Karaoke Forums

Rick, exactly, it is for home use, not commercial, and that does come under "Fair Use". Now take it to a public venue and it is a whole new ball game.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Much like your opinions of digital media and the transfer of same, you are basing it all on a LOT of assumptions. You have no idea what SC and the music publishing companies have agreed (or not agreed) to. You assume that since an MP3 is a different medium than a CD, it somehow represents a breach of their agreements.



The same that any sale can be verified. Money in hand for copies sold. Again you are assuming that hard CD sales and digital sales are lumped into the same count. Why?

Folks, why are you not charging SC for promoting their brand at your shows After all, you had the choice to choose the brand of your choice, right? So if people are seeing the logo twice every time a song is played, shouldn't they be paying you for that publicity or perhaps you can find a software that will hide their logo until they've agreed to pay you a fee for promoting their brand Who said publicity is FREE

Why should I? I did choose to use their product, I will happily display the logo as one of the tools I use - as I would with any manu! The customers should know I try to use the best tools I can!

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

And I'm not questioning your choice, no one will disagree with you on the fact that SC did make good Karaoke tracks but I guess you didn't get my point If SC wants to sue over trademark for media shifting when you know has well as me that the lyric monitor doesn't say if you're playing an mp3+g or directly from a cd... If they have that power, well how about the KJ's right? After all, are you not promoting the brand by displaying the logo twice every time you play their tracks and now you'll need to pay them a fee for playing an mp3+g over a cd Honestly, you really find this fair

I fully support their strategy against piracy, I hope they sue everyone that downloaded their tracks for free on internet, it's a shame that they are not producing anymore but they should leave you guy's alone!! If they wish to do an audit to make sure you have 1:1, fine, let them pay for it as you already paid for the cd in the first place and that's where it should end, you are now a PROUD SC certified customer and they should thank you for choosing their products

Micky, it's because YOU want to go 1:1 and they are confirming. Since it was YOUR choice, why should they pay.

As to private/commercial shifting, think of it this way. You're have your party with your 30 friends. You own a car and are a licenced driver. You can drive all your friends home, no problem. Once you put a meter in your car and decide to charge them, then you require a taxi licence and in most places a chauffuer's licence. You're basically doing the same thing but in one case you are not charging and the other you are. Same driver, same car, two different circumstances.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Actually if you know what you are looking at you CAN tell if you are playing from a computer or directly from disc. The graphics on a disc are a little tighter and don't fill up the screen as much as where a computer tends to be a little more edgy & fills the monitor screen alot more. PLus if you happen to have any of the marquee's or name display's running, that is pretty much a dead giveaway that one is running off of a computer as well. Other than Compuhost, I don't know of any other software with an outise video capture ability (to connect a disc player) to overlay the marquee of CH and it would be pretty silly to spend the money on CH for a simple marquee for who's coming up next.

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

Fine if they confirm for FREE, after all I purchased their disk and I'm promoting the brand twice every time I press play

Why should they pay? Because you are promoting their brand I've been in sales for over 20 years, would you be ready to promote my logo for free night after night even if you think I had the best product

Agree with you Lonnie, I'm just trying to make a point... If you're ok promoting their logo night after night for free because you feel it's probably the best product out there and it could help your business, I'm fine with that but THEY shouldn't be charging you guy's for an audit to prove you are legal, they should say: TY sir for choosing our brand and to display our logo night after night, in return we will certified you a proud SC customer for FREE and we will ad your name to our recommended KJ list It's call respecting your customers, they probably wouldn't be in business with out the honest KJ's.

Close, but no cigar. A better analogy would be:
You purchased a taxi meter years ago from a company that sold it to you and told you how much money you could make as a taxicab....

THEN, --years later-- they come back and want you to pay them again to look at the meter and prove you already purchased it from them by inventing a "license." You didn't need any kind of license at all before this and they are not the government.

....and Harrington Law skipped past the media shifting question- again.

I have another question. I read the following on another forum, and simply can't figure it out:

" If you make a copy of the manus music creation containing a mark owned (trademark) by the manu without their permission or posess a copy of that work without owning the factory original and use it to generate revenue for yourself (commercial use) then you are operating with pirated music. "

How does media shifting equate to to using stolen/unpaid for music? One can certainly media shift product that has been bought and paid for. What logic is behind a statement like this? BTW- Harrington Law also groups media shifters ( other than SC, of course) as pirates ( i.e. thieves). Again- HOW?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

ok guys how about a court ruling that decided this once and for all.....Here's the link
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 1317218969

Have a Happy holidays everyone

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

Having read the whole thing what I understand is that the hearing was for "A Motion To Dismiss", which the judge denied. I did not see anything where they have lost or won the case, just their motion to dismiss. So it looks like it will be going to trial unless everyone settles.

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

Athena really needs to talk to HarringtonLaw before posting something as misleading (disinformation) as this. It's my opinion that the cheerleaders are so desperate for anything to go their way that they're grasping at anything that even remotely resembles a decision....

Lonewolf hit it right on the head.

This is simply denying a motion -- it is NOT "deciding" anything "once and for all"...

Bright Blessings and Blue Candles.... (just quit sniffing 'em)

From what I understand 2 have settled already and other cases are proceeding.... what is important is HOW it relates to this tread.

The defendnts asked for a dismissal on the grounds that SC was suing on trademark when it should have been copyright and that they didn't have enough cause to suspect them. Judge ruled in favor of SC and told why it fell into trademark. So all of that speculation on this thread is mute.

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

Athena, this was a Motion to Dismiss, there has been no judgement. The Defendants now have, I believe, one of two choices, go to trial or settle.

Dollars to donuts, in my opinion, they will settle.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Not quite. Soundchoice will still have to win the case in court before the discussion in this thread becomes moot.
That order only confirmed that the claims soundchoice is making about their trademark should be decided under trademark law. It is still undecided whether their claims are valid under that law.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

earthling,
I am not disputing what you are saying I am just trying to get across that THIS thread "SC is Sueing over Trademark but Media-Shifting is Copyright!" is now a moot point as decided by the judge in this case, precedence has been set.
SC will still have to continue to prove validity of the case under trademark law if any continue to dispute the case any further. The entire thread is based upon the "facts/opinions" stated in the tile of the thread and those "facts/opinions" have been proven to be flawed and the judge stated why they were flawed.
this does not mean that SC has won a case or set precedence on a trademark case yet just that this line of defense has been shown to be flawed.
It is my opinion that the Attorney used was not a IP specialist and that is why this road was even pursued ....thus my advise to anyone who intends to fight a case insure your Attorney is a IP Attorney.

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

There are alot of opinions and speculation being expressed on forums suggesting that SC will lose cases based on this or that and seeming to give some the idea that they can ignore the suits or fight them on this or that basis. This thread suggested that trademark was not a valid claim and evidently some of the named people felt the same and challenged that the suit be dropped on that basis. In this case, the judge disagreed and explained how the claims by SC did fit into a trademark dispute case rather than copyright. I don't think Athena was claiming a final disposition of a case--just meant to add some info as far as trademark being considered the valid type of suit in these cases.

KJAthena, I agree that the line of defense used by that defendant was flawed. But, I don't believe a precedent has been set except for "don't try to weasel out of the case by saying they are suing for the wrong thing and using those weak arguments".

That doesn't however, render this discussion to a state of irrelevance. There are people who believe the industry would be better served if soundchoice was suing on the basis of copyright rather than trademark.

By prosecuting under copyright, only those who stole their music (the pirates) would be eligible for punishment.
By prosectuting under trademark (with slep-tone's theory), everybody that uses higher technology than a cd player are eligible for punishment including those who paid for their music in good faith.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF