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 2:19 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: Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:30 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:
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)

Exactly who is "they?"


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 4:02 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:10 am
Posts: 313
Images: 6
Been Liked: 52 times
Those who enforced it back in the day... I don't know who "They" are but I do recall a Local KJ got busted for using CDG copies at her show back in early 90's.


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:44 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:
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. ... However, as long as I'm not altering your disc or misrepresenting it,

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.


I'm sorry but I beg to differ. In your very own words you stated "... as long as I'm not altering your disc or misrepresenting it ....". That by its very definition is a limitation, and is why I said that we seemed to agree on that point. As to how you playback the content is a separate issue. When a composer files a PA form to register their composition the copyright they are granted does not include the key or time signature of the song so therefore any changes in key or tempo would not violate the authors copyright. Now with regard to the sound recording, that's a little different, but would probably fall under some sort of artistic license such as "fair use", but even at that, in my opnion, if you were playing back my content in such a way as to intentionally cause me harm then I believe it would be cause to file suit.

c. staley wrote:
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 are wrong again. If you are playing any or all of these tracks in your bedroom to yourself then you are the only consumer. However once you play that song for an audience then everyone in that audience becomes a consumer of my content. You have been misinformed into thinking that the only person or persons that are "consumers" are the ones paying for the product, and that just isn't the case. Even pirates and thieves are consumers.

c. staley wrote:
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.


I'm not taking any sort of tact. I'm stating what I understand to be true irrespective as to whom may or may not benefit by my understanding of the law. That aside, I never said that you were required to display my logo. What I did say is that if you do remove my logo from the product, other than for personal use, it is my understanding that it can be considered a "reverse passing" and therefore an infringement of my trademark in violation of the Lanham Act. It is also my understanding that you have no obligation to display my logo in any environment, but trademark law as with anything else can be complex and I don't know if there are circumstances or exceptions that could be meant to be taken otherwise.

Quote:
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.

I never said I was creating "another product."


I didn't say that you were. I was actually reiterating the fact that you couldn't create another product by adding your services, something you would need to do in making your argument consistent. Again you were comparing apples to oranges. You were comparing a product to a service, so my comment was to illustrate that in order for your argument to be consistent you have to be consistent with your analogy by comparing products to products which you were unable to do because adding your service to the original product would not create another product.

c. staley wrote:
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?


I don't get the connection here, but even if I did I would never comment on something I know nothing about other than the one sentence that you've provided. I don't know what a Gem Series is other than what I assume to be a collection of Sound Choice tracks. I don't know what's on them or how they're licensed or whom they're licensed with, etc., and even if I did, I know enough about these things to understand that it can be far more complicated than what I've seen discussed on this forum. Do you understand things like "fair nation" clauses, or do you understand the law as it pertains to whom can license a musical composition? Do you understand how you can have a license for a musical composition and still be sued for infringement? Do you understand what a blanket license is and how it gets sorted or "best business practices", or the approval process or any of the myriad of things that goes on in the licensing process that just don't get discussed here nor will they. It's one of the reasons why I would have forbade my attorney from participating in this forum no matter how well intentioned he might be. Not because of the things he could say, but because of the things that he can't or shouldn't say. Then there's this self-righteous moralization of those who think that if a label/producer is being sued for infringement that that in and of itself disqualifies that label from suing people infringing on their products. Anyone taking such high moral ground needs to be consistent and apply that same moral code to the publishers who are constantly being sued by the composers and other publishers and going up the ladder, by the composers who are being sued by other composers, etc., etc., etc.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 6:41 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:
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.


I'm not taking any sort of tact. I'm stating what I understand to be true irrespective as to whom may or may not benefit by my understanding of the law. That aside, I never said that you were required to display my logo. What I did say is that if you do remove my logo from the product, other than for personal use, it is my understanding that it can be considered a "reverse passing" and therefore an infringement of my trademark in violation of the Lanham Act. It is also my understanding that you have no obligation to display my logo in any environment, but trademark law as with anything else can be complex and I don't know if there are circumstances or exceptions that could be meant to be taken otherwise.

