KARAOKE SCENE MAGAZINE ONLINE! - Sound Choice proposal Yey or ney?? Public Forums Karaoke Discussions Karaoke Legalities & Piracy, etc... Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums Home | Contact Us | Site Map  

Karaoke Forums

Karaoke Scene Karaoke Forums

Karaoke Scene

   
  * Login
  * Register

  * FAQ
  * Search

Custom Search

Social Networks


wordpress-hosting

Offsite Links


It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:39 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:25 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 407
Been Liked: 242 times
c. staley wrote:
That's more than just a bit of a stretch. If I purchase Vasoline Petroleum Jelly and repackage it as "watch grease" under my own logo, tell me where the violation is.

If I block my karaoke player from displaying your logo, tell me where the violation is.

There isn't any. Just because you've included your logo in the playback, doesn't mandate under any law that I'm required to display it. Even for your benefit of "advertising value." Just as there is no law that requires me to play the audio you've created at the correct speed, pitch or key either.

Manufacturer's can't have it both ways and claim that the output through my monitor or speakers is somehow "their product" but then claim that a ripped and altered version played from my computer is an entirely different product being "passed off" when it's never being resold. Just like the sugar in soda, any manufacturer's product is nothing more than one of several "ingredients" in my business.... which is a service. I don't see the "Domino Sugar" logo displayed on a can of soda, do you?


If you purchase Vasoline Petroleum Jelly and repackage it as "watch grease" under your own logo that is exactly "passing off". You can't remove a company's logo from its products and replace it with yours. You can market it as watch grease or a sex lubricant it doesn't matter. The fact that you've replaced the logo with yours on the same identical product is a clear violation of the Lanham Act. Actually I can't believe you would even try to make that argument.

i believe you're a bit confused between something that's being used and something that's being physically altered. Blocking your karaoke player from displaying my logo is not the same thing as REMOVING the logo from the product. I never made the assertion that there was a "mandate under law" that required you to display my logo, or alter its pitch or tempo. Those are all "use" related events and do not actually alter the product itself. As to whether or not I can demand that you display my logo, or play my product at a certain speed and pitch, I would tend to agree with your point of view but as you've pointed out there is no statutory law in that regard so there's nothing to prevent a seller from litigating any or all of those points. There may even be some case law, but then again it doesn't interest me enough to put in that much effort to research.

I don't understand your "both ways" reference. What does that even mean? In the first place no one is claiming that the "output" through your monitors or speakers are our products. What we claim to be our products are the sound recordings and graphic representations of the song lyrics that you are using to "output" through your monitors and speakers as being our products. Here again what you are describing is an issue of "use" not product alteration. Having said that however, if what you are suggesting is that there are no limitations as to how you can represent or misrepresent our products in a public forum, then I think you could be in for a rude awakening.

Combining ingredients from one or more manufacturers to create an entirely different product is not even a legitimate argument. In the first place why would you even assume that the sugar in your soda was the Domino brand. When I buy sugar I buy the generic brand and I sincerely doubt that any soda manufacturer would pay a premium for branded sugar unless they wanted to take advantage of the other company's branding as part of its marketing strategy. Also, there are many examples of products that partner with other products that include the branding of those other products. I don't know exactly how things like this work, but obviously you don't either. I think it's safe to assume however that if one product is using another company's product, and if that other company's product is exclusive to them (otherwise they would use a generic form) then I'm guessing there is some licensing going on and part of that licensing agreement would be a stipulation as to whether or not the other company's branding will be included in the final product.

Chip, you do tend to have very strong opinions about things and I know you mean well but there are far too many variables in any of this stuff to be rendering such dogmatic opinions. Neither of us are lawyers which is not to say we can't have opinions, but all I'm saying is that going through law school and passing the bar does allow a lawyer to speak with a bit more authority on an issue regardless as to which side they take, but yet you'll seldom hear a good lawyer take such a solid stance on an issue (unless of course he/she is representing his/her client) because they understand that there in reality there's no such thing as a slam-dunk in the judicial system.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:45 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 407
Been Liked: 242 times
JimHarrington wrote:
You (and others) keep saying 8th and 9th circuits......


For beginners I don't feel comfortable exchanging posts with Kurt's attorney or ex-attorney, but seeing that you quoted me I'll respond in kind.

Other than these posts regarding the stripping away of a company's branding from its products, I've never quoted anything from the 8th circuit and if ever I've quoted anything from the 9th circuit I can assure you it wasn't as a term of endearment. It's hard for me to take seriously a court whose opinion might depend on whether or not the surf is up! But as they say, sometimes even the blind squirrel gets the acorn.

