Karaoke Forums

I admit that is their work as far as far as what they put into the finished product. They would have nothing to work with, however, without the original product. This is where things get confused they own their TM, but as far as the finished product goes they own very little or anything besides that. Ironically the closer they make it to the original the less content they can claim. Isn't that what the SC supporters and users always maintain that they are the closest to the originals. If that is true it stands to reason there is less of their content in the SC finished product. They hang their right to sue on the flimsy hook of TM infringement not on original product content as far as their contribution to the finished product.

I see you missed my post on how manufacturers produce their music. But never mind. I will remind you of a post I made quite a while ago. When a symphony orchestra makes a recording of the great masters where there is no copyright on the original music, their recordings are copyrighted and they get a royalty when that recording is aired or used in a movie or TV show, etc.

But then you tend to run around in circles to justify your flawed knowledge on how music, copyrights, and TMs work.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

If the TM has a value tim how has that value been harmed by the act of shifting the product of the disc to a HD? Now if the host is bootlegging exact copies of the TM and selling them on line or at a swap meet or flea market. Then he is in direct competition with SC and it could be argued he is hurting their sales. On the other hand if the product has been shifted to another media that cannot be confused in the market place with the original product what harm has been done the TM, exactly? That is why SC is finding it hard to get more than the retail value of the stolen product, that is all they have lost for each host they sue. Hardly worth the trouble is it?

What is absurd is that YOU simply cannot answer a simple Yes/No question based on your own words. It is plain as day why you refuse to answer. Because answering directly would pin you down and leave you no wiggle room to twist and waffle your way into another subject altogether, as is your way.

Using your exact words and logic, ANY song not performed by the original songwriter is not an "original work" and therefor a "remastered initiation". This would be the majority of popular music in existence today. This of course is crazy talk, as are your invented definitions.

I gave you an answer if you don't like it change the question. I'm not the only one who seems to like beating a dead horse, tim seems to agree with me even on this one. It is not the original get over it.

If it is true tim that the finished product has a great deal of their own content in it, then why don't they sue for product content as well as TM infringement. The answer is they can't the content is owned by the original rights holder.

What. Don't like your own words being turned against you? Poor baby. Maybe, just maybe, you should stop spouting nonsense if you cant back it up. Dead horse indeed.

YOU said "the artist had the original concept for the content. All SC did was take the underlying original content and put it in a karaoke disc format, nothing original about that." YOUR WORDS.

ELVIS, and hundreds of thousands of artists by your own admission have done the exact same thing.

Your assertion that SC music is somehow "not original"/inferior/different/immune has just been proven to be Grade "A" BS using your own statements.

Waffle on.

I think you are the one being the baby, if you and Jim think that all of SC's 18,000 tracks are originals then you ought to be suing for content as well as TM infringement. You can't though because it is at best a copy of the original underlying product and you and SC don't own the rights to the originals, end of story.

So Lone, how long do you think you would stay in business, say selling shoes, with the name McDonalds and using Golden Arches as your logo/TM? Afterall you aren't serving food but selling shoes.

If you had read Jim's statements he made when he first joined, he said they could sue for Copyright but the TM was the easier route to go. Any lawyer would do this. The same as the US government charged Al Capone with tax evasion instead of multiple murders. It achieved the same results, him off the streets and in jail. In fact the government continues to do this. Why waste time and money on one aspect of a case when you can achieve the same results quicker and cheaper.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

By your own logic, you should then be able to use "Hound Dog" in a TV commercial with no legal repercussions. After all it is not his work, not original, just "a copy of the original underlying product" as YOU claim.

Good luck with that.

You cant have it both ways. YOU want to paint karaoke (and SC in particular) as some kind of lesser artistic creation. Again, using YOUR LOGIC, any recorded symphony should be free to air. They are after all, instrumentals, "not originals" by your definition and simply "a copy of the original underlying product".

Anyone with a brain can see this is not the case.

That is not the only reason tim they have not claimed Copyright. It is not only harder to prove but I'm sure the rights holders that own the original content would enter the legal fray as well. Right now all SC can claim for damages is the retail value of the stolen material, they would get even less if they had to give a cut to the original rights holders. Making the legal process as far as recovery even less attractive to them.

