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


premium-member

Offsite Links


It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:31 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2018 1:48 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:54 am
Posts: 339
Been Liked: 130 times
DannyG2006 wrote:
Removing the trademarks and boasting about it on the net can make you a target for defacing the product.
Yes, and maybe no. As PEP shifts strategies away from persecuting media shifters (because that has now been upheld as legal in much of the country) one of the supposedly new directions is to sue for just displaying their business logo, as it's now also (you could say retroactively) the logo for the so called Sound Choice "Entertainment" division. The twisted logic being any KJ displaying the logo (without permission) is "confusing" people into thinking they are PEP representatives.

It's an inherently stupid argument, but it's not even applicable if the logos have been stripped -- that now could even be construed as a form of compliance!


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2018 1:55 pm 
Offline
Super Plus Poster
Super Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 11:21 pm
Posts: 1609
Location: Earth
Been Liked: 307 times
"Media shifting" has not been declared legal.
It has been declared "not trademark infringement".

If someone who owned the copyright to a track or composition wanted to argue against "media shifting" in a copyright action, they certainly could and could possibly win their case.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2018 1:59 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:10 am
Posts: 313
Images: 6
Been Liked: 52 times
Many of you have strong points. Noted... Thank you and I appreciate your input on this subject.


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:11 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:54 am
Posts: 339
Been Liked: 130 times
Alan B wrote:
First of all, every KJ here can run a successful show without using Sound Choice material.
I totally agree with that. But that's not the issue for some of us. I already own some 200+ Sound Choice discs, and I paid about $30 each for the things -- plus about a dozen custom ones over $50 each. That's the largest single investment in my whole business. No piece of equipment costs that much. The library cost more than the gear, and the Sound Choice part of the library is the most expensive part of that. I'm not letting anyone tell me I can't or shouldn't use what I paid for. Nor running through the hoops that replacing it all would entail. Even if the replacements were free, the time I put into my library was not free.
Alan B wrote:
Those 95% of KJ's operating illegally, should be forced to destroy their hard drives and never be allowed to host karaoke again. And don't give me this "good faith" sh*t. Common sense tells you that music costs money. It always has. Whether it be on albums, cassette tapes or cd's, people know that it isn't free and that you have to buy it. This 95% knows that too. They're just trying to get over. Stop trying to protect them.
There I've got to agree with you too Alan -- that makes twice in one day :)


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:20 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:54 am
Posts: 339
Been Liked: 130 times
earthling12357 wrote:
"Media shifting" has not been declared legal.
It has been declared "not trademark infringement".
Absolutely correct, and I should have been more precise. The distinction doesn't change the rest of my observation, but it is very important in the legal sense.
earthling12357 wrote:
If someone who owned the copyright to a track or composition wanted to argue against "media shifting" in a copyright action, they certainly could and could possibly win their case.
Yes, but it wouldn't be Sound Choice taking that particular action, as they no longer own the copyrights to anything they produced (with the exception of a very tiny number of tracks made after the sale of the rest to Stingray).


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:41 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 8:49 pm
Posts: 300
Been Liked: 50 times
If you do not own a full legal SC library...then either lease one or don't use SC.
So far I've only had to replace a few non-sc tracks with other brands and have not had any
requests for songs only existing on SC except those that I personally want to sing.
While some of my library is not what customers are "used to" they seem to be fine with it and have learned that I will purchase a better version if they ask.
Non SC is not as big a problem as I expected it to be.

_________________
Purple Frog Karaoke Cuz we all feel odd and love to "croak" :)


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2018 10:10 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 407
Been Liked: 242 times
Removing the trademark(s) from a product is in itself a trademark infringement. It's called "reverse passing off" which "....occurs when the wrongdoer simply removes or otherwise obliterates the name of the manufacturer or source and sells the product in an unbranded state.” (9th circuit)

Media or format shifting is perfectly legal under the "fair use" provision providing the shift does not override any type of DRM or encryption.

Contrary to popular opinion, Stellar Records never filed a complaint for trademark infringement (except against Panorama Records of course) for making illegal copies of its products. They did file complaints for copyright infringement in cases of that nature.

Stellar never objected to making copies of its legally purchased product either for use on a hard drive or for archival purposes. Of course the lack of objection was for single use only and would consider multi-use of a single product to be an infringement.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:00 am 
Offline
Super Plus Poster
Super Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:35 am
Posts: 1945
Been Liked: 427 times
Bastiat wrote:
Removing the trademark(s) from a product is in itself a trademark infringement. It's called "reverse passing off" which "....occurs when the wrongdoer simply removes or otherwise obliterates the name of the manufacturer or source and sells the product in an unbranded state.” (9th circuit)

Media or format shifting is perfectly legal under the "fair use" provision providing the shift does not override any type of DRM or encryption.

Contrary to popular opinion, Stellar Records never filed a complaint for trademark infringement (except against Panorama Records of course) for making illegal copies of its products. They did file complaints for copyright infringement in cases of that nature.

Stellar never objected to making copies of its legally purchased product either for use on a hard drive or for archival purposes. Of course the lack of objection was for single use only and would consider multi-use of a single product to be an infringement.


Stop it.. That perspective makes far too much sense.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:25 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 3801
Images: 1
Location: Florida
Been Liked: 1612 times
Bastiat wrote:
Removing the trademark(s) from a product is in itself a trademark infringement. It's called "reverse passing off" which "....occurs when the wrongdoer simply removes or otherwise obliterates the name of the manufacturer or source and sells the product in an unbranded state.” (9th circuit)

But he (gd123) is not selling them.


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:29 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 407
Been Liked: 242 times
mrmarog wrote:
But he (gd123) is not selling them.


This isn't codified into statutory law, but common sense would dictate to me that the same principles that apply in the 8th & 9th circuit common law rulings would apply to someone doing the same thing and using that product in a commercial setting. Removing a trademark/logo for home/personal use might not get the same treatment, but personal use isn't the issue here.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:15 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
Bastiat wrote:
mrmarog wrote:
But he (gd123) is not selling them.


This isn't codified into statutory law, but common sense would dictate to me that the same principles that apply in the 8th & 9th circuit common law rulings would apply to someone doing the same thing and using that product in a commercial setting. Removing a trademark/logo for home/personal use might not get the same treatment, but personal use isn't the issue here.

Besides, why would a home/personal use user need to strip the logos off when t PEP is only going after venues and KJs?

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


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:58 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 11:58 pm
Posts: 253
Been Liked: 116 times
DannyG2006 wrote:
Bastiat wrote:
mrmarog wrote:
But he (gd123) is not selling them.


This isn't codified into statutory law, but common sense would dictate to me that the same principles that apply in the 8th & 9th circuit common law rulings would apply to someone doing the same thing and using that product in a commercial setting. Removing a trademark/logo for home/personal use might not get the same treatment, but personal use isn't the issue here.

Besides, why would a home/personal use user need to strip the logos off when t PEP is only going after venues and KJs?

And it would be almost impossible to prove unless they're invited to the private user's home.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:56 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 3801
Images: 1
Location: Florida
Been Liked: 1612 times
bazinga wrote:
DannyG2006 wrote:
Bastiat wrote:
mrmarog wrote:
But he (gd123) is not selling them.


This isn't codified into statutory law, but common sense would dictate to me that the same principles that apply in the 8th & 9th circuit common law rulings would apply to someone doing the same thing and using that product in a commercial setting. Removing a trademark/logo for home/personal use might not get the same treatment, but personal use isn't the issue here.

Besides, why would a home/personal use user need to strip the logos off when t PEP is only going after venues and KJs?

And it would be almost impossible to prove unless they're invited to the private user's home.

Then they would have to prove financial harm to boot.


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:33 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:
mrmarog wrote:
But he (gd123) is not selling them.


This isn't codified into statutory law, but common sense would dictate to me that the same principles that apply in the 8th & 9th circuit common law rulings would apply to someone doing the same thing and using that product in a commercial setting.

Nope.
"Passing off" requires some sort of fraudulent commerce.
I can make a PHM track look just like an SC track... with no logo.... or any audio source I make myself look like any mfg. disc. If I'm not selling them or representing them as something they are not, there's nothing being "passed off" as anything else.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:23 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:
I can make a PHM track look just like an SC track... with no logo.... or any audio source I make myself look like any mfg. disc.


Making a track "look" like another brand is a trade dress violation and has the potential for even heavier consequences than a straight up trademark infringement. Nevertheless that isn't the standard that the 8th & 9th circuits established. The standard was merely selling a product that was "unbranded" or stripped of its logos, etc. to qualify as "passing off". It does not need to be rebranded or made to look like another brand to qualify. If you are a KJ displaying these works in a venue, then you are engaging in commerce. Notice I stated that it may not apply to personal use, but I'm fairly confident that if a KJ was charged with a complaint for removing a trademark used in an act of commerce in either of these circuits, the KJ would be found guilty as charged. I don't know if there's any case law exactly on point, I haven't researched this that deeply nor do I intend to for that matter, but I don't think its unreasonable to assume that a ruling against a KJ for removing trademarks is a stretch by anyone's imagination. It is illegal to alter a company's product. Removing a trademark is altering a product in addition to removing its advertising value.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:17 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
Bastiat wrote:
It is illegal to alter a company's product. Removing a trademark is altering a product in addition to removing its advertising value.

not arguing, but if my gas tank does not say "Harley Davidson" any more, then Harley can come sue me for it?

