Karaoke Forums

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.

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.

8) The pirates not having much to go after, is why in the Oregon suits the focus was on the venues not the hosts.

So basically Chris you are suing to put them out of business, to cut down on your competition.

That is not in the manus best interest, since they are depending on the pirates to be their new and future customer base.

Isn't it making it where you are the only game in town and customers don't have a choice? Even if you could eliminate all of the pirates, that would not leave enough hosts to meet the demand if 95% of the hosts magically disappeared.

Really? And where did you get this information from? (my guess is thin air)



To be 100% clear I am not nor have I ever sued anyone for any reason.
If I were to sue a pirate host it would NOT be to cut down on my competition. It would be to put a thief and a pirate. Reduced competition is simply a by-product which I could possibly take advantage of.



So what. I would not be suing for the benefit of the manufacturers. I would be suing to eliminate a thief and a pirate.



There are many legitimate karaoke operations in Seattle. We would get by.

Unbelievable....even when someone says they simply want to eliminate piracy, you come up with a bunch of gobbldy gook as to why even that is a bad idea.

I bet if I told you I discovered a cure for cancer, you would come up with reasons why it should not be utilized.

-Chris

Has anyone ever heard of a DJ (non karaoke) being busted. There are way, way more Dj's than KJ's. I'm not condoning piracy, but the playing field seems to be stacked against the KJ in terms of risk being named wrongfully. Some would argue that you are illegal if you are not audited and pay the associated fees. Is there an audit process for DJ's? If so by who? I know Canada and England have their licensing, but who does it in the US?

Has anyone ever heard of a DJ (non karaoke) being busted. There are way, way more Dj's than KJ's. I'm not condoning piracy, but the playing field seems to be stacked against the KJ in terms of risk being named wrongfully. Some would argue that you are illegal if you are not audited and pay the associated fees. Is there an audit process for DJ's? If so by who? I know Canada and England have their licensing, but who does it in the US?

here is where i sit on it.

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.

Prime Cuts SENDS me my music in mp3 format and videos in mp4 format. What do you assume they think I'm going to do with them? Pop them into a damn CD player? (they wouldn't play if I did.).......