As to your comments regarding the "passing off" well you're preaching to the choir. As for the rest of your comments regarding your previous cases or your remaining cases, I have no knowledge or opinion and even if I did I would defer to your's until such time as you're proven wrong.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:50 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:24 pm
Posts: 4438
Been Liked: 1048 times
Mr. Harrington, it's good to see you active on the forum again. I for one have always appreciated your contributions and have learned a lot from you. Thank you for being here.

_________________
Electro-Voice Evolve 50... Taking Sound To The Next Level.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:01 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:10 am
Posts: 313
Images: 6
Been Liked: 52 times
JimHarrington wrote:
cousinvinnie wrote:
1) There is approx 20 million dollars worth of recordings offered in the Sound Choice brand.
2) There is a "Help" license available to those that may have acquired these tracks on Hard drive or other storage devices "IN GOOD FAITH"
3) There is also a "Certification program in place for those that acquire SC CDG DISKS and choose to "rip" them on to a Hard drive or other storage device "IN GOOD FAITH"
4) Some people are saying that the prices should be higher.
5) There is currently 5% of those in the karaoke industry that are actually licensed.

But let's get real for a moment. Higher pricing will steer away the other 95% I think a more positive approach would be to embrace the 95% and place them on a program that will benefit BOTH SIDES. when I say 95% I'm referring to approx "10,000 users" if not more. You can't just throw that away... why not Create a USER License for the 95% (10,000 x $500/year = $5 million/year) It sounds like a losing on the bananas approach but still benefits all of us because that $5 million can pay for new tracks. and also can offer an affiliate program within those 95% allowing each licensee to earn "FREE Credits" towards new music... from referrals. Throwing this opportunity away would just crumble the TOP DOG in the industry. Again TOP DOGS can not survive on just the 5%... I believe if a "Paid Membership was offered on the SoundChoice.com website similar to what is mentioned in this post would bring the company back in the game and EVERYONE wins!!!! Maybe Kurt Jon Slep will see this post and either laugh his <span style=font-size:10px><i>(@$%&#!)</i></span> off and enjoy the rest of his day or Embrace it and get that website going "ASAP"

(Keep in mind the $500/yr is just used as an example and may not be the actual pricing on a live site.)

Keep in mind that Paid members are also affiliates and in knowing they also have an opportunity to Earn free credits will motivate the 95% to tell their friends so EVERYBODY WINS

Any thought's would be greatly appreciated.


I appreciate the effort to try to cut the Gordian knot here, but there's a fundamental problem with this approach.

Years ago, SC authorized a guy in the Pacific Northwest to try to get people to sign up for the GEM series for $1000 per set. He claimed he could sell lots of licenses at that rate. He sold zero.

PEP has also frequently offered 100% free certification specials. The only thing necessary was to get audited, which we would do at no charge to the operator. We have gotten only a handful of takers.

Something similar to your proposal was put forward around 5 years ago--instead of charging $5000 for a GEM series or $129 for a HELP license, band together with other companies to offer a user license for something around $500 a year. And if there were 10,000 takers, that would be $5 million a year to split.

But there won't be 10,000 takers, or even 1,000 takers. It can't compete with "free."

I do know that Kurt is interested in new ideas, so you should feel free to contact him about them.


Thank you Jim for the reply and it has been noted.

Yes I sent a few email ideas to kurts email to which he has also replied.

True it's hard to compete with free but it's getting easier and easier every year to draw those "FREE Riders" to the good side. My friends and I "Live" karaoke... building the industry above waters here in Canada.


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:57 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
JimHarrington wrote:
What virtually all of the opposition to us boils down to is this: Those who oppose our suits want something for nothing. They want all the great content for free. For years on this board, I've asked the people who criticized our methods to offer an alternative. Most of the time, there was no response, because they were not interested in solving the piracy problem. They preferred the piracy. I get it. Getting something for nothing is a powerful thing. That's especially true when you consider that many karaoke operators don't make very much money to begin with, so being able to avoid the very high cost of music is incredibly attractive. That doesn't make it right.

Still playing the "word-switcheroo game?"

You and Kurt were never interested in "solving the piracy problem" and you've admitted that several times in the past.

First it was the "asset recovery" B.S. because SC had already "sold it's assets" to Stingray - so that was a lie.

Next, it was "stopping piracy for the good of the industry"... another line of crap. You solicited for KJ's to "drop a dime" on pirates... and I don't think you did squat other than let APS and whats-her-name the attorney in California walk away with a few hundred thousand dollars of your settlement money. I don't know of a single pirate that was reported to you that was actually sued....

In the meantime, SC took $5,000 from Taka-Oh for "licensing" then turned around and sued them anyway.... that screw up cost Kurt $18,000... (remember the check?)

