KARAOKE SCENE MAGAZINE ONLINE! - PEP hints at service mark lawsuits.. Will they last? 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


premium-member

Offsite Links


It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:19 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 185 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:43 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
JimHarrington wrote:
So, if I perfectly replicate the services of United Van Lines, so that customers can't tell if they're dealing with the real deal or not, I can call my moving business "United Van Lines"?



8) Really Jim even if you replicate the services perfectly, unless you display United Van Lines on your trucks and advertise to customers that you are indeed United Van Lines I don't see where the confusion is? If you are hosting and you happen to display the SC or CB logo along with all of the other brands you use in an evening, I don't see where you can confuse the customer of the host with representing those brands exclusively.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:09 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
The Lone Ranger wrote:
unless you display United Van Lines on your trucks


That, by itself, without more, would almost certainly draw a lawsuit. In fact, I myself once represented a major moving company (not UVL) in a trademark lawsuit against a guy with one truck who put something very similar to my client's trademark on his truck. (We won.)

So, when, over the course of a four-hour karaoke show, a KJ shows our trademarks on the screen more than 100 times, and by a factor of 5-6, many more times than any other logo, and we didn't make the goods he's using and we didn't approve his services, don't you think it might just be appropriate for us to step in with a lawsuit?

Or is your desire to endorse piracy so strong that you'll say ANYTHING to differentiate the situation to call what we're doing illegitimate?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:17 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
djdon wrote:
If I buy a United Van Lines franchise, then later get sued for trademark infringement because I put the logo on multiple trucks, am I wrong? Am I only allowed the 1 truck I bought to move with. even though using multiple trucks was never discussed by either party? Not sure your analogy is very good.


The problem, djdon, is that the people we target, with a vanishingly small number of exceptions, never bought the product in the first place.

djdon wrote:
Copyright law and trademark law are mutually exclusive, are they not?


No. A single act can be both a copyright infringement and a trademark infringement.

djdon wrote:
While you may have registered the TRADEMARK, it's not discussed on the discs or the packaging that it cannot be used (displayed) without permission.


The discs themselves carry the ® symbol next to the mark, which indicates that the mark is federally registered. Legally, that is all the warning that's required:

[A] registrant of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, may give notice that his mark is registered by displaying with the mark the words “Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office” or “Reg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off.” or the letter R enclosed within a circle, thus ® ... .

(15 U.S.C. § 1111.) Federal law makes it illegal to reproduce and distribute goods or services bearing a registered trademark without the permission of the owner of the trademark.

In addition to the warning that appears on the face of the disc--which you seem to think only applies to the copyright aspects, but which in actuality isn't restricted--at least since 2007 we have also provided warning inserts in the packaging against unauthorized copying.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:24 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
JimHarrington wrote:
The Lone Ranger wrote:
unless you display United Van Lines on your trucks


That, by itself, without more, would almost certainly draw a lawsuit. In fact, I myself once represented a major moving company (not UVL) in a trademark lawsuit against a guy with one truck who put something very similar to my client's trademark on his truck. (We won.)

So, when, over the course of a four-hour karaoke show, a KJ shows our trademarks on the screen more than 100 times, and by a factor of 5-6, many more times than any other logo, and we didn't make the goods he's using and we didn't approve his services, don't you think it might just be appropriate for us to step in with a lawsuit?

Or is your desire to endorse piracy so strong that you'll say ANYTHING to differentiate the situation to call what we're doing illegitimate?


8) So that is the guide Jim, over 100 times and by a 5-6 margin? What if the host only displays it 50% of the time and it is more of a 1-1 margin are you gong to let them slide? You always play the endorse piracy card don't you Jim? Really I don't care if a host is legal or illegal since I have over the course of years competed successfully with all comers. According to your figures 9 out of 10 hosts in competition with me were illegal, I still worked 6 days a week 10 months out of every year, until I starting cutting back. My real desire was to have no competition, but then that is a fantasy not a reality of the business. You just have to deal with it. Evidently you and Kurt have a real problem dealing with the current situation, the rest of us have to, why not you?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:02 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
The Lone Ranger wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
The Lone Ranger wrote:
unless you display United Van Lines on your trucks


That, by itself, without more, would almost certainly draw a lawsuit. In fact, I myself once represented a major moving company (not UVL) in a trademark lawsuit against a guy with one truck who put something very similar to my client's trademark on his truck. (We won.)

