Karaoke Forums

And that number isn't zero so I was still correct: you sue customers. Period. You also sue venues whose only mistake was to have karaoke entertainment in the first place. It always amazed me how you expect a venue to scrutinize their karaoke operator regarding the source and legality of their music, however you're quick to point out that it's nobody's business if we KJ's were to scrutinize the legality of the original tracks that were sold to us to use in commercial settings. It's a bit of a double standard, but that's all water under the bridge.

In the States of Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana, you no longer have any right to sue anyone for trademark infringement that is playing back a karaoke track and not selling it because the courts have determined that it is not trademark infringement, and that it never was trademark infringement. There is no such thing as "media shifting" being a violation in District 7. Buh-bye.

This is not Jim Harrington or Kurt Slep deciding that it is trademark infringement and a violation of the Lanham act anymore, this is the United States federal government defining what is and is not trademark infringement by the very same premise you used to initiate these lawsuits - the Lanham Act.

Your days of using deeper pockets and abusing the court system to scare up trolling settlement payments out of KJ's and venues are just starting to wind down to a close. so you better step up your game in district 9 before the appellate court locks you out of nine more states sometime during or after November.

There's no questioning who I'm rooting for. ("Skiddle-Da-Roo, Skiddle-Da-Rad! We hope you don't get beat too bad!")

Like I said: "You can put poison into the well, taking it out is far more difficult."

We sue customers who couldn't be bothered to respect the very clear restrictions on the products they purchased--but if they show 1:1 correspondence, they are let off without any consequences.



We sue venues who are warned, in writing, not to allow pirate operators to provide services on their premises, and we offer a free service for screening their operators. The only ones we sue are the ones who ignore those warnings and don't take advantage of our screening service and use pirate operators anyway.



Of course not. You've been with the pirates from day one. Why change now?

Why should they show you anything?

• Did you sell them the product? Nope.
  A now-defunct company sold the product, not you.
• Has the court determined that there has been NO infringement? YES.

You just don't want to take "no" for an answer, I get it and it explains why all these years, you've never wanted a court to make a final determination.


See above, no infringement, no foul. (and you don't offer anything "free" )

Not really. I sided with EMI and other publishers against the biggest pirates of all long ago... Sorry if that looks familiar to you.

no....
none of us are "with the pirates", we all want the pirates gone, we all want the pirates paying for their theft.
we are "with" the legit hosts, who are the only ones paying PEP anything for the piracy of the pirates.
we just think it should be the other way around, pirates paying and customers not.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

If you're using original discs in your shows, you don't need GEMs, PEP, Safe Harbour or anything else. When you change from that then there are certain procedures that need to be done.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

If you are using original SOUND CHOICE and now CHARTBUSTER. Timberlea, do NOT confuse people into thinking that PEP can do ANYTHING about any other brand!!

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

In other words, feel free to pirate those brands.

Or do I misunderstand?

According to Federal Court in District 7; it's okay to media shift SC and CB too. The wolf has had it's teeth pulled out. District 9 will be next. The rest will follow like dominoes.

you misunderstand.
it is ok to media shift any other brand on the planet without extraneous fees and audits.
that is NOT piracy.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

Thank you. I hadn't gotten around to answering his accusation. AND itis fine to BUY songs from those companies, if you can find them. I am one, that occasionally buys from BKDL. WHY? The songs are available, no one is enforcing those brands, and it is not MY job to make sure the license is there. I know some of you do not agree with this, but if I have a customer request, and I can only find it there, I will buy it, and make my customer happy. I will say this, down the road, if said song becomes available from Karaoke-version, I will buy that version, because I know the quality will be better.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

I should start making more karaoke tracks and then put up a web site. Sound like I would get sales....

_________________
-Chris

And Chris, you would then belong to a very large group (manus) that has done exactly that.

You didn't indicate that would be a bad thing.

_________________
-Chris

I guess that would depend on whether you were sued out of existence or not.

Doesn't seem to be stopping the BuyKaraokeDownloads folks.....

_________________
-Chris

Very true!

Hey, make good tracks, and I will buy the Hell out of them. Taking requests?? Your first track, Forevermore - from Whitesnake, please.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

In the States of Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana, you no longer have any right to sue anyone for trademark infringement that is playing back a karaoke track and not selling it because the courts have determined that it is not trademark infringement, and that it never was trademark infringement. There is no such thing as "media shifting" being a violation in District 7. Buh-bye.

This is not Jim Harrington or Kurt Slep deciding that it is trademark infringement and a violation of the Lanham act anymore, this is the United States federal government defining what is and is not trademark infringement by the very same premise you used to initiate these lawsuits - the Lanham Act.

Your days of using deeper pockets and abusing the court system to scare up trolling settlement payments out of KJ's and venues are just starting to wind down to a close. so you better step up your game in district 9 before the appellate court locks you out of nine more states sometime during or after November.

There's no questioning who I'm rooting for. ("Skiddle-Da-Roo, Skiddle-Da-Rad! We hope you don't get beat too bad!")
WAIT! WHAT? I have been avoiding reading these because (thinking I am in the middle of a F'n FRIVOLOUS lawsuit, I have chosen to not read because I didn't want to be tempted to comment.) Now, assuming what you've written here is correct... man, I really really want to go off and "unload" on Harrington, Schlep, and F'n Phoenix! ("unload" verbally that is, but I will continue to be a bigger, better human being. My momma taught me that "if you can't say anything nice..."). However, I was reading this on Monday night, and it prompted me to call my (new/second/better) attorney. I even specifically asked about the "dismissal in the 7th district" but, when I called yesterday, he didn't act as if we were done yet. He was speaking as if my particular case has to be dismissed. But, if what you've said here is correct...? Am I finally out of the woods? Is this G-d-blessed nightmare finally OVER? IF so, I am unsure what my attorney is waiting for. Why would he keep me in suspense? I asked if I could expect good news, and he did seem affirmative. So now I am cautiously, a bit more optimistic than yesterday.

Does this "dismissal" in district 7, indeed make me (and therefore venues I serve) exempt from any lawsuit from say, July of 2015, or from any further legal action from these low- lying bottom feeders in the future?

I would recommend that you contact the attorney that represented the Basket Case Pub in the district 7 case.