Karaoke Forums

Oregon SC Lawsuits story runs on KS Magazine AND KS Magazine Digital Version around LA area.
http://karaokescene.com/de/

_________________
"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

The next step in covering Oregon Lawsuit progress.....an ongoing set of artlicles featuring KJ's/Venues who are certified/got legit and are good to go. First in this series is MR.B's Lounge in Troutdale with KJ Big Mike. Stories in NWKGuide.

http://www.themedallion.net/publicftp/2 ... 202-12.pdf

It will be up on the nwkaraokeguide.net website shortly along with photos of the venue.

_________________
"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

**************
*****LIKE******
**************

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

Here's the Mr. B's story with all the photos on the website with it.

http://www.nwkaraokeguide.net/oregon/%E ... -troutdale

Couple pics of CHRIS AVIS singing too who was with me visiting from Seattle area.

_________________
"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

That is a LOT of scenario.

So, to get around all this, one would only need to make the VENUE aware what SC and CB could do to them. Then, ask the Venue to tell the CURRENT KJ to get rid of ALL the SC and CB tracks and to NEVER play them at their Venue again. If the KJ refuses or is unable to comply by the next Show (all those KJs with Books....Ha Ha), then a NEW KJ takes over.

No competition here, as the VENUE stated, categorically, NO to SC and CB.

Anyone can come up with a SCENARIO.

My problem with this scenario is this:


If I recall correctly, in another thread, Chris Avis states that he has 40,000 tracks and hasn't done his first gig yet.

Based on the scenario above, he would be targeted for legal action as well.

Chip - Your memory is failing OR you are fabricating again.

I have stated several times that I have been in operations for a year and a half.
I stated in your recent thread that I had just "shy of 40,000 tracks".

I have a near complete DK set, a complete SGB set, Pioneer discs, and other rare stuff that I showed to Sound Choice as a part of my audit.

I also did not pull any manufacturer.
I also don't use books.
I am also 46.

I am also certified and audited.

You are not omniscient.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

So, basically your problem is that you think we need to have proof beyond all reasonable doubt before we bring a case?

Not even prosecutors in criminal cases are held to that standard.



If that were true, and if Chris hadn't been proactive in getting audited, then yes, he would be targeted for legal action if an investigator visited his show and identified enough indicia of infringement to meet our standards.

A thought - If your recollection of the situation is that I had not done my first gig yet, then how could I have been investigated to determine anything from the Harrington quote above?

Wait - Let me channel Chip for a moment and predict how the verbal tennis match will proceed from here -

Chip - "They proved in Rodney's case that they don't investigate anyway!!!!!"

Chris - "So they would would have just filed suit against a non-existant show with no investigation?"

Chip - "They proved in Rodney's case that they don't investigate anyway!!!!!"

Chris - "But you quoted Harrington's investigation criteria which would be the premise of an investigtion and the path to filing suit? If I am not even doing a show, how could they have come to that determination to file suit?"

<insert massive wall of word vomit containing "Chip Staley Generated Quotes" [<--- (c) 2012 by Chris E. Avis.....T-Shirts/bumper stickers/coffee mugs/baseball caps and more in the works] and lots of oversized, bolded, italicized text and out of context snippets, followed by......>

Chip - "They proved in Rodney's case that they don't investigate anyway!!!!!"

Someone bump Chip, the record is skipping and it is getting old....

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

I don't see anything wrong with Chip or what he is saying. I actually Like seeing a Good conversation covering all the bases. My only let down is Harrington law not answering How will they prevent Future Acts of piracy, What can they do ( As in sound choice) Not to Send innocent KJ's into Court( Yeah I know You want to extort me 125.00 for an audit first). Yeah you state SC gives permission to Media shift But they don't have the rights to that Only to look the other way. Also Counsil Why did or does SC Help the pirates in the first place? Bury them. If you made an example of them we wouldnt have all these lovely back and forths. MY 2 cents.

Chip hasnt in mind been a problem, has never spoken for any pirates. I am a Nooby here on the forums But I like his angle. Sorry I don't believe much of what a lawyer says ( I've been to court for Divorce) If he was paid for by KJ's his tunes would be completly different and Thus would tear down What he has said in the past. IMHO


AGAIN I do not like Pirates. Don't help them Don't Know them don't wanna Know them. I deal with them Doing regular shows ( My Dance club gigs / Non Karaoke) trying to under cut my gigs But you can't replace Talent

The PUBLIC FORUMS » Karaoke Discussions » Karaoke Legalities, Piracy and more... would be such a happy quite place if everyone thought the same way and agreed on everything.

But its my experience if everyone is thinking the same thing.....some of them aren't thinking.

_________________
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.

I'd be happy if people would just reduce their use of animated smilies...

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

B)

_________________
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.

SC can give permission (and does, under specified conditions) to shift the trademark as applied to the goods, which is under SC's sole control.

SC can also give permission (and does, under specified conditions) to shift the audiovisual work when SC owns the copyright in the track--a non-trivial number of tracks. Please note that the copyright in the audiovisual work is a separate set of rights from those vested in the music publisher with respect to the underlying musical work.

With regard to other rights, SC doesn't own those rights, so it cannot give permission to do anything with regard to those rights. However, we have analyzed the question; we think that as long as you adhere to the media-shifting policy--particularly the 1:1 correspondence rule--then it would be very difficult for a music publisher to bring a suit against you at all, even if the music publisher were inclined to do so.

I do want to be very clear about this, because a lot of people have made statements that simply are not true. When you pass an audit as part of the certification process, the media-shifting permission that comes with that is for the rights that SC controls. It is not merely a question of "looking the other way" as you state above.



If you are deciding what you think of lawyers based upon what happened in your divorce, I would encourage you to broaden your experience a bit. Divorce law is nasty and emotional. The acrimony of divorce makes it easy to suspect the lawyers of unethical behavior.

As you might imagine, I have dealt with a lot of attorneys who represent pirate KJs and other defendants in our cases. Most of the time there is little dispute over the law in these cases. The dispute is over facts (whether and how much infringement occurred) and over settlement figures. I don't take cases based upon who is paying me. Unlike some attorneys (but like a lot of attorneys), my opinions don't change because someone writes a check. I take on a client based upon what they want to accomplish and whether we can get there based upon the law and the facts.

Look, we all know that you are suing to recover losses of pirated material that is being used for personal gain.

Your basis to pursue is a TM counterfeit, as you don't have the right to sue for Media-Shifting, and, upon a pre-suit KJ initiated and paid for audit, you will recognize the counterfeit TM as legal and give the KJ permission to use the Media-Shifted TM.

I think that I would argue that, since a TM is encoded into the GRAPHICS code along with the Lyrics, you would not be able to give permission to recognize the Counterfeit as Legal without giving the KJ the impression that the WHOLE Media-Shifted Graphics CODE was LEGAL.

Seems to me, at that point, SC becomes culpable in allowing the Media-Shift which, as SC knows, is NOT LEGAL.

Now, since most believe, as stated in previous threads, that it is unlikely that the Artists and Producers would come after the common KJ...throwing good money after bad....so-to-speak...I wonder how many of them would come after SC...the one with the DEEP POCKET...once they are made aware that SC is giving the KJ the impression that it is OK to use the MEDIA-SHIFTED Tracks...simply because SC gives permission to use the MEDIA-SHIFTED SC TM?

So, either it is wrong to use MEDIA-SHIFTED tracks to begin with or SC is giving the KJs the impression that, again, because SC gave permission to use their TM, it is now OK to use the Media-Shifted Tracks.

So, I think that SC should have a disclaimer that they are NOT giving permission to use MEDIA-SHIFTED Tracks, even though, SC is giving permission to use their TM...that is encoded in the Graphics CODE of a MEDIA-SHIFTED Track. You cannot separate the TWO.

So, why are we going through an AUDIT to get PERMISSION when SC, at the end of the day, doesn't have the right to tell you that you can use a MEDIA-SHIFTED Track?

Because they want you, the KJ, to believe that, by a TM PERMISSION GRANTED AUDIT, the KJ is now OK to use a NON LEGAL MEDIA-SHIFTED TRACK.

I think this is grossly misleading and the Producers and Artists need to know what SC is doing immediately!!

Ok now I'm confused.

Is there a the difference in SC's IP rights as oppossed to the music publishers IP rights?

How is it SC can sue for IP rights yet it would be very difficult for a music pulisher to do so?

_________________
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.

Oh My this is getting good

It is wrong to media-shifted SC products without their permission but it is OK to media-shift any other manufacturer's product if they are out of the karaoke business or if you just can't find a way to get in touch with them. This is what I've seen on these forums anyway.... Bottom line is, other manufacturers DON'T CARE if you media-shift their karaoke, they expect you to, it's 20frickin12!

Yes, there is a difference. First, SC has trademark rights that the music publishers do not have. Second, there are copyrights in various embodiments of a particular musical work, all of which may be owned separately (and frequently are). In a typical karaoke track, there are the following elements, each of which is separately copyrightable:

1) The underlying music. (The instrumental portion is what I am referring to here.)
2) The lyrics.
3) The recording of the accompaniment of the musical work, which is a representation of #1 and a piece of #2.
4) The visual portion of the display--essentialy, the lyric sweeps, which is a representation of #2.
5) The synchronized audiovisual work (3 plus 4).

For 1, 2, 4, and 5, there are five rights (reproduction, adaptation, distribution, public performance, and public display). For 3, there are only three rights (the first three; there is no public performance right in a phonorecord).

Numbers 1 and 2 are usually owned by the music publisher or the songwriter.

Number 3 is owned by the karaoke manufacturer (such as SC), but the creation of that recording only requires a mechanical license from the publisher, and that license is compulsory.

Number 4 is owned by the manu, but the owner of the lyrics can prevent it from being created (which means that the manu must get a license to make it).

Number 5 is owned by the manu, but the manu must get a license from the publisher or publishers who own the rights in 1 and 2 in order to make it.

The track embodies all five of these rights groups, and an act of infringement is potentially actionable by any of those five rights owners.

In SC's case, a lot of the catalogue was sold to Stingray (and licensed back), so there are copyrights that Stingray owns that it could enforce if it wanted to. Some of the catalogue remains in SC's hands, so SC can enforce those copyrights if it wants to.



The pirate KJ is reproducing and publicly performing the audiovisual work, and he is also making and using a counterfeit of the goods with the trademark attached. The problem with copyright, of course, is that copyright has a fairly extensive "fair use" policy. Without a doubt, the copyright owner could go after the pirate KJ, as could SC. The copyright owner will have a much harder time enforcing copyright against the media-shifter (legal except for the trademark issues) who is sitting at 1:1 correspondence, because of fair use and other restrictions on copyright based upon media-shifting. SC, as the trademark owner, has a clear field, because trademark fair use is much more narrowly circumscribed.

The line between "pirate KJ" and "mostly legal media-shifter" is not that easy to spot without low-level system access. Once we have low-level system access (via an audit), we can see that line very clearly. The "mostly legal media-shifter" who has been audited is unlikely to see an action from the copyright owner for a lot of reasons--size, fair use defenses, and first-sale defenses. That's a lot for a music publisher to overcome, especially for an uncertain return when they are likely to get nominal damages at best.