So, when, over the course of a four-hour karaoke show, a KJ shows our trademarks on the screen more than 100 times, and by a factor of 5-6, many more times than any other logo, and we didn't make the goods he's using and we didn't approve his services, don't you think it might just be appropriate for us to step in with a lawsuit?

Or is your desire to endorse piracy so strong that you'll say ANYTHING to differentiate the situation to call what we're doing illegitimate?


8) So that is the guide Jim, over 100 times and by a 5-6 margin? What if the host only displays it 50% of the time and it is more of a 1-1 margin are you gong to let them slide? You always play the endorse piracy card don't you Jim? Really I don't care if a host is legal or illegal since I have over the course of years competed successfully with all comers. According to your figures 9 out of 10 hosts in competition with me were illegal, I still worked 6 days a week 10 months out of every year, until I starting cutting back. My real desire was to have no competition, but then that is a fantasy not a reality of the business. You just have to deal with it. Evidently you and Kurt have a real problem dealing with the current situation, the rest of us have to, why not you?


I'm just giving you typical numbers to illustrate my point.

Congratulations on your success in competing against people who stole from us.

Until they steal from you--steal your time, steal your services--then you're not in a comparable situation.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:44 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:
So, if I perfectly replicate the services of United Van Lines, so that customers can't tell if they're dealing with the real deal or not, I can call my moving business "United Van Lines"?

Here's how he like to make his own argument nothing but confusion:

#1. IF he "perfectly replicate the services of United Van Lines, so that customers can't tell if they're dealing with the real deal or not," then yes, he CAN sue them if they are purposely confusing the public by perhaps hiding their real company name. BUT, he'll still have to prove (if he sues on "service mark") that the buying public was in fact, "confused" by who was providing the service.

#2. It's a different story if the trucking company has "JOE's Trucking service" painted on the truck, (like books) "JOE's Trucking service" painted on the moving equipment, (like song slips or a kiosk) and "JOE's Trucking service" emblazoned on the back of the driver's jacket. Just so happens that Joe purchased his cardboard moving boxes from "United Van Lines" and that name is all over the boxes.. and that's the only place it is. And when he bought them, United Van Lines didn't have a problem with him using -- and displaying -- the boxes with their name on them for his OWN "commercial business" because they not only encouraged him to BUY and use them, they didn't have a truck that was in the moving business anyway.

#3. Now, years later, United Van Lines is out of business and a trolling company "Scorched Earth Productions" owns the logo and wants to get in the moving business, they'll find it very difficult for any court to suddenly agree that all the trucking companies that previous bought boxes are somehow confusing the public because the boxes they are still using say "United Van Lines."

Harrington is selling his own brand of F.U.D.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:20 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:49 am
Posts: 466
Been Liked: 124 times
JimHarrington wrote:

Until they steal from you--steal your time, steal your services--then you're not in a comparable situation.


When it comes to Sound Choice, I will agree with you on the above statement. SC never released one item as shifted media on it own. It made CDs and expects people to either use the CDs in its original state, or to get permission for the media shift. It's why you can even require a higher bit rate from a person using SC product that's been media shifted. I don't have any issue with PEP on SC policy.

But PEP didn't have anything to do with making Chart Buster product, other then to acquire a logo/trademark. PEP dosn't own the product, or even the domain name of the former company.

It's pure trademark trolling.

I honestly don't even think PEP could pull off a lawsuit over Chart Buster media alone. It might be too risky for PEP to spend all that money on researching and filing of a lawsuit just to see that someone pulls out a stack of CAVS SCDGs and SD cards cards and say they beg to differ.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:31 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:49 am
Posts: 466
Been Liked: 124 times
c. staley wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
So, if I perfectly replicate the services of United Van Lines, so that customers can't tell if they're dealing with the real deal or not, I can call my moving business "United Van Lines"?

Here's how he like to make his own argument nothing but confusion:

#1. IF he "perfectly replicate the services of United Van Lines, so that customers can't tell if they're dealing with the real deal or not," then yes, he CAN sue them if they are purposely confusing the public by perhaps hiding their real company name. BUT, he'll still have to prove (if he sues on "service mark") that the buying public was in fact, "confused" by who was providing the service.

#2. It's a different story if the trucking company has "JOE's Trucking service" painted on the truck, (like books) "JOE's Trucking service" painted on the moving equipment, (like song slips or a kiosk) and "JOE's Trucking service" emblazoned on the back of the driver's jacket. Just so happens that Joe purchased his cardboard moving boxes from "United Van Lines" and that name is all over the boxes.. and that's the only place it is. And when he bought them, United Van Lines didn't have a problem with him using -- and displaying -- the boxes with their name on them for his OWN "commercial business" because they not only encouraged him to BUY and use them, they didn't have a truck that was in the moving business anyway.

#3. Now, years later, United Van Lines is out of business and a trolling company "Scorched Earth Productions" owns the logo and wants to get in the moving business, they'll find it very difficult for any court to suddenly agree that all the trucking companies that previous bought boxes are somehow confusing the public because the boxes they are still using say "United Van Lines."

Harrington is selling his own brand of F.U.D.


Maybe Karaoke Cloud should sue PEP over Chartbuster since from what I can make out, The people over at DigiTrax have the domain name, and *might* have the production catalog. People might be confused that PEP is involved with DigiTrax somehow.

:lol:


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:39 pm 
Offline
Senior Poster
Senior Poster

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:51 am
Posts: 147
Location: BFE
Been Liked: 17 times
Well, you know you are on to something when there is NO RESPONSE on the BIT RATE confusion...LMFAO

And, just to muddle the BIT RATE "confusion." Did Mr. H talk about, using Mp3 compression, having his tracks at 320? And if his were at 320, then ANYONE using less than 320 would be violating SC standards.

So, if this is true, he has ALTERED what would be acceptable as the ORIGINAL CD encoding. Wouldn't this CONFUSE patrons of HIS OWN karaoke show?

I mean, I'm confused now, because CD Sound Encoding was PUSHED down my throat in an earlier POST as the ONLY acceptable Audio as, any other, would be unacceptable altered quality.

And, of course, NO MENTION as to whether the Graphics Track gets altered or if any patron of Karaoke can tell the difference, by ear, between CD audio and Compressed Audio from a HD.

And, since the Audio and Graphics on a CD are TWO separate Tracks, couldn't a "Karaoke" CD simply be considered an AUDIO CD for Backup purposes?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 2:02 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
gd123, you are so far down the rabbit hole I couldn't pull you out.

The stuff about bit rate isn't about confusion. It's about our ability to select and control the quality of goods and services that bear our trademarks. It's not that 192 is more confusing than 320 or whatever. It's that WE are the ones who are in charge of the quality of goods and services that bear our trademarks. If someone else usurps our authority, consumers will be deceived because they can't rely on our trademark as an indication that we're in control.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 2:22 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:49 am
Posts: 466
Been Liked: 124 times
JimHarrington wrote:
gd123, you are so far down the rabbit hole I couldn't pull you out.

The stuff about bit rate isn't about confusion. It's about our ability to select and control the quality of goods and services that bear our trademarks. It's not that 192 is more confusing than 320 or whatever. It's that WE are the ones who are in charge of the quality of goods and services that bear our trademarks. If someone else usurps our authority, consumers will be deceived because they can't rely on our trademark as an indication that we're in control.


But you are NOT in control... As you've told us many times before, the world of karaoke is some 90% pirate. That mean's you can basically stop at 9 out of 10 karaoke venues and sue them. PEP can probably retire off the people in it's home state alone.

But after many of us have gone reporting the guy down the road... almost all of them are still working.

You have an interesting idea of the word "control".


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 2:33 pm 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
JimHarrington wrote:

I'm just giving you typical numbers to illustrate my point.

Congratulations on your success in competing against people who stole from us.

Until they steal from you--steal your time, steal your services--then you're not in a comparable situation.



8) So what are you saying Jim any display of the SC or CB logo is grounds for your filing a suit? If that is the case then your policy has not changed and you are still suing for merely showing the logo. What's matter Jim you can't compete against the people who stole from you, when you say us you mean you and Kurt, right? Does that mean that you a Kurt are partners? They can't steal from me Jim I'm retired, if they were going to steal from me their window has long since closed tight. I still fill in once in awhile for a friend do you want me to grill them for you and inform on them as well? You're right the situation is not comparable. Kurt has been paid for his library he got his cake, now he wants ice cream on top of it. Sooner or later you guys are going have to face the reality the ship has sailed and find another means of transportation to get you to your goal. One thing for sure Jim if Ihad waited for PEP the rid the landscape of pirates, I would still be waiting, instead of retired, just saying.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 4:22 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
Speaking of "rabbit holes:"
JimHarrington wrote:
The stuff about bit rate isn't about confusion. It's about our ability to select and control the quality of goods and services that bear our trademarks. It's not that 192 is more confusing than 320 or whatever. It's that WE are the ones who are in charge of the quality of goods and services that bear our trademarks.
Only with those that have signed your one-sided contracts. Beyond that, I can guarantee that playing even an original disc, the "quality" of your tracks on the output can be more than moth-eaten. You are not "in control" of that in any way, shape or form. What you think is "control" doesn't affect anyone whatsoever who has not signed a contract with you.
    If a host shows up dressed like a slob, you are not in control of that "quality."
    If a host plays favorites with the rotation, you are not in control of that "service."
    If a host doesn't know the difference between delay, echo and reverb you are not in control of the crappy "quality" result. You don't have a school where hosts that use your trademarks can learn this do you? A monthly newsletter of "Quality Tips for the Professional" perhaps? Didn't think so....
    If a host charges $35 and free beer, you're not "in control" of that either.
    If a host is too drunk to hear that a speaker is blown or that a microphone is shorting out, or their overall sound equipment just just garbage, you're not "in control" to fix that quality OR service, or even bar them from using the trademark are you? Didn't think so.

So, you actually have far less "control" than you'd have the readers here believe you have. But an over-inflated view of your company's importance in this business is nothing new.
JimHarrington wrote:
If someone else usurps our authority, consumers will be deceived because they can't rely on our trademark as an indication that we're in control.
"Usurps your authority" requires that you actually have that authority to start with.... and that requires a contract to give you that authority.

Without a contract, you might as well be the wicked witch in Munchkin land; "Begone! you have no power here!"


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:11 pm 
Offline
Senior Poster
Senior Poster

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:51 am
Posts: 147
Location: BFE
Been Liked: 17 times
Quote:
If someone else usurps our authority, consumers will be deceived because they can't rely on our trademark as an indication that we're in control.

1. I don't advertise or make any statements concerning the quality of SOUND.

2. How are consumers deceived when they know nothing of your "Authority" or "Position of Sound Standards" and there is NO WAY for them to find out?

3. If they did have a way to know, how would they know if "MY Standards" differ, in order to conclude they have been deceived?

Conclusion: You can't and they won't.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:13 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
[quote="Toastedmuffin"
But after many of us have gone reporting the guy down the road... almost all of them are still working. [/quote]
not almost...
all of them.
you won't find anyone who has had a reported pirate approached.

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


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 7:06 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:49 am
Posts: 466
Been Liked: 124 times
Paradigm Karaoke wrote:
not almost...
all of them.
you won't find anyone who has had a reported pirate approached.


Maybe we should report ourselves as insurance then ::lol::

gd123 wrote:
Quote:
If someone else usurps our authority, consumers will be deceived because they can't rely on our trademark as an indication that we're in control.

1. I don't advertise or make any statements concerning the quality of SOUND.

2. How are consumers deceived when they know nothing of your "Authority" or "Position of Sound Standards" and there is NO WAY for them to find out?

3. If they did have a way to know, how would they know if "MY Standards" differ, in order to conclude they have been deceived?

Conclusion: You can't and they won't.


If I'm in a concert hall, with professional singers and a paying (and mostly sober) audience, I would definitely worry about my sound reproduction.

But I'm in a noisy bar... with drunk people, who don't sing professionally for a living. Sometimes there s a game on and everyone screams while someone is singing.

I'm not saying I'm going to skimp on my audio conversions. When converting my new CD stock, I clean the CD and the drive before I start. When its done, I randomly check tracks to make sure there are no artifacts. I also know how my drive sounds when it's in "Trouble" (I had a drive issue on disk 4 of Zooms "Whole Lotta Soul" 6 pack). When things look satisfactory, I add files to my master backup drive, so if anything goes wrong with my audio, I can reinstall it.

But were not dealing with audiophiles here, they won't really notice the difference between 128 and the PEP compliance level of 192 bitrate. For the record, I try to keep it at 320, but older items like Top Hits MP3+G CDs aren't that high of a bit rate, so what can you do.

And I don't care what the bitrate is, if your equipment is bad, or you don't know how to run a soundboard... even 320 won't make a bit of difference. And I don't think PEP can tell you want to do or buy when it comes to your gear.

I'm not worried about what PEP runs on about visual or audio quality. I have my own standard that is higher then theirs. I was that strict about things before PEP needed to give us "permission", and I continue to be so as long as I am working in the karaoke and DJ business.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 7:58 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
gd123 wrote:
Quote:
If someone else usurps our authority, consumers will be deceived because they can't rely on our trademark as an indication that we're in control.

1. I don't advertise or make any statements concerning the quality of SOUND.

2. How are consumers deceived when they know nothing of your "Authority" or "Position of Sound Standards" and there is NO WAY for them to find out?

3. If they did have a way to know, how would they know if "MY Standards" differ, in order to conclude they have been deceived?

Conclusion: You can't and they won't.


Once again, you're focused on the "quality" aspect, but trademark law is concerned with the "control" aspect.

If I make an exact duplicate of a Rolex watch that meets every quality control standard that Rolex has set for itself, such that consumers literally can't tell the difference, does that mean I get to stamp Rolex on my watches? Of course not.

Why is that? Because trademark law isn't concerned with the setting of uniform standards that allow anyone to apply a mark to goods or services if they meet the standard. It is concerned with ensuring that the trademark applied to goods or used in connection with services is only applied to goods and services that are within the control of the trademark owner.

When someone uses the original discs we made, the output is under our control because we made the goods.

When someone rips content from original discs, thereby making new goods, the output is under the ripper's control, not ours. But our trademarks appear on those new goods. That's inherently confusing to consumers, because our marks indicate that we made the goods, and we didn't. That's a deception.

Notice that when we authorize our marks to be used on non-original media, we always include specific standards that the operator has to meet--our visual inspection for 1:1 correspondence and minimum quality (in the case of certification), specific rules prohibiting downsampling and requiring professional services and conduct (in the case of the GEM series), and specific rules regarding track quality and professionalism (in the case of the HELP license), among other requirements. That's not because we're trying to exercise control over every aspect of a KJ's business. It's because we are protecting consumers from confusion that can arise when products and services that we didn't make or provide exist in the marketplace, but that nevertheless carry our marks. This is a perfectly normal arrangement--it's the way that millions of businesses protect their intellectual property, consistent with the purpose of the trademark law.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:38 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
'ya think? once again, this is all baloney. Let's take a look at the important parts that he's not being honest about because he is purposely confusing term "output:"
JimHarrington wrote:
When someone uses the original discs we made, the output is under our control because we made the goods.
no, it is not. The "output" that bar patrons are listening to is not – I repeat, not – "under your control." Your "control" in quality was the manufacture of the original disc and the "output" of the pressing plant you contracted to create them. It has absolutely nothing to do with the "visual or audio output" that bar patrons are hearing and that KJ's are creating which is a direct result of their skill and the equipment they are using to create it – which you also have no control over.

JimHarrington wrote:
When someone rips content from original discs, thereby making new goods, the output is under the ripper's control, not ours. But our trademarks appear on those new goods. That's inherently confusing to consumers, because our marks indicate that we made the goods, and we didn't. That's a deception.
"Goods?" The KJ isn't selling any "goods" and once again the "output" that bar patrons are listening to is not under your control. You do not have any control over amplifiers, speakers, equalization, or anything else that has a direct effect on the "audio or visual output."

JimHarrington wrote:
Notice that when we authorize our marks to be used on non-original media, we always include specific standards that the operator has to meet--our visual inspection for 1:1 correspondence and minimum quality (in the case of certification), specific rules prohibiting downsampling and requiring professional services and conduct (in the case of the GEM series), and specific rules regarding track quality and professionalism (in the case of the HELP license), among other requirements.
Interesting that I've not seen a single publication of yours – or a contract – which specifically details what "professional services and professionalism" actually are and what your standards are. Perhaps you could enlighten us with a few of your "required rules regarding professionalism" that are within your "authority to control."

