|
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
| Author |
Message |
|
mrmarog
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:09 am |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 3801
Images: 1
Location: Florida
Been Liked: 1612 times
|
|
It is really more of a "varification" than a certification..
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Smoothedge69
|
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:15 am |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am
Posts: 3885
Images: 0
Been Liked: 397 times
|
mrmarog wrote: It is really more of a "varification" than a certification.. I can agree with that. Very good.
_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lonman
|
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:25 am |
|
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22978
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2126 times
|
|
According to dictionary.
cer·ti·fy (sûrt-f)
v. cer·ti·fied, cer·ti·fy·ing, cer·ti·fies
v.tr.
1.
a. To confirm formally as true, accurate, or genuine.
b. To guarantee as meeting a standard: butter that was certified Grade A. See Synonyms at approve.
2. To acknowledge in writing on the face of (a check) that the signature of the maker is genuine and that there are sufficient funds on deposit for its payment.
3. To issue a license or certificate to.
4. To declare to be in need of psychiatric treatment or confinement.
5. Archaic To inform positively; assure.
I think definition 1a is pretty accurate. SC is certifying that the kj's discs are 'genuine'.
_________________ LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
earthling12357
|
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:40 am |
|
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 11:21 pm
Posts: 1609
Location: Earth
Been Liked: 307 times
|
|
I think definition number 4 fits best.
_________________
KNOW THYSELF
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Smoothedge69
|
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:46 am |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am
Posts: 3885
Images: 0
Been Liked: 397 times
|
earthling12357 wrote: I think definition number 4 fits best. Well, at least for those that are happy about the way SC handles things, and about their "certification"  . 
_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
MtnKaraoke
|
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:08 am |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:40 pm
Posts: 1052
Images: 1
Been Liked: 204 times
|
|
I agree with LonMan.
A karaoke mfr's certification is specific in that it certifies that the Host/KJ underwent an audit and is in possession of genuine mfr's product, as well as in compliance with said mfr's media shifting policy.
The value of that certificate is that both the Host/KJ who received it and any/all of the venues that engage in commerce with that entity are shielded from lawsuits by covenant and by permission.
_________________
Never the same show twice!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
timberlea
|
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:14 am |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 4094
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
Been Liked: 309 times
|
Quote: I agree with LonMan.
A karaoke mfr's certification is specific in that it certifies that the Host/KJ underwent an audit and is in possession of genuine mfr's product, as well as in compliance with said mfr's media shifting policy.
Exactly. However, some people will split hairs, twist and say just about anything to say it isn't. I think people waste more time, money and effort to try to circumvent the rules/laws/protections or any other word you'd like to insert here, than what it's worth.
_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:57 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm
Posts: 5046
Been Liked: 334 times
|
JoeChartreuse wrote: HarringtonLaw wrote:
You can also be certified by DT/PR for your CB material.
Are DT and PR under one corporation or not? PR could conceivable come up with a way to make money selling "certifications" if they actually own the CB trademark. DT DOESN'T OWN the trademark, and has yet to produce and sell product with their own. Therefore, how could DT offer any sort of certification? PR ( the company with the hopes of a litigation based income) and DT ( the company with the hopes of a product based income) are being represented as two different companies that interact. However, if DT can certify, one must assume that both companies are under a single corporate umbrella that actually owns the CB trademark. If this is true, what is the name of the mother corporation? If it's not true, then please explain how DT can certify. Thanks in advance for your help. I have to admit that this one has me completely confused. OK, that's the FOURTH question that Mr. Harrington has chosen to ignore. I'm sorry, but this shows us just how tenuous his cases are. He has also claimed that SC would prefer that KJs use discs, yet the GEMs were produced as MP3s, with easy transfer to PC as a selling point. He has also not explained what POSSIBLE damages PR could claim for the use of the CB logo, as they can't claim loss of sales ( they have no product) or misrepresentation of said non-existant product. He will ALSO not list the few tracks still licensed to SC after what in my opinion is the somewhat questionable shift of ownership outside of U.S. jurisdiction to Sting-Ray, with whom Derek Slep was involved- at least for some time, though it is now much harder to discern what- if any- involvement he may still have. Between the above, and all of the ATS stuff, I would say that it's time to get educated and take a good hard look at the remnants of SC.
_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
Last edited by JoeChartreuse on Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:20 am, edited 3 times in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Smoothedge69
|
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:00 am |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am
Posts: 3885
Images: 0
Been Liked: 397 times
|
JoeChartreuse wrote: JoeChartreuse wrote: HarringtonLaw wrote:
You can also be certified by DT/PR for your CB material.
Are DT and PR under one corporation or not? PR could conceivable come up with a way to make money selling "certifications" if they actually own the CB trademark. DT DOESN'T OWN the trademark, and has yet to produce and sell product with their own. Therefore, how could DT offer any sort of certification? PR ( the company with the hopes of a litigation based income) and DT ( the company with the hopes of a product based income) are being represented as two different companies that interact. However, if DT can certify, one must assume that both companies are under a single corporate umbrella that actually owns the CB trademark. If this is true, what is the name of the mother corporation? If it's not true, then please explain how DT can certify. Thanks in advance for your help. I have to admit that this one has me completely confused. OK, that's the FOURTH question that Mr. Harrington has choosed to ignoe. I'm sorry, but this shows us just how tenuous his cases are. He has also claimed that SC would prefer that KJs use discs, yet the GEMs were produced as MP3s, with easy transfer to PC as a selling point. He has also not explained what POSSIBLE damages PR could claim for the use of the CB logo, as they can't claim loss of sales ( they have no product) or misrepresentation of said non-existant product. He will ALSO not list the few tracks still licensed to SC after the somewhat questionable shift of ownership outside of U.S. jurisdiction to Sting-Ray, with whom Derek Slep was involved- at least for some time. Between the above, and all of the ATS stuff, I would say that it's time to get educated and take a good hard look at the remnants of SC. Hopefully, one day, they finally go under.
_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 208 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
