LoudKaraoke.com sued by publisher

[c. staley]

Wow, I stay amazed at the amount of effort you put in Chip...just to make a point.

Thunder Hag,

Believe me, it was a labor of love. (that cost less than $5. Money well spent, I might add).

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Joe... here's your answer: "Since you seem to need it stated: yes, each track we release is licensed at the time of its release."

Apparently not. I have read and printed the complaint to which Chip was kind enough to supply a link. Though a full listing of songs was not available, Gretchen Wilson's "All Jacked Up"- which is on the disc in question- was one of those what WERE included in the complaint as being unlicensed at the time.

I would suggest to anyone interested to just go to the full complaint link, print and study it, then do the same for the Agreed Judgment against CB.

This also tells me that the suit against Loud was, as I suspected, a misfire of some sort- unless they were making their own discs- and will probably be re-directed.

 

[KJSandman]

Dear Mr. KJSandman,

I have a lovely bridge for sale too....

Mr. Staley,

Your offer of a bridge for sale without verification of said bridge's existence and current legal status is declined.

Your insinuation of my gullibility is noted.

Thanks for posting the information.

May I inquire as to the sale date of your Chartbuster CD+G's? If you are not interested in divesting yourself of these items, I'm certain that if placed properly in the garage, they'll keep the dust off of the other CD+G's that are stored there.

 

[possumdog]

This is getting to be a bit like Soduko or CSI or something. Lots of different pieces to the puzzle but I'm not yet sure of which piece fits where--and it is hard to resist not trying to play. While the judgement against CB could indicate that they were eventually forced to obtain licensing for the songs so those on the list sold after that date are not in question, I think there is still more to it than a distributor selling products of other companies that turned out to be unlicensed.

Section 15 states that the compositions in question "have been recorded, reproduced, distributed, marketed, advertised, 'sampled' and sold without plaintiffs autohorization by the Blue Moon Defendants." Would it be incorrect to interpret this as the Blue Moon defendants were also RECORDING AND REPRODUCING themselves? Further down it says that they ask that there be no further "copies, facsimilies or duplicates" made by Blue Moon and it doesn't seem to just refer to the "samples" as it says these things are being SOLD.

So possibly it is a case of both distributing the unlicensed products of others as well as making/copying the products themselves?

Also, is it too broad to think that when they ask in section e that any of these illegal copies be returned by the defendants, the other stores they sold to and "anyone in participation with them" that we as consumers are "in participation with them?" Just asking as I am wondering if this is what Debi is trying to warn us about as far as us possibly becoming involved due to what we buy. Maybe not so much a threat from her as a heads up? Maybe I interpret "in participation" too paranoid-ed-ly. (Make that Perrynoid.)

Anyway, it is getting a bit interesting.

 

[c. staley]

This is getting to be a bit like Soduko or CSI or something. Lots of different pieces to the puzzle but I'm not yet sure of which piece fits where--and it is hard to resist not trying to play. While the judgement against CB could indicate that they were eventually forced to obtain licensing for the songs so those on the list sold after that date are not in question, I think there is still more to it than a distributor selling products of other companies that turned out to be unlicensed.

Section 15 states that the compositions in question "have been recorded, reproduced, distributed, marketed, advertised, 'sampled' and sold without plaintiffs autohorization by the Blue Moon Defendants." Would it be incorrect to interpret this as the Blue Moon defendants were also RECORDING AND REPRODUCING themselves? Further down it says that they ask that there be no further "copies, facsimilies or duplicates" made by Blue Moon and it doesn't seem to just refer to the "samples" as it says these things are being SOLD.

So possibly it is a case of both distributing the unlicensed products of others as well as making/copying the products themselves?

I think you're confused, and I can see why. Joe, as well (because the suit against Loud is not misdirected). These two lawsuits are directly related. Here's the scenario as far as I can tell:

Chartbuster produced tracks without obtaining licensing. These tracks are distributed on discs with the Chartbuster label by Loud Karaoke. First, Warner/Chappell sues Chartbuster for producing the unlicensed tracks. Chartbuster and Warner/Chappell enter into a consent judgment (or agreed judgment, as stated) that states that Chartbuster will compensate Warner/Chappell for the infringement. In addition, the agreement includes an injunction for certain tracks. I believe at this point, Chartbuster is now able to continue producing the tracks that are not part of the injunction (probably those listed on Exhibit I of the Complaint against Loud Karaoke). However, Loud Karaoke has benefited from the distribution of all tracks, and perhaps continues to distribute Chartbuster tracks that were part of the injunction. So Loud Karaoke had no right to distribute any of the tracks before the settlement between Warner/Chappell and Chartbuster, and still has no right to distribute the tracks that were part of the injunction. They probably continued to do both. This second lawsuit is simply Warner/Chappell going after the 2nd infringer -- the distributor. They've already gotten the manufacturer.

