Media shifting w/o permission a violation of manu's rights

DanG2006 · Post by **DanG2006** » Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:40 pm

A KJ in Arizona has been found guilty of trademark infringement even though he is 1:1 compliant. The reason is he did not get the proper authorization to make the media shift by the manufacturer of said discs. He now is not allowed to play SC music off of his computer because of this.

Bigdog · Post by **Bigdog** » Sat Apr 07, 2012 2:44 am

Ahhh...for how many years have we been talking about Sound Choice and their telling EVERYONE that they were OK with a 1-1 copy?

This is BS and they are liars...PERIOD.

Post by **wiseguy** » Sat Apr 07, 2012 5:49 am

Dan, where did you get this information? Can you give us a link to to a copy of the actual judgement that was handed down?

DanG2006 · Post by **DanG2006** » Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:31 am

There is a lot of backstory on this. While he was found 1:1 compliant in discovery, much of what he had he bought after being named in the suit.
When I get the authorization to post a copy of the documents I will. It is in a restricted area right now of another forum.

Post by **wiseguy** » Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:16 pm

DanG2006 wrote:There is a lot of backstory on this. While he was found 1:1 compliant in discovery, much of what he had he bought after being named in the suit.
When I get the authorization to post a copy of the documents I will. It is in a restricted area right now of another forum.

Ah... the plot thickens. I'll reserve comment until I can read the particulars except to say that this was Arizona a state that is infamous for making idiotic judicial decisions.

DanG2006 · Post by **DanG2006** » Sat Apr 07, 2012 8:51 pm

Actually I thought it was. I just don't know the policies of referring to another forum here or much less linking to it.

Post by **wiseguy** » Sat Apr 07, 2012 9:00 pm

DanG2006 wrote:Actually I thought it was. I just don't know the policies of referring to another forum here or much less linking to it.

There is no policy here for referring to another forum. This forum has always been about sharing karaoke related information and any links to this type of information are welcome.

Bigdog · Post by **Bigdog** » Sun Apr 08, 2012 2:09 am

DanG2006 wrote:There is a lot of backstory on this. While he was found 1:1 compliant in discovery, much of what he had he bought after being named in the suit.
When I get the authorization to post a copy of the documents I will. It is in a restricted area right now of another forum.

And exactly how could they prove when he bought them? If you have the discs you wouldn't need a sales slip...

DanG2006 · Post by **DanG2006** » Sun Apr 08, 2012 8:53 am

The places he bought them from cooperated with the investigation. Plus they required more information than just show us your discs which is what the non sued voluntary auditors are required. They included financial records to show where the money they made actually went and receipts for every purchase of discs.

DanG2006 · Post by **DanG2006** » Sun Apr 08, 2012 8:56 am

Here is where i found out about the issue: http://karaokeusa.forumotion.com/t153-d ... ase-closed

makes interesting reading.

mr.dj · Post by **mr.dj** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:07 am

After reading the above link there's one thing that puzzles me, If he refused an audit how did he prove he was 1 to 1 compliant ?

Bigdog · Post by **Bigdog** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:28 am

I have been buying discs for almost 20 years...and I should be expected to produce 20 year old receipts?

Show them my income tax records...how does that prove how and when I bought discs....??? My income tax records show I bought discs every year for 20 years...doesn't prove they where Sound Choice or not....

IRS says you only need to keep records for 5 years and 7 if in business.

If someone gives me a disc....there is no record of that. I have had people give me discs...

If I have one disc and back it up....I have the disc as proof of ownership...possession is 9/10 of the law.. A paper trail could help if there is a question...but let's face it...a CD isn't exactly a car or boat or snow mobile..or a house....

My thoughts are the judge will say you are nit picking....they can not prove it is not your disc and you can because you have it.

I buy all my discs at garage sales...

Post by **wiseguy** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 8:55 am

mr.dj wrote:After reading the above link there's one thing that puzzles me, If he refused an audit how did he prove he was 1 to 1 compliant ?

I imagine the court ordered him to supply this evidence.

Actually, having receipts for his discs is a moot point. The court found him to be 1:1 compliant so apparently SC's argument (if they made one) that he bought the discs after being named in the suit did not hold up.

And again, this was Arizona. Not the most progressive state by any measure. I'm not sure the outcome would be the same in a state like California.

mr.dj · Post by **mr.dj** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:09 am

As I see it, as he refused an audit SC could not prove he wasn't 1 To 1 compliant so did not sue on those grounds but instead went for the not applying for permission to media shift.
Which to do he would have had to have had the audit.

DanG2006 · Post by **DanG2006** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:31 am

The big thing is that the judge said that he had not gotten permission to media shift the product over to hard drive and so is ordered not to do so until he gets written permission to do so. To do that he has to go through the audit.