LoudKaraoke.com sued by publisher

[c. staley]

Wow it's like a moth to light

I understand what you're saying here Dan but seriously, read the quote from the lawsuit and look at the exhibit.

I looks like it says that Chartbuster didn't license any Warner-Chappell songs - listed in exhibit "I" and excluded - until less than a year ago.

Exhibit "I" clearly states at the top:

(Plaintiff's copyrights bearing the unlicensed "Chartbuster" brand and appearing on loudkaraoke.com)

Some of these "unlicensed" songs include:
All Jacked Up
Amazed
Better Class of Losers
Chattahoochee
Fly
For You I Will
Here For The Party
Home
Holy Water
And so on and so on.... 215 in total.

ALL of these songs were released on disc to distributors by Chartbuster MORE than a year ago...

So my question (and I don't expect an answer anytime this century) is:

"#1. Did Chartbuster produce, package and sell these discs to distributors like loudkaraoke.com without proper licensing? OR...

#2. Did loudkaraoke.com sell these songs/discs as counterfeits?"

#3. Or is there another scenario entirely?

I'm open to any plausible explanation...

 

[Diafel]

I'm reserving judgment on any of it. I'm a little surprised that the complaint didn't spell it out better. I'm just curious as to what, exactly was the issue. Could be anything.... Considering that Chartbusterette posted the link, I am leaning towards doubting that they are at fault here.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

But they did state that they 'were' selling Stairway To Heaven and Boys Of Summer specifically (out of 500 other songs) - which is supposedly off limits anymore for karaoke (at lease in the US), and it does not show up in their search. Since it looks as if they only sell Chartbuster discs, it could be something they were sellinga little something/something on the side & got caught red handed via undercover. Or they were selling overseas brands that do contain those songs like Sunfly & Zoom, but I would think they would go after the more prevalent karaoke stores that sell those discs first over a small hole in the wall type store if that were the case like karaoke.com or prosing that list both those songs currently - unless they are just trying to set a precident first on a smaller scale.

I would like to point out that they sold discs other than CB, I just couldn't read the labels. Some looked like Pop Hits to me, but I could be wrong. I know that Nutech, Sound Choice, DK, Music Maestro, SGB, CB, Top Tunes, and U-Best ( Top Hits/Stellar) all put Stairway out, and that to my knowledge none of the U.S mfrs. were licensed to do so.

The point is, they went after the store instead of the mfrs. While I don't think they could prove intent, this is bad news for both mfrs. ( who will probably be next) AND KJs. Assuming they win a case ( I doubt it, but playing devil's advocate here) the mfrs. will have to provide licensing documentation with every track. If they do so without the licensing, it would be a criminal case. This could cause many sources to dry up for the KJ.

SC probably saw this coming, which is why they shifted the catalogue to Canada ( It's my understanding that Stingray is actually owned by Kurt's brother) and the manufacturing to the UK. Guesss who's left holding the bag? The KJ, if the this second party case is any good...

 

[JoeChartreuse]

There has to more to it than that, otherwise every karaoke retailer would be in violation and why would they go after a little pi$$ ant company over the major internet karaoke retailers. I just believe there is more to it then selling specific karaoke manu discs with songs owned by this record company - that every karaoke retailer sold/sells.

That's just it. I don't think they were in violation at all, and certainly not pirates. It looks like they bought mfr. discs in good faith for re-sale, the mfrs. discs were unlicensed, and these folks went after the wrong people- should have gone after the mfrs.- and will probably end up being re-directed just that way.

 

[possumdog]

My moth to the flame speculation is that CB knows what is going on here and it isn't a threat to them or they wouldn't have printed the link. It probably has something to do with the overproduction of SCDGs and other orphan brands like MM that the major manufacturers had been buying the rights to. But as the Sybersond court case showed, it is better for the original copyright holder to sue in order to prove damages. So maybe CB et al got them to sue to take these guys out. But why little Loud Karaoke, I don't know, unless they turn out to be the source of production. Or maybe more suits are to follow. Still mysterious.

I feel a bit "toyed with" or manipulated that CB would just post the link and then disapear.

 

[possumdog]

The moths probably flock to the flame because these developments affect their business and how they do business. If someone was going around mass-suing ANY profession for one reason or another, people in that profession would want to keep up. We have been told we are responsible for determining whether or not what we buy is legit yet not given any resources for making that determination. We don't have much in the way of a professional newsletter so forums are where we get our info. I realize the arguing and speculating can get to be a bit much but this is our livlihood and we have to keep up with any new laws/regulations/lawsuits that affect it. People will naturally want to discuss new developments.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Mimi, CB isn't being threatened- YET. I think they went after the store in hopes of settlement, and not looking for a court appearance. Again, only by my interpretation, the store wasn't at fault, and dealt in good faith.

