Karaoke Forums

That wouldn't fly since you did not have permission to make a copy of the Sound Choice trademark from the registrar in the first place. But hey, you are certainly most welcomed to try!

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

Point me to the legal authority that states by shifting the media (1:1) from which I play the content I have violated Trademark law.

I do believe I stated that it was a hobby for 20 years, it has only been a hobby/business for a little over 15 years. You might think it is turning tail and running. I think a wise person doesn't put themselves, their business, and the venue they work for at risk, by promoting a product, where the manufacturer want's to punish or charge the customer what amounts to an extra tax, to use said product. Maybe I'm not the Professional you seem to be, but at least I'll admit that no one has all the answers. That is why we go on this forum the exchange of ideas and views on different matters. If I stay in the business another 7 years, at least I can say that I have tried to help all that have asked for aide. What's more amusing is this belief that the manus are the only solution to the piracy problem. Then of course we already had the discussion on bending the knee situation, right. I would rather be befuddled about bands, than be confused about what it right and what is not. The methods employed by SC are wrong and as a result I can see no reason to support their product, or line their pockets. Oh I'm booked through October, then I think I will take off for the holidays and come back after New Year's. I'm sure the Professional that you are, will be working the holidays, I have already reached my earning goals for this year.

I guess that's why a venue pays the songwriter (via ASCAP/BMI) to use the songwriter's product in a public performance at that venue!



Gosh Dang! I guess all those big-wig radio station owners out there just ain't that smart huh Lone Ranger?

I think your doing the venue, singers, and yourself a dis-service by not offering the most popular brand of karaoke made, especially if you already have it in your library. By agreeing to the audit, I have assured myself and my venue of nothing but happy times. My singers get to sing the songs they want to sing by the manu they requested. That's called "good business" where I'm from. Pulling these tracks made no sense.

How are my customers at risk for me playing SC??

_________________
Sound Choice and Chartbuster Certified

Like I have stated before not one singer has ever requested specifically SC by name. They have on some occasions asked me if I had DK. If a singer was to request SC that would send up to me a red flag. Especially if it were not one of my regulars that I know on a first name basis. You are free to use what ever product you want, just like I do. The lack of SC in my library as not hurt my business to date, so I think I made the right business decision. I don't have to be audited and of course get milked every year by farmer SC. Then again those are all decisions made by hosts on an individual basis. Rather than a dis-service I think I'm taking prudent steps to protect everyone that deals with me. Most of the time I'm simply asked if I have a song, not what brand it is, if a singer is that picky they almost always want to use their disc, that they practice at home with. Even though I might have the very same version.

I think a wise person, eliminates fear and lack of information/knowledge from the decision making process in order to reduce risk and/or cost.

The distinction you are not making (possibly because it is not relevant to you) is that when you purchased the CD+G from SC you were granted certain, very specific rights to the copyrighted content and registered trademarks contained on that disc. Among those rights was not the right to copy the trademark to a hard disc. If you are not using a computer and have not attempted to use tracks sourced from a hard disc, then you have nothing to fear because you have not infringed upon their trademark. There is no additional cost if you do not seek permission for the copy & use of that trademark. This is business and if you see the fee as punishment or a tax, do not engage in the activity for which the punishment or tax would be assessed.




I'm not comparing our "Professional" standing, I'm observing a certain attitude in your posts that I believe to be fatalistic. You suggest what you do then you say something to the effect of "if it doesn't work out, oh well, it doesn't matter anyway". You talk about retiring and/or watching the entire industry collapse while you and your efforts to help go unheeded. It's really a bit melodramatic.



I'll raise you an amusing when I read posts like this, that completely ignore the facts. No one has stated the the mfr's are the ONLY solution to the piracy problem. Right now, they are the only ones who will do anything about it. That may change (time frame here) as there are initiatives in a couple of places that are involving state and local liquor licensing agencies to combat hiring of pirate host/KJ's. There are also a growing number of host/KJ's who believe that WE should be handling the vetting process and that the mfr's should communicate directly with OUR organization to eliminate host/KJ's as suspected infringers. There are many people who grasp the big picture here and I assure you that the alternatives to mfr control are being discussed. Please take the time to comprehend what I've told you... you've even posted in other threads on this board that contradict your statement above.



Befuddled is acceptable to you? I'm certainly not befuddled, nor am I confused about what is right or not. The methods employed by SC are what they are. Your opinion of them causes a negative result for you. You already supported their product and lined their pockets. You choose to deprive your audience and yourself the benefit of your legal purchase and use of a CD+G. That has zero effect on SC and zero effect on piracy. You've created a bogeyman in your head and because your fear/flight response is triggered, you aren't going to listen when you're told that the bogeyman isn't real. You cannot clearly state nor verify "the methods employed by SC". How can you reach a conclusion or judge their actions? Are you giving more weight to their past mistakes than you are giving the facts regarding their motivation and activities as presented on this forum by their attorney? Stay befuddled, it'll be easier for you. Blissful much?



October is my "off-season". I drop one of my weekly shows for the month and I head out to explore the beautiful state of Colorado (and attend others' karaoke shows). That being said, if I can book weekly shows at any time, I will. You bet I work through the holidays... I cover resort towns in ski country... the holidays are the busiest time of year and I have singers from all over the world who show up every year and seek out my shows. I surpassed my earning goals for the year... I just love what I do for a living.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

Wow! You too?

I got my ski pass & ski in the afternoon at one of the most beautiful resorts at Lake Tahoe. After a relaxing hot tub, it's off to my karaoke show for all them international tourists!

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

You're kidding right??
She said AUTHORITY.
Seems like you're have a lot of word comprehension problems lately.
You might want to get that checked out.

You're kidding right??
She said AUTHORITY.
Seems like you're have a lot of word comprehension problems lately.
You might want to get that checked out.[/quote]

Should be something more like this.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D81vBcKf ... re=related

Wow I didn't know Singyoassoff was a she I always thought it was a he. Where did you get the she info?

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

Actually, it was an assumption on my part. i apologize if I'm wrong.

Well...let's get to the bottom of it...

Hey Singyoassoff....what flavor are you? (if you want to say).

Birdofsong

_________________
Birdofsong

Used to be on our posting display....course you could lie. I've made the gender mistake a few times on here......I'm beginning to question my own sexuality.... ...well, at least if I should turn out to be a female......I'm for sure a lesbian...this I'm quite comfortable with......

(1)

Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant--
(a)

use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or
(b)

reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or colorably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive, shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter provided. Under subsection (b) hereof, the registrant shall not be entitled to recover profits or damages unless the acts have been committed with knowledge that such imitation is intended to be used to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.

so it has to be shown that i did it with the intent to deceive or cause confusion. what exactly would i be trying to deceive people to think anyway? i don't get that part. all i have seen is that it would deceive people into thinking that SC is endorsing me or my show, but they are not. if i use the discs, i would still be deceiving people into thinking that SC is endorsing me or my show. i have no intent to deceive anybody. i just show them that i procure the best versions of tracks i can find for them and many times it happens to be SC. yeah i did the audit, but i would also like to see the law that says 1:1 is trademark infringement, cuz this one ain't it.

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

My understanding is...

When making a copy of a trademark without consent of the trademark owner and subsequently displaying said trademark, you are deceiving the viewer as to the source of that trademark and as to its authenticity.

The source of that trademark is not authorized (read: permission granted) by the trademark holder. By its very nature, a trademark must represent an authorized product, anything else would render the trademark meaningless. That is why they can claim infringement and incur damages by its unauthorized use.

1:1 isn't okay all by itself without proper permissions and verification.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

How is that possible unless you take an SC trademark and attach it to a Nutech track? The Trademark is SC's, the audio track is no longer Sc's, the lyrics were never SC's, and the copyrights for the underlying musical work were never SC's either.

I have purchased the disc which authorizes me to use those songs in my show, SC has already authorized (by permission) that I can use a copy and maintain that original media in archive. Because the audio and video source is a hard drive and not the original media, it does not -by that fact alone - invalidate my (paid for) rights to use them. I paid for 1 copy and I'm using 1 copy. No harm, no foul.


"permissions" are a moot point if you're 1:1 in ANY case. Sue if you can prove a KJ is NOT - don't use a lawsuit as a tool to search for that same evidence you don't already have. That's a misuse of the legal system.

"Verification?" That's baloney. This is not the eastern European block.

Paying every year to use a hard drive for tracks you paid for already is simply extortion in the form of protection money in my opinion. I also firmly believe that any jury would see it the same way - regardless of the permissions you assert that are only legal thread so vital to your stance.