Karaoke Forums

You are missing the point: If a KJ is caught out and chooses to SETTLE with SC instead of going into court and facing considerable penalties, they may sign an agreement to delete even non-SC material. That agreement is very enforceable legally.
Nobody is saying that SC can go in willy-nilly and have a KJ delete non-SC tracks.

TO THE OP:

There are programs that can "water mark" for karaoke songs. If you burn yoiur own discs, I would add in a watermark that says something like "This Karaoke song stolen from John Doe"

I'm still trying to figure out what evil things SC is doing. There is nothing illegal or immoral for them to ensure their product is being used as it should be and they have the right to charge for a 1:1 despite whatever anyone believes. There have been judges out there that have signed off on settlements and before they do that they have to ensure that the stipulations in agreements are lawful.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

They can add any stipulation to their settlement requirements that they like- true enough..but only if some uneducated KJ wants to settle. They cannot enforce anything regarding other mfrs. in court. In other words, if someone feels a need to settle, they can VOLUNTEER to follow those guidelines. However, other than that, SC is powerless in regard to other brands.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

OR, they have been intimidated into believing SC,s Trademark Infringement case is stronger than it is, or, they don't want their reputations tarnished all over the net and news, or in one case I know, the host's spouse was in public life, and negative publicity could have been damaging- In short, a non-pirate host could have ( for that matter have been) intimidated into signing.

Here's what gets me: So many hosts, when looking for legal information, are actually uneducated enough to ask the manufacturer ( WHO WANTS YOU TO USE THEIR PRODUCT THEIR WAY) rather than independent legal counsel. It's kind of like asking a used car dealer if their car is the best quality at the best price. What the hell do you think they will say? They will tell you whatever is in THEIR BEST INTEREST. Geez.....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Well then, if that's the case, then I'm all FOR more UNEDUCATED Piraing Thieves signing those settlement agreements that state they MUST DESTROY ALL CONTENT THAT CAN NOT BE PROVEN AS 1:1.

Once someone was named, it would be all over the internet, regardless. So it would look better for someone in public life to get a quiet little audit and prove their innocence then to sign something admitting to piracy, one would think.

One of the things recommended on the SC website is that if someone is named, they consult their own legal counsel.

Hey Cue, if they are actual pirates (music thieves) then I am with you 100% ++++

The problem is that no non-distributor KJs are accused of piracy in the SC suits, so no proof exists that they are.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Or...maybe it would look better for SC if they didn't sue first and drag KJs' names through the mud and have it all over the internet without any proof other than a KJ running a PC based show, right?

Also, as for "then to sign something admitting to piracy....", what document would they be signing that accuses them of piracy? These are Trademark Infringement suits. piracy is not and never has been SC's issue, except any they might name by accident. The suits target media shifters. The piracy issue is a propoganda tool that is wearing incredibly thin.

Once again:

If one wants to do things SC's way, then they must be compliant to their wishes, which has nothing whatsoever to do with being legal.

The siuts target media-shifters, NOT pirates ( those who steal their music).

Now in regard to the second part, Jim Harrington's posted opinion is that the logo, if shifted without permission, is a "counterfeit". This has never been proven in a court of law in regard to SC's specific situation. Since they cannot grant permission for the media shifting of the track that their logo is attached to, and said logo would not be ripped without the track, in my opinion they will have great difficulty going forward.

A counterfeit is usually identified as an item mfred to resemble an original in hopes of misleading the public that it is in order to make money of the original's name. This doesn't seem to fit the bill.

But let's say it does, just for fun. Pretend it's counterfeiting. If this is true, and if a company is willing to look the other way if a KJ is compliant to their wishes, wouldn't this make said company complicit in the very crime that they are alledging?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Your opinions on SC are well known. I was questioning your story on someone having to sign something out of fear of a spouse in public life. It doesn't make sense.

Maybe you should think of it as they are fighting trademark piracy????

Was also wondering if the fall out over venues being afraid to play SC wasn't a backfire from someone's ads that warned they had better hire a disc based hosts to avoid being sued.

Of all of the criticisms of our program, this is the one I find to be the most disingenuous.

1. The suits target media-shifters and pirates alike. Both types of activity are actionable under the same statute, and there is a high degree of coincidence between the two types of activity.

2. The complaints specifically accuse the defendants of piracy. Every single complaint I've ever filed as part of this project has made that specific allegation.



This is yet another disingenuous argument. The Trademark Act gives SC the power to control the use of its trademark in commerce. A violation of the Trademark Act (such as by infringement of SC's trademarks) is an unlawful act for which the actor is subject to a civil action, the result of which may be the deprivation of property (money judgment) and/or liberty (injunction). You are conflating the terms "illegal" and "criminal." All criminal acts are illegal. Not all illegal acts are criminal. Likewise, a person who is "compliant" with the policy is acting "legally," but a person can act legally without being compliant (such as by not using the product, or by engaging only in fair uses of the trademark).



You have inaccurately described my opinion.

A track that is media-shifted without SC's permission and that has the logos or trade dress attached to it (also without permission) is a counterfeit. The act of media-shifting may be the source of the logo or trade dress--and very likely is--but that is not an element of the offense. SC has the right to prevent its logos and trade dress from being attached to a karaoke track without its permission. If you can media-shift a karaoke track without attaching SC's logo or trade dress, then you aren't infringing SC's trademark rights. But if the thing you end up with is a karaoke track we did not physically make or authorize, and our logos are attached, then that is a counterfeit track.

