Karaoke Forums

Which would also include bad rips which distorts the graphics and SC logo - how is that controlled with the "sales receipts" KJs?

at that point, you have already paid so it is no longer a concern. bad rips and skips degrading the SC quality are ok if you paid for it, but good rips and clean graphics preserving the SC quality are not ok unless you pay up.

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

Mine too.

Wait. You bought the 12000+ song set from Chartbuster and then turn around and say of my GEM set "I imagine there are many, many tracks in that 6000 that will never be heard"? You boast about spending money hand over fist on these forums and in the same breathe claim to have us all beat on our library & equipment costs due to your mad negotiating skills?! Priceless.

BINGO! Couldn’t have said it better myself. Actually, this is one of the best analogies I’ve seen to date, which basically negates Sound Choice’s point of view on “unauthorized” media shifting. I’m surprised we haven’t seen it before and if we have, my bad. I’m not on these forums very often. Bravo, Paradigm! Very interested to hear Mr. Harrington’s response..

We all have our opinions and beliefs. I have chosen to believe that I can gain an edge on the pirate hosters by choosing to become certified. It should be noted that it is absolutely a choice for me. I have not been contacted by any manufacturer ever to be audited or get certified. I did Stellar CAP on my own. I became Chartbuster Certified by virtue of purchasing their 12000+ drive. I will contact Sound Choice after the first of the year to discuss a voluntary audit.

In my area, karaoke piracy is rampant. Sound Choice did a drive by and it scared some folks. While I may not agree 100% with Sound Choice tactics, it has shaken up the industry a bit here and that is a good thing. If they are scared then they are probably doing something wrong. That gives me an opportunity to market myself, with the certifications I have ASKED for, and pick up business, and ask for a higher rate.

I am not going to try to convince you or anyone else what route they should take in their market. I consider the debate over certification and legality to be a bit of a "religious discussion". We can all express our views all day long but chances are no one will change their position.

Let's agree to disagree.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

The ability to exercise quality control is the major factor in determining who is the source of goods. In your analogy, you're focusing on "quality," but trademark law focuses on "control."

SC's choice is to release tracks on CDs. (How much of a "choice" that is, is a question for another day.) A scratched original CD reflects the control that SC has chosen to exercise, because SC chose to release the tracks on a medium that can be scratched. By contrast, an unauthorized media-shift reflects the choices that the KJ makes with regard to medium, format, etc. As for the "low quality system," that system is not marked with the SC marks, so it's irrelevant.

No....I started a discussion with you about the cost of buying a GEM series vs what I pay for original SC Discs. It morphed into what gets listened to from your GEM series vs my SC discs. Chartbuster didn't come into the equation until I took the conversation back to Cost per disc.



Please. Add up EXACTLY how much money I have stated I have spent "hand over fist". The people that have been in the industry for 10+ years will have spent more money on their karaoke music alone than I have to date on music and equipment combined.

Speaking of.....I have not claimed anything about beating anyone on equipment costs.

But I will stand by my statement on the discs. My boast (if that is what you wish to call it) is that I am spending less than most on building my collection. I paid less for the Chartbuster 12000+ pack than you did for the GEM series for about twice as many tracks. I did so mostly out of convenience and a quick boost to my library. I have plenty of Chartbuster discs and I have no issue with ripping them down myself. But if I can get Chartbuster certified, a big discount, some other percs, and save myself hours upon hours if not days upon days of time ripping, that is worth to me. Plus I now get to use all those low cost discs I have purchased for another show.

The fact still remains, that my "mad negotiating skills" have netted me a substantial library and a very low overall cost per disc. I am able to turn that low cost into profit with typical "buy low, sell high" mentality.

What you don't know is that I am also using my low cost per disc to to help a couple of other KJ's get 1:1 at a significantly lower cost than what they would normally have. I am building relationships in my karaoke community, helping folks out, and making a few bucks in the process.

I consider that to be.......priceless.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

oooohhh! Good one Chrisavis!... That'll leave a mark!

Okay Bazza, the ball is in your court.... (gotta make a popcorn run)

@Harrington
what i was referring to with the "low quality system" is the damage to SC reputation from the glitchy graphics and poor sound quality reflecting poorly to the SC trademark confusing people to thinking that SC put out that poor quality material which they did not. what control does SC have of the disc with scratches?

By itself, media-shifting doesn't result in direct monetary losses. But SC has spent a lot of time and money building a product that is very, very good, if not the very best in the industry. Because trademarks are used to differentiate between similar products, trademarks are often said to be a symbol of business goodwill, which is a valuable asset. If the SC marks can be used outside of SC's control, the value of goodwill associated with the marks goes down, because the purchasing public cannot trust that the SC marks mean quality under the control of SC.

wouldn't using a scratched disc or going through a poor system with skips, graphic glitches, etc. do more to reduce the value of goodwill associated with the mark moreso than using a pristine copy of the digital file (it's all binary.....0's and 1's, even on disc) from a computer? it would seem to me that logically presenting a better symbol of business goodwill would be preferred by the owner of that mark.

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

What you don't know is that I am also using my low cost per disc to to help a couple of other KJ's get 1:1 at a significantly lower cost than what they would normally have.

So what does your music have to do with any other hosts' music? Can you clarify?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Again, it is not about a specific level of quality. It is about a specific level of control. If trademark infringement depended on how good the product was in comparison to the genuine article, then anyone could mark their favorite soda COCA-COLA and as long as it met or exceeded Coke's quality standards, they could sell it with no repercussions. That is not the purpose of trademarks nor is it a reasonable interpretation of the Trademark Act.

How long would you tolerate it if the best KJ in the country opened up shop in your area, calling his company Paradigm Karaoke? Under the standard you're urging, that would be A-OK as long as he was at least as good as you are.

Because I buy large collections of discs, I end up with a lot of duplicates. My original plan was to just store them for 1:1 mapping for future expansion. Instead I am putting together collections which I am selling to the KJ's in question so they can have a legal library and 1:1 compliance.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Invalid comparison.

The "best KJ in the country" didn't purchase anything from Paradigm Karaoke first and create anything (or shift what was purchased) and even now, "Paradigm Karaoke" is not calling his company "Sound Choice" although it shows up at the beginning of songs.

So, if you buy a hamburger from McDonald's, does that mean you can then sell hamburgers in a McDonald's wrapper as long as you make them to McDonald's quality standards or better?

Still invalid.

I'm not "selling" any "product" to anyone else that would cause "confusion as to the origin".

Nice Try.

Now, if you want to discuss "confusion" then feel free to explain the confusion caused to KJ's that believed the discs they purchased --that were specifically marked "Used by permission" -- were fully licensed intellectual property when they purchased them. Turns out, many were not.

SC made a lot of money off that confusion.

I have a feeling that your definition of "invalid" is "supports Harrington's point, which I disagree with for reasons I can't explain."

All analogies are imperfect; otherwise, they would be tautologies. But that does not make them invalid.

What you are saying, perhaps without realizing it, is that the purchase of original SC discs results in a compulsory SC franchise. That is not the way that trademarks work. When you've made a scholarly study of trademark law, or practiced it for more than a decade, come back and tell me if you still disagree.

Your "feeling" is also incorrect.


You are simply painting an apple with orange paint and calling it an "Orange." It's still an apple. No KJ "sells" repackaged content to anyone. The KJ is the end-user, not the patron singing the song.



No, that is not what I'm saying and your purposeful misinterpretation that leads to yet another insult, is not appreciated.

It's interesting how many times you take every opportunity you can to sling some kind of underhanded characterization crap my way. I believe it's all you have left. When you're out of valid arguments you simply insult your opponent.

It doesn't appear as an insult to me but simply him pointing out that you really don't have a grasp on trademark law, or that you have no scholarly experience, or expertise in the field. Mr. Harrington is suggesting that your position probably would change if you have proper study and practice on the subject.

I respect your opinion, but quite frankly, Mr. Harrington has seemed to make more sense regarding this argument.

I would side with Mr. Harrington if I were on a jury.

This is closer to a good argument but weak on the facts. The KJ is selling, among other things, access to the repackaged content. And his consumer is the venue.