The Lanham act requires that there be some sort of transaction in commerce. The only way anything can be in violation of the Lanham act is if it's being sold. Harrington argued unsuccessfully in court that the display of trade dress was a violation of the Lanham Act. The court ruled otherwise since the KJ wasn't selling a hard drive of the songs and there was no transaction in commerce.

"Reverse Passing off" is when a manufacturer takes someone else's product, puts their logo on it and then represents it as their own when they SELL it. I have a number of karaoke tracks where the audio track is exactly the same, only the logo, colors, typeface and sweeps are different. If you sold/licensed the recording to them to re-sell is one thing, if they swiped it off of a disc is another. Either way, a patron sitting in a club has no way of knowing and is just as confused.

Reverse passing off is apparently what I witnessed on the cruise ship when the Top Tunes logo appeared at the beginning of what was obviously a track originally created and sold by PHM that I am very familiar with. You didn't license it to them, but there it was... and you know the cruise line most likely paid for it and all the other tracks on the CAVS machines they use.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:50 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:
The Lanham act requires that there be some sort of transaction in commerce. The only way anything can be in violation of the Lanham act is if it's being sold. Harrington argued unsuccessfully in court that the display of trade dress was a violation of the Lanham Act.

I'm not going down the trade dress rabbit hole, except to say that infringement of a company's trade dress is without question a violation of the Lanham Act (see section 43(a)). If Harrington was unsuccessful in prevailing on a trade dress complaint (if that is actually what the case was about) then what he would have been unsuccessful at was in proving that the defendant had violated his client's trade dress, and not that the trade dress infringement itself is in respect of the Lanham Act. Also, who's to say that he wouldn't have enjoyed an entirely different outcome in another jurisdiction. You can't dismiss the possibility that the judge in that case could have made an incorrect ruling, or that another judge would have ruled differently in his favor. To say that the only way anything can be in violation of the Lanham act is if it's being sold. is a very narrow interpretation of the act. The way I read it is that the interpretation is much broader to include most if not all forms of commerce including the act of commerce that a KJ host engages in when providing his services in a paid venue. There are other claims a trademark owner could make in a trade dress complaint such as "dilution" and "blurring" that don't necessarily involve the actual sale of a good and/or service.

c. staley wrote:
"Reverse Passing off" is when a manufacturer takes someone else's product, puts their logo on it and then represents it as their own when they SELL it.

What you've described here is not "reverse passing off" at all, but plain old "passing off". Removing the branding from a product and replacing it with your own is what is known as "passing off". Removing the branding from a product and NOT replacing it with any branding at all is what is known as "reverse passing off".

c. staley wrote:
I have a number of karaoke tracks where the audio track is exactly the same, only the logo, colors, typeface and sweeps are different. If you sold/licensed the recording to them to re-sell is one thing, if they swiped it off of a disc is another. Either way, a patron sitting in a club has no way of knowing and is just as confused.

Not sure as to what you're getting at here but you seem to be making my case. The operative word here is "confused", which I believe was the court's premise in ruling that the removal of the branding is "reverse passing off" because the consumer, as you've correctly implied, is confused as to the origin of the product. You might be tempted to make the argument here that omitting the logo in playback essentially produces the same effect, in which case you'd be correct in your thinking, but this would seem to be a contradiction in the spirit of the law. While I believe you'd be correct in stating that you have no obligation to display my logos, I also think that due to the apparent contradiction, a good faith case could be made that might challenge that precept as an exception to that theory in this particular scenario. If what you witnessed on the cruise ship was indeed one of my unlicensed and unauthorized tracks on a Top Tunes brand product, then what you witnessed was a "passing off" and not a "reverse passing off" of my product. If on the other hand, if that product had its branding removed from the disc/file then in that case that would be a "reverse passing off". In both cases however, that is a clear case of copyright infringement to which would be my primary complaint if I were to pursue legal action against the company responsible for removing my branding and then reselling the product under a different brand.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:22 pm 
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
Chip is correct

passing off would be making a midi track and putting the SC logo on it.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/ ... ngOff.aspx

reverse passing off would be taking of fthe SC logo and putting his logo on it.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/ ... g-Off.aspx

SCOTUS varifies this...

In Dastar v Twentieth Century Fox, Mr. Justice Scalia of the United States Supreme Court, at footnote #1, used these words:

"Passing off (or palming off, as it is sometimes called) occurs when a producer misrepresents his own goods or services as someone else's.
"Reverse passing off, as its name implies, is the opposite: The producer misrepresents someone else's goods or services as his own."

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


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:43 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am
Posts: 3885
Images: 0
Been Liked: 397 times
I have gotten to the point that I just wish SC/Pep would go out of business, once and for all, and get off our backs about what we do with our music. They are the ONLY company, in ALL of music that is suing people, and getting pissy about us shifting what we own. I don't want free music. I want to be able to use what I already have, without any issues. I haven't bought any SC discs in years. Why?? What is the point. I do not agree with their methods, I will not use their product. I don't agree with any of it. Their HELP license is crap, and their GEM series is too expensive, especially for all that old music. You can get 4500 CB songs for $750-$1000, and, of course, pay PEP $50 tribute. At least it is a better deal.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2018 7:25 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:31 am
Posts: 5346
Location: Watebrury, CT
Been Liked: 396 times
Smoothedge69 wrote:
I have gotten to the point that I just wish SC/Pep would go out of business, once and for all, and get off our backs about what we do with our music. They are the ONLY company, in ALL of music that is suing people, and getting pissy about us shifting what we own. I don't want free music. I want to be able to use what I already have, without any issues. I haven't bought any SC discs in years. Why?? What is the point. I do not agree with their methods, I will not use their product. I don't agree with any of it. Their HELP license is crap, and their GEM series is too expensive, especially for all that old music. You can get 4500 CB songs for $750-$1000, and, of course, pay PEP $50 tribute. At least it is a better deal.

The thing is that, in my opinion only, with the exception of country Chartbuster is inferior to the audio quality of Sound Choice which makes the GEM Series better worth getting, again in my opinion.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2018 8:35 pm 
Offline
Novice Poster
Novice Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:14 am
Posts: 23
Been Liked: 8 times
Puck FEP! There I said it! They FINALLY dropped the suit against me in the beginning of April! MO-FO's!


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2018 8:45 pm 
Offline
Novice Poster
Novice Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:14 am
Posts: 23
Been Liked: 8 times
When the Cavs player was released is when the industry took a turn. It was bad enough that other "DJ's" had figured out how to rip cdg's (which I refused to let them do with mine, and believe me, they asked).

I invested over $40,000.00 in karaoke MUSIC cdgs's and laserdiscs alone from 1995 to 2002 for example. Still have receipts. NONE of it mattered to PEP!

I lost two weekly gigs TO PIRATES thanks to PEP, plus a really great monthly gig! Frivolous lawsuit about nothing but money! Lowlife scumbag lawyers with nothing better to do! I operate ONE system! I didn't want to "prove" that I had 1 to 1 correspondence based on the fact that it seemed WRONG that they could come after anyone the way they did. Demand to look at my harddrive, really?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 12:36 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
mwanteddj wrote:
Puck FEP! There I said it! They FINALLY dropped the suit against me in the beginning of April! MO-FO's!


Good!... That proves if a KJ or venues pushes back, they'll go away.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2018 6:51 am 
Offline
Senior Poster
Senior Poster

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:51 am
Posts: 147
Location: BFE
Been Liked: 17 times
Should sue PEP, et al., for the loss of wages and defamation.

I think this needs to be said:
When someone F's with someone's livelihood, and, as we know, for no damn good reason, those people need to understand that there WILL be someone out there that will be NONE TOO HAPPY to the nth degree. And, given this CRAZY CHARGED society we are currently experiencing, if it were me, I'd think twice before F'ing with someone.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2018 5:53 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:55 pm
Posts: 4433
Location: New York City
Been Liked: 757 times
c. staley wrote:
mwanteddj wrote:
Puck FEP! There I said it! They FINALLY dropped the suit against me in the beginning of April! MO-FO's!


Good!... That proves if a KJ or venues pushes back, they'll go away.


WOW!!! 3 years is a long time for them to finally drop that law suit against you. Can you discuss what happened to make them do that, or did you sign an NDA?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2018 9:04 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:54 am
Posts: 339
Been Liked: 130 times
cueball wrote:
WOW!!! 3 years is a long time for them to finally drop that law suit against you. Can you discuss what happened to make them do that, or did you sign an NDA?
And I'm curious which court district this was in. If it's one of the four where PEP lost a big trademark infringement case in the last couple years, then continuing to prosecute would be hopeless if the charges were the same.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 8:10 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
8) Hopeless or not PEP has to keep the illusion that they are still active. This is in order to hoodwink the unwary into continuing to buy the insurance that PEP keeps selling. Even though the product isn't very effective, they are a one trick pony.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 9:43 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:24 pm
Posts: 4438
Been Liked: 1048 times
What I'd really like to see is SC/PEP go after the pirates that we all have reported to them. You know those KJ's with 100,000 songs who have brought the going rate for karaoke to an all-time low and has cost us jobs.

Everyone of us has tons of pirates in our areas. Most of us have reported them to SC/PEP. Yet, nothing has been done regarding the leads we have provided. Leads that I've turned in years ago, and those pirates are still happily working.

I've stopped turning in leads since I figure it's a waste of time.

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


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 10:39 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
Alan B wrote:
What I'd really like to see is SC/PEP go after the pirates that we all have reported to them. You know those KJ's with 100,000 songs who have brought the going rate for karaoke to an all-time low and has cost us jobs.

Everyone of us has tons of pirates in our areas. Most of us have reported them to SC/PEP. Yet, nothing has been done regarding the leads we have provided. Leads that I've turned in years ago, and those pirates are still happily working.

I've stopped turning in leads since I figure it's a waste of time.



8) If it is true that 95% of the hosts out here are illegal, then I would say the war has been lost along time ago. PEP has had little or no impact, and there are actually more illegal hosts today than when PEP started. Like it or not Alan the small minority is the legal host, and the pirate host is really the norm. Why turn in leads? The current situation has existed for some time now, and I really don't think most venues care.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 10:45 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:55 pm
Posts: 4433
Location: New York City
Been Liked: 757 times
Alan B wrote:
What I'd really like to see is SC/PEP go after the pirates that we all have reported to them. You know those KJ's with 100,000 songs who have brought the going rate for karaoke to an all-time low and has cost us jobs.



Why? All PEP/SC will do is make them purchase a GEM series at a 100-200% mark-up, or make them subscribe to a HELP License program (the GEM series being the lesser cost in the long run). And then they can still operate with all of their other "Illegally" obtained manufacturer brands.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 4:25 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:49 am
Posts: 466
Been Liked: 124 times
Alan B wrote:
What I'd really like to see is SC/PEP go after the pirates that we all have reported to them. You know those KJ's with 100,000 songs who have brought the going rate for karaoke to an all-time low and has cost us jobs.

Everyone of us has tons of pirates in our areas. Most of us have reported them to SC/PEP. Yet, nothing has been done regarding the leads we have provided. Leads that I've turned in years ago, and those pirates are still happily working.

I've stopped turning in leads since I figure it's a waste of time.


PEP isn't about going after pirates, at least as far as the industry is concerned. So long as the pirates don't have a hard drive full of SC or CB (Very unlikely I know), there isn't anything for them to sue over. Don't expect SC to be the police of the industry unless they can make a profit off it.

As for the HELP program: I also don't understand why anyone would actively use PEP's HELP program over a subscription service. For the same $129/month, Karaoke Versions gives you more tracks and updates 5 days a week with new music.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 12:03 pm 
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
Toastedmuffin wrote:
PEP isn't about going after pirates, at least as far as the industry is concerned. So long as the pirates don't have a hard drive full of SC or CB (Very unlikely I know), there isn't anything for them to sue over. Don't expect SC to be the police of the industry unless they can make a profit off it.

they actively asked for leads and have sued other legit hosts in areas where pirate leads have been given.
i know i have reported, but those pirates have never been touched while legit hosts and some different pirates were investigated.
it's the same story everywhere, reporting a pirate is like handing them immunity.

Toastedmuffin wrote:
As for the HELP program: I also don't understand why anyone would actively use PEP's HELP program over a subscription service. For the same $129/month, Karaoke Versions gives you more tracks and updates 5 days a week with new music.

because with the HELP program you get 200,000 songs

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


Top
 Profile 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 125 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