By the way, on Tuesday we concluded a trial in the Northern District of Florida, in which two of the defendants (both venues who own their own karaoke systems) who were proven to be in possession of and using 80 discs' worth of SC karaoke tracks for which they owned and possessed NO DISCS WHATSOEVER. I believe that constitutes piracy by any reasonable definition of the term. It's a bench trial; trial briefs and proposed findings and conclusions are due on Friday.



This is not even close to the definition of "counterfeit." The Trademark Act defines a "counterfeit" mark as "a spurious mark which is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a registered mark." (15 U.S.C. § 1127.) The term "spurious" means "false" or "fake," and in the trademark context it connotes a mark that was placed on goods, without permission, by other than the owner.



There are many acts that are unlawful without appropriate permission that become lawful if permission is obtained. If you own a copyright, sue someone for infringement, and settle the case when the infringer takes a license and pays a royalty, does that make you "complicit" in the infringement of your own copyright? If someone trespasses repeatedly on your land, and you and they agree that they will pay you for an easement, does that make you "complicit" in trespassing upon your own land?

Of course not. It's nonsense. When the law gives you the right to prevent something from occurring, it likewise gives you the right to set terms on which you will not act to prevent it. There is nothing untoward, illegal, or immoral about that arrangement.

Jim:

I'm just wondering how you feel about all those that have copied the SC trademark
and are using it to sell CD's on Ebay?

Isn't this the same thing. They copied the trademark from somewhere, are digitally
presenting it on Ebay, and selling what every buyer hopes are original SC Discs.

Again just wonderin'

_________________
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

If they are using it to sell legitimate original discs, and they only use as much of the mark as is required to convey the message that these are legitimate original discs, then the use of the mark is a nominative fair use, and we're fine with that.

Anything else--selling other than legitimate original discs, or use of more of the mark than is necessary--and we generally complain to eBay about it.

"By the way, on Tuesday we concluded a trial in the Northern District of Florida, in which two of the defendants (both venues who own their own karaoke systems) who were proven to be in possession of and using 80 discs' worth of SC karaoke tracks for which they owned and possessed NO DISCS WHATSOEVER. I believe that constitutes piracy by any reasonable definition of the term. It's a bench trial; trial briefs and proposed findings and conclusions are due on Friday."

cant wait to see the results...lots of people have been saying SC would never take a case all the way. Guess this will prove them wrong

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

That is not what everyone was talking about.
those are pirates, thieves, no good scallywags stealing material and not paying for it.
if they even showed up (which tends to be the issue in the past) and not media shifters.
splitting hairs, possibly, but no more than being told that "it doesn't say anywhere that you DON"T nedd an audit".
when all is said and done, we can read the transcript and see what happened............unless is is secret and sealed of course

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

Paradigm...you are correct...these are thieves pure and simple. There are some who were betting that SC would never take a case all the way. Now that has been done. I look forward to reading the entire transcript and am glad someone did fight to the end,all the time...crying "the pirates lament". If this was not what "everyone" was speaking of please enlighten me.

Athena

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

Lots of people here were saying that SC would never take a case all the way, but the REAL references to that were made in regard to Legit KJs, NOT Pirate KJs, because they wanted to see a precedent set. Based on what Mr. Harrington relayed (above), the case cited above is CLEARLY dealing with Venues using an obviously pirated system. Now, what precedent is being set reagarding that????... that Pirates will walk the proverbial plank! YAY!!!

Well, that IS something we all want to see, BUT, what we have really been waiting to see is a SC case against a Legit KJ who media-shifted (one who is 1:1). We want to see what a Judge has to say about those cases, and what precedents will be set as a result.

EXACTLY!!! Then maybe they would think better of harassing everyone they can.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Thank you Cueball for filling me in. I dont think we will EVER see a case taken all the way against a media-shifter because as soon as discovery happens and a "shifter" proves they have a 1-1 correspondence I think SC would drop the suit......SC is not out to sue KJ's that have all the music they play. In order to protect the right they have to go after the thieves they must treat all media-shifters the same (yes it is distasteful at least to me) and offer the audits first to not be involved in a suit second as a early out if you have been named and the final audit at discovery....during any one of the three you are let out of the net if you own your discs........why would SC keep on with a case where discs were proved to be owned even as late as discovery? The court orders discovery so I can see someone refusing audits until ordered by the court (at detriment to themselves) if they had listened to some who spouted misinformation...but what reason would SC have to continue the case after that point? except to make an example of them for dragging things out. Everyone here knows it is my opinion that KJ's who media shift should request an audit and get certified to avoid any chance of being included in a suit....but others feel differently so to each there own.....educate yourselves....decide what level of liability you are willing to accept....pay the piper and dont B*tch at the cost of your decision....thats all I ask of anybody

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

Smoothedge69,

The only way to tell a media-shifter from a thieve is with an audit. In order to retain the right to sue SC must treat everyone who media shifts alike. KJ's Have the choice to request an audit before being sued (least cost)....request an audit after being sued (higher costs) or wait for discovery (no cost except legal fees).....Personally I do not know of a single KJ willing to be sued all the way in order to try and set precedence....do you know of any?

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey