![]() |
|
Singers & Hosts Wisdom Post how to be a great karaoke singer or host. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#24
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
Re: The Lawsuits Have Started In Virgina
First and foremost, if you are named in a SC Lawsuit, immediately counter-sue for $1 million dollars U.S.
SC sues over 2 issues. 1. Trademark Infringement 2. Unfair Competition With respect to Trademark Infringement, they specifically refer to the "Confusion" clause of the statute. Confusion is used when a blatant infringement has not occurred. It is the "Catch-all" clause of the statute. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/inp27.htm Quote:
SC believes this occurs with downloaded/pirated Karaoke that is used in a commercial environment where a KJ is being compensated. SC is saying that, by using Pirated Karaoke, the SC Trademark is confusing the Establishment's Owners, Singers, and non-Singers because the Establishment's Owners, Singers, and non-Singers have a fundamental right to believe that the Karaoke Trademarks being displayed are from Original Discs ripped to a Hard Drive at a 1:1 ratio and owned by the KJ contractor for an individual Karaoke Show or multiple sets of Original Discs if the KJ is running multiple rigs. How does one DEFEND against "Confusion" to thwart SC if one is named in a lawsuit? Having a simple TERMS and DISCLAIMER is your BEST DEFENSE. The Disclaimer would read similar to this: Quote:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/inp27.htm Quote:
Although the following actually deals with selling goods, it does make good reading in understanding what is considered "Blatant" Infringement and "Confusion" Infringement: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/inp28.htm Quote:
The above Disclaimer, also, defends against: 2. Unfair Competition as it specifically states: Quote:
There is an ancillary statement to possibly defend against Public Performance as I believe this has been totally distorted as NO ONE IS GETTING PAID TO SING. Since SC sends scabs to your shows to "gather evidence," You should have a CONTENT DISCLAIMER in all your Song Lists that would read similar to this: Quote:
Further defense against SC is to force SC, during "Discovery," to produce all 4 licenses on ALL there Karaoke Songs. An argument could be made that, if SC didn't have permission to re-create, FOR SALE, the Intellectual Property (IP) in the first place, they wouldn't of had the right to put their Trademark on the IP in the second place. In other words...they are the thieves and profited until the record label or Artist forced them to pull the IP...Hence the "R" numbered discs. SC's credibility would be tainted in eyes of a Jury. This will be plausible and sustainable evidence as SC never states what IP was infringed leaving it open for you, the defendant, to choose which IP it was that they have a picture of...their evidence. They do not want to name an IP as, if you produced the Original disc the IP was on, they would be dead in the water. This leaves their IP "evidence" open for debate and ambiguous, at best. More smoke for the JURY to show the deception of SC's lawsuit. Simply choose the Eagles 8125 disc, assuming you have an Original, or, choose any Original that was later replaced, to clear up the ambiguity as they will NOT be able to show all 4 Licenses for the works on those discs. It's a catch 22 for SC. If SC says that's not the disc of works where the evidence came from, then, make them state categorically which work it was. If they do, then produce the Disc...end of story. But they won't...they don't want specific IPs because you would be able to produce them. The aforementioned is a way to force them. If you can't pin them down...more smoke for the JURY to show SC's deception. I know I'm talking about IP, but the IP is what the Trademark is on. Kill the IP and the Trademark goes with it. I suppose SC could argue that, even though the IP was not perfected, it is still their Trademark and you infringed upon it. You could, then, use Kurt Selp's own words, from various forums, that, as far as he and SC was concerned, as long as one had a 1:1 copy, which would include media-shifting to a Hard Drive, it was OK. Use his own words against him. So, it does matter which IP one was talking about because if one was to produce the Original...it was alright with Kurt Slep and SC and more reason to the JURY that the Lawsuit was nothing but a fishing expedition and FRIVOLOUS! The NEW discs that SC is still producing further evidence that the SC Lawsuit is on shaky ground. The new discs come with a new WARNING LABEL that states: Quote:
1. Obviously SC has a problem proving that the consumer was properly informed that they could NOT media shift the songs from the OLD DISCS to a Hard Drive. Why else would they change the warning. More evidence in for the JURY of SC's frivolous Lawsuit. 2. By the statement in the warning of NEW DISCS, "OR ANY SOUND CHOICE SONG," SC is trying to make all their songs comply retroactively. So, I would say, if you have any of these songs in you database...remove them immediately. Further comments When I purchased a SC Disc, I was never informed that I couldn't use these songs on a Hard Drive. Neither from SC itself, as I have purchased discs directly form them in the past, or from Vendors. I did not walk through a door and SC magically became a business partner of mine because I purchased one of their discs. And, since they are not a business partner, they are not permitted access to any aspect of my business...leave alone my Song Library. I heard rumors that SC wants to claim that their IP was never intended for Commercial use. If they try that tactic, I have several inserts from Jewel Cases that state (This Is From SC8295): Quote:
Last edited by gd123; March 29th, 2010 at 03:13 AM. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|