Make sense?

 

[possumdog]

That part makes sense as I aknowledged in first paragraph but I am wondering if there is more to it as it specifically says that the defendant was recording/copying songs also and it seemed to be beyond just the snippets they were using as previews. But the sentences are so run-on, it is difficult to be exact. But it says that the compositions in question "have been recorded, reproduced, distributed, marketed, advertised, 'sampled' and sold without plaintiffs authorization by the Blue Moon defendants." So does that mean all of the things mentioned were done by Blue Moon or does it mean that someone else recorded and reproduced and Blue Moon just distributed them? To me, it indicates that Blue Moon was doing all of the above but I don't speak the language. What I am saying is this appears to be for MORE than the CB thing although the CB thing is part of it.

 

[Chartbusterette]

Apparently not. I have read and printed the complaint to which Chip was kind enough to supply a link. Though a full listing of songs was not available, Gretchen Wilson's "All Jacked Up"- which is on the disc in question- was one of those what WERE included in the complaint as being unlicensed at the time.

If you are referring to a Warner settlement, the licenses were granted ab initio following the settlement.

 

[c. staley]

Mr. Staley,

Your offer of a bridge for sale without verification of said bridge's existence and current legal status is declined.

Dear Mr. KJSandman,
Whaaat? You don't trust me? But, but, but, you have to trust me! I'm a certified and vetted bridge manufacturer! I have a piece of paper here (somewhere) that proves that I've registered all the paperwork through the proper channels.... um, you're welcome to drive to Michigan and I will make a dutiful attempt at locating it.

Your insinuation of my gullibility is noted.

Please be advised that I take offense at the accusation that I have (once again) insinuated anything.

Thanks for posting the information.

You are more than welcome.... truly.

May I inquire as to the sale date of your Chartbuster CD+G's? If you are not interested in divesting yourself of these items, I'm certain that if placed properly in the garage, they'll keep the dust off of the other CD+G's that are stored there.

What did you think I was going to build the bridge out of, dk's?

 

[c. staley]

If you are referring to a Warner settlement, the licenses were granted ab initio following the settlement.

You know, Chartbusterette, that little nugget doesn't negate the fact that you produced and sold that track (and many others), without the proper licensing. In other words, illegally. If you had obtained the proper licensing in the first place, the $592,000.00settlement never would have been necessary. Considering how above board you've portrayed yourself here, and how condescending you've been to the very customers that have purchased your products, that speaks volumes.

Now you're crying foul in the industry because of dishonesty and blaming it on the KJ's. And demanding we help you fix your financial problems because of industry pirates. I guess industry pirates really have created a problem with your business. Just not the ones you've been pointing the finger at.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

If you are referring to a Warner settlement, the licenses were granted ab initio following the settlement.

Assuming that was the case, how do you know when I bought the disc?

Also, I have to add an unfortunate side effect: I was really rooting for you, because your anti-pirate fight would not have offered settlements, and may have done some good. Unfortunately, with this information at hand, you court case- like SC's- is shot as well. Because your logo was attached to distributed tracks without permission, it's not legally there. Anyone showing a history of this in court will have any Trademark Infringement case invalidated. Too bad, as I had high hopes for your better plan...

 

[JoeChartreuse]

I think you're confused, and I can see why. Joe, as well (because the suit against Loud is not misdirected). These two lawsuits are directly related. Here's the scenario as far as I can tell:

Chartbuster produced tracks without obtaining licensing. These tracks are distributed on discs with the Chartbuster label by Loud Karaoke. First, Warner/Chappell sues Chartbuster for producing the unlicensed tracks. Chartbuster and Warner/Chappell enter into a consent judgment (or agreed judgment, as stated) that states that Chartbuster will compensate Warner/Chappell for the infringement. In addition, the agreement includes an injunction for certain tracks. I believe at this point, Chartbuster is now able to continue producing the tracks that are not part of the injunction (probably those listed on Exhibit I of the Complaint against Loud Karaoke). However, Loud Karaoke has benefited from the distribution of all tracks, and perhaps continues to distribute Chartbuster tracks that were part of the injunction. So Loud Karaoke had no right to distribute any of the tracks before the settlement between Warner/Chappell and Chartbuster, and still has no right to distribute the tracks that were part of the injunction. They probably continued to do both. This second lawsuit is simply Warner/Chappell going after the 2nd infringer -- the distributor. They've already gotten the manufacturer.

Make sense?

It does make sense, but I don't know that I'm confused. While Loud may have benefited, If they bought discs in good faith for resale, then I don't see them as culpable. Should they be held responsible for CB's lacks?

However, if they are, then my worst case scenario is next- KJs prosecuted for using CB's ( and other unlicensed mfrs.) discs bought in good faith for their show.

 

[KJSandman]

Of course I don't trust you. Michigan is a big place. I know because I grew up in the mid-west. I've been all over the state. I don't really need a bridge anyway.

Post #20,000

 

[Chartbusterette]

Assuming that was the case, how do you know when I bought the disc?

It doesn't matter when you purchased the disc. As I said, the licenses were granted ab initio.

Because your logo was attached to distributed tracks without permission, it's not legally there. Anyone showing a history of this in court will have any Trademark Infringement case invalidated. Too bad, as I had high hopes for your better plan...

That is not the case at all. Not only do we have the proper licensing for the underlying musical work(s), we also own the rights to our own creative work(s).

 

[Guest]

It doesn't matter when you purchased the disc. As I said, the licenses were granted ab initio.


That is not the case at all. Not only do we have the proper licensing for the underlying musical work(s), we also own the rights to our own creative work(s).

While you may now have legal recourse to sue Paul for stealing from you that which you stole from Peter - I don't see how this helps you in the one court that really matters - public opnion.

The cooperation of KJs is not something I think you can look forward to in the future. I suggest Charbuster spend less time hiring lawyers and more time finding a quality Public Relations person.

There's no mystery here about CB or SC. If I were a karaoke manufacturer hit with an actual or even the threat of a $590k judgement, what better way to offset that loss than too find a hundred or more lowly KJs who can be coerced into a $6k settlement?

 

[Chartbusterette]

The cooperation of KJs is not something I think you can look forward to in the future.

One need look no further than your avatar to know which side you come down on when it comes to piracy. Do you also presume to speak for the body politic? For every KJ? Your words above would seem to indicate that you think so.

We are what we are. If we've made mistakes, we've paid for them, in spades. Those mistakes do not justify stealing from us, and they never will.

 

[c. staley]

One need look no further than your avatar to know which side you come down on when it comes to piracy. Do you also presume to speak for the body politic? For every KJ? Your words above would seem to indicate that you think so.

We are what we are. If we've made mistakes, we've paid for them, in spades. Those mistakes do not justify stealing from us, and they never will.

What exactly was it that justified your stealing from Warner/Chappell in the first place?

The fact of the matter is simply this - and let's call it what it truly was:

If you had NOT been sued, you'd still be intentionally pirating Warner/Chappell's music because this was no "accident" or "mistake" no matter how much you try to minimize your actions. Your agreement to the well over ONE HALF MILLION DOLLAR judgment is your admission of intentional piracy, not a mistake and absolutely the furthest you can be from any kind of "accident."

As I teach my children: In honesty, we lead by example.

 

[Mantis1]

Chip,
If every mfr out there was criminal it still would not forgive the fact that Mr 6 sytems (formerly) , has 3 fingers pointing back at himself every time he goes on his rants!!!

You are pissed because you can't get away it so why should they? Try focusing on your house and thanks for all the info!!!!

 

[c. staley]

Chip,
If every mfr out there was criminal it still would not forgive the fact that Mr 6 sytems (formerly) , has 3 fingers pointing back at himself every time he goes on his rants!!!

You are pissed because you can't get away it so why should they? Try focusing on your house and thanks for all the info!!!!

On what basis in fact do YOU have to call me a pirate?

Since you so desperately wanted to believe that they were as honest as they have lead you to believe, I can understand you wanting to defend your beloved manufacturer since their image of honesty has been shattered, but that gives you no reason to apply that label to me.

There's a difference between highlighting the truth (as I have done) or making baseless accusations (as you are doing now).

 

[Mantis1]

Former.. because I've seen the proof.

You have shattered nothing. I've been following this debacle for years Chip. None of it is new. Esp You.

 

[Mantis1]

and for the record, I am FOR the mfr's when it comes to piracy. If their houses are not in order, then that is their problem now isn't it?