Jammie Thomas-Rasset hit with $1.5 in damages

[Sound Choice]

If you file for Trademark and argue Copyright - why should I not expect your case to be dismissed?

I said the basis of the case was illegal copying of our CONTENT within which resides various IP rights including COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK. Not sure why grasping these concepts is so difficult for you, but perhaps that is why you believe your own writings.

 

[Sound Choice]

No it's not - you need something more. Where are the damages?

Uh, the "damages" are simple - when an illegal copy was made with no compenstion to the rights holders, they were "damaged", both to their mark or IP rights and to their profits. Again, we are talking about copies for which no purchase of an original track was made - in the case of the media shift of the legally purchased track, we are not pursuing damages or compensation once it has been determined that only a media shift ocurred and the "shifter" maintained possession of the original content on a 1:1 basis.

Why is this concept so difficult to grasp?

 

[Paradigm Karaoke]

Diafel,

Then back up your statements with some case law!

you first.

my playing a Sound Choice track with a Sound Choice Logo from my computer is not the same as putting the Sound Choice logo on someone else's track trying to pass it off as Sound Choices track.

i own a single user license (original disc) to play that track. when i am using my computer, my discs stay zipped up in their cases and only one license (my single user license that i own) is being used. nowhere was this prohibited on the discs or cases, anymore than public performance was prohibited. this means i have a single user license to display that trademark provided it is only attached to genuine Sound Choice tracks.

as i said before, if i was playing SGB tracks with a Sound Choice logo attached, THAT is trademark infringement. if i made and used or distributed copies of SC material beyond my single user license (ie. multi-rigging with one library, give a copy to my buddy, sell it on craigs list etc.) or any other way in which i could not guarantee that only one license is being used for the one license purchased, THAT would be infringement.

 

[DannyGKaraoke]

I wonder: When are people going to get the whole idea of they're not interested in pursuing 1:1's?
They are only interested in those who don't have the discs or receipts (in case of downloads) to back up their collection on the hard drive.

 

[Guest]

I said the basis of the case was illegal copying of our CONTENT within which resides various IP rights including COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK. Not sure why grasping these concepts is so difficult for you, but perhaps that is why you believe your own writings.

The basis of your complaint is alleged infringement of the trademark which presupposes a copyright violation.

You have not established that the copy is in fact illegal, or outside the bounds of the KJ's implied use, therefore the "basis" of your complaint is yet without a foundation.

The judge will expect your complaint to have sufficient grounds to compel an audit - you are instead asking for an audit to find sufficient grounds for your complaint.

If I were you - I'd bring back the witch's broom-stick before laying that request on the wizard.

Yes, oddly enough I believe what I write - or better stated: I write what I believe.

 

[c. staley]

Kurt Slep:

Okay, since you apparently missed it, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and I'll ask again:

How could you add copyright if you sold your catalog to Stingray Digital and retained only your trademark?

 

[Paradigm Karaoke]

I wonder: When are people going to get the whole idea of they're not interested in pursuing 1:1's?
They are only interested in those who don't have the discs or receipts (in case of downloads) to back up their collection on the hard drive.

i do understand that very well Danny, i guess i got on a roll typing.
more than anything, i was responding to Thunder about the Suits posted and got a bit deep in explaining my point.

Sorry everybody (hags head in shame)

 

[Guest]

I wonder: When are people going to get the whole idea of they're not interested in pursuing 1:1's?
They are only interested in those who don't have the discs or receipts (in case of downloads) to back up their collection on the hard drive.

We got that.
It's when they lose interest that is the problem - typically only AFTER they have wreaked havoc on innocent 1:1 parties.

We also know that it's disingenous because, even if you're 1:1 they have no problem intimidating you with bogus legal spin to get you to buy something you don't need.

 

[Guest]

... we are not pursuing damages or compensation once it has been determined ...

Therein lies your problem, and all the collateral damage we find so repulsive.

You are demanding to be shown a pomise land to which you have no key. The burden of proof is on you, sir.

 

[DJCC]

Therein lies your problem, and all the collateral damage we find so repulsive.

You are demanding to be shown a pomise land to which you have no key. The burden of proof is on you, sir.

Here is where I will disagree. Case in point. You or I purchase a copy or license to use a microsoft product, say Windows. Every time we go live on the internet our pc/software checks to make sure our "agreement" is valid. Check it out, it's part of your "user" agreement. If you or I have a pirate copy sooner or later we would be shut down until we paid up to the man (Microsoft). The burden of "ownership" or "authorized user" proof is on you or I.