Not at all Bazza I'm sure the Elvis estate could sue as we as the original holder of the rights could sue. I sure Elvis paid rights to the original holder back in the day when his version was released. As long as the proper fees are paid then everything is kosher, right? Oh by the way SC is not a creator it is an imitator. They can't even make copies right now because they can't afford to pay the fees to the rights holders.

Both Jim and Tim did a lot of typing for no reason.

I never said "A" trademark had no stand - alone value. I said SC 's has no stand - alone value. Big difference.

Coke's trademark is attached to COKE'S PRODUCT. Since it's THEIR formulation, their work, the TM has a meaning for THEIR product. If THEY sue for infringement, it is because THEIR TM is attached to THEIR hard work. They earned it, their product is known and loved worldwide. THEIR TM is also THEIR product, invention, etc... It has value.

SC's trademark would not be media shifted by itself. It would be without purpose. COKE'S trademark has become a product unto itself.

Their are thousands of items collected, bought, and sold for the trademark alone - without the beverage.

Napkins, trays, posters, glasses,etc.....

SC's? Not so much....

Keep in mind once again that I am not making any statement regarding licensing, legaljty, royalties, etc...

I am stating that the P / Os could (and probably do) perceive SC's actions as poaching on their territory, which has ticked them off.

Since I note that the SC enthusiasts arguments seem to be an attemp at distraction, do not address the actual issues that I put forth but are attempts at sidetracks, I have to assume there is no ACTUAL argument.

If one lf you three could prove that you actually know what I posted, it might add to your credibility on this issue.

If not......

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I have to be honest. I find the above statement confusing?? If Sound Choice paid for the right to produce and record their own version of an artists song to use for karaoke. How is their recording of the song not protected? It was their money and artists that created the karaoke track and they paid for the licensing to produce it.

Lone, using YOUR logic, the Elvis estate can sue for his version (or copy as you think of it as) but SC cannot sue for THEIR version? Talk about incredible.

So Joe why is SC TM any different than any other TM out there, whether an international brand or just a local one? And of course you're right, absolutely no work went into any manufacturers karaoke product. No one got the rights, no one did the arrangements, no one rehearsed and played the music, no one recorded and edited it to final product and no one sold it to retailers and other customers. No work involved at all.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

And this is where you lose me (in RED). When you make that type of statement about the SC logo being on something that SC didn't make, I keep thinking, that someone took a (let's say) Music Maestro track, and wiped out the MM logo, and put the SC logo in its place. Now THAT would be considered CONFUSING and DECEPTIVE to me.

You didn't even bother to read the whole post. Too bad, because I explained it. Many times on this thread alone, in fact.

SC's logo is attached to an income producer that is owned by a other entity. Any money made from suits or "settlements " through intimidation goes to SC, and is not voluntarily shared with the owners of the tracks. Might be legal, but will PISS THEM OFF NEVERTHELESS.

Sound familiar?? It should, as I have posted it several times for you now.
Read it a couple of times before asking the very same question AGAIN. Thanks in advance...

So I ask you again: What value do YOU think the logo has standing alone - no attachment to a track?

How many times have you media shifted that logo without it being attached to a track?

How much income have you derived from showing someone a pic of that logo with nothing else. No track, text, graphics.

Please explain your answers with more than a drive by. Maybe add REASONS.

And, of course, could you please stop addressing issues that aren't part of my posts in replies to me? Licensing, royalties, legality? Sound familiar? It should, as I've posted THAT several times as well.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I use OMDs so no format shifting here. Again SC or any other company's TM is theirs not yours. I have seen the SC TM on products other than CDGs that SC has produced or licenced. I believe I have seen t-shirts, mugs, banners, etc. Just like Coke or Ford or whoever. YOU may believe it has no value but that doesn't make it true. You and Lone keep trying to justify your positions but are failing miserably.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

How is that incredible you can be sued on original content based on finished product content. While the Elvis version based on a original song how much of the content is his product? Some artists have been sued because they took six notes from an original song, and incorporated into their work. If the SC product is the closest to the original it stands to reason that very little of the finished product is original SC content tim, right?

No, they got sued because they didn't get PERMISSION to use those notes or what have you.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger