Karaoke Forums

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.)

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..

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.




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).





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).



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

How PROFESSIONAL of YOU!!!!!

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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."

A Pirate?? How So????

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

They ARE 2 different things!