Karaoke Forums

Just blew Pepsi all over the keyboard- and still laughing!

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

PAYBACK! YAY!

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.



§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Pretty clear when it comes right down to it!

See, I told you so!

Give me a sec here.... I'm trying to find out if it's OK to use my electronics iron, or whether I have to use one of those big plumbers' irons...

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

You are the one who started it. Chip just re-post your post in the way most people here would read it: and that is the way I WOULD READ your post. If you want others to read your post the way you intend; then start writing in that manner. As it is you lost an argument and start calling for Mod's help; grow up, be a man.

_________________
I can neither confirm nor deny ever having or knowing anything about nothing.... mrscott

Hmmm.... Let's see....

Go to the [MENU] then the [EDIT]and click on [FIND] then type in "commercial" and click on [OK]...

"Phrase Not Found"

I have many that come to my shows who appear to only be there to criticise and comment. I was thinking about doing some research and perhaps teaching a class on the subject prior to each show. All of my singers will receive a schlorship to the class.

That should cover me legally I expect

I also have prepared several jokes to tell prior to the trademark logo display. I understand it's not actionable infringemnet if used for parody.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Thunder that's copyright law. You've said so yourself that manus aren't suing for copyright violations they're suing for trademark violations.

http://karaokescene.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=21409&p=298264&hilit=trademark#p298264


If copying cdg's to a pc is a copyright infringement then why wouldn't the manus sue for copyright infringement as well?

From what I've read in regards to Trademark law,which is the grounds on which you say they are suing, it refers to unauthorized use of the 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.

What are KJ's selling? Who are they confusing? Who made a mistake? Who is being deceived?

_________________
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.

1. What are KJ's selling?

KJ's sell services and subsequently open their karaoke "inventory" to use by a venue and it's patrons.

The display of their trademark is unauthorized in connection with such use. This is a fact that defines itself, de facto. If you did not obtain permission to copy(from original) and display their trademark prior to doing so, you have done so without authorization. The trademark is also IP, and an item or entity that stands alone as far as its value or validity.

2. Who are they confusing?

Everyone who witnesses the display and views the trademark to be representative of a genuine, authorized, manufacturers' product. A Trademark is a business's signature. To copy and display it is forgery, much like a forged signature on a perfectly valid check. The signature isn't real, it does not represent authorization though that could be mistakenly perceived by those who are deceived.


The mfr's paid the rights owners to reproduce their IP. The mfr's then create said copies and add their trademark as a part of the product that they in turn sell. The underlying compositions that the mfr's do not retain the rights on are subject to copyright infringement just like any other audio/visual work. The added trademark is subject to infringement separately from and/or in connection with the other components of the product either individually or partially or as a whole.

The trademark is the one thing that you can be certain that you own and control the rights to.

You're copying my trademark thousands of times and displaying it. I did not authorize you to do so. In fact, by registering that trademark, I explicitly prohibited you from infringing upon said trademark by creating unauthorized copies. Now that you've done so, I'm prepared to determine whether you've done so by purchasing/possessing 1 original for each and every copy. If I am satisfied that this is the case, I can choose not to sue you for unauthorized copying and displaying of MY trademark, in effect, authorizing you to copy/display my trademark under these terms and conditions.

The terms and conditions could be construed at least partially as the audit.

Still... would I pay for it?

_________________
Never the same show twice!

I see so you are saying it is OK to for me to do exactly the same thing as Chip, Joe and the rest are doing?

I didn't lose any arguement because no one has bothered to put a valid arguement forward to date.

Not seeking your help just trying to clarify what YOUR rules are and if they apply across the board, I guess from your answer here they apparently do not!

So again, it is OK for me to translate someone else's post for them correct? Or will you ban me for it the first time I do it?

Never mind I already know the answer to that question!

I could only give you what you asked for, you asked for a law that stated you could not copy your disc to the computer. I told you that I could not give you such a law but that I could give you the law that stated you could not copy the disc for use in anything but fair use situations and then I posted what fair use is according to the laws as written.

But since you want the laws concerning trademark I will post those for you as well.

U. S. TRADEMARK LAW
RULES OF PRACTICE
&
FEDERAL STATUTES

TITLE VI - REMEDIES
§ 32 (15 U.S.C. § 1114). Remedies; infringement; innocent infringers
(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.

And you are correct this is exactly what it is about,

(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;

Where you are losing the understanding is in the use of the word or there is a major difference between AND and OR in legal terms. "AND" is used as a connector for terms and phrases which would combine the terms as does a comma, "OR" on the other hand is a separator, when it is used it makes a distinction as seperate items of the words and phrases.

So what you are reading is this

Any person who shall without the consent of the registrant use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, in connection with services in which such use is likely to deceive.

And you can break each item down the same way, sale, offering for sale, distribution, advertising of any goods, services on or in connection with, confusion, cause mistake, deceive.

so even disc use is unauthorized for use in a venue?


to be fair, when the disc data is sent to be pressed, as i believe, it is sent in digital form as .BIN to be pressed, not sent to the presses as a disc. therefore, my .BIN files are actually more representative of original product than the disc is.



like the signature copies made into stamps and used at corporate offices around the world?



but the trademark can still not be displayed in a venue from a disc as you stated in the first sentence. that makes the rest a bit overkill, but i understand the point you are making.



again, i see your point

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

I still don't see where it says I can't copy the disc to my pc.

