Karaoke Forums

I am one that doesn't like unnecessary spending. Especially when I don't have the money to spend. As I have said before, until SC changes it's policy, or comes up with something better, I will just have to decline using their products. If you want to think of me as an enemy because of that, that is your business, but at least I won't be caught in any nets, and will have no extra expense.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

I understand that as well, and based on the response from Harrington above, it looks again the need has arisen for a translation to ENGLISH...

I have included the translation in the response below IN GREEN so that you can understand the true meaning and clear up any confusion:





Sometimes, you do have to read between the lines.

Then may I ask you the same question? I'm legitimately concerned about the policy here, as it does seem to be changing on a case-by-case basis. There's nothing for me to gain by trying to twist your words, as I can't take a screenshot of this forum and use it against you in court as if this were legitimate legal advice.

I want to know what exactly is legal, and what isn't.

Any response agreeing with Harrington garners a cheerleader label. So let me raise my pom-poms now.

I have found HaringtonLaw's statement above to be right on the money. I have never felt threatened, targeted or otherwise uncomfortable in my dealings with Sound Choice. I engaged HarringtonLaw early on when I came to these forums and he has always been helpful. My dealings with the Sound Choice folks and Kurt in particular have been the best of the Big 3. My audit was smooth and painless. I suspect the two additional rigs that I plan on auditing here soon will be just as painless. And all of this is the case even though Kurt and Harrington know I don't agree with all of their methodologies.

It all comes down to how it is approached. If I spent my days belching out vitriolic hate of all things Sound Choice I would expect them to be less willing to work with me. Instead I have provided feedback and suggestions and they have listened and acknowledged my position.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Yes, but it's still extremely rare to see a Lawyer walking down the the street........with his hands in his own pockets.....

I don't know about "clients" in the plural. However, if you are referring to Sound Choice I would note the following:

This is a company whose main income seems to be based on settlements through intimidation ( call it "litigation" if you like, but since the cases don't ever seem to be tried in court, I can't take the word seriously- just my own reaction...).

They produce nothing, and offer no service of benefit to the public. In my opinion, the company's existence seems to be parasitical in nature.

While I have no way of knowing what Chip's intent is,the loss of Sound Choice as a business entity under it's current earnings model doesn't seem like something to mourn over.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

If they are filing law suits against people for diplaying their logo. Why can't all of the 1:1 media shifters just remove the logos from the tracks in question? If an investigator comes to your show and asks to sing a song that is only available on a Sound Choice disc and you pop up the song without any Sound Choice logos included; what can they suit you for now.

They obviously don't want people to display their logo from a computer so by removing the logos from the tracks should be what they are asking for. Right?

Is it a situation of being damned if you do(show their logo) and damned if you don't(show their logo)????? Are they allowed to have their cake and eat it too?

Hmmmmm, after giving it a little thought; I guess the pirates could start swapping those tracks without any logos too. Oh well, it was a good idea for about a second.

You would have to change their sweeps, too.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Why change the "sweeps"? They don't own any particular font. What would you want to change? The colors? They don't own colors. From everything that I've been reading; they only have the right to file a suit over their LOGO. Remove the LOGO, remove the possibility of being sued. No?

Depends on the court... they've added "trade dress" to their suits which would include the typical way their tracks "look." Which is like someone asking you to name the brand based on the colors, fonts, and sweep style without you being able to see a logo.

Music Maestro for example uses a blue background, Century Schoolbook for a font, but they've used a few different kinds of sweeps - smooth sweep of letters only or sweep of the background (earlier tracks).

without logos, sound choice fonts and CB fonts look very similar to me. How can they claim ownership of a font or a specific color combination? CB was more consistent with their color scheme but SC used many different color combinations. If I make some home made CDG tracks, do I have to make sure that I don't use certain font and color combinations to avoid being sued by Mr. Harrington?

If I buy tracks from Karaokeversion.com and happen to use the same fonts and colors that happen to be on a SC disc; how have I broken any copyright laws against SC? I can't see a judge telling someone that Sound Choice owns the rights to using Black Red And White as a color scheme. I'm a bit of a patriotic guy so I usually use Red White and Blue when I make a CDG file. Can I copy right Red White and Blue? I doubt it.

I think you should look up trade dress. It will clear up a lot of this gray area for you. If you paint a box truck in Pullman brown then don't be surprised if UPS comes knocking at your door.

Bruce, by willfully removing the TM, you would still be in violation and liable. It would be a stupid thing to do. Proving who laid down a track is not that difficult. You can have two subperb musicians with the same instrument playing the same music and it can be differentiated.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

But that wouldn't be trademark infringement, which is what SC sues for. Now you are talking about copyright infringement.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Like Chip stated 'trade dress' can be enforced. Each manu is pretty identifiable from thier individual look.

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

Sound Choice's "LOOK" is typically a Black background with White or Yellow letters that change to Red but they are not always the same colors so how can they proclaim to have a particular "LOOK" when the "LOOK" is not always consistent. What if the track was changed to have a sky blue background with green letters that change to pink? That along with the Sound Choice logos being removed would create a track that looked nothing like a Sound Choice track except for the particular font that is being used. How can a company say that they own a font? That particular font looks almost identical to the font that Chartbuster uses. Can Sound Choice file a law suit against Chartbuster for stealing it's "LOOK"? I doubt it.

Have you noticed that no other pop (or soda as you term it in the US) company uses the Coca-Cola stylized lettering or their particular colours (Coca-Cola red and there is a Pepsi blue). If one did, you can bet Coca-Cola would be all over them, regardless of what colour the other company used.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

The problem with trademark removal is not what’s left it is what's missing.
However, what's left is what allows identification of what’s missing.

If in this case the plaintiff actually has possession of a track where the trademark has been removed, it will be an easy task to identify the original manufacturer of that track through the trade dress among other things. Once the track has been identified, unauthorized copying of the track becomes easy to prove, and trademark infringement through counterfeiting and product tampering becomes an open and shut case.

It’s not the fact that the trademark logo does not get displayed during the show that is illegal; it is the fact that a counterfeit copy of the track has been created to avoid displaying the trademark.

If the defendant in this case removed the logos from the cdg using cdg editing software, he is in a lot of trouble.

If you used an original track and avoided displaying the logo without tampering with the track itself there would be no cause for action, but you may still have to prove to a judge that there is no cause for action.

Take your scenario of the 1:1 media shifter not showing a logo;
I suspect that even if a completely legit KJ used playback software that only displayed the portions of the cdg that were a color different from the background color and then changed color at some point during playback, which would result in a display of lyrics only (no logos or credits) without changing the file itself, that KJ would be sued anyway because the plaintiff would think they had reason to suspect he was hiding something.
That suit of course would be dismissed, but that KJ would have failed to avoid the suit through avoiding the display of any logo.

When a lawyer wants to sue you, you will be sued.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF