H.- WITH NO REPLY: What are you inferring? Per the mods, he's not Chip, or anyone but Roakeboy. Do you wish to make an accusation? If not, it may be best advised to knock off the crappy comments, lest credibility suffer.

Unless, of course, you wish to expound on and prove what you are implying. If not, how about showing some class and knocking it off?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I think we need to take a time out..

This thread is closed for a few days.

Gather your wits, and perhaps I'll open it later..

James, since you said you were working on a joint case between SC and PR LLC, could you please offer some assistance here? There are some discussions and concerns going on in here about PR, LLC and a lack of knowledge regarding Audits or any Certification Program from them (or if they even plan to offer one).

Could you possibly provide us with direct contact information to Piracy Recovery, LLC, or would we have to go through this contact:?

Digitrax Entertainment, LLC
448 N. Cedar Bluff Rd., Suite 174
Knoxville, TN 37923
Phone: 865-312-7762

I don't have any information for you. I would suggest that contacting Digitrax would be the best route at this point.

Just for clarification, since one can only know what is said on these forums, and not the intent, does this mean you do not have any information concerning the LLC that you all have filed a joint lawsuit with, or you do not have any information "for you", which could be interpreted as not having information you have concluded is not for the poster in this given situation?