Karaoke Forums

I guess they didn't know that physical media is dead.

_________________
-Chris

Lone, one can have fun conducting business but the bottom line is it is a business.

Joe, their TM is their TM on music CDGs they made from copyright holder, which they paid for. And before you go on about lawsuits, they either paid for it beforehand or afterwards, regardless they were paid. You're trying hard to take SC down and make them evil, but they are the same as any other recording companies out there.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Chris you have to remember what the average age around here is. Most still play cd's or even older media types .

They were selling illegal copies to others, not media shifting. going after the drive sellers is what most have been wanting SC to do this whole time. it is a very different concept than what SC has been taking action on.

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

Not sure whether you are deliberately trying to distract from the point,or you have absolutely no understanding of my posts.

SC sues for copyright infringement based on the display of their media shifted logo. I believe you agree on this point.

SC's logo would not be media shifted and displayed all by itself. I think you might agree that there would no purpose to it.

Still with me? Ok.

SC's logo is media shifted as a by-product of shifting the music track and graphics to which it has been attached.
Still with me?

It is the track and lyrics that are of value to the KJ, not the attached logo.
So far so good? ok.

SC is making an income intimidating and suing for something that would have no value without the music and tracks to which it has been attached.

Ergo, SC is once again deriving an income from the Publishers' / Owners' property, only this time they don't even pay licensing to them to do it. No income back to the O / Ps. They did the work and SC is making the money.

THIS would logically P.O. the P / Os, would it not?

Add the way the GEMS were handled.

Do you know of another company that has done BOTH of these things?

No? Then maybe it becomes a bit more clear....

I'm not posting about licensing or royalties. I'm posting that SC has found another way to exploit the O/P's property without worrying about having to share their income.

The O/Ps got tired of being screwed with and are doing something about it. Pirate end users may have played a very small part, it was, in my opinion, SC that truly set them on fire.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

There used to be the old Variety paper with the question "What killed Vaudeville"? I just hope there won't be a question in the future, what killed karaoke? Of course then we could post about that.

No. They sue for TRADEMARK infringement.



The trademark identifies the product as produced by Sound Choice. It helps distinguish its material from other similar tracks produced by other manufacturers (which also use their own trademarks). While the tracks and lyrics are of value, how would one know BEFORE buying those tracks, if they were Sound Choice tracks without some sort of identifier?

Example - For eBay auctions that say something like "This listing is for 100 Sound Choice karaoke discs. They are all original, no burns" but they don't list pictures, I ALWAYS.......ALWAYS ask for pictures to prove they are selling what they say they are selling. It is the Sound Choice label and logo in those pictures that is supposed to verify the product is legitimate.



I make an effort to by "Made In America" products because I want to support local jobs, local manufacturing, and I have a splinter of patriotism in me. Without a label or mark to identify a product as "Made In America" how am I to know? The feel of the cotton, the cut of the T-Shirt, the durability and longevity of the T-Shirt, and where it was made all have the true value to me. Take those things away and "Made In America" is just a label.

As you have pointed out many, many, many times, ripping a disc ALWAYS results in an inferior bit-rate and inferior sound reproduction. It doesn't matter than no average person can tell the difference, the difference is there just the same. Sound Choice has called this out in many of their suits.

If that rip also includes garbled graphics, we now have both auditory and visually inferior products with the Sound Choice identifier which could possibly influence a buying decision. Regardless of that, no one wants their name associated with an inferior product. I know it is a long shot argument, but so are many on the forums. The difference being that there is scientific evidence to back up the "inferior" product claim.

BTW - Most laws are in place to intimidate people into not doing something deemed socially unacceptable.



This is a very strong statement. Mr. Harrington insists they have properly licensed everything they produce and to date, no one has shown any concrete proof that SC has not.

While it is possible a small fraction of what SC has produced might be suspect, we all know there are other brands that didn't license anything at all. Where is all the hate for those brands? I guess since they aren't suing anyone, what they did is acceptable.

Joe - Tens of thousands of people worked very hard to produce the original music and the resulting karaoke tracks you use to derive your income. What have you paid back to them? Are you giving them a cut of your income?

_________________
-Chris

Here's where you lose me. A trademark is not a by-product.

trade·mark
ˈtrādˌmärk'
noun
1.
a symbol, word, or words legally registered or established by use as representing a company or product.



Well golly Joe, you really think we want the product instead of the wrapper?



SC is enforcing its legal rights with regard to trademark. Do you really believe that a trademark has no value? What do you base this belief on?

With regard to income, what information to you have that supports that? First you'd have to determine what the losses were that instigated the lawsuit(s) and the expense of pursuing that course of action and then the outcome. I don't believe that you have any of that information let alone enough to make an educated guess as to whether or not the damages awarded or the subsequent sale of product would equal income or merely offset a portion of the as yet unrecovered losses suffered by SC.



Had to stop or risk laughing my coffee all over my keyboard.

Your use of Old English and Latin makes be believe that you are confusing

"Cogito ergo sum" with "Puto igitur est"

_________________
Never the same show twice!

I am fairly certain that you have absolutely no understanding of what you're posting about.



There is no trademark in the world to which this argument would not apply...which demonstrates that you have no idea what trademarks are about or why they are protected.



I've explained this to you numerous times, but let's give it one more try.

SC does not sue people for "copying the trademark."

At its heart, the Trademark Act is intended to prevent people from making goods and applying others' trademarks to them. You can make golf balls all day, but the minute you start stamping TITLEIST on them and selling them, you're committing trademark infringement. The people who buy your golf balls probably would not buy them if they were basketballs instead, but that does not mean the TITLEIST mark is worthless.

Every single operator SC has sued--with exactly one notable exception, which we have discussed ad nauseam--has made use of physical goods that SC did not make or authorize, yet that are marked with trademarks that are supposed to indicate that SC made them.

Until you grasp this very simple concept, you will NEVER understand what we're doing.

Oh, and as for "intimidating," the only people who are EVER intimidated by our actions are exactly the people who need to be intimidated--the pirates.



This is garbage, and here's why: You've talked to exactly zero publishers. You have no idea what publishers are thinking. You have no frame of reference. You have no information. And that makes your argument garbage.

(If I'm wrong, prove it. Tell us what publishers you've talked to. Share their emails.)

On top of that: The publishers have an open, standing invitation to join in our suits. We have repeatedly offered them the opportunity to participate directly in these actions. They elect not to do so. If they were genuinely upset about supposedly not sharing in the proceeds, the easy solution would be to join in.

Mountain, the trademark is not a by-product, but AS SHOWN - the shifting of it is. KJs care about the tracks, not what is stuck to them.

Please share your absolute PROOF that I have not talked to any publishers or producers, or be kind enough to to state your OPINIONS as such, rather than fact. Better yet, share the e-mails from each and every publisher, owner, or producer that you received stating that I HAVEN'T been in contact, since YOU made the initial statement. As for me sharing e -mails, your aunt, who is probably in complete agreement with you regarding SC, will tell you how I am about breaking privacy, understands it, and respects it.

As far as "settlements " through intimidation, do you have PROOF that each and every kj settled because they were a pirate, as say, opposed to what they were told ( and lied to) would be a long expensive legal battle? What, no definitive PROOF?

Just askin'...... might want to consider tempering your statements...

You should also ask her what kind of guy I am outside these debates. Better still, call and talk to me.

I have made this offer to many on the other side of these debates. Quite a few have aaccepted it. It seems only the most devout SC worshippers have a problem talking to the " other side ". I always wondered about that....

On the other hand, you have stated that what I posted was garbage - without one single iota of proof or even reasoning to that end.

Did SC do an end run in the UK regarding the GEM series and U.S. licensing fees? Your answer, and how you reached it?

Does the SC logo have any value at all if shifted by itself with no track attached? Your answer and how you reached it?

In regard to question #2, if you answered yes, I will be thrilled to learn HOW it is valuable without a track attached.

If the answer is no, then you will have admitted that SC's suits are built on the back of the publishers'/owners' work, for which they are not being paid any piece- that to which SC has attached their logo, not the logo by itself. PLEASE NOTE: Since you apparently haven't noticed or are ignoring, I have made no statements regarding the legality of this, I have only stated that these actions would definitely
anger the publishers / owners, which it has.

Either way, the publishers are ticked for good reason, and no one has done a better job than SC in making it happen. They are now retaliating. Again, thanks to SC- and predicted 2-3 years ago.

The fact that you and Timberlea choose to post about piracy, licensing, royalties, etc.. might make you happy, but it shows that you are either incapable of understanding what you are reading - since I haven't brought up any of these subjects in this thread, of which I am the OP, or that you are either deliberately distracting from the point for the benefit of SC, to whom you have made the mistake of associating yourself, and therefore forced to defend their actions.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

You are confusing a criminal suit as "innocent until proven guilty" vs. a civil suit as always "guilty until proven innocent" That is just the way the court system views each type case. In a civil case the burden is placed on the defendant to prove he is not guilty in plain terms. "Get it, got it, Good!

_________________
No venue to big or too small. From your den to the local club or event, we have the music most requested. Great sounding system!

I'll try again.

Is Hound Dog by Elvis a "remastered imitation" or not?

Yes or No.

Actually it is you SC supporters that are confused. The EMI case like the SC suits is a matter of the civil court. The defendant SC has the burden of proving they are not guilty just like the KJ hosts and venues civilly. SC shares to same taint the other defendants have until they are proved innocent of the charges. SC supporters assume that the hosts and venues are guilty since they have been charged. Why can't I assume SC is guilty since EMI has charged them? You see the double standard don't you Rum? "Get it,got it, Good!".

