Karaoke Forums

So newbie gd123,

What does your lengthy diatribe have to do with Chartbuster wanting to charge $199 a year for KJ Certification?

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

Substitute SC with Chartbuster and you will see the end result.

Simply, it's not allowing any of these Karaoke Companies access to your business.

Hasn't SC been conducting Audits?

Who did you expect was next.

Besides, where is the request for THUNDER's lengthy diatribe explanation where the only time Chartbuster is mentioned is the POST SUBJECT?

GD I thought your post was well written, and gave some good avenues to look at for a defense.

_________________
Living my life as Robert Cortese, 162 E. Jackson St, San Jose CA.

It's like the difference between high and low budget toilet paper, it really doesn't matter in the end. -exweedfarmer

Which is smarter? Just sticking to making/selling karaoke, while people all over the world create software FOR FREE that helps you sell it, or trying to compete with them and keeping it a closed loop while you blow your money into an industry (software) that you(the karaoke manu) knows nothing about?
-me

And all along, I thought it was "without consent" that made the difference.

I own a trademark. You MAY NOT reproduce that trademark without my consent.

What are the exceptions that allow non-consensual reproduction of my trademark?

I understand the assertion that it is not "legally" there on certain tracks. That could make an exception for those tracks. What about the other 17,820? (99% of 18,000 est SC). CB states their policy clearly. They've also had issues with the publishers for a certain (small %) number of their songs. They as the trademark owner can consent to allow you to reproduce their trademark (not the underlying composition/lyrics) and they can agree not to sue you if you do not violate their terms.

How does this justify an exception regarding required consent for the "legally" attached trademarks to be copied?

The whole idea that they (mfr's) will sue you after entering into an agreement with you is ludicrous.

The point is moot if you are 1:1.

I am. I'm still on the fence about whether or not I would pay for a yearly audit. I suppose I'd be looking for compensation for the initial expense, like a $199 discount on a year's update subscription for example. Maybe after the initial audit, the yearly fee is reduced, but you still recover it through (industry) discounts, promos, subscriptions, exclusives, etc.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

And how are you being damaged? What is the verifiable monetary (or other) loss you might incur?



Not really... The only difference between 2 KJ's that are 1:1 and running off a computer is that the one that refuses an "audit" still gets sued. Otherwise, they've both spent the same money for the same product. Let me spell it real slow for you: E-X-T-O-R-T-I-O-N or "protection money" whatever you're most comfortable with...

And they've been known to sue disc-based KJ's. Their lawsuit is purposely ambiguous without any real FACTS as you like to accentuate. Their suits simply say that "John Doe was observed displaying the mark without right or license." No track names, no confirmation that a disc wasn't used, no confirmation that customer didn't bring in a disc, nothing. Not "John Doe was investigated by any licensed investigator." Although that would make more sense and faster settlements, it also requires the expense of an investigator - something SC isn't willing to expense anything on.

No investigative information or even proof that an investigator was even there at all. ("Real investigators" buy something on a credit card and use the receipt as proof they were at least there.) Nothing but empty claims designed to intimidate.

And I doubt your numbers of 17,820 are accurate... any FACTS to back up that? Did you bother to look up all their past lawsuits against them for the willful copyright infringment and subtract those too? (I didn't think so.)

So when you look at the overall picture here, you are staunchly defending the very companies you readily admit were (and possibly still are) engaged in the very same piracy they are suing others for... Yeah, you're on "the fence" alright.....



I doubt you're on any fence at all - the manufacturer's say "jump" and you usually say "how high?" Because you are under the impression they're "helping you" somehow...

that would be acceptable, i think it's the paying for the audit and listing, which SC gives free.
apply it to new music would let them cover no-shows and the like but not penalize the rest of us for that.
oh, and the unfair competition they are going after, is actually creating unfair competition in the venues against us. they have no overhead so undercut us to a point we can not meet creating unfair competition. not against them. the one part of the whole thing that helps us a bit.

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

Wrong. A disc based host has paid money for one product. A 1:1 based host has paid once for TWO products. The original disc and then copied it. Believe it or not, it is that simple. Other than IP, what other product can you do that with? A vehicle? No. A toaster? No. A recliner? No. A photcopier? No. To go further, if you did, do you think, Ford, Sunbeam, Laz-E-Boy, or Xerox would allow you to make copies at less than a penny on the dollar and put their trademarked logos on them? I think not.

As for those trademarked logos on t-shirts, etc, those (legit) companies paid a licence to produce them. For example, GM paid Berreta Firearms for the right to use the name "Berreta" on their Camaros.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Sorry, but SC can't sue me for unfair competition between ME and YOU. Just as you can't sue your neighbor to the right of you for their dog soiling the lawn of the neighbor to the left of you - you are a disinterested party. You can report it to the police or even your neighbor but that's the end for you. You cannot collect damages for something you weren't directly involved with - nor can SC sue me and expect any court award for unfair competition between me and you because it's none of their beeswax.

If I retire and decided to follow you around offering all your venues "karaoke in exchange for
$20 and a cup of coffee" I'm still "undercutting you" and there's nothing SC can do about it - even though I'm willfully "creating unfair competition" - they are the disinterested party.

Actually GM was sued for trademark infringement by Berreta and part of the settlement was to pay $500,000 to the Beretta Foundation for Cancer Research as well as unspecified legal and administrative fees associated with the lawsuit.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-02-23/business/fi-433_1_chevrolet-beretta

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

gd123,

You do have an interesting perspective on the subject!

Anyone can file a counter suit, but what a counter suit does is lock in the origional suit (it can't be non-suited) while you may not have a legal leg to stand on the manus would be forced to prosecute their case to the fullest extent. So even if you were 1:1 it would force them to go forward with the case for the use of copied trademark violations. It would depend on the court as to determine the law and different Judges would have a different perspective on reading the law. So if the Manus lose and you actually won, you would be alright. However, if you lost it would only cost you whatever the Judgement was against you, the cost of the attorney's for both you and the manu in their case, the cost of the attorney's for both you and the manu in your case and whatever sanctions the court puts on you for losing your case, and that depends on what the manus ask for when they answer your counter suit it could be as much as what your suit asked for.

But I would be curious though to see how one like that worked out!

BTW Sound Choice is not suing for unfair competition just the trademark violation, except in the cases of hard drive sellers, Chartbuster is suing for trademark violations and unfair competition for cases involved in the area where they also own a karaoke venue (which is unfair competition if they are using pirated materials)

Joe,

You are assuming that I've purchased the discs AND using them in conjunction with a computer? However, If I'm only using ONE of them, - where is the "damage?" - there is NONE.

If I bought a magic photocopier that could duplicate a Chevy truck that I purchased but only drove one.... where is the damage to Chevrolet? They've been paid for the ONE truck I drive.

If you purchase discs, make a "safety backup" and run with those while the originals are safely tucked away - it is the SAME thing - you now have 2 don't you? Yes.... But you're only using one.

Frankly, I think the manufacturers are the ones on the shaky legs here. They still have to prove "damages" even though there is a "technical violation" it might not necessarily be actionable. The law is NOT as black and white as you'd like it to be. AND, either side can agree to settle a case at ANYTIME with or without payment, sanctions or anything else. Nothing is "locked in."

It would probably never make it past any pretrial hearings because it's all about the damages.

BTW: There is no "E" in the middle of "judgment."

Thanks for all the great feedback.

My only hope is that, someday, there will be a true way to stop pirating and have computer based content accepted before Karaoke is a thing of the past.

MTU paid a lot of money to have a law firm investigate the validity of media-shifting CDGs to a computer. This Link is where you can view the findings:
http://ipjustice.org/karaokefairuse.shtml

Even so, none of this has been tested in court.

I have several lawyers that come to one of my shows. Many are Public Defenders but one used to work for Barnes & Thornburg. She relocated to Chicago for a few years and litigated in Federal Court. She re-located back to Indy where we had a chance to talk about the SC lawsuits and, generally, what may be coming down the pike from all Karaoke Manufacturers.

Basically, she was shocked that SC could do this and offered to initiate a 1st strike against SC. This is to bring an action before the Federal Court to force a ruling on the matter...to get a Judge to rule as to the legality of media-sifting according to Fair-Use. She wanted about 4-5 grand. She stated that 4-5 grand is cheaper than the 40-50 grand if SC files first.

But, I do have another interesting take on the actual Trademark issue.

As most of the Fair-Use law talks about IP (Intellectual Property), one could argue that SC is smart by only suing for Trademark Infringement.

However, we are not talking about a SC Trademark on the Inserts of Jewel Cases. We are talking about the displayed Trademarks that come from PLAYING a SC SONG.

Well, seems to me, that if a "Trademark" is added as part of the SONG, then, it is no longer separate and the Trademark becomes part of the total work...which is the IP. In other words, a SC Trademark will not show unless a Karaoke Player has PLAY initiated. I realize their Trademark is showing, but, in this scenario, IP Justice's conclusions would be spot on as the Total Work (the IP) would come under scrutiny.

Food for thought.

I'd put up five hundred towards that 5k. I'd much rather spend it that way than pay for a F%&*ing audit. Hell it would be worth it just to get Thunder to STFU. Anyone else?

IMHO that is what a true KJ association would be doing. The KIAA is NOT for the KJ.

I would even help her in any way I could with research & drafting documents. I'm a public defender, so I don't know much about IP law, but if I could help to reduce costs, I'd be all for it.

I'm serious, would any other 1-1 format shifted KJs be willing to put some money into this?

I would say someone needs to read the laws concerning trademark and copyright fair use!

I just got him on my foes list. I can't see what he says unless someone quotes it. It is sooo nice.

_________________
Living my life as Robert Cortese, 162 E. Jackson St, San Jose CA.

It's like the difference between high and low budget toilet paper, it really doesn't matter in the end. -exweedfarmer

Which is smarter? Just sticking to making/selling karaoke, while people all over the world create software FOR FREE that helps you sell it, or trying to compete with them and keeping it a closed loop while you blow your money into an industry (software) that you(the karaoke manu) knows nothing about?
-me

Hiteck, my booboo on that but it does show the protection of a trademark and that GM settled with Barretta out of court showed GM was in the wrong (whether admission was made or not, seeing how as GM was the largest or one of the largest corporations at the time with a huge legal staff and money).



Chip, just try that and see how quick GM would be on you for trademark infringement, patent infringement, etc. They would be about as amused as Berretta was. Since you probably know a lawyer or two, ask one of them what the likely outcome would be.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Doesn't matter.

Show me the damages.

Real, measurable and monetary damages.

Yep.... I'd say that would be Michael Handy, Steve Miller and "Mick"