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


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:55 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
Bastiat wrote:
c. staley wrote:
I can make a PHM track look just like an SC track... with no logo.... or any audio source I make myself look like any mfg. disc.


Making a track "look" like another brand is a trade dress violation and has the potential for even heavier consequences than a straight up trademark infringement. Nevertheless that isn't the standard that the 8th & 9th circuits established. The standard was merely selling a product that was "unbranded" or stripped of its logos, etc. to qualify as "passing off". It does not need to be rebranded or made to look like another brand to qualify. If you are a KJ displaying these works in a venue, then you are engaging in commerce. Notice I stated that it may not apply to personal use, but I'm fairly confident that if a KJ was charged with a complaint for removing a trademark used in an act of commerce in either of these circuits, the KJ would be found guilty as charged. I don't know if there's any case law exactly on point, I haven't researched this that deeply nor do I intend to for that matter, but I don't think its unreasonable to assume that a ruling against a KJ for removing trademarks is a stretch by anyone's imagination. It is illegal to alter a company's product. Removing a trademark is altering a product in addition to removing its advertising value.


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?

Now, that being said, if I take your disc and reprint the disc with my logo and attempt to "pass it off" as my own product in an attempt to sell it to you, that's a violation. If TopTunes takes your entire catalog, strips your logo and replaces it with their own and sells it as a package to cruise lines on a CAVS machine, that's absolutely a violation. (Because it's "passed off" as their own product.)


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:58 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 407
Been Liked: 242 times
Paradigm Karaoke wrote:
not arguing, but if my gas tank does not say "Harley Davidson" any more, then Harley can come sue me for it?


That's a very good point. I'd argue that removing the Harley Davidson logo from your motorcycle is a personal use and does not apply. However, what happens once you've sold your motorcycle with the branding removed? Something people have been doing for years, not only with motorcycles but with automobiles and other products I'm sure. So according to the 8th & 9th circuits the "unbranding" would be considered passing off. The only difference I see here is possibly when the motorcycle is advertised as being for sale it usually would be advertised as a Harley Davidson so the seller isn't passing it off as something other than what it is. Now if you owned a rice rocket, removed the branding and sold it as a Harley, then I'm guessing that would be passing off.

Nevertheless, none of this stuff is all that cut and dry especially when it comes to common law. There are always circumstances in every case that are different, and in every case there are always two sides, each quoting from different case precedents to support their argument.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:32 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
Bastiat wrote:
So according to the 8th & 9th circuits


You (and others) keep saying 8th and 9th circuits. The 8th Circuit has not had any SC cases at all. (There are a couple of decisions at the district court level, which are being appealed.) The 9th Circuit upheld the dismissal of a couple of the SC cases, but that does not mean that users there are in the clear. The 7th Circuit is the only other circuit to issue an unfavorable opinion, and that opinion--as cases in Illinois, Texas, Florida, and South Carolina note--did not deal with the services aspect of SC's infringement claims.

On the broader issue, reverse passing off is indeed an actionable trademark infringement. Misrepresenting another person's goods as your own is actionable unless you make more than superficial changes to the goods. The reason for this is simple: the Lanham Act is a consumer protection statute, designed to prevent businesses from making misrepresentations to consumers.

Let me be clear about something: In all the time when I was representing Slep-Tone and PEP (from 2009-2017; I filed the very first suit for Slep-Tone at that time--and I do continue to represent PEP in 3 cases), we never, not once, intentionally sued someone whom we believed had 1:1 correspondence between discs and hard drives. Many of you paint our litigation campaign as a crusade against media-shifting. That's ridiculous. We took great pains to avoid suing people who were following the 1:1 principle even if they didn't strictly follow the policy. Over the course of 8 years and more than 2,000 defendants, fewer than 10 defendants were able to demonstrate 1:1 correspondence. Every one who did was promptly dismissed from the lawsuit and listed as certified.

We have sued people who owned discs, but in almost all cases, they did not follow the 1:1 principle. A good example was three co-owned karaoke bars we sued in Panama City Beach, Florida. The company owned a lot of discs, but all three of their hard drives had all of the content on them. Do you think that somebody who owns three karaoke bars should be able to buy one set of discs and put it on three different hard drives? I don't.

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.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:40 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
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.


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 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 128 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