The thing is, if they go after a mfr., the mfr. CAN'T settle - well, they could, but then a precedent is set and they will go after the others as well. The mfrs. know this, and will be almost FORCED into a court case in the hopes of a win.

Unfortunately, this isn't just about the mfrs.: If this "middleman" case somehow shows merit, why not go after the little KJ? Since they DO own the music, unlike the mfrs., they CAN possibly win in court, though it would be VERY tough to prove intent if the KJ has and uses original discs bought in good faith. I don't know what the outcome would be for those who have media shifted.

Now, a KJ might cover him/herself by demanding that all discs come with U.S. licensing documentation for each track from the mfr.. Unfortunately, very few would be able to provide it.

SC has stated flat out that their licensing is only from the UK ( which is why paying THEM licensing fees is ridiculous).

Songs named in this particular suit are among those released by CB

Zoom, Sunfly, Gnome, SBI, Capitol, etc... are all only licensed overseas.

The OOB mfrs obviously have no licensing.

Even supposing all the current mfrs. could get fully U.S. licensed for all new disc purchases, what about the discs ALREADY in your collection? I have CB's Gretchen Wilson disc, and had it before 2010. I have a set of SGBs. I have Music Maestro, plus all the mfrs. named above. What happens with those tracks?

Again, I really don't think they would have much of a case against the KJ without being able to prove intent to defraud.

However, they MAY be able to get an injunction against general usage ( in other words end karaoke) and then charge their own licensing fees from KJs. However the process could stop karaoke for some time.

Before anyone else says it: Yes, this could actually make a HUGE dent in piracy, both manufacturer and KJ. It could also whatever of left of legal mfrs. to raise prices, and of course the legal KJs could do the same.

EXCEPT: By the time it's all done, karaoke could effectively be wiped out due to dwindling music supply and more importantly, by complete show closure until the dust settles.

Please keep in mind that this is all worst case scenario SUPPOSITION, NOT FACT. I'm just pointing out that there is absolutely no reason to "yay" this particular case, whether you are a KJ OR a manufacturer.

What I actually think will happen is that the store will be let off the hook ( if merely buying and selling mfrs. discs) and that the suit will be re-directed to those mfrs. who may have released unlicensed songs.

This is what happened the last time around, and several mfrs. closed their doors ( though many just renamed themselves and continued production elsewhere).

 

[c. staley]

That's just it. I don't think they were in violation at all, and certainly not pirates. It looks like they bought mfr. discs in good faith for re-sale, the mfrs. discs were unlicensed, and these folks went after the wrong people- should have gone after the mfrs.- and will probably end up being re-directed just that way.

I don't think so... however the manufacturers might simply be added to the case as a "third party defendant".... since it appears that the products they sold and the distributor purchased (IN GOOD FAITH) are suddenly "unlicensed" but retro-actively and selectively.

Similar to a subrogation suit: A plant burns down because a machine caught fire.... the insurance company pays off the policyholder (the plant owner) and then turns around and sues the manufacturer of the machine that started the fire....

 

[Lonman]

I still think it's more due to illegal sales of something else personally. But until we actually see the results, guess it's all speculation from all.

 

[c. staley]

My moth to the flame speculation is that CB knows what is going on here and it isn't a threat to them or they wouldn't have printed the link. It probably has something to do with the overproduction of SCDGs and other orphan brands like MM that the major manufacturers had been buying the rights to. But as the Sybersound court case showed, it is better for the original copyright holder to sue in order to prove damages. So maybe CB et al got them to sue to take these guys out. But why little Loud Karaoke, I don't know, unless they turn out to be the source of production. Or maybe more suits are to follow. Still mysterious.

I feel a bit "toyed with" or manipulated that CB would just post the link and then disapear.

Bingo.... "played like a fiddle" is probably closer to the truth.

 

[KJSandman]

After reading the complaint, my question is, what does the phrase "except those identified on Exhibit "I" bearing the "CHARTBUSTER" brand." imply?

Purely conjecture, but with the knowledge that CB has been trying to locate the entity involved in manufacturing and distributing the SCDG versions of their Essential 450 packs, I would suggest that they may have located the source of those illicit items.

"CHARTBUSTER" is not the defendant. The licensing acquired in April may have been obtained fraudulently by the defendant?

I suppose Chartbusterette will eventually explain.

 

[possumdog]

I still think it's more due to illegal sales of something else personally. But until we actually see the results, guess it's all speculation from all.

