LoudKaraoke.com sued by publisher

[Guest]

There has never been an instance of an individual KJ being sued or even threatened with a suit by a publisher and... there never will be. The threat of KJ law suits is exclusive to Chartbuster and Sound Choice.

Chartbusterette would have us believe that over 14 years of continuous infringement and litigation is "the way of doing business in America." Sorry - persons of integrity know that isn't true and it's a realy lame excuse for such reprehensible treatment of both their suplliers and customers.

Chartbusterette laments that: "the publishers have a negative view of karaoke." I think we can clearly thank the irresponsible performance of companies like Chartbuster and Soundchoice for the perpetuation of that disposition.

We [think CB can be successful in a suit against KJs], and we have some of the best copyright lawyers in the business working for us now.

Too bad, because what Chartbuster and SoundChoice really need is competent public relations and innovation. Harrassing the customer base is a project with a very short horizon. It is high time these companies closed thier doors and made way for someone with a better idea and less dubious integrity.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to revealing this farce and spreading the word among the seriously minded KJs and DJs in your area. Best of luck in the new year!

 

[possumdog]

So do we consumers of great integrity clear our libraries of anything other than Party Tyme? Or will we continue to profit off of these products ourselves, knowing they are unlicensed and yet saying, "Not my problem?" Is this a double standard? Now--I agree that the manufacturer had the primary responsibility and should be the one to pay the piper. Wish they would clean up their acts. But we have benifitted from these tracks also, and most will continure to do so. How far are WE willing to go? We want to say manufacturer's have no right to go after pirates when they have "pirated" themselves yet we want to be able to condemn the manufacturers while still hanging on to our libraries full of unlicensed tracks. Somewhere in the future, that will seem weird to us. But please don't make me get rid of my Velvet Elvis........

 

[c. staley]

So do we consumers of great integrity clear our libraries of anything other than Party Tyme? Or will we continue to profit off of these products ourselves, knowing they are unlicensed and yet saying, "Not my problem?" Is this a double standard? Now--I agree that the manufacturer had the primary responsibility and should be the one to pay the piper. Wish they would clean up their acts. But we have benifitted from these tracks also, and most will continure to do so. How far are WE willing to go? We want to say manufacturer's have no right to go after pirates when they have "pirated" themselves yet we want to be able to condemn the manufacturers while still hanging on to our libraries full of unlicensed tracks. Somewhere in the future, that will seem weird to us. But please don't make me get rid of my Velvet Elvis........

That would be "third party providers" wouldn't it?

As far as your Velvet Elvis collection goes... Well, I'm looking at making some quick bucks so I think I'll purchase the MM trademark and sound recordings (or "catalog" if you prefer), Negotiate with the publishers to grant me ab infintio licenses for the Velvet Elvis and all the do-wop material. Whaever I can't license here, I'll simply license through the U.K. even cheaper. Next, I'll mail letters to every KJ on the planet and threaten to sue them for trademark infringement. :winkpill:

I'll be happy to rent back Velvet Elvis to you though.... just sign here....

 

[Bazza]

I'll be happy to rent back Velvet Elvis to you though.... just sign here....

Possumdog. If you can hold the painting in perpetuity and it costs 1/3 the original purchase price over the life of the velvet, I say go for it. :laughpill:

 

[KJSandman]

That would be "third party providers" wouldn't it?

As far as your Velvet Elvis collection goes... Well, I'm looking at making some quick bucks so I think I'll purchase the MM trademark and sound recordings (or "catalog" if you prefer), Negotiate with the publishers to grant me ab infintio licenses for the Velvet Elvis and all the do-wop material. Whaever I can't license here, I'll simply license through the U.K. even cheaper. Next, I'll mail letters to every KJ on the planet and threaten to sue them for trademark infringement. :winkpill:

I'll be happy to rent back Velvet Elvis to you though.... just sign here....

Good idea. Let me know how that works out for you. I'll be ready when you come. I'll produce the discs for audit. I possess 250+ original MM CD+G's. You of course, will have in your hand, the licensing for every track I possess with the MM trademark attached. Maybe you should come to a show first, you know, to "investigate".

 

[possumdog]

Not sure what to call us. Well, don't answer that. But if people in a restaurant get salmonella from bad lettuce, do they sue the restaurant? I'm sure the restaurant could in turn sue the provider. Maybe the provider could sue the packer/grower. Maybe the USDA steps in and gets a settlement from someone. HOW does that work?

So Up and Up construction gets a contract to build a highway and it turns out the cement in the bridges was a bad batch and they have to be rebuilt, who gets sued? The construction company or the cement company? (That actually happened here and I think the construction company ate it.)

Believe me, the you are responsible for making sure you buy licensed songs but you aren't allowed to know what is licensed part sort of rubs me the wrong way, also. But taking a step back, does it happen in other businesses?

Bazza, good advice on the Elvis. Need to invest in the little light that goes over the frame to get full value. Also, I think I saw some great Elvis fleece rugs being sold on the corner the other day. Maybe I should stock up. May be out on the streets once Chip gets through with me. But I won't sign the rental unless I get holographic stickers with the Graceland approval to go with it.

 

[c. staley]

Good idea. Let me know how that works out for you. I'll be ready when you come. I'll produce the discs for audit. I possess 250+ original MM CD+G's. You of course, will have in your hand, the licensing for every track I possess with the MM trademark attached. Maybe you should come to a show first, you know, to "investigate".

Why would I want an "audit?" I don't care about cdg discs... it's "trademark" remember?

 

[c. staley]

Not sure what to call us. Well, don't answer that. But if people in a restaurant get salmonella from bad lettuce, do they sue the restaurant? I'm sure the restaurant could in turn sue the provider. Maybe the provider could sue the packer/grower. Maybe the USDA steps in and gets a settlement from someone. HOW does that work?

So Up and Up construction gets a contract to build a highway and it turns out the cement in the bridges was a bad batch and they have to be rebuilt, who gets sued? The construction company or the cement company? (That actually happened here and I think the construction company ate it.)

It can be confusing, especially with a restaurant. Was the food bad from the start at the grower? Was it the storage, transportation or preparation? Who to place the blame on can be difficult.

I say we all get together and file a class action suit against all the publishers for not monitoring their intellectual property more closely. If they did, then the karaoke manufacturers wouldn't have produced so much illegal stuff and then turn around and sue KJ's for using it.

Believe me, the you are responsible for making sure you buy licensed songs but you aren't allowed to know what is licensed part sort of rubs me the wrong way, also. But taking a step back, does it happen in other businesses?

Sound like entrapment doesn't it? Especially with all the sneaking around, "investigating KJ's" then threatening to sue until they come up with some payola to repurchase what they already have that is now licensed far, far, away.... "mob tactics" I believe is what Jennifer Price called it. [cue the mysterious fog machine]



Seems like a case of the dishonest tricking the unknowing....

(Evangelists do that you know...)

 

[c. staley]

Possumdog. If you can hold the painting in perpetuity and it costs 1/3 the original purchase price over the life of the velvet, I say go for it. :laughpill:

Not quite because the original velvet was stolen....

 

[Diafel]

Not quite because the original velvet was stolen....

Ahhh, but I have the legal ORIGINALS, purchased in something like 1992. I could be wrong, but I would have to check the original receipt, which I have, to be sure. Hubby purchased them originally, way back in 1990-something, sold the machine and all the discs, and then they were sold again at least 2 or three more times until I happened to purchase them from someone completely different. They still had the original receipt with them with hubby's name on it!

 

[c. staley]

Ahhh, but I have the legal ORIGINALS, purchased in something like 1992. I could be wrong, but I would have to check the original receipt, which I have, to be sure. Hubby purchased them originally, way back in 1990-something, sold the machine and all the discs, and then they were sold again at least 2 or three more times until I happened to purchase them from someone completely different. They still had the original receipt with them with hubby's name on it!

Hate to step on your blue suede shoes, but not necessarily.... Just because it was a "pressed" disc, that fact alone doesn't make it a "legal" disc. (8125 is pressed too.)

 

[Diafel]

Hate to step on your blue suede shoes, but not necessarily.... Just because it was a "pressed" disc, that fact alone doesn't make it a "legal" disc. (8125 is pressed too.)

Oh, I know. I'm just saying that I know that it's not a "second run" (so to speak) and that it was actually manufactured by Music Maestro and not some of those pirates who are producing the discs even as we speak.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Good idea. Let me know how that works out for you. I'll be ready when you come. I'll produce the discs for audit. I possess 250+ original MM CD+G's. You of course, will have in your hand, the licensing for every track I possess with the MM trademark attached. Maybe you should come to a show first, you know, to "investigate".

Um, this sounds vaguely familiar- ah, yes- my statement in regard to SC....

 

[JoeChartreuse]

1) I will be happy to respond to that - could you please post the link in question?



2) I looked at these individually, and some are showing as clear for manufacture, and some are not. If you would be so kind as to post that link, I'll clear up the matter.



3) Part of that issue is the way the ABKCO decision fell out.



.

1) Here's the link again: http://dkusa.com/CHB/2million.pdf See Exhibit A for song list.


2) As far as I can tell, NONE of these titles is clear for CB to produce, and again, the masters were demanded to be destroyed.

3) Can't go with a "falling through" of ABKCO. It's too much like Kurt's "verbal agreements" that fell through. If it's not not DOCUMENTED as licensed, it's not licensed. Jumping the gun is the mfrs. problem.

4) Still awaiting thoughts on providing licensing documentation with each disc...

 

[JoeChartreuse]

So do we consumers of great integrity clear our libraries of anything other than Party Tyme? Or will we continue to profit off of these products ourselves, knowing they are unlicensed and yet saying, "Not my problem?" Is this a double standard? Now--I agree that the manufacturer had the primary responsibility and should be the one to pay the piper. Wish they would clean up their acts. But we have benifitted from these tracks also, and most will continure to do so. How far are WE willing to go? We want to say manufacturer's have no right to go after pirates when they have "pirated" themselves yet we want to be able to condemn the manufacturers while still hanging on to our libraries full of unlicensed tracks. Somewhere in the future, that will seem weird to us. But please don't make me get rid of my Velvet Elvis........

It's not what we WANT to say, it's what IS. The manufacturers have no right, and no legal position to go after KJs, because their own unlicensed tracks negate their position in court. Illegal attachments of their logos and histories of unlicensed production give them no legal standing. To that I add that ANY host that has paid a settlement of any kind to a publisher should have had more education in regard to their own business. Also, any host that would pay a licensing fee to a mfr. with no U.S. licensing of their own might benefit from some business courses.

I mean no offense regarding my statement above. It's just that the bottom line is that we are running BUSINESSES, and that means there is no room for guesswork or maybes. Facts only.

 

[possumdog]

Okay, let me change it from "We want to say" to "Isn't it hypocritical to say" etc.

I think that the ABKCO cases, at least in the ones persued against Stellar were more on the question of the sync licenses. Stellar contended that karaoke with just words and no accompanying movie-ette was not a video so they had gotten the other licenses but not the sync license. ABKCO differed, pressed the case and won. Weren't these cases more precedent setters for the sync license requirement rather than about violating something that had been well established?

And just out of curiousity--if the karaoke manufacturers only persued a host for those tracks that WERE fully licensed by them and left the others out of the case, would they still be thrown out of court?

 

[c. staley]

Okay, let me change it from "We want to say" to "Isn't it hypocritical to say" etc.
And just out of curiousity--if the karaoke manufacturers only persued a host for those tracks that WERE fully licensed by them and left the others out of the case, would they still be thrown out of court?

The question should be phrased "could they still be thrown out of court?"

"Thrown out?"... probably not, but that is not to say it wouldn't be very damaging because of the affirmative defense of unclean hands as well as latches. Especially when it comes to a jury trial. In this kind of case, the plaintiff will try as they might to get a summary judgment as quickly as possible without a jury if it can be done -with technicalities, loopholes, you name it. Otherwise, they're really "rolling the dice" with a jury and when all the "bad history" comes out, their credibility will most likely be in question and then hit the skids...

 

[JoeChartreuse]

And just out of curiousity--if the karaoke manufacturers only persued a host for those tracks that WERE fully licensed by them and left the others out of the case, would they still be thrown out of court?

My two TM lawyers say YES, due to their histories of illegal trademarks attached to tracks, and unlicensed releases. The mfrs. are suing for the same thing that they themselves are guilty of. I might also add that many of the 180+ songs that are permanently unlicensed for CB are included in the SGB catalogue, which CB purchased. That means if they go after SGB users ( which is why they purchased the catalogue), they will be in the same boat- which sucks. They had a great plan that might have actually made a difference, but they crapped the bed.

You know what REALLY bites? We had an opportunity to learn the actual facts from TWO direct sources, and both let us down. The funny thing is, SC- with whom I have many business and ethical issues- gave more honest info ( with some bludgeoning) than CB, with whom I have had no issues. SC has admitted honestly that they have no U.S. licensing, and has also admitted to download sites- from which no U.S. show may base their music. I asked CB whether they were fully licensed, and they said yes, yet AT LEAST 180+ tracks still in circulation are not, and will never be by CB.

What's a shame is that we, as karaoke hosts and business owners, can't get straight forward answers to honest questions from people from whom we expect them- those who supply us with the means to run our businesses. This is strange to me, because in the end, they will lose more than we will because of it. Just dumb.

 

[Kevinper]

Joe: Would you please post the names and address of your two TM lawyers? I'm thinking Heckle and Jeckle? Tom and Jerry? Funny how only your two lawyers think that the case can be won and all others tell their clients to settle.

 

[c. staley]

Joe: Would you please post the names and address of your two TM lawyers? I'm thinking Heckle and Jeckle? Tom and Jerry? Funny how only your two lawyers think that the case can be won and all others tell their clients to settle.

I think you're missing the point Kevinper.

I believe they are being advised to settle because it is less expensive to settle than it is to battle this out in court. Joe's point is that on the merit of law, a defendant would prevail, but who wants throw those dice? SC is counting on the fact that a KJ won't have the desire or the cash.