Karaoke Forums

It depends if you are selling it as Coke doesn't it tim. If you give someone something you think is coke, it is a little bit different than selling them coke isn't it? When you are hosting you really aren't selling a product? You are letting them use a product hopefully you have paid for, right? To bust someone for drug tracking they have to be holding the drug not sugar, there is no law against selling sugar it there tim?

Just so we're clear, trademark infringement does not require that you sell the product that's marked with the trademark.

Infringement only requires use of the mark "in commerce," which could be sales, but could also be a free giveaway to induce customers to spend money in other ways, or other arrangements might qualify.

I also point out that operators generally get paid to make their tracks available to patrons.

I'll tell you what Lone, get some sugar and try to give or sell it to a cop, telling him or her it's cocaine, heroin or what have you and let us know what happens.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

How did my name get put on the quote? It was Cue's post.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Well, I have to give credit where credit is due. Hats off to Jim, Tim, and a few others for their ability to distract from the point of this thread of which I am the OP. I just read 3 pages of garbage that had absolutely nothing to do with the point of this thread.

Jim and co. Have managed take something that has nothing to do with legalities, licensing, royalties, etc. and re-focused it on those things. No wonder SC was able to fool so many people into supporting them before they caught on.

If they can't come up with a way to minimize what I posted - and the couldn't - they took your minds off of it. I was unable to get through the wall off garbage they put up. This round to Jim.

Of course, that's not going to help anyone with sourcing new releases, but hey - why would a KJ care, right?

Ron White was right....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Sorry Joe, not sure what is happening when I use the quote button. I did use it on Cue's post.

As for your original question, Joe, anything would be speculation to say the least. It sounds as if you are implying that SC has caused the publishers doing what they are doing but what exactly that is I don't know. And to use an analogy here, someone asked why is only SC launching lawsuits and not any of the other manufacturers, I could easily respond with why is only EMI going after one company and not the rest and why aren't all the other publishers following suit.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

This is one reason why I print my certifications in my books. I can count on one hand how many people have ever asked about it, but for those that do care, they know.

_________________
-Chris

Your attitude about this is genuinely bizarre.

You made a post that laid blame at SC's feet for publishers' decision to make it more difficult to obtain tracks associated with certain artists. You attributed that decision entirely to SC's efforts to enforce its "worthless" trademark--your word--and anger you imagine resulted from those efforts.

My responses in this thread have been almost entirely directed at explaining the publishers' motivations and at explaining why SC's trademark rights are not "worthless."

Effectively, with this most recent post, you are taking the position that you can make whatever outlandish, unsourced, and illogical comment you like, and my response--no matter how closely it is directed toward responding to your comment--is out of bounds (a "distraction") if I mention any factor that calls your conclusion into question.

Your premise, that the publishers are angry at SC for suing pirates, just doesn't hold water when scrutinized.

Do you really believe that you can introduce a topic IN THE LEGALITIES FORUM expecting these subjects to not be broached when you brought them in your OP!!?!?!?!

It doesn't matter anyway because this has everything to do with legalities, licensing and royalties! And from your OP even!

"....is that SC had the absolute AUDACITY to start suing folks for their useless trademark being displayed...." - LEGALITIES! (suing is a legal thing!)

"....when it was the MUSIC - the giants' property , and often distributed without proper licensing...." - LICENSING! (you used the actual word!)

"They not only trespassed on what I believe to be others's rights, but did so in a legally loud manner." - LEGALITIES and ROYALTIES! (trespassing on rights is only relevant to the royalties the rights holders should be receiving. Which, btw, is at the center of the SC lawsuits!!!!!!! Don't you consider media-shifting and outright piracy to be a rights and royalties (compensation) issue??!?!?!?

And to the point of your OP -

"Spoke to some friends tonight. DJs and pro singers. THEY are also running into problems finding tracks ALREADY."

I'm not....I am downloading requests just the same as always. I have run into a few requests that don't exist, but my guess is that...

Five Finger Death Punch - "The Bleeding"
Local H - "Bound For The Floor"
Seether - "Gasoline"
Linkin Park - "A Place For My Head"

...were never made for karaoke ever anyway so they weren't pulled.

So to your OP......

What tracks are your friends telling you they can't find that used to be available that would result in you blaming SC for the rights holders pulling?

_________________
-Chris

You know, you could just go back and EDIT your post, and change it to reflect cueball instead of JoeC. That should make Joe happier, since I already corrected you on it, and I guess Joe missed that.

Elvis shares song writing credits on the following songs for his participation in reworking them enough to deserve song writing credit:
All Shook Up
Don't Be Cruel
I didn't Make It On Playing Guitar
Love Me Tender
Paralyzed
Poor Boy
That's Someone You Never Forget
We're Gonna Move
You'll Be Gone
(some have later claimed it was a negotiation to get Elvis to release the song, others have confirmed Elvis's involvement).

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

This one was made, I have it.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

i don't know Chris, i feel it's the opposite.
We as hosts are just trying to make things lighter and protect our investments copying to drive (spirit of the law)
SC and Jim especially has repeatedly stated their position from a letter of the law "because that is what the law specifically says" (literal interpritation).

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

This is a well and good Jim, but since you are seeking recovery in the civil court what must be determined is SC's damages, right? According to the Panama City case in Florida, SC's damages amounted to the fair retail value of the misused product, right? That came to about $5,000.00 per defendant. You appealed the award and it was upheld. That is the extent of damages owed to SC per case they win, they don't even get the legal fees spent trying to recover this award do they? Despite what anyone is getting paid, that is the extent of SC's damages, so even if you win it is a limited victory. You will not get the big pay day and this whole legal process is a failure your side just won't admit it.

Fun post. You brought up licensing, legalities, etc. In such a way that everyone starting debating that junk, rather than my points. SC did some interesting moves in the UK that no one else tried and angered the P/Os.

They sued based on a value that was actually due to the P/O's property and not SC's completely valueless logo, in the process building an income off of someone else's work - though probably legally. Btw- not a single soul, including you, has been able to explain or come up with a reason for ANY value that could possibly be attached to the SC logo as a stand-alone item. The value, as stated above, is that anothers' property. NOTHING TO DO WITH SC.

This also ticked off the giants. No other karaoke producer has done this, or anything else close. SC has done more damage to my industry ( not theirs anymore) with this, as well as venue reactions to the publicity surrounding their mostly groundless and weak suits, than any amount of track thieves/pirates.

That being said, you have these hosts "fiddling while Rome burns "

Arguing about licensing junk.

Hey folks, I am one of SC's most vocal antagonists, and even I don't bother with that subject anymore.

Know why? Because just like the idiots who allowed factory original tracks online in MP3 form - allowing instant, quick, and free copies, it is simply just too late for that.
Almost every single producer has sold unlicensed tracks. People think of the "Quick...Solution " company and say gee, probably unlicensed. Yup, but we can throw almost every one of the majors into that as well.

If you have a decent sized library, you are using some unlicensed tracks.

Therefore, while Jim's abaility to have you digress from the true issue was apparently a winner, it is now a waste of posts to argue about producer licensing. Yet I know it will continue.

SC is the ONLY company to pull what the publshers perceive as worth retaliating to, and they have.

Since I'm sure the next post will go back to useless subjects that have no bearing on this thread, (ADD?) I'lll opt out with one last bit of advice...

Get in touch with your inner Luddite. SC has caused a need for it...

OK, Jim, they are all yours, and if they allow it, deservedly so.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Joe you need a hug

So, why hasn't some enterprising entrepreneur just removed the SC graphics from the tracks? If it's just a 'trademark' issue lose the trademark, and your cola is well, just cola! And every state has a statute of limitations regarding 'forgery', so I would think that cow is long out of the barn for SC.

I don't understand why SC does not offer all their great tracks via a service like Karaoke Cloud for example. Seems to me that could be a nice revenue generator, and regulator if done correctly! Unless there are publishing rights issues in major play here.

BTW .. I have yet to come across one single KJ that does not have SC tracks.

Because removing the logo could expose you to litigation.

Mr. Harrington can provide a better explanation than I about why Sound Choice hasn't gone the download route. My take is that there are several factors.

Sound Choice has already lost their library to piracy. Offering downloads that can't be pirated is not possible at this time and likely won't ever be possible without a subscription model similar to what Digitrax offers.

I believe the existing Sound Choice library is actually owned by Stingray/Karaoke Channel and licensed back to Sound Choice so it may not even be possible to work out an arrangement to offer the tracks online.

I am sure there is even more to this that we aren't privy to.

_________________
-Chris

I tend to agree, must be much more to it.