I tend to go with this as CB wouldn't have posted the link if it was about their own songs being unlicensed. Can't see them adding any fuel to that fire. It seems more like Loud wasn't licensed to DISTRIBUTE certain songs/brands and then made a deal with CB later. Maybe they were selling systems with pre-loaded songs and we just can't see that anymore as they have taken it off. Maybe this is all one big crackdown related to some of the other distributors losing their rights to many of the songs they offered on Custom. Most brands named have been part of the SCDG/CAVS offers at one time or another. Lots of possibilities other than that CB was distributing songs they had no license for.

It would seem apparent that CB has been cooperating with info on this suit as they are named specifically. So either this is something going on with their blessing or they had to cut a deal. I guess people will believe the scenario that reinforces their previous postitions. But as said, we are all just speculating.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

1) It seems more like Loud wasn't licensed to DISTRIBUTE certain songs/brands and then made a deal with CB later.

2) Maybe they were selling systems with pre-loaded songs and we just can't see that anymore as they have taken it off.

3) Lots of possibilities other than that CB was distributing songs they had no license for.


4) But as said, we are all just speculating.

1) No License needed for resale. I can sell you any disc I have - no problem

2) Maybe, but again, no current evidence of that.

3) Yes and no. They mentioned Stairway To Heaven as an example of product distributed without a license, and they say there was none given prior to 2010, yet CB DID produce it.

4) True, all speculation- but who will be the source of truth? I guess the best source would be a full copy of the suit?

Here's a funny, though. Apparently Warner-Chappell has also been sued for what they are suing for back in 2007. Like SC, Pot & Kettle.

 

[c. staley]

After reading the complaint, my question is, what does the phrase "except those identified on Exhibit "I" bearing the "CHARTBUSTER" brand." imply?

Purely conjecture, but with the knowledge that CB has been trying to locate the entity involved in manufacturing and distributing the SCDG versions of their Essential 450 packs, I would suggest that they may have located the source of those illicit items.

"CHARTBUSTER" is not the defendant. The licensing acquired in April may have been oained fraudulently by the defendant?

I suppose Chartbusterette will eventually explain.

I will match your conjecture and raise you to speculation: If a distributor is producing and selling copies of a product bearing the Chartbuster trademark, then it is Chartbuster that should be the plaintiff on the counts of (1) Trademark infringement and (2) Counterfeiting.

What doesn't make sense is the whole bit about Chartbuster (apparently) not having licensing from Warner-Chapell until April 1, 2010. And that includes songs that were produced, pressed, packaged, marketed and sold to distributors for resale to the general public by Chartbuster for years before 2010.

The complaint reads as though Chartbuster had been selling hundreds of unlicensed songs before 2010.... kind of like Sound Choices 255 "oversights" with Famous Music, Inc.

So the questions really are:

(1) Who has been the real pirates here?

(2) Are the pirates that produced and sold (apparently) unlicensed material now suing the pirates that are using the same material?


It's all very cloudy and I don't expect CB to step in and clarify anything even though they claim to be "above board."

 

[KJSandman]

It specifies the "exclusive right to distribution" in the paragraph you are referring to. Would that be a license for distribution? It does not imply that the music itself was unlicensed, not in that paragraph anyway. Since it was Chartbusterette who posted this, I expect that clarification will be forthcoming. Clarity seems to be her strong suit, much as insinuation seems to be yours.

 

[Chartbusterette]

Calm down, please.

I would encourage everyone to avoid speculation until this has played out a bit.

The main point to take from the report is that it does matter who you obtain your tracks from, and one should take care that each of your sources is above reproach. If you know for instance that certain tracks are unavailable in your market due to licensing, you shouldn't purchase them.

It has been stated that from a KJs perspective, if a song is available, then they can be purchased "in good faith." We don't believe that this is true, if one has knowledge that the tracks themselves are unlikely to be licensed.

We would also encourage everyone to read the document very carefully, in its entirety. I have seen some speculation in this thread that indicates that all of the document is not being considered in proper context, and that in some cases too much is being read between the lines. The complaint stands as it is written.

 

[c. staley]

Calm down, please.

I would encourage everyone to avoid speculation until this has played out a bit.

The main point to take from the report is that it does matter who you obtain your tracks from, and one should take care that each of your sources is above reproach. If you know for instance that certain tracks are unavailable in your market due to licensing, you shouldn't purchase them.

It has been stated that from a KJs perspective, if a song is available, then they can be purchased "in good faith." We don't believe that this is true, if one has knowledge that the tracks themselves are unlikely to be licensed.

We would also encourage everyone to read the document very carefully, in its entirety. I have seen some speculation in this thread that indicates that all of the document is not being considered in proper context, and that in some cases too much is being read between the lines. The complaint stands as it is written.

