KARAOKE SCENE MAGAZINE ONLINE! - SC Gem sale- although expired now... 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 Wed Jul 18, 2018 1:52 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 132 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:56 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
jdmeister wrote:
So, you say you, (PEP/SC) control performance fees? I think not..
Where are the regulations stating trademark owners control public performance?
I'm waiting..


Not "public performance." Use of the marks.

15 U.S.C. § 1115(a):

Any registration issued under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or of a mark registered on the principal register provided by this chapter and owned by a party to an action shall be admissible in evidence and shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark and of the registration of the mark, of the registrant's ownership of the mark, and of the registrant's exclusive right to use the registered mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the registration subject to any conditions or limitations stated therein ... .

(Emphasis is mine.)


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:32 pm 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6680
Songs: 1
Location: Hollyweird, Ca.
Been Liked: 709 times
JimHarrington wrote:
jdmeister wrote:
So, you say you, (PEP/SC) control performance fees? I think not..
Where are the regulations stating trademark owners control public performance?
I'm waiting..


Not "public performance." Use of the marks.

15 U.S.C. § 1115(a):

Any registration issued under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or of a mark registered on the principal register provided by this chapter and owned by a party to an action shall be admissible in evidence and shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark and of the registration of the mark, of the registrant's ownership of the mark, and of the registrant's exclusive right to use the registered mark in [b]commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the registration[/b] subject to any conditions or limitations stated therein ... .

(Emphasis is mine.)


Again, KJs are not selling SC discs.. and, they actually could have other product to play during the show. Are all the logos going to confuse the customers who only came to sing?
I think not.

The very first year of college, the debate class explains how "The Slippery Slope" argument is fallacious. Yet lawyers continue to use slippery slope in their arguments.
Not to mention most civil ordinances are a bit slippery too.
Carry on..


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:06 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
jdmeister wrote:
Again, KJs are not selling SC discs..


The term "commerce" contemplates all commercial acts that Congress may constitutionally regulate, not just the sale of goods.

Surely you don't think that a KJ who supplies karaoke services at a venue for money isn't engaged in commerce.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 3:23 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4722
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 477 times
JimHarrington wrote:
earthling12357 wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
earthling12357 wrote:
In fact, if we choose to license use of our discs to other KJs with the stipulation they use them as the first option to any song requests we still would not be affiliated with PEP in any way. It appears we could even shift those tracks to a flash drive as their "shifting agent" while holding the originals in boxes in the trunks of our cars for safe keeping without consequence.


Nope. You might have the right under copyright law, but you do not have that right under trademark law.


Of course we do. How do you think video rental stores do it?


Not like you're suggesting. Video rental stores also do not have the right to authorize the public performance of the content.

Of course not genius.... They don't have the "right to authorize the public performance of the content" because they are a "Video RENTAL store." The same way that PEP doesn't have the right to authorize public performance of the third party rights holders either.

Of course PEP doesn't have the rights to make an additional, unlicensed and unauthorized copy of the third party content on a flash drive ..... But that doesn't seem to slow you down does it? Oh, that's right, you shoved all that legal exposure to your own "controlled licensees" as their "agent" with a handy disclaimer haven't you?

Now who's demonstrating "PRO-piracy" matey?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:02 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:54 am
Posts: 269
Been Liked: 110 times
JimHarrington wrote:
Surely you don't think that a KJ who supplies karaoke services at a venue for money isn't engaged in commerce.
Yes, the KJ is involved in commerce. WITH THE BAR, not with the audience. Unless the KJ goes up to each person in the bar and asks them for a dollar to see the SC logo come up each time.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:31 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 3328
Been Liked: 371 times
8) It is no great mystery somewhere some host is trying to earn a living, if they earn one dollar PEP/SC wants the host to cut them in. After all the SC logo is the secret of your success, nothing else you have done matters. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:39 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
Elementary Penguin wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
Surely you don't think that a KJ who supplies karaoke services at a venue for money isn't engaged in commerce.
Yes, the KJ is involved in commerce. WITH THE BAR, not with the audience. Unless the KJ goes up to each person in the bar and asks them for a dollar to see the SC logo come up each time.


No, the transaction is that the audience pays the bar for drinks and food, the bar pays the KJ, and the KJ provides the entertainment to the audience. Trademark protection is not limited to direct, two-party transactions.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:53 am 
Offline
Senior Poster
Senior Poster

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:51 am
Posts: 126
Location: BFE
Been Liked: 14 times
JimHarrington wrote:
Elementary Penguin wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
Surely you don't think that a KJ who supplies karaoke services at a venue for money isn't engaged in commerce.
Yes, the KJ is involved in commerce. WITH THE BAR, not with the audience. Unless the KJ goes up to each person in the bar and asks them for a dollar to see the SC logo come up each time.


No, the transaction is that the audience pays the bar for drinks and food, the bar pays the KJ, and the KJ provides the entertainment to the audience. Trademark protection is not limited to direct, two-party transactions.

Sounds like the PATRONS are VICARIOUSLY involved. Should they be SUED as well? Or, is there a BIAS, since it would be next to impossible to get names of PATRONS and we all know ambulance chasers go after KNOWN parties.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:03 am 
Offline
Senior Poster
Senior Poster

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:51 am
Posts: 126
Location: BFE
Been Liked: 14 times
So, a rented DART board sits in a Bar and awaits a Player.

Does the Dart board, where the Bar Pays the owner of the Dart Board Company, provide entertainment to the Patron by simply being in the Bar?

No, the Dart Board Company provides entertainment to the BAR as a STANDBY item.

The KJ provides entertainment to the BAR as a STANDBY item, where the Bar happens to have Patrons who MAY or MAY not use anything PROVIDED by the BAR.

This should be clear enough for MOST people.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:19 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:55 pm
Posts: 4398
Location: New York City
Been Liked: 719 times
JimHarrington wrote:
Elementary Penguin wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
Surely you don't think that a KJ who supplies karaoke services at a venue for money isn't engaged in commerce.
Yes, the KJ is involved in commerce. WITH THE BAR, not with the audience. Unless the KJ goes up to each person in the bar and asks them for a dollar to see the SC logo come up each time.


No, the transaction is that the audience pays the bar for drinks and food, the bar pays the KJ, and the KJ provides the entertainment to the audience. Trademark protection is not limited to direct, two-party transactions.


Actually, there are some shows I have been to, where the KJ DOES charge the Singer $1 or $2 to sing a song. That transaction is between the KJ and the Singer, and the Bar/Venue has nothing to do with it.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:20 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:55 pm
Posts: 4398
Location: New York City
Been Liked: 719 times
JimHarrington wrote:

Now, here's what the law says: The SC logo is supposed to indicate Phoenix as the source of karaoke entertainment services. In other words, legally, as a matter of law, when that logo shows up on the screen 100 times a night, it's signalling to the consumer that "Phoenix is either providing these services or standing behind them through some sort of sponsorship, affiliation, or approval." That is what a trademark or service mark does.

The consumer is supposed to be able to take that at face value.



The Law says that?????????? I would think that the display of the SC logo on a song track being played at a Karaoke Show, means that that song track was PRODUCED BY SC... NOT that it means SC/PEP is providing the entertainment services or sponsoring the KJ/Host who is playing/displaying the song track.

What does the Law have to say about me wearing a pair of NIKE or ADIDAS sneakers? I don't believe that ANYONE is thinking NIKE or ADIDAS is providing me a service or sponsoring me in any way, shape or form (UNLESS I was a famous athlete doing a commercial for them). They're just thinking that NIKE or ADIDAS are the the company who made the product which I purchased.



JimHarrington wrote:
But, in reality, Phoenix has absolutely nothing to do with that show. The KJ isn't Phoenix's licensee. He's never bought a SC product at all. Phoenix isn't actually standing behind that show at all. So, any consumer who takes the display of the logo at face value, AS THE LAW SAYS THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO, is being deceived. And that deception is what the Trademark Act is supposed to prevent.

The only DECEPTION that I (Mr. Joe Shmoe from the General Public) am seeing is, that Mr. Pirate is displaying the SC product logo on a screen that everyone is seeing (whoever is looking at that moment), and I am thinking he bought the song tracks (not stole them).




JimHarrington wrote:
I'm not a part of SC anymore, as I have repeatedly said. I will say this, however: If you don't want to be called "pro-piracy," stop supporting piracy. When you accuse SC of doing something it has never done—as you did above—to try to undermine the legitimacy of what it has done in opposition to pirates, that is "supporting piracy," by definition. You know that what you said wasn't true, and you said it anyway. If you genuinely oppose piracy, stop lying about what SC does to try to stop it.

And what has SC/PEP done to oppose Piracy? From what I have seen, SC/PEP has forced a small percentage of them to either:
1. Go out of business.
OR
2. Stop using SC product that wasn't obtained and paid for legally.
OR
3. Buy a GEM Series
AND/OR
4. Subscribe to a HELP License.

I have not seen ANY PROOF that SC/PEP has actually gotten a KJ (any KJ, Pirate or not) to delete EVERY OTHER BRAND that they possess illegally or illegitimately. So, with option 1 in play, I can see where SC/PEP HAS made a difference, but NOT SO with options 2, 3, and/or 4 in play (because Mr. Pirate KJ can still be using other illegally/illegitimately obtained manufacturer brands, and SC/PEP has NO RECOURSE against that person).


