Karaoke Forums

I am now comfortable to report on the latest lawsuit filed by Piracy Recovery LLC on May 17th 2013 since a response from a defendant has appeared on the docket.

http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copy ... documents/

It is customary, and responsible, to maintain silence until defendants are served. However, I have no problem serving crow!

BTW, Slep-Tone has nothing to do with this lawsuit. Also the lawsuit sues for copyright as well as trademark infringement on the Chartbuster product.

Have a lonely day!

_________________
-- Mark

You weren't clear on who is supposed to have the lonely day Insane. The only people eating crow seem to be in Tennessee, that is where everything seems to be converging, sort of like a mini karaoke Woodstock. DTE is in Tennessee, so is PR and most of the listed managers for Worldwide Digital, you were so thoughtful to provide. Not to mention the much awaited summit will be in Nashville Tennessee. Sorry no crows out here in sunny California just bags of sunshine. The reason SC is not on this lawsuit the plaintiffs are even going after non-profit organizations, something SC would not do since they continue to hope at some future date to resume production. That is if Worldwide Digital and PR don't make such a mess of things it will derail the legal process for good. Have an Insane day.

Mr. Harrington - Can you confirm or deny the assertion that SC is not involved with this lawsuit because a non-profit is involved?

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

If you look as SC's suit history Chris I think you will see quite clearly they have never filed against non-profit organizations, or even private clubs for that matter. Have a blessed day.

If there is anything you have ever typed in these forums that should convince people you have no credibility and should just be ignored, it is your last two posts.

How in the world can you state for a fact that Sound Choice is not involved in the other suit simply because it involves a non-profit? Is it so inconceivable to you that Sound Choice may not have ever filed against a non-profit simply because they never had cause to?

That is like you telling everyone "Chris would never have sex with Kaley Cuoco, because until now he has never had sex with Kaley Cuoco." When in fact my wife has given me express permission to do so should the opportunity ever present itself. (She gets Bradley Cooper for the curious).

A more realistic scenario is this -

"If you look at Chris' driving history you will see quite clearly that he has never driven a Lamborghini Veneno, a Bugatti Veyron or a McLaren F1 for that matter".

- So it should be obvious to all that I have zero interest in driving one because until now I never have.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Chris the reason even SC has never sunk that low, is because they have some hope of a future market, somewhere, and they are
still concerned with their public image. It is quite plain as you have pointed out PR and maybe Worldwide Digital Entertainment, have no such interest. That they are companies only wanting to cash in on trademark rights, of which in the case of PR, it is not even known how they obtained those rights. In the case of Worldwide it is not even clear on what label's behalf they are suing. Have a blessed day.

Lone, you should work at the National Enquirer.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Isn't that the old line from William Randolph Hearst, "Never let the facts get in the way of a great story". Especially since most of the facts are shielded from the vast majority of hosts. Have a blessed day.

Lone - For someone who wants us to believe they know as much about the industry as you say you do, it is shocking to me that you have not picked up that John Stovall is a managing member of WWD. I have nothing further to say about it in a public forum but it doesn't take much to start figuring out where interests may lie.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

So why do you need two companies protecting the same trademark, I thought PR owned the trademark what does WWD own Chris?

Does this mean the New Chartbuster can’t survive on it’s own merit producing karaoke tracks and must force others to supplement it’s income through a shakedown scheme?

By that I mean something similar to what United States District Judge Otis D. Wright, II determined Slep-Tone was doing with their Sound Choice trademark lawsuits in Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp., v. Backstage Bar And Grill, et al Case no. 2:11- cv-8305-ODW ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND SANCTIONS [97]
when he clearly stated:
“Upon consideration of Defendant’s motion papers, the court is convinced that this was nothing more than a shakedown suit.”
In addition he said:
“in this case, Slep-Tone takes trolling to the next level and essentially ignored all requests for discovery, explanations of exculpability, and requirements to act in good faith. Therefore the court finds that Slep-Tone’s conduct was both vexatious and in bad faith, and awards Defendants reasonable attorney’s fees in the sum of $18,105.”

This order is has since been referenced in another case (Expressway Music, Inc v. Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation) as they are seeking sanctions for allegedly similar conduct.

It seems a bit ironic that anyone would represent the Chartbuster brand as a victim of copyright infringement (Universal Music Corp. et al v. Tennessee Production Center, Inc. et al, Bluewater Music Services Corp. v. Tennessee Production Center, Inc., Cherry Lane Music Publishing Company, Inc. v. Tennessee Production Center, Inc. et al, Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC v. Tennessee Production Center, Inc., Karen Manno v. Tennessee Production Center, Inc., CAVS USA, INC. v. TENNESSEE PRODUCTION CENTER INC.)

Indeed the complaint is an interesting read. Here are a few interesting excerpts with comment:

29. Recording copyrighted material for the purposes of creating and producing a karaoke recording generally requires a license for exploitation of a song, which must be obtained from the song writer or their agent, generally called a “music publisher.” Plaintiffs have spent millions of dollars in securing these rights, and paying statutory and negotiated royalties to the owners of copyrights in the underlying musical works for their activities… (it seems that sync rights have been omitted from this statement, as well as CAVS)

48. Plaintiffs have been forced to undertake this litigation in order to ensure that they survive and continue to produce…
(Umm… I thought they already went out of business and Ill bet all of the purchasers of their KJMP product who got ripped off for the credit purchases they didn’t move from their web storage thought they did too.)

56. Widespread pirating of songs has contributed to the loss of more that sixty jobs at plaintiffs’ headquarters… (They had sixty employees at the time of the CAVS judgment?)

60. Piracy therefore unfairly increases the profits of illegitimate KJs and karaoke venues… (and karaoke manufacturers too)

71. In fact, in requesting a particular Chartbuster version of a song, karaoke performers will often ask for the “yellow and blue” one – or the one with the “yellow and red” logo… (yeah, this happens all of the time)

74. Upon information and belief, the infringements by each of the defendants of the Plaintiff’s copyrights and trademarks are a regular act that has been repeated numerous times over a period of months or years and are not isolated or transient occurrences. ( HUH? This has been going on for years and the plaintiff has admitted knowledge of such occurrences? Don’t they know the statute of limitations for copyright infringement is only three years?)

OK, I’m done citing passages.
They mention that the defendants could have gotten a certification through a program that no longer exists.
They whine about unfair competition, you know, like when a manufacturer tries to obliterate the competition of their own “preferred (certified) customers ” or when once competing manufacturers team up to troll the karaoke seas in hopes of landing a big one.
They bring up the idea of vicarious and contributory infringement, you know, like when a company gives tacit permission to infringe on the rights of others for a small fee in exchange for a promise not to sue.

As I see it and have predicted, the game has now escalated to venue shakedowns.
The hope is that the venues are still ignorant to the scheme and will cough up a settlement without a fight. If any of these venues decides to put up a fight, I would expect to see mention of things like unclean hands, statute of limitations, transfer of trademark without accompanying goodwill, antitrust, trolling, shakedowns, and the list will probably grow.

(The opinions expressed here are most likely parody. Or are they? Yes they are… probably.)

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

There are thousands of lawsuits filed every day in which SC doesn't participate. It has nothing to doo with the presence or absence of a non-profit defendant. We would sue a non-profit if we had cause to do so. Such a suit might get extra pre-filing scrutiny depending on who the defendant was, but it might not.

Your use of the term "shakedown" implies, if not states outright, that the entity filing the suit has no right to bring the action. Other language from your post confirms that this is your position. With that in mind, I have to ask: Do you have any actual evidence that the plaintiffs in this case don't own the intellectual property rights they are asserting, or that the defendants did not commit the acts of which they are accused (whether or not those acts amount to infringement)?

If not, and they actually do own the rights in question, your assertions are quite possibly libelous. You are accusing these entities of criminal conduct.

Yes, yes...it's all grand conspiracy. Like the Amero, the moon landing and 9/11.

Bazza, don't forget the big one - JFK.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

And the magic loogey!

how can they sue because somebody did not do something that doesnt exist with a company that you can not contact?
PR: you didn't get permission to copy the discs to computer
ME: i did from CB
PR: your cert is expired, did you get a new audit?
ME: no, were you offering audits?
PR: no, but that doesn't matter, you didn't do one
ME: how could i contact you
PR: that is private, you are not to contact us.
ME: so how would i have done an audit?
PR: that's your problem.

come on now, does that sound ethical to you Jim?

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

What I find ironic is that no matter what monies are recouped it will probably all end up going to CAV's any way because of what CB owes them.

Why work so hard just to have to give it away?

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

I don't agree that PR has done any such thing, so I don't have an opinion. But that is certainly not the conduct that earthling described. "Shakedown" means extortion, which is a crime. And there is simply no evidence that suggests that. PR indisputably owns the trademarks and has the statutory right to enforce them.

CB is not a party to these suits.