Next, you changed your spots to sue KJ's that DID have discs....
. calling them "technical infringers" because you wanted to shake them down for money too..

Then it was not assets or piracy, but it was "licensing our trademark"
... and you started the trademark suits against KJ's.

So far in your travels over the years, a whole LOT of lying was going on... including repeated promises of "getting the band back together" B.S..... that goes on still today.

And moving along, you decided to change your spots again and this time, sue the venues.... no doubt because they have insurance money you wanted ... something the average KJ doesn't have. So the KJ's become your "suit/lead generators" so you can sue venues for trademark.

Not enough suits? So you "acquire" CB's trademark "for the express purpose of filing lawsuits".... At what point in this "career" of yours as vice president and "officer of the corporation" would you classify your operations as nothing more than "trolling?"

In the meantime, PEP gets sued by EMI for no less than... "infringement" and somehow you paint Kurt as the victim... and he's still got a couple years left to pay on his settlement with them right?

Not done yet, because now you want to license KJ's and venues to freely download anything they want with your pirate's "HELP License" -- for product that you admit you did NOT make (because it's counterfeit remember?) for a monthly fee.... and you whine about KJ's "not wanting to pay for content?" Really? "Hello Pot!"

Your Chameleon colors keep changing.... now it's suits about a "service mark" because you convinced someone to have a 3 month gig in the middle of nowhere Alaska...

Your multiple reprimands for unethical practices were not accidental, you worked hard for them over a number of years as their attorney of record, vice president and corporate officer and just this record of switching and lying to continue to sue KJ's and venues shows that Kurt and his crew have the very same ethics and zero integrity.

Gee, and all this time I'm still here... and in business....

Bet you didn't see that coming.


Last edited by c. staley on Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:03 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
cousinvinnie wrote:
Thank you Jim for the reply and it has been noted.

Yes I sent a few email ideas to kurts email to which he has also replied.

True it's hard to compete with free but it's getting easier and easier every year to draw those "FREE Riders" to the good side. My friends and I "Live" karaoke... building the industry above waters here in Canada.


I feel a great disturbance in the Force.....

as if thousands of KJ's in Canada were suddenly silenced....

with facepalms.


Last edited by c. staley on Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:34 pm 
Offline
Senior Poster
Senior Poster

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:51 am
Posts: 147
Location: BFE
Been Liked: 17 times
Let's see, "I can recognize a SC track a mile away." Is that right? So, where is the confusion...if you are able to determine from sight.

Do you know those little characters before a disk number called "SC?"

My Tracks are CLEARLY marked with "SC."

So are you confused?

Because, like CHIP STATED, "You Can't Have It Both Ways."

Duh. Like talking to a wall, because someone needs to be a special kind of stupid to be so confused that they have a MELT DOWN to the point of NOT being able to move forward if they DON'T SEE A "TRADEMARK."

LMMFAO


Last edited by gd123 on Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:37 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
Bastiat wrote:
If you purchase Vasoline Petroleum Jelly and repackage it as "watch grease" under your own logo that is exactly "passing off". You can't remove a company's logo from its products and replace it with yours. You can market it as watch grease or a sex lubricant it doesn't matter. The fact that you've replaced the logo with yours on the same identical product is a clear violation of the Lanham Act. Actually I can't believe you would even try to make that argument.

Let me simplify this: Take name brand products like "Hunts tomato Paste" and "Gold Medal Flour" along with some "Borden Dairy Butter" and a few other ingredients like this and your "service" is to combine them and heat them. You sell the resulting item as "Tom's Really Addictive Pizza" and the original manufacturers don't have a leg to stand on.

It's a different story if I go to Fred's Pizza Palace, purchase a Fred's pizza, put it in a Tom's Pizza box and pass it off as my own.

Bastiat wrote:
i believe you're a bit confused between something that's being used and something that's being physically altered. Blocking your karaoke player from displaying my logo is not the same thing as REMOVING the logo from the product. I never made the assertion that there was a "mandate under law" that required you to display my logo, or alter its pitch or tempo. Those are all "use" related events and do not actually alter the product itself. As to whether or not I can demand that you display my logo, or play my product at a certain speed and pitch, I would tend to agree with your point of view but as you've pointed out there is no statutory law in that regard so there's nothing to prevent a seller from litigating any or all of those points. There may even be some case law, but then again it doesn't interest me enough to put in that much effort to research.
And that's right. Your argument requires that I would be intentionally misrepresenting the origin of YOUR product as something that originated somewhere else in order to mislead. I'm simply saying that in the course of my business, I don't specify the origin of the music at all. It's simply "a karaoke song" used as a tool (like an ingredient) in my karaoke service I don't present it as my product and I don't name it as your product and it's not for sale.

I contend that even though there is no statutory law, it's a much narrower band than one would assume.

Bastiat wrote:
I don't understand your "both ways" reference. What does that even mean? In the first place no one is claiming that the "output" through your monitors or speakers are our products. What we claim to be our products are the sound recordings and graphic representations of the song lyrics that you are using to "output" through your monitors and speakers as being our products. Here again what you are describing is an issue of "use" not product alteration. Having said that however, if what you are suggesting is that there are no limitations as to how you can represent or misrepresent our products in a public forum, then I think you could be in for a rude awakening.
"both ways" means claiming that what hits my TV screen and speakers is you product that cannot be altered just as much as the disc I purchased is your product that also can't be altered. I'll admit that the disc as you sold it, is your product. However, as long as I'm not altering your disc or misrepresenting it, it's open season on what comes off that disc on the way to the television and speakers. I can accidentally or purposely make it sound better or worse and there's nothing you as the vendor, can do about it.

Bastiat wrote:
Combining ingredients from one or more manufacturers to create an entirely different product is not even a legitimate argument. In the first place why would you even assume that the sugar in your soda was the Domino brand. When I buy sugar I buy the generic brand and I sincerely doubt that any soda manufacturer would pay a premium for branded sugar unless they wanted to take advantage of the other company's branding as part of its marketing strategy.
You wouldn't assume that the sugar was the Domino brand because the product (the soda) is the sum of the parts, not the parts themselves. Just as your karaoke tracks are an ingredient in my karaoke service, like my sound system and personal skills and talent as a host. If I strip logos and change colors so that all the tracks are consistently the same and uniform -- without altering your original disc -- and I'm not selling them or making more than 1:1 then you'd have a real problem proving damages.

Bastiat wrote:
Also, there are many examples of products that partner with other products that include the branding of those other products. I don't know exactly how things like this work, but obviously you don't either. I think it's safe to assume however that if one product is using another company's product, and if that other company's product is exclusive to them (otherwise they would use a generic form) then I'm guessing there is some licensing going on and part of that licensing agreement would be a stipulation as to whether or not the other company's branding will be included in the final product.
Sure there would be some licensing going on and there would need to be agreements in place to do this, but I don't have any kind of agreement with any manufacturer that requires me to display a logo or any kind of minimum sound requirements. If I want to play your tracks in public upside down and backwards there's nothing you can do about it... as long as I'm not altering the original product and selling it.

Bastiat wrote:
Chip, you do tend to have very strong opinions about things and I know you mean well but there are far too many variables in any of this stuff to be rendering such dogmatic opinions. Neither of us are lawyers which is not to say we can't have opinions, but all I'm saying is that going through law school and passing the bar does allow a lawyer to speak with a bit more authority on an issue regardless as to which side they take, but yet you'll seldom hear a good lawyer take such a solid stance on an issue (unless of course he/she is representing his/her client) because they understand that there in reality there's no such thing as a slam-dunk in the judicial system.
That depends entirely on the attorney. Passing the bar is no guarantee that an attorney is by any means more qualified at law than an alcoholic with a drivers license is at driving safely.

If the attorney has been reprimanded more than once for unethical behavior, you'd better think again because that the type that thinks more about how to skirt the rules than how to play the game.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:03 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:24 pm
Posts: 4438
Been Liked: 1048 times
Here we go... again! Some things never change. Same sh*t, different day. Now I remember why Mr. Harrington stopped coming here... and I can't blame him.

_________________
Electro-Voice Evolve 50... Taking Sound To The Next Level.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:34 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
Alan B wrote:
Here we go... again! Some things never change. Same sh*t, different day. Now I remember why Mr. Harrington stopped coming here... and I can't blame him.


I still come here, just with less frequency. However, I have it set not to display Mr. Staley's comments. There's really no point in reading what he has to say, much less responding to it, so I don't do either. I can, however, see that he's been active in this thread, so I assume it's more of the same inanity punctuated with personal attacks that the board admins--at least the ones who moderate this particular board--have decided to tolerate from him because they agree with his hatred of SC.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:19 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
JimHarrington wrote:
I still come here, just with less frequency. However, I have it set not to display Mr. Staley's comments. There's really no point in reading what he has to say, much less responding to it, so I don't do either.

Of course you read them... you can't resist.

Rent free, rent free, rent free....

JimHarrington wrote:
I can, however, see that he's been active in this thread, so I assume it's more of the same inanity punctuated with personal attacks ...

If I was commenting on anything personal about you, then it might be considered a personal attack. However, commenting on your professional behavior and sterling track record are simply facts you don't happen to like very much.
Sorry, that was carefully crafted by your very own handiwork.