Okay, but here we go again:

You're insisting that it is the "KJ's responsibility" to know if any songs.... by any manufacturer.... is licensed or not. The term "unlikely" is not relevant here because us KJ's can rightly consider any Eagles songs as "unlikely to be licensed" however they are sold today by Zoom and now even distributed by Sound Choice.

However, the only way we can verify this information is how?
Jump in the car and drive to Tenneesee?
Then drive to North Carolina?
Then drive to the New England region?

You are quickly making your own brand of music "too hot to handle" as well.

The question of the hour to me (and I'm sure to other KJ's) is whether or not Chartbuster had any licensing in place prior to April 1, 2010 for the discs and all the songs that Chartbuster produced and sold to distributors for resale that are listed on Exhibit "I"? The complaint above makes it sound as though you did not have licensing up until 9 months ago for songs you've been producing for years.

And, IN MY OPINION, this is a yes/no answer.

BTW, this is not "bait" in any way shape or form, I'm sure that many of us would like to understand why this complaint is worded this way.

 

[Diafel]

Calm down, please.

I would encourage everyone to avoid speculation until this has played out a bit.

The main point to take from the report is that it does matter who you obtain your tracks from, and one should take care that each of your sources is above reproach. If you know for instance that certain tracks are unavailable in your market due to licensing, you shouldn't purchase them.

It has been stated that from a KJs perspective, if a song is available, then they can be purchased "in good faith." We don't believe that this is true, if one has knowledge that the tracks themselves are unlikely to be licensed.

We would also encourage everyone to read the document very carefully, in its entirety. I have seen some speculation in this thread that indicates that all of the document is not being considered in proper context, and that in some cases too much is being read between the lines. The complaint stands as it is written.

You can't be serious?
And just HOW are we supposed to know if the tracks are "unlikely to be licensed"?
The ONLY source of that kind of information that I can see is from the posters on these boards. And we all know how reliable that kind of information can be.
As a consumer of karaoke discs, I go to the store , and I buy them (or online or second hand), IN GOOD FAITH. While I can certainly understand avoiding shady looking sites and sellers, when it comes down to it, there is no real way to know for sure.
Just like the CB SCDG's how on earth are we supposed to know if they're legal or not? The only way I would have ever known is because of these boards, and even then, it's not exactly a legally reliable source, is it? What about the KJ's that don't or can't access the boards? How are they supposed to know?
Do you seriously expect us to go searching through all kinds of legal paperwork and investigate every track on those discs? And where do we get the paperwork in the first place? Must we all take a trip to your office to see for ourselves? While I would love a little holiday, I really can't afford it right now and even if I could, it would certainly not be to your offices, because I can hear the Caribbean calling....
The general public is not subject to that same kind of scrutiny when they purchase music CDs so why should we be?


As for speculating, I am reserving judgment until more information comes through, but it would be nice if you helped us to clarify this statement: "While the manufacturer of the "CHARTBUSTER" brand of karaoke discs obtained a license from the Plaintiffs effective April 1, 2010, all distribution of the CHARTBUSER products prior to April 1, 2010 was unauthorized, unlicensed and constituted infringement of the Plaintiffs' exclusive right of distribution. "

BTW did you license your discs to be sold in Wal-Mart in Canada? Because I saw them hit the shelves at Christmas time and they are still on the shelves as we speak. Saw them still there last night.
Thanks.

 

[c. staley]

It specifies the "exclusive right to distribution" in the paragraph you are referring to. Would that be a license for distribution? It does not imply that the music itself was unlicensed, not in that paragraph anyway. Since it was Chartbusterette who posted this, I expect that clarification will be forthcoming. Clarity seems to be her strong suit, much as insinuation seems to be yours.

There is no insinuation here and as far as clarity is concerned, I believe that I'm the one that posted the complaint and exhibit here at my own expense for you and others to read and understand. Glad I could once again contribute something concrete to the forum. Chartbusterette posted nothing more than a free link to a news clip. Simply because I read the complaint differently than you doesn't mean that I'm insinuating anything.

The real question in my mind is the timing of the licensing and I'm sure you'd like to know that as well.

The comment posted above by Chartbusterette might as well have said; "Seek deeply into the cloudy mist of the complaint and all shall become clear!" Which is about as far from clarity as you can get.

Let's simply call it the "Fallacy of the excluded middle."

 

[KJSandman]

...even though they claim to be "above board."

Here is the insinuation I was referring to. Completely unnecessary. (IMO)

I am not arguing with you. I don't possess the legal expertise to understand exactly what the complaint states. That is why I posted questions and conjecture.