I don't believe there are any.


JimHarrington wrote:
That's not because we're trying to exercise control over every aspect of a KJ's business. It's because we are protecting consumers from confusion that can arise when products and services that we didn't make or provide exist in the marketplace, but that nevertheless carry our marks. This is a perfectly normal arrangement--it's the way that millions of businesses protect their intellectual property, consistent with the purpose of the trademark law.
It's only perfectly normal for businesses that have contractual agreements with entities that use their trademarks. It is not true with any KJ that has not signed a contract of yours that specifically gives you the right to control anything.

So here we go again with Harrington simply playing "the nut shell game" with different terms and technicalities.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:08 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:49 am
Posts: 466
Been Liked: 124 times
JimHarrington wrote:
gd123 wrote:
Quote:
If someone else usurps our authority, consumers will be deceived because they can't rely on our trademark as an indication that we're in control.

1. I don't advertise or make any statements concerning the quality of SOUND.

2. How are consumers deceived when they know nothing of your "Authority" or "Position of Sound Standards" and there is NO WAY for them to find out?

3. If they did have a way to know, how would they know if "MY Standards" differ, in order to conclude they have been deceived?

Conclusion: You can't and they won't.


Once again, you're focused on the "quality" aspect, but trademark law is concerned with the "control" aspect.

If I make an exact duplicate of a Rolex watch that meets every quality control standard that Rolex has set for itself, such that consumers literally can't tell the difference, does that mean I get to stamp Rolex on my watches? Of course not.

Why is that? Because trademark law isn't concerned with the setting of uniform standards that allow anyone to apply a mark to goods or services if they meet the standard. It is concerned with ensuring that the trademark applied to goods or used in connection with services is only applied to goods and services that are within the control of the trademark owner.

When someone uses the original discs we made, the output is under our control because we made the goods.

When someone rips content from original discs, thereby making new goods, the output is under the ripper's control, not ours. But our trademarks appear on those new goods. That's inherently confusing to consumers, because our marks indicate that we made the goods, and we didn't. That's a deception.

Notice that when we authorize our marks to be used on non-original media, we always include specific standards that the operator has to meet--our visual inspection for 1:1 correspondence and minimum quality (in the case of certification), specific rules prohibiting downsampling and requiring professional services and conduct (in the case of the GEM series), and specific rules regarding track quality and professionalism (in the case of the HELP license), among other requirements. That's not because we're trying to exercise control over every aspect of a KJ's business. It's because we are protecting consumers from confusion that can arise when products and services that we didn't make or provide exist in the marketplace, but that nevertheless carry our marks. This is a perfectly normal arrangement--it's the way that millions of businesses protect their intellectual property, consistent with the purpose of the trademark law.


I notice that Disc based users are exempt from quality standards, at least I haven't seen them explained

But I remember why now.

Back in the day when SC was making product, CDs were considered "finite" in their usage. Even under the best conditions, wear and tear with the actual media happen.

In fact, one of the firsts things to go when a CD is scratched is the data track, which holds the graphics.

Sound Choices answer to this was "You used it enough to wear it out, it should be worthy of another buy". That was a great policy for them, as Sound Choice was getting still producing CD and getting re-orders.

But now, with no product to sell, it's hard for them to tell people "Replace your CDs because they are damaged", not only because it's hard to do, but because their is no money for them to be made. Sure they could tell an disc user, that so long as there is a SC CD that available in shrink wrap out there on eBay, you need to fix it with a replacement. But where is the profit in that?

So PEP will just let the quality issue slide on that, because it's "real", and not because they totally can't make money on stock they don't own.

My thought: If SC ever somehow got it's entire catalog back and they could sell CDs, that rule about how original disc are ok for use would most likely change overnight.

Just saying.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:21 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
Toastedmuffin wrote:
I notice that Disc based users are exempt from quality standards, at least I haven't seen them explained


Disc-based users are exempt from quality standards because they are legally entitled to use the product they bought.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 185 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  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

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