Karaoke Forums

It's a practical solution to a problem, and nothing more.

We actually see four categories of operators who use SC material: (1) pure pirates, who have purchased no legitimate tracks, (2) partial pirates, who have collections of SC discs, but who are not 1:1, (3) unauthorized media-shifters, who are 1:1 but have not submitted to an audit, and (4) fully legal operators, who either play from original discs or from an audited media-shifted source.

We have problems, in descending order of severity, with groups 1, 2, and 3.

I can draw a bright line between group 4 and the rest just by walking into a public show (and examining our records).

I can identify some of the group 1 guys just by visiting a show, but not all of them.

Since we have a problem with 1, 2, and 3, and legal grounds to do so, we sue all three groups. All of them are offered audits, which we use to screen out group 3 (and resolve our problems with them). That leaves groups 1 and 2, which most people agree are the real problem in the industry, and with them we settle or proceed through to judgment, either getting them out of the business or getting them legal.

So the benefit of offering the audit is that it enables us to separate the defendants who have committed a technical violation of our trademark rights from those who have committed a more severe violation.

I'm afraid that you are, quite simply, dead wrong with respect to whether the marks are displayed in the sale of services.

When the KJ is performing the service for money, or in order to induce the transfer of money from one person to another, and he displays the marks on the screen in the course of performing that service, then that is "display in the sale of services."

I have no idea what you are referring to when you say "SERVICE applies to the COMMERCIALLY Government recognized Company...like SC...got nothing to do with a KJ."



Where do you get the idea that you can make a "legal BACKUP of a TRACK/DISC"?

If your client didn't charge a fee for the audit, I'd think more of group 3 would come forward and resolve that problem.

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

------- Benjamin Franklin

#3? Seriously? You really have a problem with people who purchased all of their discs and just didn't say "Mother May I?" Really?

I think the more likely scenario is that you use #3 to do some pretty hefty fishing expeditions in order to locate #1 and #2. I don't really think #3 is a REAL problem. They gave SC the same money per disc as #4, didn't they?

_________________
Birdofsong

Apparently, your professional investigators have that same problem with all the groups.... Just ask Rodney...



Including #4. So that's "all four groups" not three.

Don't the original discs say something along the lines like "Unauthorized duplication prohibited"?

A back-up copy was authorized. By Kurt and Derek Slep. Maybe you missed the post, above.

_________________
Birdofsong

Software only enjoys backup as "fair use". Intellectual property does NOT enjoy this same "fair use" and without an irrevocable agreement from the licensor you cannot be assured you will always enjoy this benefit. Backup rights to insure buyers against loss should be required from any reputable seller!

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html

Can I backup my computer software?

Yes, under certain conditions as provided by section 117 of the Copyright Act. Although the precise term used under section 117 is “archival” copy, not “backup” copy, these terms today are used interchangeably. This privilege extends only to computer programs and not to other types of works.

Under section 117, you or someone you authorize may make a copy of an original computer program if:

1. the new copy is being made for archival (i.e., backup) purposes only;
2. you are the legal owner of the copy; and
3. any copy made for archival purposes is either destroyed, or transferred with the original copy, once the original copy is sold, given away, or otherwise transferred.

You are not permitted under section 117 to make a backup copy of other material on a computer's hard drive, such as other copyrighted works that have been downloaded (e.g., music, films).

It is also important to check the terms of sale or license agreement of the original copy of software in case any special conditions have been put in place by the copyright owner that might affect your ability or right under section 117 to make a backup copy. There is no other provision in the Copyright Act that specifically authorizes the making of backup copies of works other than computer programs even if those works are distributed as digital copies.

Like you missing the point that companies can change their policies. That policies (or laws for that matter) are not written in stone (except ten).

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

There you have it a definitive answer towards media shifting musical works- must have the permission of the original owner of the work and that includes the trademark. So those of us who have gone through the audit process are at least legal with the SC trademark end of it. SC and CB give permission to use their trademarks if you pass an audit. Otherwise you are as guilty as a pirate until cleared as a 1:1 user. Makes more sense to take a preemptive stab at being legal than to wait and be served to me.

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

How irrelevant.

Talk about trademark and we get a bunch of drivel on "copyright"....

No, they are not interchangeable.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

There has been a lot of discussion about § 117 of the Copyright Act, and its provisions for archival copies and how they might apply to karaoke. Between what timberlea posted and your statement about trademark and copyright not being the same thing--which I agree with--we should be able to put that to bed.

Now that we're focused again on trademark, I invite you to show the world the law--statutory, case law, or otherwise--that says you can make a duplicate of goods SC sold, incorporating the trademark into it, then use the duplicate you made to provide karaoke services on a commercial basis.

A back-up copy to compact discs, not to a hard drive.

Wrong counsel...,.

The "permission" -- stated more than one time by both the president and vice president of Sound Choice -- does not limit, nor does it imply that the "backup copy" be specifically limited to a compact disc or any other medium - digital or otherwise.

.

Considering the time frame in which the statement was made, and the context of the discussion that precipitated the statement, it is quite clear to me--and to anyone else who doesn't suffer from SC derangement syndrome--that it was referring to CDs only. It was also referring to a backup for archival purposes--i.e., for the protection of the contents of the original disc against loss--and not to the creation of a new production set of discs. Even more clear is that the policy of tolerance of that behavior has been significantly modified.

So cling, if you want, to an off-the-cuff statement from 1998. For the wide majority of users of the product, who did not act in reliance on that statement because they were not aware of it or were not involved in karaoke at the time, it is simply irrelevant to the discussion.

You make the mistake of thinking that because I've only posted one quote that it was the only one ever made. I assure it was not, nor was it described that same way in other posts by DEREK Slep (then president of Sound Choice). And if you read the quote that is posted, it quite CLEARLY states that using the "backup copy" while the original is safely put away is "OKay."

Nice try. Read the text, not what you want to see between the lines.



It wasn't "off the cuff" several times by several people and two were OWNERS of Sound Choice.

I'd suggest you go through Kurt's old messages and "lawyer mail" before dismissing your client's permissions. (but that's just me... )


Your ball...

Well, I'm glad that at least the disc part is agreed upon....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

At the time. That is no longer the policy, as you well know.