Karaoke Forums

With products made specifically for computers like the CB SD cards and SC GEMs the only thing I see is that they would want to be assured that you are still 1:1 compliant.

I agree with Athena and you that the mission should be clarified a little more by CB but I am looking at it more from the angle that you are paying to be included on their website as a certified KJ, so my take is more from an advertising stand point. As I said I have already been contacted by one venue who pulled my name from that list had I been able to take that gig it would have paid that fee in one show and still covered more than my gas for the trip.

I wouldn't give two squirts of rat urine for the certificate or the listing on the website. And I ain't paying 200 a year to anybody to get the "highest and best use" from a product I already paid for. I will do one free audit on request at my convenience. Include me in a suit and I will return the favor.

Hey I agree with you, if you don't want to be on that list then there certainly is nothing compeling you to be, as for doing a free audit or being included in a suit that would be entirely your perogative.

Interesting....

First you think the idea of spending money on the web advertising is a good idea:



Now all of a sudden, you "agree?" Make up your mind....



Not every KJ on the planet is terrified of a civil suit. Obviously, being involved in a lawsuit is something that CB anc SC are VERY familiar with.

Chip... You forgot about this part.... We only certify systems in the United States, and we reserve the right to refuse certification to non-qualifying applicants at our sole discretion, or to modify or discontinue the program at any time for any reason.

Or was that what you meant when you put the word LEGAL in quotes with a question mark?

What I meant was that the cheerleaders throw around the terms; Legal KJ, Legal library, legal this and legal that....

It seems that they paint it as though if you don't have some kind of manufacturer blessing in the form of a so-called "audit" (although you've already paid them for the product) then you're committing some heinous crime against humanity.

There is NO difference between two KJ's that each purchase discs, however it appears as though the KJ that does not get or refuses an "audit" is somehow "illegal?"

What a crock.

I do believe I sense a possible sway in attitude here..... Someone gets it!

BTW- Do I need permission to use the " Take the OO out of GOOFY..." thing?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Please read the post above yours. Being legal has nothing to do with having your name defamed by SC, hence the removal of you name after the fact.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I don't think I've ever posted anything that would make one think I was firmly in either "camp." I will gladly submit to a reasonable audit at the request of a manu to show I have the discs for the music I am playing. I may even allow said manu to mark my discs, depending on the method used.

I was willing to drive an hour or so back in February for the SC Tampa Bay area audit that never happened. SC is aware of that and has my contact info. I also contacted CB about submitting to an audit. I am not an IP attorney, and I could be wrong, but I believe including a person in one of these suits who has made it known that they are willing to submit to a voluntary audit could present some interesting problems for the filer of said suit.

As for assuring future compliance following an audit - Once a manu has audited me, they will know what discs I have. If later an investigator stops by one of my shows, and I play a song or songs I didn't have at the time of the audit, I would have no problem showing an invoice or discs for those songs.

I will not pay for an audit, one time much less annually. 200 a year per manu per system to avoid being subject to suit is extortion plain and simple. I will NOT be playing that silly game.

The only way I MIGHT consider it is if the $200 was credited towards future purchases on CB.com or something to that effect.

But it would have to be at least 1 to 1.5 ($300 credit). I spent my time and effort to show you I have been a good customer of yours, make it worth my while. Plus, the CB.com site is overpriced from what I have seen. (Prolly to keep the distributors happy.)

Actually, despite my attitude toward this whole mess, I just can't get myself emotionally worked up about the CB offer- because that's all it is. Of course, if someone actually took them up on it as it stands ( cost: $199/year alleged benefits: A listing on their site and a pretty certificate) I would suggest that they take a business course or three. If there are other benefits included, I have yet to hear of them.

So do I thinks it's a waste of money? Of course.

However, if CB wants to market something to add income to their company, I see no reason to get worked up about it.

They offer it, and hope someone bites. If someone does....hey, let the buyer be responsible- no one made them fork over $199/year.

