Karaoke Forums

Mr. Harrington -

As the OP of this post, I've requested information on the actual law which states that media shifting is illegal for commercial use in the United States. Now that you have chimed in on this discussion, would you mind pointing me in the right direction for where I can read this document? Thanks very much.

Xen you can look at the US Copyright Act. They may or may not use the term "commercial" but they definitely use the term "Public performance".

Section 102(a)(2)
covers karaoke as subject matter of copyright. I include this because people keep saying the word "karaoke" isn't in the act.

Section 103(b)
covers derivitave works, which would include the works of the manufacutrers, ie their arrangement of the music.

Then look at Sections 106, 107, and 114.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I'd be happy to answer.

If you are looking for a statute that says "media shifting is illegal for commercial use in the United States," you are not going to find that. The law is more general than that. As with most laws, some interpretation is required to apply the law to conduct.

First, let's define what "media shifting" is. Strictly speaking, media shifting means copying stored data from one medium (the original CD, for example) to another medium (a hard drive, a blank CD, etc.).

When you have an original Sound Choice disc, and you "rip" that disc to a computer hard drive, what that means is that you are copying the data onto the hard drive. That data includes encoded music, lyrics, and other graphical displays (such as the SC logo). If you do that, what you have done is created a new item that contains the data AND the SC logo.

If you did not have permission to create that new item that contains the data and the SC logo, then--under our interpretation of the law, which has been borne out by numerous courts--you have created counterfeit goods. To understand why, we have to look at two specific parts of the Trademark Act.

15 U.S.C. § 1116 reads, in part, as follows:

(T)he term "counterfeit mark" means a counterfeit of a mark that is registered on the principal register in the United States Patent and Trademark Office for such goods or services sold, offered for sale, or distributed and that is in use, whether or not the person against whom relief is sought knew such mark was so registered ... but such term does not include any mark or designation used on or in connection with goods or services of which the manufacture or producer was, at the time of the manufacture or production in question authorized to use the mark or designation for the type of goods or services so manufactured or produced, by the holder of the right to use such mark or designation.

The term "counterfeit" is not defined in the Act, but the plain meaning refers to something that is "not genuine" or a "copy," just as a counterfeit $20 bill is a copy and not genuine money. Because you made the copy of the mark (the SC logo), and the SC logo is registered, what you've made is a counterfeit unless you had SC's permission.

15 U.S.C. § 1114 reads, in part, as follows:

Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant ... use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive ... shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter provided.

If you then take your counterfeit goods and use them "in commerce," then you are liable to the registrant for the various remedies that are available.

It may well be that media-shifting is also prohibited by the Copyright Act also, but the Trademark Act's prohibitions are much less complicated, so I'll leave it at that.

my non legal *as i am not a lawyer* has always been as follows as it was explained to me by several people.

the phrase 'all rights reserved' means that if it is not specifically spelled out, that right belongs to the copyright holder

therefore in order for an end user to have a specific right, it must either be spelled out in copyright law *most aren't* or it must be given by the copyright holder.

Now i believe there are specific sections of the copyright law that allow for what is called 'fair use' However this applies to PERSONAL USE ONLY. As soon as you get into commercial use of a work, you are back at square one. to the best of my knowledge there are no specific allowances for commercial use in the copyright law.


there have been several cases where commercial use was allowed, such as for parody. But i do not understand that so i cannot comment on it.

-james

Mr. Harrington –

Thank you for this information. Perhaps you can shed some further light……A KJ owns only 1 computer, has spent thousands of dollars on original Sound Choice CDGs, is 1:1 compliant, and has retired said CDGs to storage after uploading to the computer. This KJ did not get Sound Choice’s permission to media shift and then goes out to run a commercial karaoke show. During the course of that show, the KJ shows Sound Choice’s trademark twice for every Sound Choice track requested. Keeping in mind that regardless of where the trademark originated it ends up in the same place, the television monitor that the singers use to see the song lyrics, and looks exactly the same. Meaning, anyone looking at the monitor would have no way of knowing if the trademark came from the media shifted track or from the original CDG and, as such, there could be no evidence that the use of the trademark would be “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.”

Conceptually speaking, in the scenario above 1) Why does this KJ need Sound Choice’s permission to media shift and, 2) How does the unapproved media shifting cause Sound Choice to suffer monetary losses?

Oh, and one other thing....I'd be thrilled to know what your answer is to my original question in this post. Do YOU believe that a computer based KJ could be legal without being "certified" by Sound Choice?

Thanks again for your input. It is greatly appreciated.

Thank you Tiberlea and James for your input, however, 1) My questions were specifically for Mr. Harrington and 2) Both of your answers referred to copyright law, which has nothing to do with Sound Choice's allegations of Trademark Infringement.

I've explained elsewhere on this board within the last week that "likelihood of confusion" does not necessarily mean "actual confusion" or what we would think of as confusion in normal everyday use of the word.

When that mark is displayed, it signals to the public that SC made the thing being displayed (or authorized it to be made). But in your example, SC did not make the file that's being played. The KJ did. If SC doesn't have the ability to permit (or refuse to permit) that, then the power of the trademark to signify the source of goods is lessened, and SC's right--codified in 15 U.S.C. § 1115(a)--to the exclusive use of the mark and to control how it is used is called into question.



