Karaoke Forums

Since PEP is fully dependent on the smallest of technicalities, I would tend to agree with you. However, like their current lawsuits, I would think they would only prey on those that can be intimidated and don't know any better to try for a quick settlement. The Kevin Cable case is a perfect example: they kept the venues (who are the real victims here) because they're after settlements and dismissed Cable after he pushed back. It doesn't matter that their dismissal was without prejudice, because if they had a case they could prevail on, it would be pretty stupid to dismiss it only to have to file ($400) again at a later date. So there are 2 reasons to walk away from Cable: (1) they can't get a quick settlement or, (2) they don't want to risk another loss in court since they haven't exactly been batting very well lately.

Even in the 7th district, PEP's attempt to pinch a KJ on trade dress alone (because the logo had already been stripped from tracks) also failed miserably in court.

As much as Harrington would like everyone to believe, the relevancy of their trademark is fading away, no matter how wildly they flail around trying whatever avenue they can invent to make something stick. You'll notice that not a single case has been filed on their Chartbuster trademark (that I'm aware of)....I wonder why that is?....

It truly seems that is going to take a significant court precedent to get a true perspective of this entire mess. Can anyone else think of another form of "audiovisual work" that is widely used in commerce like this? Has all the proper channels involved in this "audiovisual work" provided the proper permissions to generally allow any applicable uses in commercial activity? I have heard that in order for a specific commercial entity to use, say, a film, then SPECIFIC permission has to be granted for that use. If this is true, then isn't it even possible that the creators of any given karaoke tracks could be liable for encouraging and advertising such usage without said permissions in place?

Regarding the potential SC disc/SC Entertainment confusion scenario (if it truly PEP's assertion to make that correlation), it just doesn't seem they would have the positioning for that. Regardless of when, or by whom, the Entertainment entity was created, it seems they would have to have separate trademarks from the SC disc company, and if they are similar, it doesn't seem that they would be allowed to create their own "confusion", and then attempt to use that position in litigation...

I admire those that believe that a company has the rights to protect its assets, with or without the perceivable bias of those who use that company's products for commercial gain. However, if the level of care is not taken to properly protect the rights, or if there is improper positioning, it does not justify the attempt to get relief.

Food for thought: Stealing from an entity is morally wrong, and even illegal, in most cultures. Taking possession of and using an item that is UNPROTECTED, or abandoned, while still being allegedly immoral, may be considered to not be technically illegal...

The problem is it is just about the only audio-visual work where people take them to venues and play for a profit. There are no film hosts that go from venue to venue playing movies or TV shows for a profit. Karaoke is truly unique in that way.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Not at all, i often play music videos that i purchased both with my prime cuts membership (they have now stopped offering them) but i can play them in any venue that pays pro fees or at private events. I also have the entire set of Midnight Special and Ed Sullivan show videos that i have played. If these are not audio visual productions, there are none. Also, prime cuts in the earlier days gave to instructions for ripping them and changing the format before they came as avi or mp4.

who in their right mind would think because you display a trademark on a movie, a song etc. that the person showing that "trademark" was affiliated with the copyright or trademark holder ? That in itself sounds far fetched. That would be like me hosting Karaoke eating a bag of M&M's and people assuming I was affiliated with Mars company

_________________
I only do private parties, and you're not invited

Apparently, Harrington and Slep do. Except that you did qualify your statement with; "who in their right mind would think" and that would immediately disqualify them both.

just sayin'

One film, maybe not.

But over the course of a four-hour show, when the logo gets displayed more than 100 times, that's a different story.

I don't think so. Sports bars with televisions show the network logos hundreds of times in 4 hours too, no one that I know of thinks they're affiliated with ESPN, CNN, NBC, CBS or ABC.
I would tell you to "go fish" except that fishing expeditions are something you're very familiar with already...

just sayin'

That, in and of itself, is IMPOSSIBLE! 50 people is the average amount of singers you can get in a 4 hour show. If you got 60 people up, you really got them up fast (and the songs were under 4 minutes each). Now, you have said (in many past posts), that you have seen most shows where SC selections were used over 50% of the time, so let's just say 30 is your magic number then... not 100.

And I have never been to a show where people in the audience thought the KJ was affiliated with SC just because he played a lot of SC tracks during the course of his/her 4 hour show. For that matter, unless they were a "Regular", they probably didn't even notice the name brand (Logo/Trademark). SHOOT!!!! the first time I went to a Karaoke show, I didn't even know what DK was (that was the library the KJ was using (1 thru 90), and SC wasn't a game-player yet). The only thing I knew was that people were asking to sing songs, and they were getting up to sing them. The only other thing that went through my mind was how PHENOMENAL some of those singers were, NOT that they must have been affiliated with DK (because the logo appeared on the screen). The next place that I went to (as a "Regular"), used an Auto-Loading machine for Pioneer Laser Discs. There was nothing but Pioneer Laser Discs played at this show (7 nights a week, from 8 PM to 2 AM). I highly doubt that anyone walking in and staying there for the night thought that the Venue or the Hosts were affiliated with Pioneer Corp.