JimHarrington wrote:
...that the board admins--at least the ones who moderate this particular board--have decided to tolerate from him because they agree with his hatred of SC.

Annnd there it is.... you couldn't resist taking a shot at them while you're here and playing the part of the victim..... again.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:20 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 407
Been Liked: 242 times
c. staley wrote:
Let me simplify this: Take name brand products like "Hunts tomato Paste" and "Gold Medal Flour" along with some "Borden Dairy Butter" and a few other ingredients like this and your "service" is to combine them and heat them. You sell the resulting item as "Tom's Really Addictive Pizza" and the original manufacturers don't have a leg to stand on.


Now you're rewording your post to fit your argument, but your statement with regard to the Vaseline was that you were going to REPACKAGE the product with your logos and call it "watch grease". Now however you want to "simplify" it by making it more complicated. Now you've changed your argument from simply repackaging the Vaseline to "combining" it with other brand name ingredients, a totally different argument. If you're going to make these arguments and analogies at least be intellectual honest about it and admit when those arguments and analogies fail.

c. staley wrote:
And that's right. Your argument requires that I would be intentionally misrepresenting the origin of YOUR product as something that originated somewhere else in order to mislead. I'm simply saying that in the course of my business, I don't specify the origin of the music at all. It's simply "a karaoke song" used as a tool (like an ingredient) in my karaoke service I don't present it as my product and I don't name it as your product and it's not for sale.


I tend to want to agree with that as long as you're not removing the branding from the product, I don't think a legal challenge would meet with much success, but there are other variables so you never can say for sure one way or the other.

c. staley wrote:
"both ways" means claiming that what hits my TV screen and speakers is you product that cannot be altered just as much as the disc I purchased is your product that also can't be altered. I'll admit that the disc as you sold it, is your product. However, as long as I'm not altering your disc or misrepresenting it, it's open season on what comes off that disc on the way to the television and speakers. I can accidentally or purposely make it sound better or worse and there's nothing you as the vendor, can do about it.


Okay so it took me a while to figure out what you were trying to say here, but be as it may, I don't know anyone who has made the claim that "what hits my TV screen and speakers is you product that cannot be altered". I can only speak for myself of course but what I claim to be my intellectual property is the sound recording, the copyrights to those recordings and any marks associated with those products. As to what actually does hit your monitor and speakers however, and as you've acknowledged in your post, the operative work here is "misrepresenting" it. Gray area? For sure but I'm guessing that you agreed with me when I said that there are limitations as to how you represent my products through your playback systems.

c. staley wrote:
You wouldn't assume that the sugar was the Domino brand because the product (the soda) is the sum of the parts, not the parts themselves.


That aside, you continue to raise these non-issues by implying that the company that makes "Tom's Really Addictive Pizza" would be so stupid as to pay a premium to use name brand ingredients instead of using generic ones. Do you think that Hunt invented tomatoes, or that Borden invented butter or perhaps you are of the opinion that Gold Medal invented flour? Even if they did, so what? You're comparing apples to oranges. As Jim Harrington pointed out, the Lanham Act's primary intent was to protect consumers and not the businesses that own them. I can assure you that no one interested in purchasing a Tom's Really Addictive Pizza would confuse it with Borden's Dairy Butter or vice versa. There's zero confusion in the marketplace, and no harm whatsoever to the consumer. It's just a crazy analogy, and doesn't even belong in the discussion.

c. staley wrote:
Just as your karaoke tracks are an ingredient in my karaoke service, like my sound system and personal skills and talent as a host. If I strip logos and change colors so that all the tracks are consistently the same and uniform -- without altering your original disc -- and I'm not selling them or making more than 1:1 then you'd have a real problem proving damages.


You are incorrect to think that my tracks are an "ingredient" in your karaoke service. Your karaoke service is totally independent from my products and does not need my products for you to provide your services, and vice versa. The use of my products in your service does not magically create another product. There's nothing "transformative" about it. Now if you recorded a performance of my track, then that would be creating another product albeit illegally fringing not only on my trademarks and copyrights to the sound recording, but also the copyrights of the owner of the musical composition. That's a double whammy. You may recall several years back when Panorama Records argued that creating a karaoke track was a "fair use" and therefore did not require licensing from the composers/publishers. I'm sure you also remember how that ended up working out for them. The judge in that case in no uncertain terms stated that those products were not "transformative" and Panorama was found guilty of willful infringement.

Nevertheless you are correct in your thinking that it would be difficult in proving actual damages. That's one of the reasons (but not the only reason) I never took the trademark approach because the judges have too much leeway in assigning damages. Leeway that they don't have with copyright infringement.

c. staley wrote:
That depends entirely on the attorney. Passing the bar is no guarantee that an attorney is by any means more qualified at law than an alcoholic with a drivers license is at driving safely.