All of us here are using some type of software that, although we paid a bunch of money for, we do not "own", but we are allowed to use as long as we do not violate the terms of use.

It's simple, if you paid for it, you have the disc to prove it, then show them and be free to use them, just like using the Microsoft "key codes".

Case in point #2. I paid for and use Karma. When I purchased a new laptop I had to "prove" to Bob Latshaw that I the original copy (key code for ONE machine) of the software that he "owns" in order to use the software on the new machine.

 

[c. staley]

Here is where I will disagree. Case in point. You or I purchase a copy or license to use a microsoft product, say Windows. Every time we go live on the internet our pc/software checks to make sure our "agreement" is valid. Check it out, it's part of your "user" agreement. If you or I have a pirate copy sooner or later we would be shut down until we paid up to the man (Microsoft). The burden of "ownership" or "authorized user" proof is on you or I.

All of us here are using some type of software that, although we paid a bunch of money for, we do not "own", but we are allowed to use as long as we do not violate the terms of use.

It's simple, if you paid for it, you have the disc to prove it, then show them and be free to use them, just like using the Microsoft "key codes".

Case in point #2.
I paid for and use Karma. When I purchased a new laptop I had to "prove" to Bob Latshaw that I the original copy (key code for ONE machine) of the software that he "owns" in order to use the software on the new machine.

I think there is a little hole in your logic.... because that's not what's happening here. It would be closer to this:

Case in point #1:
"I purchase a copy or license to use a microsoft product, say Windows. I install it on a desktop. Microsoft learns that I also have a laptop and immediately threatens to sue because they "think" I mustn't have a legal copy of Windows on it."

They don't know if I purchased it and they don't know what the key code is on the label affixed to the bottom of the laptop or if there even is one. They're simply suing because they see I am using Windows and expecting ME to "prove" that I bought it.

Case in point #2:
Your software from Mr. Latshaw is self-regulating. You purchased a license to use THAT COPY of software on A COMPUTER. Not a license to use that software on that computer alone. Consequently, your "license moves" from one machine to another. I don't believe that even Mr. Latshaw could get very far in court if you had somehow installed that software on another computer AS LONG AS you were only running one at a time.

I do know that most major manufacturers were approached YEARS AGO about converting their cd+g tracks to a proprietary format that could be "locked" to a computer and not played on any other machine. This would also prevent employees from stealing tracks as well.

All the manufacturers that were approached (including SC), refused to entertain the idea for one reason or another.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

PS: Care to share just what these "recent cases" fought in court against karaoke pirates have been? Got any links?

Thought I would bump this....

 

[JoeChartreuse]

A special thanks to both Diafel and Chip for this quote from the links given:



"Today, trademark holders are using this course of conduct to expand their trademark rights, not just to object to truly objectionable uses. That is, some trademark holders send thousands of cease and desist letters to the point that there are now “sample” cease and desist letters available on the Web. These cease and desist letters are followed by hundreds of trademark infringement filings. These cases are not necessarily prosecuted to a conclusion on their merits. In fact, if prosecuted to a trial on their merits, the trademark holder/plaintiff would likely lose because they are not always meritorious claims. This conduct is referred to as “strike suits.”


And:


"Trademark holders are encouraged to be predacious. They file suit with no intent to prosecute it to a conclusion on the merits......."

This - all of it - pretty much covers what I've been saying all along about both methodology, and, if ever brought to court, the projected results.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

How could you add copyright if you sold your catalog to Stingray Digital and retained only your trademark?

Isn't Stingray owned by Kurt's brother? I am under that impression, but could be mistaken?

That aside, I'm still trying to figure out a copyright suit- not only for music that the company doesn't own, but also for all that was produced and is still in circulation without licensing by SC in the first place. How does that work?

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Excuse me for butting in here, but I would really like to know the answer to these questions...

Is it morally right or morally wrong to use karaoke tracks that you have not paid for in a public performance?

.

Is it morally wrong to steal? Yes.

Is it morally wrong to accuse someone of being a thief with absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing, and attempt to force the same to prove innocence in a country whose basis of law- after seeing it done the other way to horrible ends and modifying it for this country- Innocent until proven guilty? Where the burden of proof rests on the accuser? - Yes to that too.