1. Because SC needs to be able to control the commercial use of its trademarks.
2. 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. Even if the KJ is scrupulous in not lessening the quality of the product, it is still outside SC's control when he makes his copies.

Aside from the economic damage (lessening of the value of business goodwill), the Trademark Act also provides for injunctive relief. In many trademark disputes, particularly those that do not involve counterfeiting, the courts do not award money damages at all, but simply order the junior user to stop using the mark.



Well, yes, in two ways. One is if you don't use SC. The other is if you confine your use of SC to the GEM series only, and you are a GEM series licensee. Licensees under the GEM program do not need to be "certified" because the GEM program is self-certifying; the media-shifting authorization is built into your purchase of the license.

If you are running using SC content you have media-shifted from CDGs, you need to be certified by SC to be 100% legal.

Not really, you can use a SC content via Karaoke-Channel and no need to be certified by SC

Karakoe Channel content is not SC content and it is not licensed for commercial use, if I understand correctly.

What other media companies prosecute their customers for using their product? I'm curious to see the list. I use music from Prime Cuts that originates from every music label in the country and it comes on a CD-ROM as an mp3 and I copy it to my hard drive. I don't take my CDs with me because A) I use a computer to play the music B) I'm not stupid

None of them threatening me with legal action for using the content I paid for, once again, media shifting made up by Sound Choice.

Yes it is SC content but with out the SC logo But you are correct, for home use only

Bad example: your Prime cuts is more simular to the GEM series than to CD+G's being media shifted. And if you look up the term Media shift I am willing to bet that it does not say made up by Sound Choice.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Where else have you ever seen it used Danny? Point me to the term being used by any other media company, please. So a mp3 + G can be shifted but an mp3 by itself can't? That makes no sense at all.

This may have been posted here already but if not it raises some good points!

http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/02/22/karaoke_legal_myths/

May want to read it from here:

http://www.mtu.com/support/copyright-notes.htm

Xeno, you asked for actual law and in this case two different Acts can cover it. Trademark and Copyright. SC has chosen to use Trademark.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I remember talking about media and format shifting on the old JOLT boards in the late 90's early 2000's. I don't know who actually started coining the phrase, but it wasn't a manu.

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

never said that a mp3 can't be. I was saying you have the same authority given to whether or not it's prime cuts or GEM series. no difference between the two except for the extra file. Learn to read.

Also, it is funny that wikipedia makes no mention of SC when referring to format shifting or media shifting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Format_shifting

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.

I am a GEM licensee..considered legal by SC...and have never been certified or had a audit so it seems I am proof that the answer is YES.

I think most of us are considered legal until otherwise proven illegal.

I equate being certified as a KJ simliar to passing a health department inspection as a restaurant.

You may eat at a restaurant a couple of times a month for years. The food tastes great, the service is good, the pricing is fair. You have never gotten sick from eating there and never heard of anyone else getting sick. You watch the servers come and go through the kitchen door without really concerning yourself with what is on the other side.

Then one day you go to eat at the restaurant and find it has been closed due to health code violations. The health inspector found rat droppings, improper food storage, unclean conditions, etc, etc.

Had the restaurant taken the proper steps, the inspector would have done it's inspection and placed a nice little seal on the door leading into the restaurant. That seal gives visual notice to prospective patrons that allows them to be reasonable assured that food is being prepared, stored, served in a heathy manner.

Similarly, there are restaurants that absolutely follow the rules of proper, healthy food preparation but for whatever reason, their inspections have fallen to the way side and their seal is out of date. Keen patrons that look for that seal may pass over the restaurant because there is no proof that they have passed inspection. The restaurant is legal in respect to following food preparation guidelines, but there is no proof. Thus they may actually be missing out on some business.

There are great many legal karaoke hosts out there. With the state of the industry, the awareness campaigns from the KIAA, and the resulting legal actions in many areas, it is not only the hosts and venues that aware of piracy, but also the singers themselves. In my neck of the woods, it is a very high tech area (Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Boeing, and many more...plus a very active Startup Community) and as a result there is a heightened awareness of piracy, technology innovation, and intellectual property. The singers are slowly becoming a bit more discerning in their choice of karaoke venue beyond price of drinks, song selection, friendly host and convenient location. They have heard about the legal actions brought against KJ's and venues in the area. Very slowly I am seeing folks wonder about the legality and thus the potential longevity of a quality karaoke show. The singers have and are suffering the fallout from piracy as well by being subjected to the $50/night host that is only there for the free bar tab and the chance to oggle some patrons. They want more.

In my opinion, getting certified means the host has taken the extra step to contact the manufacturers and demonstrate compliance. In return they get some extra marketing power to show to venues and patrons that they are in it for the long haul and they are worth the investment.

This is not to say that uncertified hosts are any less legal, capable, qualified or "good". It just means that as a certified host, I get an extra tool to promote my business and leverage to my advantage. Venues can feel comfortable they won't get dinged, and patrons can see my investment in the process. Everyone should know I am serious about what I am doing from a business perspective. Now I just have to prove I am capable of running a good show.

Can I be legal without cerification? Certainly.
Can I prove it to a venue or patron? Possibly, with some work.

I can also be legal *and* certified.
When it comes to proving it, I just show the paperwork. Done deal.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Bazza – For your own edification – Per Mr. Harrington’s post above “Licensees under the GEM program do not need to be "certified" because the GEM program is self-certifying; the media-shifting authorization is built into your purchase of the license.”