If the attorney has been reprimanded more than once for unethical behavior, you'd better think again because that the type that thinks more about how to skirt the rules than how to play the game.


I could disagree with your first paragraph, but I'm not going to get picky about the language because I know what you meant. Obviously however passing the bar is the only guarantee that we have that an attorney is "qualified at law". It does not speak to his competence however so I do get what you mean. Regarding the second paragraph I'm not so sure you would feel the same way if you were on the hook for something that you didn't do but are being railroaded by the legal system and the judiciary. In that situation the last thing on most people's mind is concerning themselves with their attorney's ethics when their fighting for their life and their foe is not playing by the rules either. You'd be a bit naive to believe that the American justice system is all about truth, justice and the American way. Well maybe it was for Superman but the deck is stacked against the rest of us. He who has the most gold rules, or in the words of Mayer Amschel Rothschild "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws!", or to be a bit more bourgeoisie, there' an old Portuguese proverb that says "if shyte were of any value, we would be born without azzholes".


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 2:32 pm 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster

Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:06 am
Posts: 844
Been Liked: 226 times
Quite hilarious to see harrington post then Chip CORRECT and EXPOSE SC/PEP AGAIN... for the all the negative conniving things they've done to, or tried to do to EVERY SINGLE KJ here...and 10,000 more. :(

I get Chris A for cheering/liking because he has to stand his ground for beginning to cheer in the first place...only to be silenced by the TRUTH of things with PEP/SC.

...but Alan? Really? I thought you were smarter than that. :?

I didn't see 1 THING that was incorrect or wrong with Chip's post on the timeline and activities Of PEP/SC.......did ANY of you?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:21 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:24 pm
Posts: 4438
Been Liked: 1048 times
johnreynolds wrote:
Quite hilarious to see harrington post then Chip CORRECT and EXPOSE SC/PEP AGAIN... for the all the negative conniving things they've done to, or tried to do to EVERY SINGLE KJ here...and 10,000 more. :(

I get Chris A for cheering/liking because he has to stand his ground for beginning to cheer in the first place...only to be silenced by the TRUTH of things with PEP/SC.

...but Alan? Really? I thought you were smarter than that. :?

I didn't see 1 THING that was incorrect or wrong with Chip's post on the timeline and activities Of PEP/SC.......did ANY of you?

I have never had a problem with Sound Choice. But I DO have a problem with piracy. If people were buying instead of stealing, SC would still be producing music and not going around suing people. I support and stand by what SC is doing 100%.

_________________
Electro-Voice Evolve 50... Taking Sound To The Next Level.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:38 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
Bastiat wrote:
c. staley wrote:
Let me simplify this: Take name brand products like "Hunts tomato Paste" and "Gold Medal Flour" along with some "Borden Dairy Butter" and a few other ingredients like this and your "service" is to combine them and heat them. You sell the resulting item as "Tom's Really Addictive Pizza" and the original manufacturers don't have a leg to stand on.


Now you're rewording your post to fit your argument, but your statement with regard to the Vaseline was that you were going to REPACKAGE the product with your logos and call it "watch grease". Now however you want to "simplify" it by making it more complicated. Now you've changed your argument from simply repackaging the Vaseline to "combining" it with other brand name ingredients, a totally different argument. If you're going to make these arguments and analogies at least be intellectual honest about it and admit when those arguments and analogies fail.

Not at all. Repackaging in this case does "create a new product." And manufacturers in the karaoke business have done the very same thing with "ingredients used to produce karaoke tracks." Every KJ has run across the duplicate audio across brands where the manufacturer has:
(1) Purchased an audio track (which they didn't make)
(2) Added lyrics (they didn't write)
(3) Encoded it with new colors and sweeps,
(4) Slapped their logo on it and
(5) Called it their own....
(6) ...and they sold it that way.

Their "service" consisted of combining a lot of "ingredients" they didn't create from scratch.... Just like "watch grease."

I don't believe that Borden Dairy Butter is going to complain that Tom's Addictive Pizza Co. doesn't print their logo on every pizza box so consumers aren't confused as to the origin of the buttery taste, their just happy that the pizza company uses their product. Even if the pizza company says; "We use the best ingredients in our pizzas!"

Bastiat wrote:
c. staley wrote:
And that's right. Your argument requires that I would be intentionally misrepresenting the origin of YOUR product as something that originated somewhere else in order to mislead. I'm simply saying that in the course of my business, I don't specify the origin of the music at all. It's simply "a karaoke song" used as a tool (like an ingredient) in my karaoke service I don't present it as my product and I don't name it as your product and it's not for sale.