BTW- a side question regarding "unpaid for" discs.:

How does SC feel about the use of tracks from the VPSC series? ( This is a series of free SC sample discs that came with certain VocoPro equipment. VPSC 8048-VPSC8054. I think CB put out a similar sample series or disc).

Thoughts?

 

[JoeChartreuse]

I wonder: When are people going to get the whole idea of they're not interested in pursuing 1:1's?
They are only interested in those who don't have the discs or receipts (in case of downloads) to back up their collection on the hard drive.

When are people going to get the whole idea that it's wrong to harrass, inconvenience, and demand proof of INNOCENCE from everyone they can find with a PC based show to reach that end?

When will it become apparent that it is wrong to accuse without proof, only the hook of a logo displayed from a PC based source?

When will it be gotten across that it is wrong for a person who owns a business, which survives on profit, to have time, energy, and bad publicity associated with the business to be left uncompensated for- to be a business loss- simply because a frivolous accuser ( I like that phrase "Strike Suit", BTW) says so?

They may not continue with legal threats to those who are 1:1, but they will certainly cause them plenty of grief and stress.

Jennifer and Athena may be pleased as punch with SC for some strange reason, but it doesn't make what happened to them any less wrong- especially Jennifer.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

It's simple, if you paid for it, you have the disc to prove it, then show them and be free to use them,.

One word: Why?

They have no legal right to demand to audit, and it's unethical to demand it, attempting to use intimidating pressure to do so.

If I was a mechanic, and someone DEMANDED to look through all of my tools just because they wanted to, because they lost their screwdriver, I would tell them to go......jump in the lake (cleaned up). I tell them I don't have it. On the other hand, if they INVESTIGATED, and someone SAW the tool in my set, AND was willing to step forward to say so...

 

[Guest]

you first.

my playing a Sound Choice track with a Sound Choice Logo from my computer is not the same as putting the Sound Choice logo on someone else's track trying to pass it off as Sound Choices track.

i own a single user license (original disc) to play that track. when i am using my computer, my discs stay zipped up in their cases and only one license (my single user license that i own) is being used. nowhere was this prohibited on the discs or cases, anymore than public performance was prohibited. this means i have a single user license to display that trademark provided it is only attached to genuine Sound Choice tracks.

as i said before, if i was playing SGB tracks with a Sound Choice logo attached, THAT is trademark infringement. if i made and used or distributed copies of SC material beyond my single user license (ie. multi-rigging with one library, give a copy to my buddy, sell it on craigs list etc.) or any other way in which i could not guarantee that only one license is being used for the one license purchased, THAT would be infringement.

You purchased the Gem set! cool..................

If not you are displaying logos copied without AUTHORIZATION the only license you are granted is for the use from the DISC not a copy of it.

But nice effort!

 

[DannyGKaraoke]

I don't see it as an inconvenience in having an audit done. What is perceived by one as a gross breach of rights is a means to an end to another. One sometimes has to give up something to get what they want. Take travel after 9-11, one now has to go through body scanners and submit to searches through their belongings to go to where they want to go. Can they refuse, yes but there are consequences for refusing such as not being allowed on the plane.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

I don't see it as an inconvenience in having an audit done. What is perceived by one as a gross breach of rights is a means to an end to another. One sometimes has to give up something to get what they want. Take travel after 9-11, one now has to go through body scanners and submit to searches through their belongings to go to where they want to go. Can they refuse, yes but there are consequences for refusing such as not being allowed on the plane.

Danny, I understand that we view the audits from different perspectives- so be it.

However, I wouldn't equate what SC does with what has been done- not only in the cause of national security- but also by agencies with the legal authorization and right to do so.

Yes, SC has the RIGHT to act as unethically as they wish, but then they too must face the consequences of their actions- which they have. The company that was once a Karaoke Music Producer went down hill due to some bad managerial decisions, and they are no longer producing new tracks. They are now stuck recycling an old catalogue through what some of us ( our divergent views again...:winkpill see as forced sales to a rapidly dwindling customer base.

First rule of business. One bad word of mouth outweighs ten compliments.

I am slowly reaching the conclusion that SC will not even be putting out the GEM series by 2012, and unless you count maybe a 3 or 4 person ( if even that many) company sending out letters of intent and hoping for the best, I don't see them around much longer- at least in regard to karaoke sales of any sort.