possumdog said:
The "meaning" behind posting this lawsuit is still a bit of a mystery to me. Perhaps the publishers will be taking on pirates as they have better standing to do so. Don't have to rely on trademark as they have the original copyright. Don't know what that would do as far as 1:1 as the pass on that is from the karaoke companies only. It will be interesting to see what happens to karaoke and who survives.
It was all in the 8-ball game that Chartbusterette's been playing:
#1. Publisher sues manufacturer
(1st infringer)
#2. Publisher reserves certain songs as not licensable. (the injunction - remember?)
#3. Publisher sues distributor for selling/sampling songs that are either included on the injunction (never licensed to anyone) or not licensed to the brands they are selling. i.e. Nutech and others.
(2nd infringer)
Then came the 8-ball cryptic warning originally posted by Chartbusterette (or her ghost writer :winkpill: ):
Finally, we are not aware of any effort to interdict discs that may have been sold in the past, contained unlicensed songs, and now reside in the hands of end-users. However, we would not discount the possibility that such discs being used in a commercial enterprise might not run afoul of litigators in the future.
4. This means that you might own discs that contain songs from the injunction(ed) list on Chartbuster, Sound Choice or on Nutech or other brands that were not licensed and when you play them -just like the distributor that doesn't make them, but just sells them -
you are the "3rd infringer" and subject to a lawsuit from Warner/Chappell directly.
Of course, here's the problem with #4:
1) How are you to know what is and what is not "legal" for you to play?
2) The publisher certainly isn't going to talk to you about every licensed song and who licensed them or when.
3) You have no way of determining whether songs are licensed or not and no contact information for Nutech or out of business suppliers like Radio Starz, Karaoke Classics, Music Maestro, etc. to even begin to ask for confirmation.
4) Even Chartbuster won't release their license information to you to "protect your commercial enterprise." You're just supposed to "trust their word" on it and we know how reliable and honest that has been so far.
So, at a filing fee of $350.00 each, how many KJ's do you think Warner/Chappell is going to first investigate, then track down and serve and sue for copyright infringement and what sort of return could they expect from each one? And if a case like this were ever to see a courtroom, it would be pretty difficult for Warner/Chappell to prove that the KJ had
any means whatsoever to know or determine that the music they purchased in good faith was licensed or not. Even companies like HFA (Harry Fox Agency) won't discuss licensing with a KJ.
I'll wager Warner/Chappell won't chase around the country suing KJ's (like Sound Choice) because there is no money for them there and they'd be throwing legal fees down a bottomless pit. It's worth it to go after distributors because they're simply easier to find and latch on to in the first place. I'm just surprised they didn't latch on to the bigger fish like ProSing etc...
But here's something even more interesting to think about if you read #4 again:
Where does that leave the Gem Series? If the Gem Series contains songs from the injunction(ed) list, Sound Choice -the exclusive distributor- would be the 1st infringer and you may be the "2nd infringer." But after thinking about it, you would most likely be the 1st infringer... since their agreement states that the licensee (you) need to get whatever licensing and permits are required and hold SC harmless.