But based on what your saying, is it also illegal to copy my music cd's to my pc or onto my mp3 player as well?

Again if this was the case I'd think manus would be suing for copyright infringement and going after the hard drive sellers. Believe me they're not that elusive. They're on craigslist. ebay, even have their own websites.

In regards to Trademark, aren't the manus giving you permission to display their logo on the lyrics screen? If not then anyone doing karaoke, whether their 1:1, running discs, or a pirate, they're in violation of Trademark infringement.

If I had an actual cdg playing on one screen and a copy of the mp3+g version playing on another screen could you or anyone else be able to tell me the which was which?

_________________
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.

Okay, so there's all kinds of ways that you can describe their "unauthorized display" of their trademark. BUT, in the real scheme of things, let's take a look at what they are really doing:

SC doesn't have a problem suing (or threatening) anyone using a computer on the strictly the fact that you have "copied their trademark without written authorization." This gives them the opportunity to pitch their new product to lease.

But it is the amazing double-standard that is going on that I don't believe any of the proponents of their actions have realized:


#1. DUMP THE LIABILITY ON YOU:
SC doesn't want you to copy their logo (intellectual property) and use it without some sort of renumeration. It's a technicality that they will sue you for. However, when they do sell their new product, then attached to it (in the agreement) are no less than three indemnifications that you (the licensee) will hold SC harmless if you are sued by any "third party copyright owner" for basically any reason whatsoever. This completely covers them even if their new product is not licensed at all because you've agreed to be responsible to "obtain any and all permissions required prior to public performance" of their product. These sweeping indemnifications include any and all mechanical, synchronization and lyric reprint licensing with the publishers/copyright holders.

#2. REMIND YOU THAT COPYING IS ILLEGAL:
SC has stated time and time again, that they cannot grant you permission to make a copy of the products they sell that contain the copywritten intellectual property of a writer or publisher. They have reminded you that they "cannot grant a right which they do not own." (Sound familiar?)

#3 PROMISE NOT TO SUE YOU FOR ILLEGAL COPYING IF YOU PAY THEM
If you purchase their product, along with holding them harmless if you get sued by a publisher or third party copyright holder, they are agreeing not to sue you -the "covenant not to sue"- for doing exactly what they have reminded you is illegal: copying intellectual property from it's original media to a new media without permission or authorization. They freely admit that they cannot grant you a "license to copy" the content because they can't grant you what they don't have, right? So they simply promise not to sue you even though the publisher fully has the right to do so.

#4 SANCTION AND EVEN ASSIST YOU IN THIS ILLEGAL ACTIVITY
SC has created a product to lease to you - specifically designed to be illegally copied to your computer. Not only have you been given the green light to copy this product by SC (who cannot grant you that right), they've even facilitated that copying process for you by "pre-ripping" the tracks. Now, you don't even have to spend any time converting ("FORMAT shifting from cd+g to mp3+g") this product to playback on your computer. Kind of like letting the chop-shop steal the cars for you AND disassemble them - for your convenience of course - while you promise not to point a finger at them and take all the heat if you get caught and busted. You can simply and without authorization from the copyright holder, now copy ("MEDIA shift" from disc to hard drive) the content. And let's not kid ourselves here: "shifting" is actually "duplicating" because nothing is being "moved or shifted" it's being "copied."

--------------------------
Yeah.... it's promoting, enabling and facilitating piracy in my book and using our court system to help them.
They're not out to "fight piracy" or anything else - they're out to get money.... from you.

They don't go after the hard drive sellers because they need them to make more potential customers (or "suckers") for their product.

A copy is a copy. There are groups out there making a fortune from knock offs whether from the entertainment sector, fashion sector, or other sectors. Some knock offs are so good that even experts have problems distinguishing them, but they are still knock offs and still illegal.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

When the trademark appears on the screen what are you actually displaying?
It's not the trademark printed on the disk.

It's the computers translation of 1's and 0's. How the trademark is displayed is dependent on your player, tv, monitor, pc or whatever technology you are using.

Look I'm not a manu basher, a manu cheerleader, or a pirate, hell I'm not even a KJ.

I have a KJ rig and 5682 karaoke songs that I purchased on manus original media. I just want to be able to use them in mp3+G format and not worry having my name in a lawsuit that I should have never be in, in the first place. I don't have a problem showing my discs proving my 1:1. I don't feel I should have to pay for this or that I should have to waive any personal rights in the process either.

_________________
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.

Sorry, but the courts won't slice that technicality that thinly because you don't see the 1's and 0's... you see a trademark no matter if it's on a tv, pc monitor or even projected on a rock.



If you're not a KJ (using these products for commercial purposes), then what's the worry?

Because I want to be doing this for commercial purposes. Couple of weeks ago I had talked to someone from CB on here about doing the audit and have been in the process of getting my library organized so that I could do my audit. Now that I've got that all straightened out I went to their site to setup the audit and that's when I found the $199 verbiage.

_________________
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 see no problem with that! If someone is to make a copy of a trademark or copyrighted work without permission of the registrant or copyright holder, they do leave themselves open to being named in a lawsuit.


Based on information the trademark/copyright owner may have regarding unauthorised copies they, with no mitigating information, may well consider the user of said copies to be infringing their rights (ie. a "pirate").


Not at all. Just because someone is named in a lawsuit does not mean they are guilty. The plaintiff may believe they are, but the judgement determines guilt or innocence.