Karaoke Forums

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.

Just a quick word; I don't have a lot of time today.

You are mistaken about the ownership status of the material being sold. The audio track, lyrics, and copyrights for the underlying musical work are licensed to SC for the express purpose of making a product (the CD) which is expressly controlled by SC. (Also, while Stingray does own the major portion of SC's back catalogue, SC does retain the copyright in a not-insignificant number of tracks that were produced after the Stingray transaction.) When a KJ makes a copy of that CD without SC's permission, with the SC trademark attached to the copy, that is a counterfeit.

SC might not be able to get damages from a KJ who is 1:1 (without permission), but injunctive relief is available nevertheless. In any event, our focus has been primarily on the pirate KJ who is not 1:1.

SC has developed a method for KJs who are using these counterfeit tracks on a 1:1 basis, by undergoing an audit to verify compliance. The expense of the audit is hardly a profit center for SC--the price is set to defray the expense of conducting the audit. SC's focus continues to be on profiting from the sale of CDs and on creating an environment where that is possible.

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.

I'm just wondering what bugs you most, the fact that I can survive in the market with without SC, or is it the fact that you feel you can't survive without them? If they do go under what are you going to do, probably shift to other producers, right. Harrington law as stated on another post that basically they are protecting the old SC library and it would not be profitable for them to make new product, keep that in mind.

As far as the fatalism goes, I realize my limitations as one host, trying to take on established company, but in my small way I protest, a gesture no matter how futile gives me the sense that something was done. If other hosts would be interested in setting up a fund to hire a lawyer to test in court system SC's rights under their shifting policy, I would come closer to donating 125.00 for that, than paying for an audit, and yearly checkups.

Just a quick word; I don't have a lot of time today.

You are mistaken about the ownership status of the material being sold. The audio track, lyrics, and copyrights for the underlying musical work are licensed to SC for the express purpose of making a product (the CD) which is expressly controlled by SC. (Also, while Stingray does own the major portion of SC's back catalogue, SC does retain the copyright in a not-insignificant number of tracks that were produced after the Stingray transaction.) When a KJ makes a copy of that CD without SC's permission, with the SC trademark attached to the copy, that is a counterfeit.

SC might not be able to get damages from a KJ who is 1:1 (without permission), but injunctive relief is available nevertheless. In any event, our focus has been primarily on the pirate KJ who is not 1:1.

SC has developed a method for KJs who are using these counterfeit tracks on a 1:1 basis, by undergoing an audit to verify compliance. The expense of the audit is hardly a profit center for SC--the price is set to defray the expense of conducting the audit. SC's focus continues to be on profiting from the sale of CDs and on creating an environment where that is possible.

Just wonder all you want, if it distracts you from your navel gazing...

You are not in "the market". You are, according to you, a hobbyist whose market is limited to blue haired old ladies and hermits who don't sing or like music other than that produced 20 years ago by DK. Sitting around waiting to die and assuming that what you offer is the best available passes for entertainment in your neck of the woods. Doesn't bother me at all. I've told you before, I find it mildly amusing at best.

I never stated that I can't survive without Sound Choice. I've always held the position that if you intend to use their product, it is in everyone's best interest to do so in a legal manner. You really do have a comprehension problem if you believe that my library is reliant on ANY one manufacturer. I am expecting another 120+ cdg's to arrive this week... only 15 OOP SC discs among them. SC tracks total over 10,000 in my collection right now and I can use every single one of them without infringing on SC's trademark, because I have permission to do so from the trademark owner. That is about 17% of my total number of tracks (with duplicates). You're mistaken if you believe that I am reliant on ANY SINGLE mfr to run my business.

You are misquoting what Mr. Harrington stated. I also have direct contact with mgmt at Sound Choice and I can tell you that I've had several conversations regarding future releases and how they might be offered and what they might contain. The difficult part is to make it profitable while there are still host/KJ's out there that will steal it and copy it without permission. While you were not understanding what was being related to you, did you also miss the point that Sound Choice's available product is STILL in demand and selling just fine. Foundations 1 & 2, all the bricks & mortar series, individual Spotlight discs, Star Series, Power Picks, etc and don't forget the GEM series at $4500 for 6000 unduplicated tracks (complete). You got the sales numbers on those? I don't think so. You have an inventory report from their warehouse? No? Do you know how many GEM series were created/sold in the last year? No? Do you have any idea what the deals with American Idol and/or Karaoke Channel represent as far as income generated by SC's business model? iTunes?

Get a clue. Better still, remain clueless and ineffectual.