JimHarrington wrote:
This assumes, of course, that I give a flying f*** what The Lone Ranger thinks. I don't.

REALLY??????????????????????????????????????

How PROFESSIONAL of YOU!!!!!


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:50 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:54 am
Posts: 269
Been Liked: 110 times
cueball wrote:
Actually, there are some shows I have been to, where the KJ DOES charge the Singer $1 or $2 to sing a song. That transaction is between the KJ and the Singer, and the Bar/Venue has nothing to do with it.
Yes indeed. Although of note is that transaction is between just that one person and the KJ. Everyone else in the bar is just audience for the duration of the song, and not any part of the transaction. Even if the audience wanted to assume SC was sponsoring the night because of the logo coming up, they still were not part of the transaction. Their confusion, or lack of confusion, shouldn't make any difference one way or the other in the legal status of a transaction in which they never participated.

That only leaves the singer who paid that dollar or two as the one to be looked at to determine if there was brand confusion. The typical singer only wants their song, and doesn't care one bit what producer made it. Someone entirely insensitive to brands is not a candidate for brand confusion.

That only leaves the singer who asks for a specific brand of song as the only relevant person possibly subject to brand confusion. But if they feel they have to ask for the SC version to get the SC version, clearly they can't think the KJ is a SC affiliate, or they would just expect to get the SC version without asking.

That leaves no relevant person left in the bar who might be subject to confusion over who the KJ might or might not represent. Zero.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:43 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4722
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 477 times
One of my hosts (now deceased) ALWAYS collected $1 from every singer for cancer research..he was also in a band and collected for every request made... he did this for years and for years before I met him...

When he passed away in 2003, he had collected and donated over a million dollars.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:43 am 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:24 pm
Posts: 2720
Been Liked: 616 times
I think it might be nice if Mr. Staley and Mr. Harrington decided to meet somewhere and have a beer together. This feud has been going on for far too long. It might be time to bury the hatchet and move on.

_________________
"Bud Light is good"


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:01 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6680
Songs: 1
Location: Hollyweird, Ca.
Been Liked: 709 times
Alan B wrote:
I think it might be nice if Mr. Staley and Mr. Harrington decided to meet somewhere and have a beer together. This feud has been going on for far too long. It might be time to bury the hatchet and move on.


<--- Not sure a hatchet is the best idea..


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:48 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4722
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 477 times
Alan B wrote:
I think it might be nice if Mr. Staley and Mr. Harrington decided to meet somewhere and have a beer together. This feud has been going on for far too long. It might be time to bury the hatchet and move on.


Why bother? Not only is he "moving on," he quit and no longer has a horse in the race does he?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 3:42 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
Alan B wrote:
I think it might be nice if Mr. Staley and Mr. Harrington decided to meet somewhere and have a beer together. This feud has been going on for far too long. It might be time to bury the hatchet and move on.


I've had him blocked for quite a long time now, and I don't give any thought to what he has to say, nor do I care about his opinions. He's a pirate who quit piracy before he got caught, and he's spent the last 9 years stewing over the fact that he couldn't run 7 systems anymore and looking for ways he could cause harm to a company that literally did nothing to him.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 5:19 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:55 pm
Posts: 4398
Location: New York City
Been Liked: 719 times
c. staley wrote:
One of my hosts (now deceased) ALWAYS collected $1 from every singer for cancer research..he was also in a band and collected for every request made... he did this for years and for years before I met him...

When he passed away in 2003, he had collected and donated over a million dollars.

That sounds great; however, the KJs/shows I was referring to did not charge people to sing so that the money would be donated to charity.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:52 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4722
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 477 times
cueball wrote:
That sounds great; however, the KJs/shows I was referring to did not charge people to sing so that the money would be donated to charity.

Maybe his wife, girlfriend or daughter was named "Charity."


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:01 pm 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster

Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:06 am
Posts: 820
Been Liked: 200 times
JimHarrington wrote:
Alan B wrote:
I think it might be nice if Mr. Staley and Mr. Harrington decided to meet somewhere and have a beer together. This feud has been going on for far too long. It might be time to bury the hatchet and move on.




I've had him blocked for quite a long time now, and I don't give any thought to what he has to say, nor do I care about his opinions. He's a pirate who quit piracy before he got caught, and he's spent the last 9 years stewing over the fact that he couldn't run 7 systems anymore and looking for ways he could cause harm to a company that literally did nothing to him.


A Pirate?? How So????

Oh..you mean a possible Media-Shifter...?

They ARE 2 different things! :withstupid:


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 132 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 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