JoeChartreuse wrote:
Both of "mine" are the same, and you have ignored it throughout your post. The word "authorized". Nothing above states that one cannot make ANY copies, only that one cannot make UNAUTHORIZED copies. In some cases "Unauthorized" and "authorized" are implied by law, in some cases not. At no time were the parameters of "authorized" and "unauthorized" defined with the purchased SC disc, either on the label or the CD holder. Only that "Unauthorized" copies are disallowed. Coming up with a desired set of parameters AFTER PURCHASE won't cut it in court, and you haven't proven otherwise there. Sure didn't happen in Oregon.
Also, two of the above refer to COPYRIGHT laws. SC sues for TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT- that is, the display of the logo/trade dress- not content. The third may be relevant, but not neccesarily germaine to this situation. The "..." between "of a" and "reproduction" being filled in, may help - or hinder- but I admit you have something to play with - technically. Unfortunately, "technically" and "real world" are two different things.
As stated earlier, were a civil suit to be brought against an Original Mfr. Disc based host for making and using backups it would be dismissed out of hand. The OMD host can disprove any accusations of piracy (track theft) of all discs simply because he HAS them. No damages can be proven. Also, holding the original and the backup of a disc that was never licensed for production or distribution in his hand, said Karaoke Host might ask the judge how such a suit might be filed referencing the KJ's use of a disc that was legally purchased from the company that produced and sold it without any permission to do so.
I believe that, in the real world, a judge might be swayed for the defendant.
Of course, I think much of this is moot. Even I know that SC tries not to drag disc based hosts to court- at least in regard to their current case model. I know that this can change as other things have, but I just don't see the financial benefit for SC/Phoenix to do it....maybe other reasons....
DISCLAIMER: I am but a humble layman, and my statements above are but a clarification of my own opinions. Nothing more. Until SC proves otherwise in court, I stand by them.
Also, please note that in my clarification I am ONLY referencing DISC TO DISC backups. Media shifted backups may or may not follow suit, but I believe that this is still such a gray area that I would not even attempt a guess in that regard. Also, media shifting was never part of the equation back during the software wars. This is why I said that the whole media shifting question must be permanently and perfectly clarified by law ( not ANY karaoke production company) soon. If not, the industry will drag to a standstill.
I picked my way through the above word salad, looking for good bits, and found nothing except confirmation that what you are talking about, this vaunted "authorization" you say came out of the "software wars of the '90s," is nothing more than your own imagination and rationalization.
Or, to say it more succinctly, you made it up.
The reason why a user of original manufacturer's discs--the actual discs, not copies--can use them without fear of a trademark infringement suit is because the actual product is being used for the purpose for which it was sold.
The reason why a user of media-shifted copies draws a legitimate trademark infringement suit is because the user has made a new product, marked it with the trademark, and used it commercially.
I cannot think of
any instance in which
any person can make commercial use of a product he made and marked with someone else's registered trademark, as a substitute for the genuine article, without incurring liability for trademark infringement.
In fact, as I said in arguments before the Sixth Circuit last month, I would view that activity as the canonical example of trademark infringement.
If I owned a taxi service and a car manufacturing plant, and I bought a Lincoln Navigator, then duplicated that SUV down to the badges to use in my taxi service so I didn't damage the original, how long do you think it would take Ford to come after me for "media-shifting" that car once they became aware of it?
And imagine that I made a copy of that car that was a third of the quality of the original vehicle. What then?
I would expect Ford to use the courts, if necessary, to shut that right down.
There is not a dime's worth of difference between that situation and our situation...except that it's easier to duplicate a karaoke track, and everybody loves the convenience of it.
And the thing of it is, we are more than happy to accommodate the legitimate customers who want to do this. All we ask in return is a little bit of control over the process, to protect our marks and to protect our original-disc business, and that we be reasonably compensated for the privilege we're granting. I don't see how anyone who respects intellectual property rights could view that as unreasonable.
So, here it is, Joe, once and for all: Provide some legal authority that countermands the statutes I quoted, or it's time to stop talking.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
