The Karaoke SoftShop
Top Rated Karaoke Software

PR's One Day Audit

Discuss any legal issues pertaining to karaoke.
The Lone Ranger
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:19 am
Location: CALIFORNIA

Post by The Lone Ranger » Tue Sep 10, 2013 2:03 pm

8) It's a new ball game Danny only the publishers can sue for tract content. This leaves the manus on the outside looking in as far as content of product. The other issue of trademark infringement is also gone unless the plaintiff can prove two points.

1. the trademark has been copied.

2 That confusion resulted from the trade mark being copied, and the person doing the copying sold the copied article as original SC or CB product.

What host copies the disc and then tries to sell it? Most just use it for their own business. This case involving SC v.s. Light Year Music aka The Kandy Store showed SC couldn't even win against CAVS product that had been preloaded. The jury found totally in favor of the defendant, not one dissenting juror.



DanG2006
Posts: 1323
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 8:37 pm
Location: USA

Post by DanG2006 » Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:41 am

Kossack's blog isn't proof that they lost. Harrington has not confirmed the loss. Unless you can provide substantial proof that they lost then you are talking BS. SC can't loose that because SC never gave permission for CAVS to produce any such product.

DanG2006
Posts: 1323
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 8:37 pm
Location: USA

Post by DanG2006 » Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:43 am

Oh and I have a friend that while he was disc based would buy discs, copy them and then sell the originals while still using the copies.

The Lone Ranger
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:19 am
Location: CALIFORNIA

Post by The Lone Ranger » Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:12 am

8) Danny my friend you are in serious denial. I wish Jim would come on these forums and say the story is not true. Later on when it proves to be true he will then loose all his standing he has built up over the years. Hell even Insane KJ is not jumping up to defend SC and prove it's a lie. They have had a few days and nothing, the longer they remain silent the more I believe the story is true. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

The Lone Ranger
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:19 am
Location: CALIFORNIA

Post by The Lone Ranger » Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:31 am

[quote="DanG2006"]Kossack's blog isn't proof that they lost. Harrington has not confirmed the loss. Unless you can provide substantial proof that they lost then you are talking BS. SC can't loose that because SC never gave permission for CAVS to produce any such product.[/quote]


8) We Danny it is official Jimbo Harrington has come on both the K/S forum and the Free Forum and admitted they got stomped. Of course he tried to put the usual spin on it. The judge didn't know the law, the jury wasn't briefed on the law properly, my dog ate the evidence etc.etc.etc. Maybe the real reason is their whole legal process is built on sand, quicksand and it won't support the charges they keep bringing to court. You believe now don't you.

Bigdog
Posts: 2937
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:15 am

Post by Bigdog » Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:30 pm

First of all how can they prove that because I copied a song I legally paid for...to my hard drive to protect my original investment....that I have caused them any financial loss? I bought one copy and preserved it. That's all. I have not stolen anything.

Second, I did not do it with malice...or to deceive anyone or to claim it was my original work. It's not even their original work. They copied the song and did a word sweep.

When they bought the songs from the defunct karaoke companies....they only assumed...what was left of any contracts with the publishers to use that music and they also bought the rights to the ownership of the orioginal word sweeps....

If I buy the Hoover Dam today can I go back in time and sue everyone for the power they used since day one? It's water over the dam...I like that pun... :lol:

They can not make anymore copies of the music if the contracts expired.....and they own the music only from the day they bought it...they can't go back in time....and if they did buy the rights to the song again...it's doesn't go back to the Garden of Eden....and start over..

and if they remake the song with new word sweeps with the other companies musical rendition...then what happens?

There is probably a statute of limitations and I'll bet it's expired...

Nobody had a problem until the new GREEDY owners to over...

Let's sue everyone to get our investment back...

So in the end they will own a bunch of music nobody will be using...because they put everyone out of business....Let's cut off our nose

They buy the other companies out to get there music....but all they got was the rights to the musical rendition and the word sweeps...so they can claim they own it...If they want to make any copies of the music to sell...they need to buy the rights to use the songs again from the publishers....

I'll bet they can't use the old word sweeps for their new musical rendition because the publishers made the original agreement with the old companies and that might negate their re-usage

Just like they changed the words of Take Me Home Tonight because the Ronettes wouldn't play ball with them...so to get around the Ronettes they just changed the word to Ronnie...

If I announce (legal disclaimer) at the beginning of every show...I do not claim to be the original owner of the karaoke music played tonight ...am I off the hook...no ownership is legally implied..

Post Reply