Going by your logic, if a Bar were to hold an all-day/all-night Movie marathon, showing the following titles, then they would be affiliated with John Carpenter:
Assault on Precinct 13
Halloween
Someone's Watching Me
The Fog
Escape From NY
Escape from LA
The Thing (remake)
Prince of Darkness
Christine
Village of the Damned

don't forget, the logo shows at the beginning, somewhere in the middle, and at the end of every track. each track is showing the logo 3 times or more. with over 90% of tracks used at all shows bing SC (Not my numbers, but PEP numbers) that would make 54 songs of the 60 being SC tracks, meaning 162 times per night the SC logo is displayed. since you are NOT part os Sound Choice Entertainment, it gives a false impression to anyone at your show that you ARE affiliated and endorsed by them.

mind you, i agree with you on this, i believe it is nothing more than using a technicality, and no one would EVER believe such a thing based on what brand of music is being used, but do not overlook that you being disc based show the exact same logo three times per song AND create the same confusion.

displaying the Logo creates confusion
anyone not part of SCE displaying that logo is a technical infringer of their servicemark
technical infringement is all that has been needed in the past to be sued
all disc based hosts are technical infringers

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

It seems that, from a logical standpoint (not necessarily a legal one) that a company cannot just manufacture their own position of confusion. If a company sells a product for decades, advertising, encouraging, and promoting personal and commercial consumption of their product, making some sort of logistical move to simulate a situation where confusion MIGHT be perceived, just doesn't seem like it would hold much water. How would the courts feel about a company who creates a pseudo-franchisee scenario that creates a level of control over independent businesses that is beyond their scope?

Consider this general concept: Not adhering to any given aspect of a company's policy does not make said non-adhesion illegal, and may even call into question the legality of said policy...

i agree, but it also shows that they filed for the mark used for "Conducting entertainment exhibitions in the nature of karaoke shows." in 2011 but have used it in that context since 1987. which would mean that anybody who started after 1987 has been infringing on the servicemark since then since display of that mark was tied to their services (though i don't know anybody who ever saw a "Sound Choice" karaoke show) and they could realistically take that to court against all hosts including Chip since he DID use SC discs before this lawsuit hooplah began.

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

If the term "exhibitions" is meant in the literal sense, then perhaps it does not pertain to commercial work at all, since an exhibition is typically a "non-competitive" performance...

KJs have been displaying the "LOGO" for decades and no one has ever thought that each and every KJ that did so was affiliated in any way with the company that makes the discs that are being used. The judges are now getting wise to the games that PEP is playing and they are using common sense to squash these frivolous trolling cases. PEP is just grasping at straws to try to keep the fear alive. Their only hope is that there are still people out there that haven't been keeping up on the legalities of the karaoke business and these uninformed people will still rather settle than fight it out in court, thinking that settling out of court will be the least expensive option. It's like taking a course in Extortion 101. The judges are now beginning to see it for what it is so PEP will do anything to keep from having a case make it into a court room. That is why Kevin's case was dismissed. They couldn't afford to lose to him and he was willing to fight it out in court.

They "can" take anyone to court for anything, but they won't. It's apparent they don't even want KJ's anymore... it's the venues they want.

Any excuse to file a lawsuit against anyone they think will settle quickly....

This is incorrect for Sound Choice Spotlight. You will only see LOGOS in the middle starting at 8500 up. Also, on ANY fast song with NO BREAKS, there will be NO LOGO in the middle no matter if you are 8500 and above.

This is why it is good to have a DISCLAIMER stating CLEARLY that you are NOT AFFILIATED with ANY Jackleg Karaoke Studio, Business, Manufacturer, Brand, and Other that may apply. It's probably a good idea for the Venue to POST this information as well. Sort of, like what the Venues do when they POST that they are not responsible for theft. Although this "Theft" DISCLAIMER should serve the same purpose to any BRAND company trying to extort money from Venues without having a SEPARATE DISCLAIMER as mentioned above.

This way, no one could claim that someone was mislead. LMFAO

the venues have been allowing the logo to be displayed and thereby leading the clientelle to believe they are offering a genuine Sound Choice Entertainment karaoke show. Just like was stated earlier, if they allowed the Coca Cola logo to be displayed, leading patrons to believe that this drink is genuine Coca Cola but they used RC Cola.
They allow the SC Logo leading people to believe that this show is a genuine Sound Choice Entertainment show, but use "Chip Staley Entertainment" instead.

Venues would be the better target for this method of suing.

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

then people should just use the software that is available to remove these "LOGOS" from their Sound Choice tracks and that should be the end of it. I don't any KJ is trying to get people to believe that they are Sound Choice employees of some kind providing a Sound Choice endorsed show. they are just using the karaoke tracks that were sold to anyone who wanted to buy them for a couple of decades. A mechanic using Craftsman tools is in no way affiliated with Sears and is in no way profiting from using Craftsman tools. The customer is not there because you use Craftsman tools. He is there because you know how to use those Craftsman tools and any of the other tools at your disposal. A mechanic wouldn't be expected to tape over the Craftsman name on all of his tools because he is not creating any confusion as to who the mechanic works for. As long as Joe's Garage is not advertising Sears Quality repairs; Sears will not be complaining that he uses some tools purchased at Sears. The mechanic probably has some SNAP-ON tools as well but he mainly uses Craftsman tools. Anyone with common sense would know that when they bring their car to Joe, that they are not taking their car to Sears. Now, if someone opened up a bar and called it the Sound Choice Karaoke Bar; PEP might have a case against them. They may get some ignorant people to settle with them before it ever gets to court but I'll worry about it when they actually take a case to court and win.....which never seems to happen.

using PEP's estimates; lets agree that the SC logo is displayed 100 times during a 4 hour show during the 30 SC songs that are played by the KJ. That would lead you to believe that 20 to 30 others songs are being played that display some other karaoke companies logos, right? For arguments sake; imagine that the Sunfly logo is displayed 20 times. the Music Maestro Logo is displayed 20 times. the Pop hits Monthly logo is displayed 20 times. the SBI logo is displayed 20 and the Karaoke version logo is displayed 25 times. etc etc etc. How would anyone be led to believe that this KJ is trying to pass himself off as being affiliated with one karaoke company or another? PEP is just hoping to create some low hanging fruit. At some point, someone with deep pockets will call the authorities and accuse PEP of extortion. That is when the crap will really hit the fan. I wonder what kind of jail time you get for violating the RICO statutes?