I tend to want to agree with that as long as you're not removing the branding from the product, I don't think a legal challenge would meet with much success, but there are other variables so you never can say for sure one way or the other.

You need to define "the product" because I don't know if you're talking about the "original product DISC that I purchased from you or what is used (and not sold) that comes out of the speakers and monitor at a karaoke show. There's no legal standing that requires I display your logo at any of my shows is there? Any requirement that I play it back at the proper speed, without visual artifacts, skipping, or key changes? Nope again.

Bastiat wrote:
c. staley wrote:
"both ways" means claiming that what hits my TV screen and speakers is you product that cannot be altered just as much as the disc I purchased is your product that also can't be altered. I'll admit that the disc as you sold it, is your product. However, as long as I'm not altering your disc or misrepresenting it, it's open season on what comes off that disc on the way to the television and speakers. I can accidentally or purposely make it sound better or worse and there's nothing you as the vendor, can do about it.


Okay so it took me a while to figure out what you were trying to say here, but be as it may, I don't know anyone who has made the claim that "what hits my TV screen and speakers is you product that cannot be altered". I can only speak for myself of course but what I claim to be my intellectual property is the sound recording, the copyrights to those recordings and any marks associated with those products. As to what actually does hit your monitor and speakers however, and as you've acknowledged in your post, the operative work here is "misrepresenting" it. Gray area? For sure but I'm guessing that you agreed with me when I said that there are limitations as to how you represent my products through your playback systems.

No, that's not correct. I'm not agreeing with you. I don't believe that you have any right to any limitations on how I "represent" your products through my playback systems. You're asking that you alone be the judge and jury on something that is subjective. Not all sound systems are the same, and neither are the video monitors used to display them. I don't believe you any right on the playback. Your rights pertain to the logos and intellectual property that you provided on the disc (original package) and that's as far as they go because I'm not reselling anything.

Bastiat wrote:
c. staley wrote:
You wouldn't assume that the sugar was the Domino brand because the product (the soda) is the sum of the parts, not the parts themselves.

That aside, you continue to raise these non-issues by implying that the company that makes "Tom's Really Addictive Pizza" would be so stupid as to pay a premium to use name brand ingredients instead of using generic ones. Do you think that Hunt invented tomatoes, or that Borden invented butter or perhaps you are of the opinion that Gold Medal invented flour? Even if they did, so what? You're comparing apples to oranges. As Jim Harrington pointed out, the Lanham Act's primary intent was to protect consumers and not the businesses that own them. I can assure you that no one interested in purchasing a Tom's Really Addictive Pizza would confuse it with Borden's Dairy Butter or vice versa. There's zero confusion in the marketplace, and no harm whatsoever to the consumer. It's just a crazy analogy, and doesn't even belong in the discussion.

If I have a song made by you.... or the same song on 23 other manufacturers and I'm not "selling" any of them - the only "consumer" here is ME. And I can assure you that I'm certainly not "confused" as a consumer.

You seem to be taking this tact because you must feel it's some right of yours as a manufacturer that I as a separate business am somehow required to display your logo to the public on playback. I contend that I am under no such obligation. I'll leave it up to you to find the law that requires it because I think it's nonexistent.

Bastiat wrote:
You are incorrect to think that my tracks are an "ingredient" in your karaoke service. Your karaoke service is totally independent from my products and does not need my products for you to provide your services, and vice versa. The use of my products in your service does not magically create another product. There's nothing "transformative" about it.

I never said I was creating "another product."
Bastiat wrote:
Now if you recorded a performance of my track, then that would be creating another product albeit illegally fringing not only on my trademarks and copyrights to the sound recording, but also the copyrights of the owner of the musical composition. That's a double whammy.

You've just described the Gem Series and HELP licensing agreements which -- in order to be excercised -- require that the licensee hold the trademark holder harmless for the copyright infringment they are committing to the original owner of the musical composition. But you're okay with that?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:18 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm
Posts: 5105
Location: Phoenix Az
Been Liked: 1279 times
Alan B wrote:
If people were buying instead of stealing, SC would still be producing music and not going around suing people.

i disagree.
SC did not go under because of piracy, they went under because they refused to give hosts what they wanted so hosts went elsewhere to get it.
yes piracy is rampant, but in the midst of it, even after it got WORSE, karaoke.net began and has grown adding more music all the time.
why? is piracy gone? no, it's because they give us hosts what we want so we buy.
I believe if SC had done the same instead of suing hosts, they would most likely still be putting out music today.
many of us who disagree with SC's tactics have even said that if they began producing like KV or Karaoke.net, (giving hosts what they want) we would buy from them as well. it is not as much a lack of buying, it was a lack of demand for the product they were producing.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:02 am 
Offline
Super Extreme
Super Extreme
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 7666
Songs: 1
Location: Hollyweird, Ca.
Been Liked: 1080 times
c. staley wrote:
You've just described the Gem Series and HELP licensing agreements which -- in order to be exercised -- require that the licensee hold the trademark holder harmless for the copyright infringement they are committing to the original owner of the musical composition. But you're okay with that?