Or...just say no, and move on. It's a cute little marketing idea, but completely unnecessary for your business. Having it guarantees nothing, and NOT having it means nothing either. Do people think not having it means you'll be swarmed by all the mfrs., or anyone else? Do you think, for instance, that having it will keep other companies at bay? Just move on......

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but I don't see anywhere on the site that says you are forced to pay anything. I was looking at it as for someone who wants to be audited and also be listed on the CB website as a certified KJ. To me it is simple advertising which may very well pay off as I stated in a previous post.

The simple fact is that the violation that is being prosecuted in civil court is the use of a copied trademark without explicit permission, so if they wanted to go after someone even if that person was in fact 1:1 the way the law is written it appears to me that they could, without a problem. But the fact is they are allowing those that they issue an intent or suit on to go through an audit before going forward into the court system, again the way the law reads they don't have to, because the violation is still there.

Sort of like a cop pulling you over for 5MPH over the limit, he will let you go but the fact is regardless you were still speeding.

For the millionth time, you are assuming that displaying the trademark via a 1-1 format shift without "explicit permission" is actionable. I have my doubts.

"Explicit permission" in itself is a fallacy, as they have stated they cannot give you permission to format shift, they will merely agree not to sue you if you agree to an audit.

I have no problem with agreeing to an audit

I have no problem with the tactic of sending an intent to sue letter pre-suit, as there would be no public record of said letter.

I have a problem with paying $200 a year for said audit. I also have a problem with the tactic of filing a lawsuit first, and asking questions later.

To combine the two equates to extortion - pay us $200 a year to keep your name off a lawsuit.

I'm sure CB will be in here shortly to clarify.

SC has not released a new Karaoke CD in a year (apr 2010). CB continues to release limited new Karaoke cds. I confirmed this via KJpro. Although it may not be true it appears that SC has decided that legal proceeds from sueing and selling rips of their existing cds has become their business. This is not true for CB yet but they have aligned themselves with SC long the same lines. Is this legal extortion? Maybe, probably! Is their approach solving anything for Karaoke piracy, thereby helping legal KJs? Nope! Is it driving illegal KJs in certain areas underground? Yes and it is also making the same cover theirselves by creating false local Karaoke assc. which are really just cover groups. My point here is that by SC and CB settling cases they're causing more problems for KJs then solving them. You settle you make the others say we'll just wait till we get sued then we'll settle! This is just putting $ in their pockets not helping KJs. They want to help KJs then they should make examples of these people not just settle! You get a ruling that a person must pay $100,000 to SC or CB and they take their equipment, cars and house the other illegal KJs will quit or get legal!!!

My husband and I got temp moved from Michigan to southern California. Looked for and found several places for doing karaoke out here. Appearently out here they ALL are on HD and only HD. And if you don't have several hundred thousand you don't have a gig to do. We have several others to go to to check out but so far they are only HD.
Went to one last night that only had one set of books printed up for looking at. I said one set cause each book was A-D artist, etc. Talked to him about the whole piracy thing and they are not worried out here since NO ONE is legal appearently. He even gave us a site to look at so that we could get other peer to peer karaoke songs if we wanted to. Which I won't no matter my nickname.
So in my opinion this whole thing is really hurting the legal ones not the illegal ones.

I know that I have put this on here before but it bears careful reading for those that don't understand it.

§1114. Remedies; infringement; innocent infringment by printers and publishers

(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.
As used in this paragraph, the term "any person" includes the United States, all agencies and instrumentalities thereof, and all individuals, firms, corporations, or other persons acting for the United States and with the authorization and consent of the United States, and any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. The United States, all agencies and instrumentalities thereof, and all individuals, firms, corporations, other persons acting for the United States and with the authorization and consent of the United States, and any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this Act in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.

Remedies for dilution of famous marks.

(1) The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection. In determining whether a mark is distinctive and famous, a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to--

(A) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark;

(B) the duration and extent of use of the mark in connection with the goods or services with which the mark is used;

(C) the duration and extent of advertising and publicity of the mark;

(D) the geographical extent of the trading area in which the mark is used;

(E) the channels of trade for the goods or services with which the mark is used;

(F) the degree of recognition of the mark in the trading areas and channels of trade used by the marks' owner and the person against whom the injunction is sought;

(G) the nature and extent of use of the same or similar marks by third parties; and

(H) whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register.

sorry Thunder, that all talks about intent to deceive. putting a CB logo on MM tracks. having the CB logo on a CB track is not the same. you know i am not for the pirates, i got audited voluntarily, i want to see the suits go through, but not with that law it won't. example....
my HD copies are .BIN with full checksum so i know they are exact bit for bit copies, no data loss, so having the CB logo on that is creating no confusion, deception, etc.
this thread is not so much about the audits, but having to pay for them. a yearly inspection is one thing, but the bars we work at do not have to pay for their MANDATORY inspections from the health dept. and if anybody could get away with asking for money for inspection, it would be the government.

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

That law concerns, reproductions, counterfeits and copies which is is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.

Right... yeah... sure.... Now back to reality: How many time in your long career has ANYONE come up to you (or any other KJ) and been "confused?"

How about a bunch of KJ's get together and sue the manufacturers for the same "confusion" by producing, pressing, marketing, packaging, selling and collecting money for UNLICENSED, UNAUTHORIZED and INFRINGING products sold and willfully marked as "Used by Permission" for use in COMMERCIAL APPLICATION.

This was not a "mistake" of any kind, it is simply commercial fraud which unnecessarily has exposed those unknowing KJ's to legal actions from those same third-party copyright holders.

Just because you didn't get sued by a publisher/writer doesn't mean you couldn't have been sued. Just as likely as "causing confusion" hasn't produced a single person/patron/singer that has complained about running off a computer that they were "confused."

Now, if you own the discs for these tracks you play off a computer the question always comes right back around to "How has a manufacturer been damaged?"

No damage = no award in court.

First and foremost, if you are named in a SC Lawsuit or any future plans by Chartbuster or any other Karaoke Company to do the same, immediately counter-sue for $1 million dollars U.S. Show them that we mean business as well.

And, during discovery, find out who SC used as their "Fact Finders," who visited your Karaoke Show, and name them as part of your Counter Lawsuit...et al. (You think these scabs will go away if they find out that they can be sued as well? I'll bet SC didn't inform them of that possibility.)

SC sues over 2 issues.
1. Trademark Infringement
2. Unfair Competition

With respect to Trademark Infringement, they specifically refer to the "Confusion" clause of the statute.

Confusion is used when a blatant infringement has not occurred. It is the "Catch-all" clause of the statute.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/inp27.htm

So, how does one cause "Confusion?"
SC believes this occurs with downloaded/pirated Karaoke that is used in a commercial environment where a KJ is being compensated. SC is saying that, by using Pirated Karaoke, the SC Trademark is confusing the Establishment's Owners, Singers, and non-Singers because the Establishment's Owners, Singers, and non-Singers have a fundamental right to believe that the Karaoke Trademarks being displayed are from Original Discs ripped to a Hard Drive at a 1:1 ratio and owned by the KJ contractor for an individual Karaoke Show or multiple sets of Original Discs if the KJ is running multiple rigs.

How does one DEFEND against "Confusion" to thwart SC if one is named in a lawsuit?
Having a simple TERMS and DISCLAIMER is your BEST DEFENSE. The Disclaimer would read similar to this:
With the above Disclaimer, you will have taken away SC ability to PROVE that anyone was "Confused" as to the origin of their Trademark...or anyone's Trademark for that matter.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/inp27.htm

But, I take it a few steps further by prefacing the Disclaimer with a TERMS clause. This forces everyone to agree to the statements before any Trademarks are displayed.

Although the following actually deals with selling goods, it does make good reading in understanding what is considered "Blatant" Infringement and "Confusion" Infringement:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/inp28.htm

The above Disclaimer, also, defends against: 2. Unfair Competition as it specifically states:

I suppose, if you were found to be selling or giving away pirated Karaoke, unfair competition would exist as you would be selling way below what the Original would sell for. But, in reality, the legit KJ does NOT sell or distribute and SC doesn't run Karaoke Shows. Therefore there is NO competition whatsoever...leave alone UNFAIR...more evidence for a JURY of SC's BS...end of story on Unfair Competition.

