No one is saying "leave the guy using them alone"!Dan, this is exactly backwards of what some are saying concerning the Sound Choice suits, many are saying leave the guy using them alone and go after the hard drive sellers and sharers.
I think the approach of going after both is the only reasonable thing for anyone to do, smack down a few users with some hefty fines and the "user" will get the idea pretty quick. Same will go for the sellers!
No one is saying "leave the guy using them alone"!
What is being said, is that more effort should be spent going after the HD distributors. The way it appears now is that far more effort is spent going after the end user, rather than the distributor. If you cut off the supply, there will be less end users. Makes sense.
The way it looks right now, is that no one is going after them at all, or at least, very little effort is made to do so.
Just doesn't make any sense at all.
No one is saying "leave the guy using them alone"!
What is being said, is that more effort should be spent going after the HD distributors. The way it appears now is that far more effort is spent going after the end user, rather than the distributor. If you cut off the supply, there will be less end users. Makes sense.
The way it looks right now, is that no one is going after them at all, or at least, very little effort is made to do so.
Just doesn't make any sense at all.
Well since the vast majority of the "users" are also "suppliers" I would say they are indeed going after the right ones then!
Do you have any facts that says the sellers are not KJs?
Sure SOME of the KJ's are guilty of this, I see alot more sellers than I do KJ's doing it..
Reread my post...
I said I see SOME KJ's doing this, I don't disagree that SOME probably are, but to say the VAST majority is entirely another issue.
OK do you have any facts to support the contention that the vast majority of sellers are not also KJs?
Any reason you quoted me, specifically?
Not sure who you're referring to about advocating that KJ hosts using your stolen tracks should fight anything. Certainly, no one here sides with those who have actually stolen tracks.
Here's some interesting reading on the subject of copyright and trademark:
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/TrademarkLaw/TrademarkExtortion/TrademarkExtortion.shtml
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/site_index.shtml
Do a little exploring. Very interesting stuff.
PS: Care to share just what these "recent cases" fought in court against karaoke pirates have been? Got any links?
Do you have any facts that says the sellers are not KJs?
in reply to: I am curious as to where your facts came from on this post?
So going after just the hard drive advertisers would miss a good portion of the copying.
Here's some interesting reading on the subject of copyright and trademark:
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/TrademarkLaw/TrademarkExtortion/TrademarkExtortion.shtml
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/site_index.shtml
Do a little exploring. Very interesting stuff.
If long periods of infringing use are not objected to, the trademark holder may experience difficulty in subsequently enforcing that mark. Therefore, policing the mark is a necessary part of trademark maintenance.
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.”
The Lanham Act is also seen as a great expansion of trademark rights. This expansion of trademark law through the Lanham Act is considered by some as an inappropriate statutory gift to corporations
Naturally, trademark holders are rent-seekers. A rent-seeker is an entity that spends its finite resources to capture artificially inflated prices for their goods or services. Trademark holders are natural rent-seekers because they benefit by any increased price for a good or service above the marginal cost of making that good or service
All indicators demonstrate the free-fall plunge of trademark litigation. While the number of total incidents of trademark claims of infringement peeked at 101 in 2001, by 2005, that number had dropped to 70 or a 40% decline in four years. Regarding the total number of injunctions demanded, that number peeked in 1998 at 129 and fell to just 25 by 2005 or an 81% decline in seven years. The total amount of damages awarded annually also fell precipitously. The second highest aggregate total annual damage award occurred in 1998 at almost $50 million. By 2005, the aggregate of all damages awarded to all trademark litigants in America dropped to $136,513 or over a 99% decline.
Another variable is trademark extortion. One plausible explanation for the data is that trademark extortion is occurring. As the number of cases initially filed continues to go up, the percentage of cases that reach a trial on the merits, the total number of cases reported, the total amount of damages and the total number of cases where an injunction is demanded are all decreasing. Although the other components, to be sure, may account for some of this, trademark extortion suggests one answer
Trademark holders are encouraged to be predacious. They file suit with no intent to prosecute it to a conclusion on the merits. Therefore, the number of cases initially filed increase, but the number of cases that reach a trial on the merits remains constant and all other indicators free fall. This predatory conduct is leading to the end of trademark law, an end to the public resolution of conflict between trademark holders and an end to the rational use of the Lanham Act as a vehicle to define trademark rights in America. Perhaps American antitrust laws should be specifically amended to make trademark extortion illegal.
Kurt, I'm aware of the fines mostly because of the FBI warnings and the beginning of movies and me being curious and going to read more about it. Even if you can legally get up $2,000,000. How is that number even remotely fair?
That being said, The RIAA is an association of lawyers. I'm sure they have some very talented people on their payroll. Just because one lawyer out talks another doesn't mean Mrs. Thomas-Rasset is guilty.
I haven't followed the specifics in this case but have you considered that Mrs. Thomas-Rasset didn't settle because she not guilty? If she got a lawyer pro-bono they must have had confidence in her innocence.
I am curious as to where your facts came from on this post. Sure SOME of the KJ's are guilty of this, I see alot more sellers than I do KJ's doing it. Plus if it became known that the Karaoke industry was viciously coming after HD sellers then the KJ's would really think twice.
It may vary from area to area but I actually don't know of a show run by someone who bought a Craigslist or Ebay hard drive. In our area I have heard more of one KJs drive getting loose locally, either because they duplicated it themselves to multi-rig or an employee copied it without permission and then took off on their own. Or everyone starts sharing songs because it is so easy once they are computerized. Or someone gets more songs from a file sharing site and distributes them. So going after just the hard drive advertisers would miss a good portion of the copying.
All of this is very interesting, but there is a huge difference, in both case law and damages, between a file sharing case and a Trademark Infringement case.
Extremely interesting stuff! And I see some of the points mentioned (in the 72 page document) do apply to the same information that I've found in the filed documents to the Arizona cases... here's just a few:
A place to debate everything and anything!
