Karaoke Forums

I have to agree. In spite of me proactively getting certified, I don't believe that a host *must be certified* to be employable. I went for certification in part to use as marketing and in part to hopefully avoid any issues with the manufacturer's going forward. I am not entirely convinced that getting certified will keep Sound Choice from filing though so I am unsure if that latter part of my reason will turn out to be valid.

I recently put an ad on Craigslist advertising my business and looking for a venue to have me. I was careful to mention that even if they do not hire me to be sure to ask whomever they do hire to simply prove they are legal with or without certification. I mention the same thing in my face-to-face conversations.

One can be 100% legal without certification. The venues just have to be diligent in asking for proof.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

With two tiny exceptions, I endorse this approach. I mention these two exceptions primarily for the benefit of others who may be reading this, since I know you know what the policy is.

One, being on the certified list will certainly keep you from being sued. (The recent problem with a disc-based host is being resolved--I'm just waiting on a confirmatory filing. He wasn't a certified host, however, and there were explanatory circumstances for his being named--an explanation, not an excuse, and procedures are being revised to avoid that problem in the future.)

Two, certification is required if you are conducting a media-shift. You can do it proactively and avoid a suit, or you can do it reactively and get out of a suit. The latter is more dangerous because being discovered to be out of compliance means it is more difficult to settle the suit.

This is correct, in that you don't need SC or CB to run a legal karaoke show. However, I will point out that the most recent suits I've filed have also included unfair competition claims based upon use of pirated material belonging to any manufacturer. Using pirated material, regardless of the source, damages the entire industry and is anticompetitive. (Obviously if you have permission from that manufacturer to have the copies, it's not pirated.) So while a venue probably shouldn't be told not to hire a KJ who isn't SC or CB certified, it is perfectly "in bounds" to tell venues to verify the legal status of their operators before hiring them and hold them accountable if they don't.

How would you go about suing someone on "unfair competition claims based upon use of pirated material belonging to any manufacturer" if that person is not using soundchoice tracks?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Doesn't "unfair competition" mean the individual being accussed has to be a competitor of your client?

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1):

Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—

(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or

(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities,

shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

The last part says that ANY person who believes he or she is likely to be damaged by that act can sue, not just the trademark owner.

Not necessarily, for the reason stated above.

In any event, by making (or directing the making of) copies of competing karaoke tracks, a pirate KJ is a competitor of SC.

This sounds more like a threat than clarification and slander if stated. "So while a venue probably shouldn't be told not to hire a KJ who isn't SC or CB certified, it is perfectly "in bounds" to tell venues to verify the legal status of their operators before hiring them and hold them accountable if they don't." Then not fully explaining how to do this verification!

Just as long as whoever is "telling" the venues is perfectly clear on what "legal" is, as opposed to "certified" by some karaoke mfr. . Not doing so- and possibly damaging the business of a legal host who just might not be "certified"- may well be actionable due to possible misrepresentation, and/or statements designed to mislead or misle.

For instance, the letter template that I have seen does not make it very clear that SC is targeting media shifters/PC hosts, nor does it make it clear that disc based hosts using mfrs. original discs are not culpable in regard to SC suits. WHY IS THAT?

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

I understand the law that allows for someone to take action. My curiosty is how one would be able to initiate a suit against a suspected offender when one's own property is not involved. What kind of evidence would be required? How would one gather evidence without the display of their own trademark and without the cooperation of the actual trademark owner?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm genuinely curious.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I didn't take your question as argumentative. It's actually a really good question. From a legal perspective, the concept is referred to as "standing," and it requires that the plaintiff suffer an actual or imminent, distinct, and palpable injury; that the injury bear a causal connection to the defendant's conduct; and that the injury be redressable through the court action.

Let's say there is a bar that has karaoke every night, and the KJ that services that bar is fully legal, certified, regular customer of SC. A new KJ goes to the bar owner and says, "I've got 100,000 songs in my book, and I will work for half of what your current guy is working for." The bar owner says, "Is all of your music legal? Because those SC guys came around and told us we have to check or they might sue us." KJ: "Hey, I bought my hard drive for cash money. But anyway, no problem. I don't use any SC or CB, and the other manufacturers don't sue anybody." So the first KJ gets fired and has to stop buying SC's music because he's out of a job.

So the SC investigative team comes in and looks in the book. He's got lots of tracks listed, including listing them by manu, more than 100,000 in the book. But SC and CB are conspicuously absent. They see PHM, AS, SGB, and even some Pioneer and DK tracks, rare stuff that only people who have been in the business a long time are likely to have legitimately. The KJ is a 20-year-old kid who has been in the business 5 minutes.

From that situation, it's pretty clear what's going on. The KJ has pirated his material--although he's conscientious enough not to use the brands that he knows will get him sued--and as a direct result, the legal guy, the long-time SC customer, has been kicked out of a job. That's a textbook case of unfair competition, and as long as SC can show damage from it, it will have standing to pursue a case without the other manus being involved. Of course, if the KJ can get the manus to give him permission, he can plead that as a defense to the suit. But "I have a license" is an affirmative defense, not a bar to suit in the first place.

It has taken us a long time to get to where we are, but it is only going to get tougher on pirate KJs from here. The Lanham Act gives us the tools to go after them on a lot of different fronts, and we're pursuing it as fast as our finances will allow.

I find it strange that you feel the Lanham Act, a 1946 law, will give you the tools to battle pirate KJs since the technologies being used were not even dreams when Truman signed that law into existance!

What does technology have to do with it? Unauthorized copying is unauthorized copying whether the copy is made on a 1400's Gutenberg Press or a 2012 Apple computer.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Bumped, and hoping for a reply from Mr. Harrington, if he would be so kind..

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Back to Original Topic--Geographic reach of Oregon Investigations;

I have come to learn within the last 3 days that SC investigators in Oregon have been to further remote locations throught the state that include:
Klamath Falls, Bend, Medford, Ashland, Roseburg, Corvallis, Grants Pass.

Not informed yet on whether they have gone east to La Grande, Pendleton, Ontario, Hermiston, Enterprise or Central Oregon locations such as Madras, The Dalles, Hood River, Prineville, etc.

Neither any word on Coast locations such as Brookings, Coos Bay, Lincoln City, Florence, Newport, Seaside, Astoria or etc etc.

More info to come as I hear it.

_________________
"You know that I sing the Blues and I do not suffer fools. When I'm on that silver mic, it's gonna cut ya, just like a knife"-The SWINGCAT

Since you are keeping yourself informed of where SC has hit throughout Portland, how about you following up with some of those places, and KJs. See how they operate and what their story is. Maybe you can judge whether SC's Lawyers' investigative methods have changed (for the better) or not.

The letters that I send out are sent after a host has been sued, to venues served by hosts who use computers or other forms of media-shifting. Since my letters aren't sent to venues serviced by "original media" hosts, it never occurred to me to raise that issue in the letter. I'm happy to modify future letters to make that clear.

Except when they are -- we have seen a case where a CDG-based host was sued.* So it is good you are making the change.


* I understand it wasn't you who sent the message in question, but there is no reason to believe that couldn't happen.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

The Trademark Act of 1946 has been revised several times since 1946. Aside from that, the mere fact that people have found new ways to infringe does not mean that the old principles no longer apply. Sometimes technology outpaces the law. Other times, technology just makes it easier or faster to break the law.

While I am grateful that you will do so- after suit- I am aware of SC "educational" mailings that haven't been so clear.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."