Karaoke Forums

1) If the musical work is also illegally produced without the permission of the owners, ( i.e. SC8125 (Eagles), SC8438, 8435, 2029,2550 (TV Themes), The Impossible Dream on SC1306 and SC8127, and if Chip is correct ( and he's always able to prove his statements), add Red Peters songs for which licensing was never even requsted ( same for Impossible Dream and the TV Themes) add his songs on SC 8532, SC8750, SC8400 and SC 8700, and hundreds of others for example), then any other copy ( to a PC) would an illegal copy of SC's unlicensed production and distribution- which SC is willing not to report to the music owners for a price ( and probably also nbecause the don't wish to bring undue attention to their unlicensed production and distribution..) So yeah, if SC claims to have witnessed use of a counterfeit copy of music, and refuses to tell the owners of this violation after being paid, then they are taking money not to report it, right? Even though they KNOW it's a violation?



2) Thank you for being honest enough to negate your own position.

.
B) A media shifted copy is NOT a counterfeit per HL's view of the music owners' rights

Unfortunately, the law does not deal in double standards. If media shifted music is not counterfeit, then neither is a media shifted logo- leaving SC without a case.

SO- which is it?

3) See Number 1

4) Deleting "counterfeits" of a track to have them replaced by tracks that may or may not be equally unlicensed in the U.S. for karaoke production? Seriously?

It is my, as well as others' opinion( including IP attornies- which I'm not certain that you are- you never specified your specialty) that SC not only has no case that will stand up in court, but if they choose to pursue it there, they will leave themselves open for some magnificent countersuits, as well as possible repercussions from the music owners.



3) See Number 1

4) Deleting "counterfeits" of a track to have them replaced by tracks that may or may not be equally unlicensed in the U.S. for karaoke production? Seriously?

It is my, as well as others' opinion( including IP attornies- which I'm not certain that you are- you never specified your specialty) that SC not only has no case that will stand up in court, but if they choose to pursue it there, they will leave themselves open for some magnificent countersuits, as well as possible repercussions from the music owners.

5) Getting back to this: "Our view is that the music publisher does not have the right under copyright law to prevent you from media-shifting a copy on a 1:1 basis"

Yet SC's view is that any media shifted logo is a counterfeit, yet if the KJ has paid for discs or a settlement, then they will condone act of counterfeiting. Fighting the good fight against piracy, are ya?

Nope. It's pay up, and we'll keep quiet about what you're doing.

Since anyone looking to solidify a legal position would make it a POINT to make an example in court, and since it is my opinion that SC has done everything in their power to AVOID a confrontation in court, it should be easy to see why I feel as I do.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

What really cracks me up is that SC is suing pirates for "not paying them" and yet now sell their tracks out of Australia to customers here so that they can "avoid paying" the artists and publishers what they want in the same way. What a great double-standard!

Can you please verify your statement?

_________________
No venue to big or too small. From your den to the local club or event, we have the music most requested. Great sounding system!

Your question assumes that the licensing issues haven't been resolved, which is not the case. But even assuming that they haven't been, the terms of the settlement require the destruction of the counterfeit copies regardless of whether money is paid or not.



The GEM series, which is what is used to fulfill settlements, is fully licensed for distribution and use in the U.S.



I certainly don't have to answer to you regarding my credentials, but here goes:

I have a bachelor's degree in physics from the University of Arkansas and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center. I have been registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in patent cases since 2000. I have been licensed to practice law in North Carolina since 2001, and I am admitted to practice before federal courts in North Carolina, Florida (Northern District), and the courts of appeals for the Fourth and Federal circuits. I have been admitted pro hac vice in 12 other federal districts. I have written approximately 50 patent applications that matured into patents and registered more than 200 federal trademarks. I have been counsel of record in at least 45 federal lawsuits, most of them having to do with one form of intellectual property or another, and almost all of them as lead counsel.

And I don't particularly care what your IP attorneys' opinion is without their names and credentials being disclosed.



The music publisher's rights are entirely under the Copyright Act. The law regarding counterfeiting is entirely under the Trademark Act. Any logo that has been media-shifted without permission is a counterfeit because that's what the Trademark Act says. There is no corresponding provision in the Copyright Act, because they cover different things.

If the KJ has paid for discs or paid a settlement, SC--the ONLY entity that has the authority to do so--will grant "permission" to media-shift the logo in the form of a CNS letter on specific conditions, rendering that act NOT an act of counterfeiting. The music publisher might consider media-shifting the actual track to be an act of copyright infringement, but we do not think it is, and in any event, the music publisher is getting a royalty.



I think that "everything in their power to AVOID a confrontation in court" would include not filing a suit in the first place. There is no reason to go to trial if all parties agree as to the outcome. I don't care about "solidifying a legal position," and I don't take cases to trial for academic purposes. If I can reach a reasonable settlement, I do.

If they were, then they'd be selling the tracks in the U.S. because the artists and publishers would be "getting what they want" wouldn't they? SC's own admission to using the U.K. for the Gem series was to save money and avoid actually licensing the product with the artists and publishers for those that have expired.

I don't believe that you can purchase a custom disc from Australia at a reduced rate (to save money) can you?

Would you care to show/point to exactly what SC said in regards to this "admission"?

1) The question was whether their use in U.S. based karaoke shows after being copied to a PC constituted a counterfeit copy of the logo AND track, and your position in that regard.

A media shifted logo is counterfeit, but media shifted lyric swipes are not? There is disagreement on the interpretation.

Again, if the answer is yes ( and the basis for SC TI case), then SC is accepting a monetary arrangement and not reporting the counterfeits to the owners.

If the answer is no, thenSC has no TI case against anyone except PROVEN pirates ( track thieves), and are harrassing any PC based host without any real evidence of wrongdoing.

( BTW- rumor on SC's own forum is that they are going to try the same thing with disc based hosts- should be fun.... On the other hand, I'm one of maybe 5 disc hosts left in my area- one of the most densely populated in the country. This indicates to me that chances are it won't be a very profitable pursuit..)


2) Here we had a misunderstanding of some sort. Despite out differing stances in regard to these debates, I have never had any question regarding your credentials as an attorney.

If I gave that impression, I sincerely apologize.

Since opinions have been stated in regard to Intellectual Property, it occurred to me to ask if that was your specialty, since I simply didn't know the answer. Absolutely no insult was intended, and once again I apologize for the misunderstanding.

We may disagree, but I'm glad you are here and posting.


3) You may not care about solidifying your legal position, but in my opinion doing so would add a lot of strength to you actions, and would certainly clarify the validity of SC's methodology.

Assuming, of course, that it was remotely possible to do so.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

You're funny....

If I hand you the information - then in your eyes it's suspect.

If I tell you to get it yourself - then I'm "ordering you around"

Now, what's my incentive again?

I do want to be very clear about this, because it is in my view a key point of difference between trademark law and copyright law.

The SC logo is protected under the Trademark Act and not the Copyright Act. The lyric swipes are protected under the Copyright Act and not the Trademark Act. I know that the modes of displaying them are the same, but the basis for protection is different. The logo identifies the source of the goods. The lyrics swipes (and the sound recordings) are works of authorship.

When you conduct a media-shift, you are making a copy of something. Under the Copyright Act, media-shifting is generally protected under the doctrine of fair use, as long as you maintain 1:1 correspondence. (Even commercial use can be fair use, although there is a more limited range of fair use allowed.) There are numerous factors that determine whether a use is a fair use for copyright purposes, but the cases generally come out that 1:1 is OK and a defense to a copyright infringement claim.

There is no corresponding protection under the Trademark Act, and in fact the Trademark Act calls it "counterfeiting" when you make a copy of something and apply the trademark to it. Because SC did not make the copy, the trademark refers to someone who did not make the copy, and accordingly, the goods are counterfeit.

I suppose you could make an argument otherwise, but it would be against the plain meaning of the statutes at issue.



There are no rights holders to report the "counterfeits" to, because SC is the only trademark owner whose rights are being implicated when a SC track is counterfeited. There is no such thing as a "counterfeit" of a copyrighted work.

You could say that we're not reporting the unauthorized copy, but in our view the copy is a fair use if the defendant is 1:1, and if the defendant is not 1:1, then they're going to have to destroy it and replace it with a legitimate copy (which we will supply if available, and which will result in the rights holder being paid a royalty).



Rumors are rumors only. If a host is disc-based--and by that I mean original discs only, not burns--then there is nothing to it.



Thank you for clarifying. I sensed you were questioning my credentials. Someone did that early on after I started posting here, and it turned out they had an entirely different attorney who works in the Charlotte area, who has a similar name.


[/quote]

We'll get a chance to do that soon enough, it appears. We'll be headed to trial soon in Arizona, not sure exactly when because the judge hasn't set the trial date, and that assumes we do not win summary judgment or reach a settlement. I do not believe it is in any defendant's interest to press for a trial, because our settlement terms are better for the defendant than what we are likely to win at trial.

It is your comprehension and interpretation of what was stated that is suspect. That is why showing or pointing to the the original statement is desirable.

Post #2:

http://www.soundchoice.com/ubb/ultimate ... 1;t=001124

There is an excellent example of c.staley misrepresenting what is in a SC statement to try to make SC look bad.

He's not "trying to make SC look bad." He's just stating an opinion based on this statement, and others, by SC. Are you saying that SC just likes the UK better? My guess (read opinion) is only as far as it's saving them money for releasing materials. Is that a misinterpretation?

_________________
Birdofsong

In YOUR "opinion."

For illustrative purposes only, I will insert my "opinion" in the quoted text IN RED:


It appears to be an "end run" just like custom discs in Australia. I don't see SC "passing on the savings" to their customers for all the tracks they no longer license in the U.S.... do you? And that licensing loophole in the U.K. has now been closed.

That's assuming you win. If you lose, however, I do believe the outcome for the defendant would be far better than any settlement you've offered thus far.

I'm pretty sure that Sc is capable of making themselves look bad all on their own. They certainly don't need any help from c. staley.
I would say that the post linked to above, on SC's own forum pretty much says it all. They couldn't renew licenses to certain sings and so, to get around it and to avoid paying the higher legally applicable fees in the US, they went to the UK to avoid having to follow the law in their own country.
Pretty much sums it up.

Thankyou, c.staley, for providing that link.

Where was the money going that they are now "saving"? Was that to the artist or rightful owner of the publishing rights?

Murray C, I’m curious whether your misrepresentation of C. Staley’s statement to discredit him was intentional or due to misinterpretation.

Nowhere in C. Staley’s statements does he claim that Soundchoice was trying by their own admission to avoid licensing the product. Rather, he was making the point that they were in fact licensing the product, but doing it outside the reach of United States law to take advantage of a loophole that would allow them to license at a lower cost. Licensing in this fashion would result in less money being paid to the artists and publishers than they are asking to be paid for U.S. licensing. (Hence his ironic analogy: Soundchoice is to artists and publishers as pirates are to Soundchoice.)

It is your omission of parts of C Staley’s quotes and the full context of the conversation that allows you to come to your conclusions. Seems once we get our heels dug in to an issue we will see things the way we want to see them without regard to the facts sometimes.





Notice how your interpretation changed “less expensive than US publishers” to “save money”.

Notice your omission of C Staley’s mention of the artist and publishers getting “what they want”.

You are correct though in the fact that Hearsay can be a problem, there are two examples.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

for a twist on it, didn't moonrider (an artist receiving royalties) say that when licensing goes through MCPS that MORE money actually gets to the artists than in the states?

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