By saying SC's focus continues to be on profiting from the sale of CD's, that means product that has already been developed, right. Since SC has made no new product going on 3 years now. This creating an environment where that is possible, I take it to mean the new core business of SC professional legal litigation. So if SC is not producing any new product, what you are protecting is the trademark of all the old library. The only product you will be renting is the new GEM series, which in fact is the old library. Is this correct?

As for the GEM series...that product is licensed along the same lines as computer software is licensed. I don't think the term "renting" is legally accurate, but for a layman that is probably close enough.

........ I'm just wondering what bugs you most, the fact that I can survive in the market with without SC, or is it the fact that you feel you can't survive without them? If they do go under what are you going to do, probably shift to other producers, right. .

Thanks Thunder & welcome back!

Really???
When I purchase the license to use, (because that's only what you can do with software), someones software I can use it on any computer I feel like, (as long as it's only 1 at a time unless I purchase more licenses), and I can move it from computer to computer, (as long as I delete it from old computer) just by telling the manufacture of the software that I wish to do so AND THEY DON'T CHARGE ME.
They don't charge me anymore fees for using it and they don't make me get an audit to make sure I have the disc, (because most software is downloaded from their site), to use it EVEN COMMERCIALLY.
I'm just wondering what would happen if Microsoft did what SC is doing and made every computerized KJ show their disc for XP or Vista every time the show computer is booted and their TRADEMARK flashes across the screen.

Really???
When I purchase the license to use, (because that's only what you can do with software), someones software I can use it on any computer I feel like, (as long as it's only 1 at a time unless I purchase more licenses), and I can move it from computer to computer, (as long as I delete it from old computer) just by telling the manufacture of the software that I wish to do so AND THEY DON'T CHARGE ME.
They don't charge me anymore fees for using it and they don't make me get an audit to make sure I have the disc, (because most software is downloaded from their site), to use it EVEN COMMERCIALLY.
I'm just wondering what would happen if Microsoft did what SC is doing and made every computerized KJ show their disc for XP or Vista every time the show computer is booted and their TRADEMARK flashes across the screen.

GREAT point. A library dependant KJ is just that. Anyone who can afford the same library is just as good? Seriously?

Also, no one seems to want to answer a question that I've posed to several:

What "inferior" brand do the SC dependant use for music made from 2007-2008 to the current time? Or do the songs in the library only go up to that time?

CB makes great country tracks, but really isn't all that for others

Stellar is great for quick production of new songs, but the quality is generic karaoke.

So...... who are they using?

I don't think the term "renting" is legally accurate, but for a layman that is probably close enough.

Just a quick word; I don't have a lot of time today.

You are mistaken about the ownership status of the material being sold. The audio track, lyrics, and copyrights for the underlying musical work are licensed to SC for the express purpose of making a product (the CD) which is expressly controlled by SC. (Also, while Stingray does own the major portion of SC's back catalogue, SC does retain the copyright in a not-insignificant number of tracks that were produced after the Stingray transaction.) When a KJ makes a copy of that CD without SC's permission, with the SC trademark attached to the copy, that is a counterfeit.

SC might not be able to get damages from a KJ who is 1:1 (without permission), but injunctive relief is available nevertheless. In any event, our focus has been primarily on the pirate KJ who is not 1:1.

SC has developed a method for KJs who are using these counterfeit tracks on a 1:1 basis, by undergoing an audit to verify compliance. The expense of the audit is hardly a profit center for SC--the price is set to defray the expense of conducting the audit. SC's focus continues to be on profiting from the sale of CDs and on creating an environment where that is possible.

SC might not be able to get damages from a KJ who is 1:1...

Hey Wall! It appears that your authority here, the IP ATTORNEY, just affirmed the position of the "LEGAL ASSISTANT."

Wow..it actually appears that I might know what I'm talking about. Of course, I never had a doubt.

Birdofsong

SC might not be able to get damages from a KJ who is 1:1 (without permission), but injunctive relief is available nevertheless.

injunctive relief n. a court-ordered act or prohibition against an act or condition which has been requested, and sometimes granted, in a petition to the court for an injunction. Such an act is the use of judicial (court) authority to handle a problem, and is not a judgment for money. Whether the relief will be granted is usually argued by both sides in a hearing rather than in a full-scale trial, although sometimes it is part of a lawsuit for damages and/or contract performance. Historically, the power to grant injunctive relief stems from English equity courts rather than damages from law courts.

Seems you cut a lot of quotes short when you need.