Correct me if I'm wrong, (I know you will :mrgreen: ) but signing such an agreement would also indict SC/PEP due to admitting they sold the infringing data?
I assume (There is that word again) this would happen ONLY if courts were involved.
Not likely to happen, eh? (Hey Vinnie)


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:38 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:10 am
Posts: 313
Images: 6
Been Liked: 52 times
Eh! here in Canada we have "Free share" BUT... that doesn't mean that one should avoid licensing.
Pep/SC/CB has a trademark and if you want to use those at shows you need to have "permission" or "licensing" from the manufacturer of the product.

If a company sells their product to another company, it still wouldn't matter. Trademark is trademark... If you wanna use their trademark then you gotta pay for it.

Gracefully PEP/SC/CB offers an amazing price for this "Permission" / "Licensing"

Eh! I'm Canadian and I'm thankful I was able to purchase the GEM series at a great price with no extra licensing requirements.

Pep staff are very good with assisting me also will "Backup" options and "Permissions"


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:34 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
jdmeister wrote:
c. staley wrote:
You've just described the Gem Series and HELP licensing agreements which -- in order to be exercised -- require that the licensee hold the trademark holder harmless for the copyright infringement they are committing to the original owner of the musical composition. But you're okay with that?


Correct me if I'm wrong, (I know you will :mrgreen: ) but signing such an agreement would also indict SC/PEP due to admitting they sold the infringing data?
I assume (There is that word again) this would happen ONLY if courts were involved.
Not likely to happen, eh? (Hey Vinnie)

You are correct. Here's the big difference:

#1. When SC started suing hosts in Florida, they would file ONE lawsuit, naming in some cases, 50 karaoke operators. From an economic standpoint, this was gold: spend $400 bucks 1 time and then pay about $10 (tops) to serve the suit to each KJ by mail... then negotiate settlements.... Total out of pocket: $900 plus printing costs.

#2. The courts struck that down as an "improper joinder" and SC replied that it shouldn't be improper because the KJ's were all doing the same thing. But the court explained that while it may be that the KJ's were doing the same thing, they were NOT "doing it together" and acted independently and therefore, to join them all in one filing was improper. SC would have to file a suit against each KJ separately and now the costs went from $900 to $20,500.00 plus printing.

3. IF an artist or "third party rights holder" wanted to, they could file a suit today against every single PEP licensee named as a defendant for copyright infringement -- with ONE $400 lawsuit.

How can that be if the courts struck that down when SC tried it?

Simple: You can't argue that the licensees all acted independently, they didn't. The common denominator here is that they were ALL aware that they would be committing infringement. It's plainly expressed in the contract they signed with PEP which included the indemnification of PEP for "infringement." Without agreeing to committing this infringement along with licensing a trademark, the contract has no value. So it can also be argued that PEP profits off of infringement while having the licensee hold them harmless for it.

Therefore, one can argue that they did not act independently, it was completely coordinated and contractually arranged by..... wait for it...... PEP. A contract with PEP is the common denominator that properly "joins" them in a lawsuit.

And the legal term for that is "vicarious infringement."

I would expect Harrington (who doesn't read my posts) to magically respond to put up some b.s. explanation of why that wouldn't happen... to put his licensees at ease for their infringing activities.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:16 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:10 am
Posts: 313
Images: 6
Been Liked: 52 times
gd123 wrote:
Let's see, "I can recognize a SC track a mile away." Is that right? So, where is the confusion...if you are able to determine from sight.

Do you know those little characters before a disk number called "SC?"

My Tracks are CLEARLY marked with "SC."

So are you confused?

Because, like CHIP STATED, "You Can't Have It Both Ways."

Duh. Like talking to a wall, because someone needs to be a special kind of stupid to be so confused that they have a MELT DOWN to the point of NOT being able to move forward if they DON'T SEE A "TRADEMARK."

LMMFAO


When they were giving fines here in Canada they gave (Two) fines... One for the graphics and the other for the Audio. back then it was $2000.00 each. Now it's up to I believe $3000

Trademark or not (Removing it is just as bad)


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 124 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Privacy Policy | Anti-Spam Policy | Acceptable Use Policy Copyright © Karaoke Scene Magazine
design & hosting by Cross Web Tech