Karaoke Forums

Really? Can you direct me to the public notice?

Thank you HarringtonLaw for clearing that up.

I now have a clearer, & better educated understanding about all this now.

While these suits are focused on trademark law, copyright law may be relevant in the big picture.

Consider this:
Copyright-
While the transferring of content from a karaoke cd to a hard drive for convenience is considered fair use for non-commercial purposes, it likely would be considered fair use for the commercial purposes of a KJ as well. Whether the use is for commercial purposes is not the only test for “fair use”. There are many cases where fair use applies to commercial ventures (Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1993), Nuñez v. Caribbean International News, Corp., 235 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2000)).

Since the manufacturer's trademark is embedded within the track itself in multiple places, the fair use transferring of that track from cd to hard drive cannot be accomplished without transferring the manufacturer's trademark as well. This was a use of the manufacturer's logo chosen by manufacturers and still practiced with full knowledge of fair use law. For the purposes of backing up a digital copy of a manufacturer's track, or for the purpose of copying for personal use, there is no amount smaller than the whole work that would be meaningful. So is the Trademark logo of a manufacturer just an identifier of the source of the track or a part of the track itself?

Enter Trademark-
Nominative Fair Use allows for the use of someone else’s trademark commercially if it doesn’t cause consumer confusion as to the source of the product.
There can be no confusion as to the source of the product if the source was the product itself. In addition, the KJ is not selling these tracks, only using them in the manner for which they were intended.
It can also be said that the likely consumer for these tracks (the KJ or the singer) would be savvier about karaoke and the likely source of their favorite tracks than the average person who would not be a prospective consumer anyway, therefore no confusion.

I believe this to be the defense of the legal KJ (the pirate KJ has no defense and would be a fool to let any action continue to a courtroom).
It is a defense that would never see a courtroom without an action such as the one we have been discussing here, because soundchoice will simply drop any case they begin against a legal KJ.

This case will not result in a crushing defeat for soundchoice, but I hope it at least results in an opportunity for KJs to fearlessly step out of the stone age of karaoke and use their computers to put on a modern show without the risk of every manufacturer coming out of the woodwork to get a piece of the litigation action that soundchoice has proven to be so profitable.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

What does it matter if it was said once 14 years ago, or one hundred times 14 years ago. Or said by a dozen different officers/employees of the company. Read it inside out, debate the intent, argue over the punctuation.

It was 14 years ago. Technology has changed. The market has changed. The company policy has changed.

It happens. Get over it.

Seems though I have seen many argue in many places that media-shifting is legal I have never seen case law which applied only legal opinions. In the absence of case law you can only hope to make such case law thru a court battle that will be costly on both sides or that Congress passes a law allowing media-shifting. Till then following the cdg makers (OEMs) guidelines or settling with them are the only choices and revocation of prior consent can occur at anytime by an OEM.

Seems that the OEMs would bind together and make a KJ license that they all would get funds from on an ongoing yearly basis eliminating the possiblity of a law being made by Congress which might go against them. Settling these questions of backup for prevention of CDG loss and media-shifting by the licensed KJ. Such a license would surely reduce their anti-piracy expenses!

Jim, don't you realize there was a third tablet with SC's policy on it, therefore it can never ever be altered by mere man. Again the Strawman cometh.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

That is a great point Workman.

I believe the strawman has lost the debate long ago timberlea.

It seems very clear to me what a KJ should do if they want to be in business.

Trolling again timberlea?.... how predictable.



There's difference between just "being in business" and "being in business married to Sound Choice." If you've got the "bling and the ring" they're ready to "sign on the line."

(sometimes I crack me up!)

No Chip, I'll leave the trolling to you. You do it so well.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

And it always seems that he has to have the last word no matter the subject.

I don't fundamentally disagree with anything you've written above EXCEPT that I do believe that the KJ is "selling" these tracks (in the sense that he is selling access to them, which amounts to the same thing), and EXCEPT that the term "source of the product," legally, refers to the person or entity that created the product, not the pattern from which the product was made. In your scenario, the "source of the (duplicate) product" is not "the (original) product itself," but the KJ (or upstream provider) who made the duplicate.

Also, just a tiny issue with "likely consumer for these tracks"--I believe that to be the person who is paying for the KJ's services, which is usually the bar, restaurant, or other venue.




This is accurate and precise. If the KJ complies with the MSP except for lacking an audit--something we will discover at an early audit or in discovery--then the matter will be dropped and there will be no need to mount a defense at all.



I think you are significantly overestimating the degree to which this litigation has been "profitable." All things considered, SC would rather make its money by selling music.

I doubt very seriously that any other manufacturer will pursue this line to the extent we have, although CB may decide to in the future. There are certain aspects of SC that make this litigation easier for us to pursue than it would be for other manus.

I disagree. The KJ is the "consumer" and that's where it ends. The KJ purchased the product, whether he uses it or even has it available for use in his business has no bearing on whether or not the venue is the consumer. The venue is a "consumer" of the KJ's "services" and that's where that ends. The KJ can perform his services without your "brand of tool."

Just because you hire a plumber, that doesn't give you any kind of "consumer access" to the tools he uses --- even though HE uses them to perform HIS "services" for YOU.



I disagree again. Based on your client's current collections on 70 suits of $180,000.00 in the state of California alone, (per the CAVS suit info) that is a LOT of discs wholesale... With no recording, pressing, printing, packaging, shipping, or other costs against it. etc.... and only minimum staff.

It's a goldmine you can work in your jammies....

I'm not sure I stated that clearly enough and may have left room for confusion (a joke). My point there was the "fair use" copy under copyright law, should treat it as equal to the purchased copy and the source still considered to be the original manufacturer by the courts.

As for the venue being the likely consumer for the tracks, I think proving that may have something to do with the ratio of marketing efforts to their prospects on the part of the manufacturer. A manufacturer who has done little to no marketing to venues probably won't be able to make that case as well as one who does. Currently, most manufacturers don't even mention venues or venue owners on their websites, and direct the majority of their attention toward KJs.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I know a guy who has a 1965 Pontiac GTO convertible that came with a HEMI engine. The original HEMI sits in his garage while he drives it around with a aftermarket CHEVY engine in it to protect the original motor from wear and tear. Can Pontiac sue him for keeping the original GTO emblems on the car? Can Chevy sue him for using one of their engines in a Pontiac? If he removed all TM identification from the car, could Pontiac sue him for removing them? If Sound Choice doesn't want you to display their TM; how can they sue you for removing it? Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Maybe they should make up their minds. They'll sue me if I show it and they'll sue me if I don't. Only option seems to be what Chip is doing? Take them all out of the library until Sound Choice loses in court.

Personally, I think he should be doing time for defacing a fine mopar vehicle with chevy parts.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Maybe he couldn't stand the distinctive sound of the Mopar starter.....

That may be true. However, if the plumber were to let you use his wrench to tighten a leaking faucet, you would have "consumer access" to one of the tools he uses.

American Airlines provides flight services to many different consumers, all of whom would be going nowhere if they did not have "consumer access" to one of the airline's tools - the airplane!

How would karaoke be if none of the singers were given "consumer access" to the music and had to therefore sing acapella?

The World English Dictionary defines a consumer (n) as a person who acquires goods and services for his or her own personal needs.

Based on the definition of a consumer, it sounds to me as though the KJ is the consumer of the karaoke tracks not the individual with access to its use. The patron did not acuire the music for his or her own needs, the KJ did.

The home owner is the consumer of the plumbers services not the consumer of the plumber's tools, the air line passenger is a consumer of the airlines transportation service not the airlines air plane, and the singer is a consumer of the KJ's service not the tracks, his mics, his speakers or any other number of tools used in his show.

_________________
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.

The problem with your analogy is that the guy is modifying the item that he bought, which he can generally do, and he is not--at least in your scenario--using the goods in commerce.

A more apt analogy would be where the guy bought the GTO, then fabricated a part-for-part copy of it, including the emblems, and except for the engine, and then put it in his rent-a-car fleet for public use. I think Johnny Cash sang a song about doing something like that.

(By the way, I'm not a car guy, but I know that Pontiac was a GM make, while HEMI is a Chrysler engine, which makes me think you don't have all the details right. That is, however, the least important part of your scenario.)

So what you are saying is that if I took my Ford van and put Chevrolet emblems on it and then used it for a Taxi I could get sued?

Yep your right about the Pontiac GTO and Chrysler Hemi, wasn't ever a production model but it could be done after market.....Heck I've even seen a 454 in a Nash Metro.

Boy you really not a musical guy are you.
Johnny Cash's song was about building a Cadillac from parts he stole from the production line where he worked, but the problem was they were taken over a number of years and when he put them all together he had "The PSYCHO-BILLY CADILLAC".

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet