Karaoke Forums

This was a lot to copy and paste. I hope some make use of it. It appears to me that the forms made available on a certain Blog have cost those sued AGAIN.

WO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation and Piracy
Recovery LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Gary Anthony Granito et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
CV 12-298 TUC DCB
ORDER
The Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on April 20, 2012. Some Defendants answered.
The Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why unserved Defendants should not be
dismissed. The Plaintiffs did not object to dismissal for lack of service as to the following
Defendants: Kent B. Campbell, David R. Fuller, Alejandro Gutierrez, Jr., Jamie P. Jackson,
Benjamin Knauer, Tiffany McDaniel, Keith E. Powell, Sharon D, Silver, and unknown
parties named as John Does 1 through 20 and XYZ Organizations. These Defendants will
be dismissed from the case, without prejudice.
After alternatively serving Defendant Tony G DJ, L.L.C. by delivering process to
the Arizona Corporation Commission as the statutory agent, the Plaintiffs sought entry of
default as to Defendant Tony G DJ, L.L.C. Default was entered by the Clerk of the Court
on January 8, 2013. Defendant Tony G DJ, L.L.C. is subject to judgment by default, and
Plaintiffs must proceed accordingly or the case against this entity may be subject to dismissal
for lack of prosecution. LR Civ. 41.1.
After filing Answers, the Defendants Granito, Turner, and Brown filed motions for
judgment on the pleadings, and Defendant Hurbon filed a motion to dismiss. These
Case 4:12-cv-00298-DCB Document 99 Filed 07/23/13 Page 1 of 12

1Defendant Hurbon files a Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(c), for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(2)(B).
2
Defendants have joined in each others’ motions. Defendant Granito filed a motion to sever.
Defendant Brown filed a Motion to Strike the Plaintiffs’ Response to his Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings. These motions are fully briefed and ready for disposition. The
Court denies them for the reasons stated in this Order.
Discovery closed June 3, 2013. Subsequently, Defendant Granito filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment on June 18, 2013. On July 8, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for an
Order to Show Cause. Plaintiffs ask the Court to require Defendant Granito to show cause
why summary judgment should not be entered against him as a sanction under Fed. R. Civ.
P.11 for spoilation of evidence. Neither motion is fully briefed. The Court stays the time for
Plaintiffs to respond to the motion for summary judgment and orders Defendant Granito to
show cause why summary judgment or some lesser sanction should not be entered against
him for destruction of evidence.
A. Defendants’ Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings
All Defendants having answered, they proceed now under Rule 12(c): Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings.1
Rule 12(c) allows for disposing of cases on the basis of the underlying substantive
merits of the parties’ claims and defenses as revealed in the formal pleadings in a case: the
Complaint and Answer. Rule 12(c) provides a means of disposing of cases when the material
facts are not in dispute and a judgment on the merits can be achieved by looking at the
content of the competing pleadings, exhibits thereto, matters incorporated by reference in the
pleadings, whatever is central or integral to the claim for relief or defense, and any facts of
which the district court will take judicial notice. Lyon v. Chase Bank, 656 F.3d 877, 883 (9th
Cir. 2011). Motions for judgments on the pleadings have utility when there are no material
Case 4:12-cv-00298-DCB Document 99 Filed 07/23/13 Page 2 of 12
acts in dispute and only questions of law remain to be decided by the court. Enron Oil
Trading & Transportation v. Walbrook Insurance, 132 F.3d 526, 528-29 (9th Cir. 1997).
To the extent the Defendants challenge the Plaintiffs’ Complaint as failing to state
a claim, the Court denies the motions. Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges facts, accepted as true,
to state a claim for relief plausible on its face for trademark and trade dress infringement,
and unfair competition in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
663 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Plaintiffs allege facts in the Complaint as follows. Plaintiffs own multiple federal
registrations for the trademarks relied on by them in the suit. The Complaint alleges the
Defendants have acted together, collectively, to provide commercial karaoke services to bars,
restaurants, and other businesses in the Tucson area. The Complaint charges the Defendants
have made many counterfeit copies of the karaoke accompaniment tracks manufactured and
distributed by the Plaintiffs and protected by Plaintiffs’ trademarks. These counterfeit copies
contain Plaintiffs’ federally registered trademark and unregistered trade dress and are
contained on computer hard drives which are used to provide commercial karaoke services,
and Defendants have used, sold or rented those hard drives to others to use in such
commercial services. The Defendants collectively have none or no more than one set of
Plaintiffs’ original trademarked media karaoke accompaniment tracks. The activities of the
Defendants have damaged the Plaintiffs by creating a likelihood of customer confusion and
direct loss of sales of bona fide materials through crowding out of legitimate karaoke jockeys
(KJs). (Ps’ Response to Granito MJP at 2-4 (Doc. 56) (citing Complaint (Doc. 1) ¶¶ 77-88,
8-23, 35-36, 53, 56-57, 107, 124-26, 127-29, 130, 134-36, 107-117, 118-123)); (Ps’
Response to Turner’s MJP (Doc. 58) at 2-3 (citing same)); (Ps’ Response to Brown MJP
(Doc. 73) at 2-3 (citing same); (Ps’ Response to Hurbon MD (Doc. 86) at 2-4 (citing same)).
To the extent the Defendants challenge the sufficiency of these factual assertions
because Plaintiffs have unclean hands or Defendants are attempting to raise a defense of
unclean hands, the motions fail. The doctrine of unclean hands “closes the doors of the court
4
of equity to one tainted with inequitableness or bad faith relative to the matter in which he
seeks relief, however improper may have been the behavior of the defendant.” Precision
Instrument Mfg. Co., v. Auto. Maintenance Machine Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945) Unclean
hands applies to alleged misconduct by the party concerning the claim. (Ps’ Response to
Granito MJP (Doc. 56) at 10) (citations omitted).
Even assuming Defendant Granito’s allegation that Plaintiffs violated copyright laws
is true, Defendant’s unclean hands defense lacks the crucial element of relatedness between
this alleged inequitable conduct and Plaintiffs’ trademark infringement claim against the
Defendants. In the Ninth Circuit, “what is material is not that the plaintiff's hands are dirty,
but that he dirtied them in acquiring the right he now asserts ...” Republic Molding
Corporation v. B.W. Photo Utilities, 319 F.2d 347, 349 (9th Cir.1963). Thus, the inquiry is
not whether Plaintiffs violated copyright laws in making the karaoke accompaniment tracks,
but whether the alleged copyright infringement by Plaintiffs impacts the scope of trademark
protection they now seek to assert against Defendants. It does not because Plaintiffs case is
premised on alleged infringing use of registered trademarks contained in karaoke
accompaniment tracks made by the Plaintiffs; it does not matter whether the Plaintiffs have
been sued for copyright infringement in respect to their use of music and lyrics in making
those tracks. (Response to Granito MJP (Doc. 56) at 10.)
The Plaintiffs are not seeking to enforce a media shifting policy which Granito
challenges as illegal. Id. at 9. And, Plaintiffs’ Verified Compliance Safe Harbor Program,
which Granito alternatively challenges as an illegal relationship, id., is not a program
applicable to the Defendants because it operates to protect a venue, not a KJ, from being
charged with trademark infringement if it hires pirate operators. Id. at 9-10.
Defendant Turner’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings relies exclusively on
arguments of unclean hands. He submits that Slep-Tone has unclean hands because it allows
media shifting; has bullied defendants into quick settlements, and has sued innocent people
that were not part of the Tony G DJ enterprise. To the extent Defendant Turner attempts to
5
raise an unclean hands defense on Plaintiffs’ media-shifting policy, he duplicates an
argument made by Defendant Granito, whose Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Defendant Turner joined. The argument fails for Defendant Turner for the reasons it failed
for Defendant Granito, id. at 9, and for the reasons stated by Plaintiffs’ in its Response to
Defendant Turner’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. 58), at 4-5. Bullying is not
a defense nor does Defendant Turner have standing to object to the Complaint on behalf of
others, especially others not named as parties to this case. He does not assert he is one of the
innocent parties. Defendant Brown’s argument that Plaintiffs have unclean hands because
they are greedy is likewise not a defense.
Defendant Hurbon asserts the Plaintiffs have unclean hands because they are trying
to enforce trademark rights on the back of recordings they made and trademarked in violation
of copyright laws. As explained above and for all the reasons explained in the Plaintiffs’
response to the Motion to Dismiss, (Response to Hurbon’s MD (Doc. 86) at 4-5), this
challenge fails as a defense. The Plaintiffs correctly note that this is not a copyright
infringement case. Plaintiffs sue Defendants for making copies of karaoke tracks made by
the Plaintiffs and for including Plaintiffs’ trademarks and trade dress in those copies. Id.
The remainder of the Defendants’ arguments are denied because they are not
properly asserted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12.
1. Granito’s Other Arguments
Defendant Granito’s assertion of insufficient notice because the Plaintiffs did not
properly mark their karaoke discs with the trademark symbol ® raises facts outside the face
of the pleadings. It is a disputed material question of fact whether Defendants made
counterfeit copies of Plaintiffs’ karaoke accompaniment tracks and if so, which tracks, CDs
or MP-3s, were copied by Defendants. Additionally, this challenge is denied on the merits
for the reasons stated in the Plaintiffs’ Response, (Doc. 56) at 4-6. Defendant challenges the
enforceablity of Plaintiffs’ “conditions of tolerance,” which provide procedures for an
operator to make one copy of one original. Plaintiffs do not seek to enforce this condition,
Case 4:12-cv-00298-DCB Document 99 Filed 07/23/13 Page 5 of 12
6
and Granito does not defend his alleged acts of copying under this condition. Defendant
asserts that Plaintiffs cannot establish any likelihood of confusion because his business of
selling KJ services is different from Plaintiffs’ business of selling karaoke CDs. To find a
likelihood of confusion, the Court will consider eight factors that all require factual
determinations, none of which have been admitted in the pleadings. See (Response (Doc.
56) at 8 (citing AMF, Inc., v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir. 1979),
abrogated in part on other grounds by Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prod., 353 F.3d 791
(2003) (setting out the test for assessing likelihood of confusion)). Defendant challenges
Plaintiffs’ ability to prove counterfeiting, but as explained above the Plaintiffs have alleged
sufficient facts to support this claim.
2. Brown’s Other Arguments
As Defendant Granito argued, Defendant Brown also asserts that he is not in
competition with the Plaintiffs and, therefore, cannot be liable for trademark infringement
and unfair competition. The primary question addressing unfair competition will be whether
customers are likely to be confused about the source or sponsorship of the products.
(Response (Doc. 73) at 8 (citing Halicki Films v. Sanderson Sales & Mktg., 547 F.3d 1213,
1228 (9th Cir. 2008)). For the same reasons Granito’s assertion fails that there is no
likelihood of confusion, Defendant Brown’s unfair competition argument also fails. And,
Defendant Brown’s argument that the trade dress claim fails because Plaintiffs have not
consistently used the trade dress raises a disputed issue of fact and falls outside the scope of
a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Defendant Brown’s Motion to Strike the Plaintiffs’ Response as Untimely is denied
because the service date of the motion is the filing date indicated on the Notice of Electronic
Filing. (Response to Motion to Strike (Doc. 79) ¶¶ 2-3.) The motion was filed
electronically on January 3, 2013. The Response was due by January 22, to accommodate
14 days for the response, three days for mailing and because January 21, 2013, was a holiday,
Martin Luther King Day. The Response was filed January 22, 2013.
Case 4:12-cv-00298-DCB Document 99 Filed 07/23/13 Page 6 of 12
7
The Court notes that it has only granted leave to Defendant Granito to electronically
file in this case, dependent on his compliance with all the rules outlined in the District of
Arizona’ Case Management/Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures
Manual. The Court is not aware of any rule for Defendant Granito to allow other Defendants
access to the Court’s electronic filing system, and the Court assumes that is the means by
which Defendant Brown electronically filed his motion. The Court directs Defendant
Granito to show cause why this misuse of the electronic filing system should not result in
immediate discontinuation of this privilege and disabling of the password assigned to him.
(Order (Doc. 40) at 1-2.)
3. Hurbon’s Other Arguments
Defendant argues that he and the other Defendants are engaged in nominative fair
use of Plaintiffs’ asserted trade marks because they only use the mark to refer to the
Plaintiffs’ trademarked goods or services, but Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film,
539 U.S. 23, 37 (2003) makes it clear that the Trademark Act protects the physical thing.
Here, the thing protected by Plaintiffs’ trademark is the karaoke accompaniment tracks,
which Plaintiffs manufacture and produce on CDs and MP3s. For the reasons stated in
Plaintiffs’ Response (Doc. 86) at 7-9, Defendant Hurbon’s assertion of nominative use fails.
Like Defendants Granito and Turner, Defendant Hurbon argues there can be no consumer
confusion. Like their motions, Defendant Hurbon’s motion fails because this is a disputed
fact question not properly decided by a motion under Rule 12.
Defendant Hurbon cannot assert a conflict of interest exists between the Plaintiffs
in having the same attorney. “The Ninth Circuit has indicated that it has ‘difficulty seeing
how [an opposing party] has standing to complain about a possible conflict of interest ...
having nothing to do with [his] own representation’ and that, as a general rule, courts do not
disqualify an attorney on the grounds of conflict of interest unless the former client moves
for disqualification.’” Kasza v. Browner, 133 F.3d 1159, 1171 (9th Cir.1998) (quoting
United States v. Rogers, 9 F.3d 1025, 1031 (2nd Cir. 1993) (further quotes omitted).
Case 4:12-cv-00298-DCB Document 99 Filed 07/23/13 Page 7 of 12
2The attorney work product privilege is broader in application than attorney-client
privilege. The doctrine is codified in Rule 26(b)(3). The Court must protect mental
impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney, including investigators
working for a party or its attorney. And, the rule protects materials prepared during litigation
or in anticipation of litigation, with the only exception for disclosure being upon a showing
by the party seeking discovery that he has a substantial need for the material in preparation
of the case and is unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the materials through other
means.
8
Defendant points to no specific injury to him that he believes has occurred or will occur as
a result of Plaintiffs being represented by the same attorney.
Defendant Hurbon also complains the Plaintiffs’ investigators were not properly
licensed and registered by the State of Arizona, as required pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2401 et
seq. The Plaintiffs respond that state law, A.R.S. § 32-2409, provides an exemption for “a practicing attorney involved in a case for which the attorney has been retained or a person employed under an employee-employer relationship with a practicing attorney, in the employee’s performance of duties related to a case for which the attorney has been retained.”
The Court will not strike factual allegations in the Complaint that are premised on
information obtained for Plaintiffs by private investigators employed by their attorneys.
To the extent Defendant Hurbon’s motion is aimed at Plaintiffs’ refusal to disclose
as attorney work product the names and contact information of these investigators, (Hurbon’s
Motion (Doc. 87) at 3, (Granito’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 92) at 6-7), Plaintiffs
could have, but did not, submit the discovery question to the Court by filing a motion to
compel the disclosures. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3);2 Torres v. Goddard, 2010 WL 3023272
(Ariz. 2010).
Defendant Granito’s Motion to Sever
Defendant Granito challenges the joinder of Defendants and asks the Court to sever
them because they are independent contractors. Rule 20 permits joinder of defendants where
the right to relief arises from the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or
Case 4:12-cv-00298-DCB Document 99 Filed 07/23/13 Page 8 of 12