There is an ancillary statement to possibly defend against Public Performance as I believe this has been totally distorted as NO ONE IS GETTING PAID TO SING.

Since SC sends scabs to your shows to "gather evidence," You should have a CONTENT DISCLAIMER in all your Song Lists that would read similar to this:

Further defense against SC is to force SC, during "Discovery," to produce all 4 licenses on ALL there Karaoke Songs. An argument could be made that, if SC didn't have permission to re-create, FOR SALE, the Intellectual Property (IP) in the first place, they wouldn't of had the right to put their Trademark on the IP in the second place. In other words...they are the thieves and profited until the record label or Artist forced them to pull the IP...Hence the "R" numbered discs.

SC's credibility would be tainted in eyes of a Jury. This will be plausible and sustainable evidence as SC never states what IP was infringed leaving it open for you, the defendant, to choose which IP it was that they have a picture of...their evidence. They do not want to name an IP as, if you produced the Original disc the IP was on, they would be dead in the water. This leaves their IP "evidence" open for debate and ambiguous, at best. More smoke for the JURY to show the deception of SC's lawsuit.

Simply choose the Eagles 8125 disc, assuming you have an Original, or, choose any Original that was later replaced, to clear up the ambiguity as they will NOT be able to show all 4 Licenses for the works on those discs. It's a catch 22 for SC. If SC says that's not the disc of works where the evidence came from, then, make them state categorically which work it was. If they do, then produce the Disc...end of story. But they won't...they don't want specific IPs because you would be able to produce them. The aforementioned is a way to force them. If you can't pin them down...more smoke for the JURY to show SC's deception.

I know I'm talking about IP, but the IP is what the Trademark is on. Kill the IP and the Trademark goes with it.

I suppose SC could argue that, even though the IP was not perfected, it is still their Trademark and you infringed upon it. You could, then, use Kurt Selp's own words, from various forums, that, as far as he and SC was concerned, as long as one had a 1:1 copy, which would include media-shifting to a Hard Drive, it was OK. Use his own words against him. So, it does matter which IP one was talking about because if one was to produce the Original...it was alright with Kurt Slep and SC and more reason to the JURY that the Lawsuit was nothing but a fishing expedition and FRIVOLOUS!

The NEW discs, currently being SOLD by SC, are further evidence that the SC Lawsuit is on shaky ground. The new discs come with a new WARNING LABEL that states:

So, what does this mean? Two things:
1. Obviously SC has a problem proving that the consumer was properly informed that they could NOT media shift the songs from the OLD DISCS to a Hard Drive. Why else would they change the warning. More evidence in for the JURY of SC's frivolous Lawsuit.

2. By the statement in the warning of NEW DISCS, "OR ANY SOUND CHOICE SONG," SC is trying to make all their songs comply retroactively. So, I would say, if you have any of these songs in you database...remove them immediately.

Further comments
When I purchased a SC Disc, I was never informed that I couldn't use these songs on a Hard Drive. Neither from SC itself, as I have purchased discs directly form them in the past, nor from Distributors.

I did not walk through a door and SC magically became a business partner of mine because I purchased one of their discs. And, since they are not a business partner, they are not permitted access to any aspect of my business...leave alone my Song Library.

I heard rumors that SC wants to claim that their IP was never intended for Commercial use.
If they try that tactic, I have several inserts from Jewel Cases that state (This Is From SC8295):


FINAL THOUGHTS
Trademark infringement, with respect to the statute, deals with SALES in one way or another. This is why SC couples "Unfair Competition" with Trademark Infringement."

Obviously, Unfair Competition has to do with undercutting a SALE.

As stated earlier, if a KJ isn't selling or in some way undercutting a SALE, there is NO competition.

If SC can't establish that, then what are they left with? Nothing!

Basically, SC offers Karaoke Discs FOR SALE, the KJ buys a SC Karaoke Disc, either directly from SC or from a distributor, and, subsequently, is sued by SC for using that purchased Karaoke Disc.