Karaoke Forums

Timberlea, glad to see someone is reading, somewhat.
But you missed it.
The limitation I posted is strictly for performance rights meaning no need for ASCAP, etc.
Copying is covered under fair use (§ 107).

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I lived there for 6 years. It is exactly because of the over regulation and red tape that people will cut corners when they can. Just like SC doesn't have the man power to get every pirate, neither does the state of CA have the ability to get every non-profit/for profit that breaks the rules.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

So Chris if SC doesn't have the means to cleanup the pirate problem, what is it that they are trying to do? Just causing a big noise so they can intimidate some of the hosts into settling with them? I would come closer to believing that a business was cutting corners, than a non-profit, but then again that is just me.

yes, that has been stated many times by Kurt himself. why the big surprise?

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

Not so much surprise Paradigm just weariness and disgust with this whole legal process. It is not going to solve the problem of piracy, it's only purpose is the line the pockets of basically two manus. I find it hard to understand why hosts would support this approach at all. It would seem that someone would try to come up with a better solution to the problem, or just be honest and say it is just one of those things that can't be fixed.

Perhaps hosts support it because there is no other recourse for a legit host against a pirate. A legit host has no legal standing to pursue a pirate, only the manufacturers or publishers. The best a legit host can do is put on a good show and hope he doesn't get undercut by a pirate or sacked by a KJ-of-the-month venue.

So because there is not another option everyone must support a process which is far from perfect. A flawed plan is better than no plan at all?

What's a "KJ of the Month venue?"

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

You continue to say its flawed, but for whom is it flawed? Is it flawed because you disagree with it? Please explain to us how it is flawed without knowing exactly what Kurt's roadmap is.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

It is quite evident what the road map is "suits drive sales" period. If the goal of the plan is to put pirates out of business, it is flawed because today there are more pirates than ever. While it is true that 1,000 hosts and venues have settled with SC in four years. There has been a 10% increase in the number of hosts 95% of whom are illegal. If the number of illegals continue at that rate Chris there is no way this legal process will ever succeed. I see little reason to pursue a policy that is doomed to failure. At some point the manus are going to have to write off the losses like they have already done for the home user abusers. It isn't flawed because I disagree with it, it is flawed because it isn't working. With the exception of a few enclaves maybe, and only then as long as the sweeps are made.

My guess would be sort of like the flavor of the month. The venues change their hosts monthly in the hope of getting what they think they want. If that is the case then the venue is not really committed to having a stable karaoke environment in the first place, not a place I would want to host at.

A venue that changes their kj frequently either due to them wanting more money when things start to get more successful or they were so cheap to begin with that they aren't able to bring in or keep anyone around because they don't know what they are doing.

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

Pardon my jumping in here. It's flawed because it not only is, but has been proven so.

The suits- as a rule- are weak because they depend on a trademark that may or may not have been attached to a music track with or without permission from the publisher. EXTREMELY weak case- and why supposed "witnesses" NEVER supply the tracks in question (SUPPOSEDLY displayed) in court. Keeping in mind that I have never believed that all the shows supposedly "witnessed" actually were: If they make up a track, and it was produced and distributed without permission- they're done. If they make up a track, and it's on a list of tracks that were NOT LICENsED PRIOR TO PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION, done again. If they make up a track, and the KJ never carried it, done again.

On several occasions, SC "witnesses" have been "unavailable".

On several occasions, SC "documentation" has been "unavailable".

On several occasions, SC "investigators" have been "unavailable".


The suits- as a rule- are instigated without any prior PROFESSIONAL investigation.

The suits- in the majority, when actually argued in a courtroom are not only lost to SC, but make them look incompetent- to the point where the JUDGES feel it neccesary to add derogitory statements regarding the SC suits to the COURT RECORDS, for use in any future cases.

Yup, I guess I'd have to call that flawed.....

Even if the case wasn't flawed, the execution of the original SC plan was so badly mishandled and mis ( or non-) managed ( APS/Donna Brophy) that a business manual of "the stupid" could pretty much draw all pertinent information from the SC model.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Also Joe if PR is taking pages out of SC's game book their legal process will be flawed as well.

Again, this is something that is simply not so.

There are no reported decisions that implement what you are describing, and there are numerous decisions in SC cases that hold that any copyright infringement that SC may have committed is simply irrelevant to a case in which SC alleges trademark infringement on the part of an operator. Even in front of judges who have been hostile to our approach--like the one in the recent KKS case, whose summary judgment ruling was reversed by the Sixth Circuit on appeal--the argument you're making has not found favor.

The reason for this is simple. The Copyright Act protects those who own copyright, who are the only parties who have the right to assert copyright infringement. It does NOT protect third parties who do not own any copyrights. The law almost never allows people to raise other people's rights in asserting a defense to a lawsuit.

In fact, this principle is so strong in copyright law that the Ninth Circuit ruled that a company that pays royalties to make karaoke music (in this case, Sybersound) could not call the acts of those who did not (UAV and others) "unfair competition" because to do so would implicate the rights of the copyright owners who were not a part of the suit and who had the exclusive right to determine whether or not to sue over that issue.

Defendants who continue to raise this issue are going to continue to get shot down because it is simply not the law, no matter how much you want it to be, and no matter how fair you think it would be if it were the law. By continuing to assert it as a correct statement of the law, you are wasting everyone's time and giving false hope to defendants who would be better off not wasting time and money asserting it.

I am not going to waste yet more time shooting down, once again, the rest of the assertions in your post.

I can attest to this as well. About a year ago I contacted an IP attorney as well as a general practice attorney. I wanted to find out if I could file "unfair competition" lawsuits against local pirates. It was explained to me that I would have a difficult time convincing a judge to hold a pirate responsible for pirating content when the copyright/trademark holders weren't also pursuing them.

The only bright spot was that Sound Choice was also filing suits I may have been able to make a case against pirates that were pirating Sound Choice since Sound Choice was enforcing their rights. It would not apply to people that dropped Sound Choice and/or were pirating other vendors.

I am sure there are many hosts that feel their hands are tied because they can't do anything about pirates. We turn them in, but no action is taken by anyone.

Obviously, there is a group of hosts that don't like that SC and PR are taking action against hosts.

I am assuming, but I think it is fair to say, that there are people who live in both camps - Feel powerless but also don't like what SC/PR are doing.

Interestingly enough, if more vendors were to pursue action against hosts, it would also give legitimate hosts an option to directly combat piracy as well.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

It IS frustrating that there seems very little one can do but I think there ARE things that could be done if the person had the nerve. I think just getting them into the tax loop could have some rather humorous consequences.

Citations please....

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=28651&start=80#p371722

_________________
-- Mark

You might find interesting or useful the following recent quote from a U.S. District Judge who was responding to a defendant's complaint about SC's investigative practices in response to SC's motion for a show-cause order regarding destruction of evidence:

"Because the Defendant is pro se and to assist him in responding to this very serious accusation [relating to destruction of evidence], the Court directs him to footnotes 1 and 2 in the motion, which correctly explain 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."

Hmmm, I wonder where this pro se defendant got their advise from?

_________________
-- Mark