Karaoke Forums

Well it's "three strikes"...



Let's see if they have the cajones to step it up to the Supreme Court....

Let's recap:
1. District court ruled against them
2. Appellant court ruled against them
3. Petition for Rehearing... denied.

It's game over in District Seven....

I guess "oops" is not a strong enough descriptor?

Here's a question for you Chip..

Since ASCAP, BMI and the like collect fees for "Commercial Performance" of Karaoke, did these entities authorize P.E.P to do the same?

Does P.E.P kick back to ASCAP? Or do they work on commission?

I often wondered about that..

what the hell does ASCAP have to do with it? Haven't read the relivant documents but I am pretty sure that a suit by PEP would have zero mention of ASCAP in it

I'll type slower..

P.E.P. wants to charge $$ for anyone using S.C. in a "Professional" or "Commercial" setting.
And they sue when they are discovered doing so.

Other "Authorized" groups already charge for that.
So, did P.E.P. sign a contract with these other groups to collect $$ for them?
Do they work on commission? Fee splitting? (An attorney favorite)

Just asking questions..

ok I get it now. I was just confused because that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic posted.

thanks for clearing it up

It's still two different things even though they both happen at the same place at the same time. PEP sues people that make money by showing their trademark. Someone could do the same in a private settings, but PEP won't know about that unless someone was stupid enough to invite them. The ABCs only account for public performance rights for the authors.

It does seem odd that no other company in the world sues for trademark display in a commercial setting like P.E.P. does.

Perhaps the suit will be dismissed..

Too late, dismissed already..

We have nothing to do with ASCAP (or BMI or SESAC), and they have nothing to do with us.

Those organizations collect on behalf of music publishers for the public performance of copyrighted musical compositions.

We enforce the use of our trademarks in connection with the creation and commercial use of karaoke accompaniment tracks (audiovisual works), as well as in connection with commercial karaoke entertainment services.



This is not accurate. First of all, we don't "sue for trademark display." We sue for the unauthorized use of our trademarks as applied to goods we didn't make and services we didn't authorize.

And we are far from the only company that does so. If you don't believe me, try substituting a generic cola when a bar customer orders a "Rum and Coke" and see if the Coca-Cola Company doesn't sue you.

As I noted previously, this ruling applies only to the 7th Circuit, and only to the "goods" trademark registrations, and it also applies only to the way our complaint was drafted. If we can write the complaint differently to address what the Court determined were deficiencies--and we have already done so--then we can continue to sue on the "goods" registrations, even in the 7th Circuit.

Cool..

keep filing for appeals in hopes that some people will still settle in the mean time before they find out the truth. "I know you've ruled against me three times in a row but could you please change your ruling this time? pretty please". Nothing has changed but I need to keep this thing in the courts while I continue filing law suits against (extort)people in hopes that they will pay me to drop the suits, that have no legal standing in the first place.

We have not decided whether to appeal to the Supreme Court. Given that this ruling affects at most only a tiny slice of our cases, I'd say there is a good chance we won't petition for certiorari.

This ruling does have an effect, albeit on a "tiny slice".

Could you explain, from your perspective, what the ruling means and what the effect is?

Also, wouldn't SCOTUS be the final authority who could settle the issue once and for all?
Wouldn't a final resolution be to everyone's benefit?

_________________
Never the same show twice!

The ruling means that in the 7th Circuit, the specific allegations we made do not add up to infringement of the two trademark registrations we asserted in that case (which cover the physical goods, not karaoke entertainment services) by operators who merely use pirated karaoke tracks.

As I have indicated previously, this is primarily an issue with the specific allegations we have made, not with the litigation program generally.

We can assert our service mark registrations for karaoke entertainment services, which are entirely unaffected by the ruling. We can allege that a karaoke operator who supplies counterfeit karaoke tracks at a venue is in fact distributing those tracks. And we can do a better job of structuring our complaints to identify the ways that our claims differ from copyright claims.



I estimate that preparing a petition for certiorari would cost somewhere in the range of $50,000 to $100,000, and it would have less than a 1% chance of being granted. Even if it were granted, briefing would cost a similar amount, if not more. While I view certainty as preferable to uncertainty, I do not think at this time that it would be money well spent to engage in that exercise, when our litigation program is largely unaffected by this ruling.

But no doubt, Kurt would love to be the "ascap of karaoke" wouldn't he?

Your firm has NOTHING to do with my "services" even if I use tracks with an sc trademark. You are purposely confusing the rest of the free world with those KJ's that have signed your one-sided contract because that's the only ones you have any control over. You yourself call them "controlled licensees." You can stop trying to snooker the rest of the KJ's here.

Nobody died and made you or Kurt some kind of governing god... though I'm sure you think you are.

You're like a schoolboy that's not done his homework correctly yet and begging the teacher:"One more last try!... please, please, please!"

Why aren't you just filing suits with the "deficiancies" fixed? Unless there is some other reason why you aren't.... hmmm...

And yes it applies only to the 7th Circuit.... and the 9th is coming up in November.... which covers 9 states.

This is truly so ridiculous I just about fell out of my chair! Rather than "dazzle with brilliance" your specialty is to "baffle with b*llsh*t."

Did you bother to inform your "controlled licensees" that the contract they signed gives rights to you that previously you didn't have? You can "control" their services... not mine, even if I were to use the brand.

Well, I guess that settles it.



We assume that our licensees are literate. And it's true: In exchange for getting rights they didn't previously have (the right to use media-shifted copies for commercial purposes), they give us rights that we didn't previously have (the right to inspect their operations). It's a fair exchange.



If all you use are the original discs that we sold you, that's sufficient in terms of quality control because we selected the level of quality of those discs in use. If you want to change the quality level and the medium where they are stored, the price of that is giving us the ability to inspect your work and require that it meet our standards. Yes, even you.

Well, certainly seems that way doesn't it? Except they call it "trade/service mark" violation.... and you really don't see it until a track IS performed... I haven't seen them sue anyone for posting a banner with their "unauthorized trademark" on it... Have you?

Don't they wish.

Yeah, sure it is.... (choke, choke) But tell the truth: it's whole lot more than just "a right to inspect" and you know it.

I don't think so..... You have no, none, zip "control" over the "quality" of my "services" ever. Not even on the playback of discs bearing your trademark, period.

But the point here is that if a KJ has signed one of your one-sided contracts, they've screwed themselves by willfully signing away those rights. Nothing more than shiny handcuffs.

Bottom Line--
Can K.J.s media shift without permission but just in the 7th District--yes or no?

might be a bit conspiracy theory...but what the heck...
since
by holding a karaoke show and displaying the SC mark, you are committing infringement.
since SC is now a karaoke hosting company, you displaying the SC logo will create a likelihood to confuse the patrons into believing that you are sponsored by, endorsed by, or affiliated with Sound Choice Entertainment. since you are not, (i am making the assumption that you did not join Phoenix Prime to become a SC KJ) you are (as the reason for suing appears to be changing from physical goods to karaoke services) violating their servicemark. however IF future litigation is geared towards service mark infringement for karaoke services, then even disk based are technical infringers as well.

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