With the exception of the GEM series, PEP should be sued by Stingray (or whoever now owns the music that the SC trademark is being associated with) for allowing the use of music PEP doesn't own or control in association with the trademark. Or at the VERY least be forced to dissolve the HELP "license".

"Don't use our music with your trademark."

I thought Kurt Slep owns PEP (SC) and his brother Derrick Slep owns Stingray.

So he should sue his own brother?

I thought Kurt Slep owns PEP (SC) and his brother Derrick Slep owns Stingray.

So he should sue his own brother?

Derek doesn't own Stingray but he's in charge of US music licensing for Stingray. Funny how that nepotism zhit works, huh?

https://www.linkedin.com/in/derekslep

Still doesn't make what PEP is doing right, though.

Pizza Delivery
Brindisi's Pizza
September 1983 – January 1985 (1 year 5 months)

The last time I ever worked for anyone ...
( or had a job interview...)

Derek doesn't own Stingray but he's in charge of US music licensing for Stingray. Funny how that nepotism zhit works, huh?

Derek was an agent for the Stingray catalog and left that role 1 1/2 years ago to pursue other non-karaoke interests.

So, then yes. Stingray SHOULD sue PEP for complicity in copyright infringement. Without illegally copied music, the HELP "license" is worthless.

Right, so let's look at this logically:
#1. PEP claims it's only licensing the trademark/quality with the help license.
#2. They do NOT "license the music"
#3. They require a licensee to indemnify them against the copyright infringement that is committed when a licensee downloads and uses (unauthorized) third party intellectual property.
#4. In some areas, they charge $500 a MONTH to "rent their trademark" because they don't own anything else... (their attempt to sue for trade dress alone went exactly nowhere in Illinois)

If a KJ uses their logic that "it's cheaper to pay the penalty than it is to pay for permission" then they'd just scrub off the trademark and in one year save $6,000.00 because either way, they are still committing copyright infringement. But there would be no "trade/service mark" displayed...

And I would agree with djdon that what they are doing might as well be their own version of vicarious infringement.

OR, maybe PEP is greasing Stingray on the side. Now THAT... would make sense.

Since the Gem series lawsuit with EMI which Stingray was included in, but settled out early, I doubt that Stingray would give Kurt the time of day

Then, I'd think Stingray would HAVE to know about the HELP 'license'. And if they didn't have some kind of deal with PEP, why would they NOT sue?

It's like PEP saying, 'we're not telling you to do anything illegal, but we'll sell you exactly what you need to blow up this building with the understanding that, if you do, we had nothing to do with it.'

I do not get how that would work, since he doesn't work for them..................but.

tin foil hat time....
do we KNOW he doesn't?

Then, I'd think Stingray would HAVE to know about the HELP 'license'. And if they didn't have some kind of deal with PEP, why would they NOT sue?

Why? The deal PEP offers is to look the other way when you display a trademark. That's it. You are liable for all the other rights you are violating and Stingray could easily peruse those that struck the deal with the devil if they so desire. I would imagine, Stingray could even get a list of people who have signed this agreement if they pushed hard enough for it in court.

I could just as easily strike a deal with anyone that says they can show my trademark on stingray music if they were stupid enough to agree to it. I wouldn't need Stingray's permission at all.

The issue is, the HELP 'license' is worthless without Stingray's music. Stingray's music (what used to be Sound Choice's music) is now possessed by those that have committed copyright infringement (copied, made copies or received or purchased copied music files without owning the original music source, like the cd). The HELP 'license' ENCOURAGES copyright infringement. Personally, I'd be scared to death to use the HELP 'license'. How stupid can one be?

It's like PEP saying, 'we're not telling you to do anything illegal, but we'll sell you exactly what you need to blow up this building with the understanding that, if you do, we had nothing to do with it.'

That's exactly what they're saying because in order to receive any value from their product, you have to be willing to knowingly commit copyright infringement. PEP knows this and that's why their contract specifically states that you can't sue PEP for your infringement of a third party's rights (which they acknowledge they cannot grant you in the first place.)