9
occurrences, and where there are common questions of fact and law. Fed. R. Civ. P.
20(a)(2). Clearly, there are common questions of law and fact at issue in the case because
the Defendants are accused of infringing the same trademarks in the same way. The
Complaint charges the Defendants with acting together in a common enterprise, the Tony G
DJ and Karaoke Services. The Defendants are properly joined.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order to Show Cause
The harder question before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order to Show
Cause why summary judgment should not be entered against Defendant Granito as a sanction
for his spoilation of evidence. It appears that Defendant Granito has erased the hard drives
used by his company, which Plaintiffs allege contained infringing trademark copies of their
karaoke tracks. On June 18, 2013, Defendant Granito filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
wherein he asserts the Plaintiffs have no proof he made, acquired, or used unauthorized
counterfeit duplicates of Plaintiffs’ karaoke accompaniment tracks on hard drives. (Granito’s
MSJ (Doc. 92)). Spoilation is a very serious accusation, especially because Granito seeks
to take advantage of the lack of evidence in his Motion for Summary Judgment. If true, his
spoilation of this evidence may warrant sanctions, including the extreme sanction of granting
summary judgment for the Plaintiffs.
The Defendant should take great care in reading the Plaintiffs’ motion, especially
noting the standard this Court will apply to determine whether or not to impose sanctions for
the spoilation of this evidence, which is: 1) whether the party having control over the
evidence had an obligation to preserve it when it was destroyed or altered; 2) whether the
destruction or loss was accompanied by a culpable state of mind; and 3) whether the evidence
that was destroyed or altered was relevant to the claims or defenses of the party that sought
the discovery of the spoliated evidence. (Motion for OSC (Doc. 94) at 5 (citing Goodman
v. Praxair Servs., Inc., 632 F. Supp.2d 494, 509 (Md. 2009).
Because the Defendant is pro se and to assist him in responding to this very serious
accusation, the Court directs him to footnotes 1 and 2 in the motion, which correctly explain
Case 4:12-cv-00298-DCB Document 99 Filed 07/23/13 Page 9 of 12
10
that pre-suit investigations are primarily directed at satisfying the requirements of Rule 11
for making the allegations in the Complaint. Discovery is the proper mechanism by which
parties obtain evidence to prove the allegations for disposition of the case. The evidence
destroyed by Defendant Granito was key for Plaintiffs to prove their case, and Defendant
Granito understood this as is evidenced by his motion for summary judgment. At a
minimum, this Court will consider imposing a presumption for purposes of ruling on the
motion for summary judgment that the evidence destroyed was not in his favor.
The Court shall stay Plaintiffs’ response to Defendant Granito’s Motion for
Summary Judgment until he shows cause why the Court should not impose sanctions for
spoilation in the form of either a presumption against his interests or summary judgment
against him.
Finally for future reference, the Defendants should note that by joining in any of
each others’ motions, they adopt the arguments in the others’ motion, which also precludes
them from reurging the arguments, subsequently. In other words, Defendants do not get
multiple opportunities to urge their arguments. This would result in a waste of judicial
resources and unnecessary costs to the Plaintiffs, (Plaintiffs’ Response to Hurbon’s Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. 86) at 1.) Rote joinder will not be permitted. Defendants should take care
to join only in arguments that apply, and future duplication will be struck by the Court.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 43) filed by
Defendant Granito and joined by Defendants Brown, Turner and Hurbon is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc.
48) filed by Defendant Turner and joined by Defendants Granito, Brown and Hurbon, is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc.
64) filed by Defendant Brown and joined by Defendants Granito, Turner, Hurbon, and Holodynski is DENIED.

11
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Sever Defendants (Doc. 66) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike Response (Doc. 75) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 82) filed by
Defendant Hurbon and joined by Defendant Granito is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw (Doc. 91) is
GRANTED and the Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 89) filed by Defendant Granito is
WITHDRAWN AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 10 days of the filing date of this Order,
the Defendant Granito shall show cause why his misuse of the electronic filing system should
not result in immediate discontinuation of this privilege and disabling of the password
assigned to him.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days of the filing date of this Order,
the Defendant Ganito shall show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against him for
spoilation of evidence, including granting summary judgment against him.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Granito’s Motion to Withdraw (Doc.
98) is GRANTED withdrawing his Motion for Ruling on Undisputed Facts and Grant of
Summary Judgment (Doc. 96).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant Granito’s
Motion for Summary Judgment shall be due 30 days after the Court’s ruling on the Motion
to Show Cause, if the Court denies the Plaintiffs’ request to enter summary judgment against Defendant Granito as a sanction for spoilation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the unserved Defendants shall be dismissed
from this action as follows: Kent B. Campbell, David R. Fuller, Alejandro Gutierrez, Jr.,
Case 4:12-cv-00298-DCB Document 99 Filed 07/23/13 Page 11 of 12

Jamie P. Jackson, Benjiman Knauer, Tiffany McDaniel, Keith E. Powell, Sharon D, Silver,
and unknown parties named as John Does 1 through 20 and XYZ Organizations.
Jamie P. Jackson, Benjiman Knauer, Tiffany McDaniel, Keith E. Powell, Sharon D, Silver,
and unknown parties named as John Does 1 through 20 and XYZ Organizations.
DATED this 22nd day of July, 2013.

_________________
"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

"The Defendants collectively have none or no more than one set of
Plaintiffs’ original trademarked media karaoke accompaniment tracks."
they stole the music......

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 10 days of the filing date of this Order,
the Defendant Granito shall show cause why his misuse of the electronic filing system should
not result in immediate discontinuation of this privilege and disabling of the password
assigned to him."
he gave out private access passwords to a court database......

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days of the filing date of this Order,
the Defendant Ganito shall show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against him for
spoilation of evidence, including granting summary judgment against him."
he deleted the stolen tracks.....

hang him high. THIS is a pirate, not a "technical infringer"

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

While it is true that the defendants motions were denied, it is also true a number of defendants were dismissed due to lack of service on the part of the plaintiffs, seems like an old familiar pattern.

BUT, if he'd like to lease a GEM set or two.... or subscribe to the Cloud.....

Are you suggesting rick that the manus can be bought off? I'm devastated.

Suits generate sales. You KNOW that. It has been shown time and time again, this is NOT about piracy. It is about selling product through enforcement. Slep said it himself at last year's summit.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

I fail to see how an attempt to recoup losses somehow indicates greed on the part of manufacturers.

_________________
Co-host of The Greatest Song Ever Sung (Poorly), a karaoke-themed podcast

I would agree with your statement if the manus were only seeking damages that reflect their actual per incident loss. According to the court award from the Panama City case in Florida each defendant was required to pay the fair retail value of the stolen product, no more no less. This award was upheld upon appeal even though Jim wanted it increased. If you look at the real damage done that is fair compensation, for the loss of the product in question. It even might be looked at as more since the actual amount paid to the manu would have been the wholesale price of the product, not the retail. Both sides were required to pay their own court costs. So it would appear that the amount of the award was not worth the effort to try and collect it. Anything more than this amount would be greed.

It's not an attempt to recoup losses. it is a sales tool, and NOTHING more. As I said before, Slep said it himself at the summit, Suits drive sales. It's not about ANYTHING but sales. They don't give a DAMN about piracy or helping legal KJs. They want sales, even if they have to FORCE people to buy their buy their products by suing them. Harrington can sugar coat it all he wants, but that is the long and short of it. Slep is using enforcement as a sales tool. To me, that makes him a snake.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

He tried. SC turned him down.

Interesting. Kinda nullifies the whole "SC only does it for sales!" angle now doesnt it.

Really Bazza. Jim needs a win real bad after the setbacks in Panama City, California and Las Vegas. SC has to set an example or how are they going to sell their product? It's not just the suits drive sales, but successful suits are needed to drive home the point you have to pay to play.

This guy is a fool.
He would be better off throwing himself on the mercy of the court and the plaintiffs.
Multi-rigging without owning any original media,
Exposing his employees to legal liabilities,
Selling copies of loaded hard drives,
avoiding service,
Destroying evidence,
Wasting the courts' resources by stalling with bogus motions,
he's digging a very deep hole that he will likely never be able to crawl out from.
It appears he knew what he was doing is wrong and is now desperately trying to avoid or delay his inevitable punishment.
He doomed himself from the start. There is no blog that can help him or argument that could save him.


That might have been the best way to collect anything from him.
Based on his actions, I'd guess he's hiding his assets from collection prior to judgment.
At least he'll be out of the karaoke business.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

"Selling copies of loaded hard drives,"
this is what i would consider "likely to cause confusion".
how about take every audit in AZ x $150.00 and add that to the punitive damages to cover the non-stealing, paid for every track KJ's to get a free audit?
make THESE KIND OF PEOPLE pay for the audit the rest of us must now endure.

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

As the thread title refers, it looks like those who took the advise of that blog, got what they deserved as well as taking on many anti-SC arguments on this very forum!

On The "SC Made Tracks Without Permission In The First Place" Argument, ala "JoeC"

"it does not matter whether the Plaintiffs have been sued for copyright infringement in respect to their use of music and lyrics in making those tracks."

The "Unclean Hands" Suggestion ala "The Blog"

"Slep-Tone has unclean hands because it allows media shifting; has bullied defendants into quick settlements, and has sued innocent people that were not part of the Tony G DJ enterprise. To the extent Defendant Turner attempts to an unclean hands defense on Plaintiffs’ media-shifting policy, he duplicates an argument made by Defendant Granito, whose Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Defendant Turner joined. The argument fails for Defendant Turner for the reasons it failed for Defendant Granito, id. at 9, and for the reasons stated by Plaintiffs’ in its Response to Defendant Turner’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. 58), at 4-5. Bullying is not a defense nor does Defendant Turner have standing to object to the Complaint on behalf of others, especially others not named as parties to this case. Defendant Brown’s argument that Plaintiffs have unclean hands because they are greedy is likewise not a defense."

The "SC Must Show Their Investigation Reports" Argument ala "RaokeBoy et al"

"Defendant Hurbon also complains the Plaintiffs’ investigators were not properly
licensed and registered by the State of Arizona, as required pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2401 et seq. The Plaintiffs respond that state law, A.R.S. § 32-2409, provides an exemption for 'a practicing attorney involved in a case for which the attorney has been retained or a person employed under an employee-employer relationship with a practicing attorney, in the employee’s performance of duties related to a case for which the attorney has been retained.' The Court will not strike factual allegations in the Complaint that are premised on information obtained for Plaintiffs by private investigators employed by their attorneys."

"To the extent Defendant Hurbon’s motion is aimed at Plaintiffs’ refusal to disclose as attorney work product the names and contact information of these investigators, (Hurbon’s Motion (Doc. 87) at 3, (Granito’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 92) at 6-7), Plaintiffs could have, but did not, submit the discovery question to the Court by filing a motion to compel the disclosures. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3);2 Torres v. Goddard, 2010 WL 3023272 (Ariz. 2010)."

"2 The attorney work product privilege is broader in application than attorney-client privilege. The doctrine is codified in Rule 26(b)(3). The Court must protect mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney, including investigators working for a party or its attorney. And, the rule protects materials prepared during litigation or in anticipation of litigation, with the only exception for disclosure being upon a showing by the party seeking discovery that he has a substantial need for the material in preparation of the case and is unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the materials through other means."

It is astounding the lengths the anti-SC zealots go on and on with unwise suggestions on these websites that cost more in the end than the so called SC cheerleaders that only suggest an inexpensive audit as well as getting legit.

It just goes to show that people will get what they deserve for their ignorance!

http://www.pdf-archive.com/2013/07/30/tonyg-doc/

_________________
-- Mark

For those who follow the cases you may wish to pay attention to those names that were dropped from this case due to non-service.........Just sayin'....more to come.

For those interested there is a huge amount of info available if you are willing to search and in some cases pay for the legal records.

_________________
"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

I have better uses for my money, like ....................ummmmmmmmmmmm..................buying more music. .

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

I can pay for MANY pages of legal records for less than 1 download costs you Smooth...and I have learned (and shared) a huge amount of truths that have debunked BS that has been posted here and elsewhere on the net,

_________________
"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

Yeah, I don't know how you read that stuff. I would be bored to tears. I have a hard time getting through legal crap I get in the mail, at times.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

I don't have the patience to go through all of that either. I have a hard time following what they say in those legal briefs (or whatever it's called) too. With all the redundancy that is tossed into them on each point, I sometimes find it hard to tell if the judge is for or against (you choose --- defendant or plaintiff). Too much of what is written there could be interpreted both ways.