Karaoke Forums

Nice of you to finally admit that the purpose of the settlement has been restitution for past infringement. So you're okay with your past infringement because you magically wash it away "as far as we're concerned" as though it never happened as well, I'm sure.

Hypocrisy is alive and well because it serves your purpose.
I don't think it's "foolish" at all because it is the same basis you use for your lawsuits: a preponderance as in "more likely than not." And apparently, when it's in your favor, it's all you need isn't it?

The character of ANY company that commits copyright violations, then turns around and sues for "trademark violations" on the same material that was illegally produced to start with hits pretty low on the scale of honesty, integrity and ethical practices in my book. Especially with the CB trademark since that is pure trolling. Unfortunately, there were more than one manufacturer that took this approach but you're the only one suing after the fact.

As I said before: Just because you paid a settlement, doesn't mean the copyright infringement didn't exist in the first place, but you'd prefer to see it that way because it helps you sleep at night.

But if you prefer, I can make it more palatable for the general public by saying instead; "The defendant paid the band-aid fee for not following the rules, so let's just pretend it never happened in the first place."

Yeah, I don't think so.

Remember that the topic of this thread is TRICERASOFT. If you'd like to have a sandbox we can spar in, I'd be happy to let the moderators create one in the legal section and we can duke it out there.

Oh, how I (we) wish that could have been possible. Mods?

(just to be clear I posted that in jest! no offense)

_________________
To be fortunate enough to derive an income from a source as fulfilling as karaoke music has got to be as close to heaven as we can get here on earth!

Again, this is just another case of 2016 technology being light-years ahead of 1980s-1990s thinking and points of law. The "Music Industry" finally graduated to 2016, but I imagine that, combining the separation of your industry from the "Music Industry" with the designation it received in that case I remember reading about years ago, and the lack of relative interest and/or concern by the music rights holder powers-that-be, it will be a difficult row to hoe, until/unless the current positioning is challenged...

If you would promise not to even remotely hint at a SC rant in any other thread......

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

Are you suggesting that there is some moral imperative at work here, that can't be fixed with an agreement between the affected parties?

I find that truly bizarre. These are civil business disputes, not existential and moral questions. Intellectual property has very little to do with morality and everything to do with legality. The purpose of intellectual property laws is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts"--in other words, to encourage people to expand human knowledge and to make useful things--by making it possible for them to profit from their inventions and discoveries. The terms on which the owner of IP rights exercises those rights are up to the owner; when he is confronted with someone who's trespassing on his property, it's up to him to determine how to deal with that.



I've yet to see a civil case decided on the basis of the character of the defendant. It's just not at issue. What is at issue are (1) what happened? (2) who's responsible? (3) are there any mitigating factors? and (4) what will it take to put the situation right? If the parties can work out the answers to those questions, what difference does it make what the allegations were?



If the copyright owners are satisfied with the resolution of the case, who gives a damn what you think about the case? I certainly don't. Whatever the resolution happened to be, it's between us and the publisher, period. You're not a party, so your views don't count.



YOU made it about SC. You can't reasonably do what you did and expect me not to respond.