Karaoke Forums

Strictly speaking, no.

The allegations against Mr. Cable are different from those at issue in the case in Illinois.

But let's ask a serious question... Why is it that the two courts that have ruled that way are "right" and the 18 others that have ruled the opposite are "wrong"?

Except when you dismiss a defendant whom you've claimed has done all this... And the rest of us wonder why.... there must be a real reason tucked back in the shadows somewhere....

There's your "technicality" again: "aren't currently suing" but that doesn't mean you haven't and it doesn't mean you won't.

And then you dismiss the KJ..... And I still have to wonder why... No penalty, no agreement not to use the brand and your actions are exactly against everything you claim you are suing for in the first place. It appears as though you want to release these KJ's so you can sue the next venues that hire them? And release them again? Is there a commission involved?

Why would it appear underhanded to pirates? You either "license them" for a monthly pittance of what many kj's have spent on discs OR you "catch and release" so that you can sue the venues for a quick settlement.

And that's all just plain underhanded not to mention that your firm -- for financial gain -- is "supporting the pirates" as often as you can.

Produce it. If you can quote it, put it out there for all of us to see. If you can't or won't substantiate your claims, why should anyone believe anything you say?
And this is nothing more than your hot air... nothing. "Our analysis" means nothing, "indicates" means nothing, etc... Might as well be a fart: smelly, but invisible. How about we take a peek at what Mr. Cable's attorney required from PEP as part of "our analysis" to see exactly what it "indicates?"

You've got no "hush-hush agreement" with him... unless of course, you're somehow afraid of what that might reveal.

Whoa Nelly! "Prior to our FINAL investigations?" So you "warned the venues" prior to verifying anything? You really can't expect anyone to believe this load crap can you?

Which is a binding legal contractual agreement giving you the rights to determine with deadlines who you want to be fired or the venue will continue to be sued? That's what "simply signed up for our free program" means? What a crock! That's about as underhanded as you could possibly describe anything and as far from "free" as you can get.
And that action was to completely kill even the opportunity for disc-based, certified, prime members, audited, and help licensed kj's from ever working at these venues... and you don't think that's "throwing poison in your own well?" You're a marketing genius! You'll f*** over everyone -including your own "controlled licensees" for a quick settlement.

Easy.
Did you "force" a monetary and punitive settlement from your "alleged pirate?" Nope.
Did you "force" the alleged pirate out of the karaoke business -even temporarily? Nope.
Did you effectively block any access by any professional (and according to your standards) "legal KJ" from ever getting employment at these venues? Yep.
Did you "recover what was stolen from you" from the alleged pirate? Nope.

Tell me again why I shouldn't fault you for forcing the venue(s) to paying you off and slamming their doors to everyone else.... like you're some kind of victim?

English translation for all the disc-based, audited, certified, Gem lessees, Help licensees, Prime members and SC supporters in general: "F-You. We got our money."


Uh, aren't you forgetting something? If he's such the big, bad, pirate you accuse him of... why pray tell was he voluntarily released? You can't trash him up one side and down he other... and then walk away...

Unless of course it's more likely that there's more to the story that you're not revealing....

I doubt that. Explain the differences because there really aren't any that I can see. The complaints look the same and allege the same trash.
You're counting defaults now? Really? List these 18 wins you're proudly boasting about, if you think you can. Anyone can toss around numbers that don't mean anything - substantiating them is another matter. Which one will you choose?

My guess would be from all appearances that the court system has finally caught up to your trolling game.

Fine, fair enough. Here is a PDF that includes the interrogatories in question, together with his answers.

https://pep.rocks/Cable_excerpt.pdf



Uh, OK. Here is what I mean by "analysis":

He provided us with a list of the discs he owns, by catalog number (which is in the above PDF). There were 241 discs with numbers, and 10 discs that are promotional-type discs. We put all of the numbers into a spreadsheet, then compared that to our records to see how many tracks are on each disc. Without more identifying information, we could not say for certain how many tracks were on the promotional discs, which is the reason for the "about 3,500" figure.

How many tracks do you think would be on 251 CD+G discs, bearing in mind that each disc generally contains either 8 or 15 tracks? If you come up with a significantly different number, please show your work.



I'm not sure what you're asking for here. We did not provide discovery responses to Mr. Cable, because they were not due at the time the case ended.



Our investigative process includes investigations that occur both before and after the venue warning letters go out. We conduct a "final" investigation after the letters have gone out (and after some time has passed, to give venues a reasonable opportunity to comply) before the lawsuit is filed.



You seem to be operating under the assumption that any business transaction can be accomplished without a "binding legal contractual agreement." (Which we should probably submit to the Department of Redundancy Department.) It can't.

Here is the Safe Harbor transaction:

(1) The venue registers for the program by providing us with some identifying information.
(2) The venue requires that its karaoke operator(s) provide(s) us with information about their operations.

(At this point, once the operator has provided the information, the venue is considered to be in the Safe Harbor, and we will not sue the venue.)

(3) We review the operator's information. If the operator is compliant with our policies, we generate a license number and notify the venue. If the operator is not compliant with our policies, we work with the operator to get compliant through one of our programs.

(A word about what it means to be "noncompliant": A "noncompliant" operator is making unauthorized commercial use of Sound Choice-branded karaoke files and/or providing karaoke services in connection with the Sound Choice marks without authorization. An operator who is a licensee in good standing, who only uses original discs, or who does not use Sound Choice-branded tracks is considered to be "compliant" for purposes of the Safe Harbor.)

(4) If the operator does not get into compliance within a reasonable time and otherwise refuses to cooperate with us, we notify the venue of the non-cooperation, giving them 30 days to stop using the noncompliant operator.
(5) If the venue stops using the noncompliant operator, they remain in the Safe Harbor. If they refuse to stop using the noncompliant operator, then they exit the Safe Harbor.

We do not charge the venue anything to participate. We only charge the operator the fees that would normally be due for compliance (i.e., regular retail rates for HELP, GEM, or certification), and if the operator is compliant already there is no fee to participate.



A venue that can't afford to hire legit hosts can't afford to have karaoke. The market will benefit from the reduction in supply in what is obviously an oversaturated market. Karaoke would be a thriving, lucrative business opportunity if 70% of the venues that currently have karaoke stopped having it. These venues' exit from the karaoke market will not be missed by any legit host.

Now, a couple of questions for you: How much did you contribute to Mr. Cable's "legal defense fund"? Do you feel taken in by something that wasn't what it appeared to be?

For one thing, the Illinois case only asserts the two "goods" trademark registrations. The "services" registrations were at issue in the Cable case. Additionally, we have substantially revised the way we phrase our allegations to address some of the concerns the Illinois court relied on.



I'm not referring to defaults. I'm referring to courts that have actually considered the question of whether these are proper trademark claims and have issued opinions deciding that they are. Here's a partial list:

Slep-Tone Entm’t Corp. v. Coyne, 41 F. Supp. 3d 707, 719 (N.D. Ill. 2014)
Slep–Tone Entm't Corp. v. Elwood Enters., Inc., 2014 WL 1612891, at *5 (N.D.Ill. Apr. 21, 2014)
Slep–Tone Entm't Corp. v. Shenanigans Lounge, 2013 WL 1768444, at *3 (D.Or. Feb. 22, 2013)
Slep–Tone Entm't Corp. v. Arrowood, 2011 WL 4482082, at *3 (S.D.Ohio Sept. 26, 2011)
Slep-Tone Entm't Corp. v. Sellis Enters., 87 F. Supp. 3d 897, 905 (N.D. Ill. 2015)
Slep-Tone Entm't Corp. v. Keats Karaoke 2011 WL 6057979, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2011)

I don't have time at the moment to look up the other (approximately 12) cites, but when I get some time I will be happy to provide them to you. This is something that has been decided by numerous courts all across the country, and it has almost always been decided in our favor.

So, what makes the Illinois court "right" and all of these other courts "wrong"?

What you really mean is that "we did not provide discovery responses to Mr. Cable, because we ended the case before we would have had to respond. " Hiding something are you?

The case didn't end on it's own. You, the plaintiff, deliberately ended the case before your responses were due. Which just adds to the mystery of why you would do something like that without a single concession from your alleged pirate. It looks like Toto was pulling on the curtain.
You can stop right here and answer why you believe that it's perfectly acceptable for your binding legal contract to obligate a 2nd party (a venue) to force a non-signing 3rd party (a KJ) to provide you with private information regarding their operations?

And, if the non-signing 3rd party refuses -- because they don't have any agreement or anything else with you -- you turn around and sue the 2nd party (venue) for not forcing a completely separate, business to submit their private information to you? Smells pretty rotten...
And you wonder where the underhanded characterization comes from? Really?

But your scheme doesn't end there.... it goes on and it's focus is not on the venue that signs your legally-binding agreement, it's about them forcing the 3rd party (who is under no obligation) to give you what you want under the threat of legal action: (Gee, I'm sure there's a legal word for that..... ex-something ) Not charging them to threaten them with a lawsuit while using your threat to encumber everyone is a mighty magnanimous gesture on your part don't you think? Underhanded as hell, unethical might be a better description though.

You are the altruist here? There's nothing beneficial for any entity but you. But you want to sit on your high horse and act like you know what's best -- and what would be best -- for everyone else? You're not doing "the industry a favor" and you're not helping anyone other than yourselves.

Hell, you can't even start producing music so your bulls**t statement about "karaoke would be a thriving, lucrative business opportunity" is not something even you are interested in. Period. If you were, you wouldn't be buying trademarks for the sole purpose of suing others and letting alleged pirates go scott-free while you suck what you can out of their venues and hosts.


(1) Exactly zero. (ask him)
(2) If you're talking about Kurt Slep and sound choice reneging on his own permissions after 9 years and not licensing music while suing KJ's for the same thing, you bet I do.

But I'm wondering how many KJ's and venues would contribute a few dollars to a class action suit after the 9th district makes their ruling?

That would be worth a night's pay just in entertainment value....