That is not correct. Criminal needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Civil does allow some reasonable doubt. Civil is not innocent or guilty but you are not "liable until proven otherwise". You post had way too much mis-information to not be corrected.

This is absurd, it is not the original!!!, it is a version of the original in the style of Elvis Presley. It is not an original work but what is called a variation of the original work. This is not a yes or no answer, this is not a courtroom Bazza.

Exactly, just like the versions any karaoke manufacturer makes with the exception of Disney and one other one from long ago which I believe was Mo Town. So these companies do use their musical talents to reproduce the music. So for who go they just lay lyrics over the original masters are deluding themselves. It is a time consuming endeavour.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Actually it was I that wrote the response to Bazza, I wonder why Mr. Boo was placed on the quote? Thanks for agreeing with me tim.

Then you'll agree that it is the manufacturer's work, based on the original, so not only do they have an ownership, but when they put their TM on it, it indicates to people that it is theirs and no one else's?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

This is like saying when you buy a Coke at a convenience store, you care about the contents, not what is stuck to them. In an absolute sense, sure, that's true--you're not going to drink the label. But it's also patently ridiculous. The label conveys information about the thing that you care about. Without the label, the only way you could pick out the drink you want is by tasting it--something I doubt the convenience store would allow.

When a singer, or a KJ, sees the SC logo on a track, that conveys information about what that track contains, including who made it and what the quality is. When the SC logo is on something SC didn't make and didn't authorize and therefore has no control over, the reliability of that information--and therefore the value of the mark--is reduced.



Either you have talked to publishers--"producers" would not have any stake in this--or you have not. That is not the subject of an opinion. There are many publishers to whom you could have talked, which makes it virtually impossible for me to prove that you haven't. But you can disprove my assertion by showing that you've talked to at least one who expressed anger at SC's activities.

More importantly, it's your contention that the publishers are angry with SC. To justify your assertion, you need to provide some authority for it--more than your idle speculation.



I am trying to figure out if this is (a) intended to be an insult along the lines of "that's not what your mother said when I was sleeping with her last night," (b) an indication of creeping senility on your part, (c) a grossly mistyped word, (d) an attempt to suggest you know more information about me and my family than you do, or (e) a joke that bombed.

Regardless, I have seven living aunts, so you will need to be a bit more specific, although I have not discussed SC with any of them, and I doubt any of them have strong opinions about karaoke in any event, nor would any of them have any reason to talk with you about any subject. But I could be wrong.



There is no reason for any non-pirate KJ to engage in a "long expensive legal battle," because all that is required for a non-pirate KJ to avoid such a battle is a quick, inexpensive audit. That's all the proof that's required.



Wait, are we back on my "aunt" again? Is this sort of like when you claimed Kurt had been to one of your shows?



Here's the reasoning. Comments about what publishers are thinking, when those publishers have made no public comments, and when you have not spoken with any of them (which you have not), lack any authority, and are therefore garbage.



No. The GEM series was licensed in the UK for worldwide distribution, including the U.S. An authoritative license that covers the territory of distribution isn't an "end run."



The SC logo has value because of the accumulated business goodwill that it symbolizes, regardless of whether it is "shifted" by someone else.

But you're not looking for that answer. So let's look at the hypothetical situation where someone shifts the logo.

In that situation, it's exactly as valuable, at least in a qualitative sense, as a Cola-Cola logo on a roll of bottle labels without any drink attached. Which is to say, not valuable at all in the abstract sense.

And when you can point out where we've sued someone who is simply making graphics that contain the SC logo, apart from attaching them to any product or associating them with any service, I'll concede your point.

Trademarks only have value in connection with goods or services. And in every case where we've sued, the trademark has been attached to goods and associated with services. The use of SC's trademarks in connection with goods SC did not create or authorize is an injury to the business goodwill SC has developed over more than 25 years in business.



Only if you ignore SC's historical work in creating a product to associate with the mark, for which it paid handsomely, as well as SC's ongoing and valuable business goodwill. The fact that others' rights may be injured by the same act has nothing to do with whether SC's were.



And again we're back to that. Show me some indication that a publisher has expressed anger at SC's anti-piracy litigation. Show me the suit a publisher filed to stop the litigation or to demand a cut of the proceeds. Show me the demand letter a publisher has sent. Show me where a publisher has sought to intervene in an SC lawsuit. Show me the differential treatment a publisher has shown to SC based on the lawsuits.

I doubt very much that you can do any of these things, or anything else, to support your belief.

Joe, how can you say that a TM or logo in and of itself has no value. If you see the Golden Arches, a certain king or a certain red hair girl, you automatically think of McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's. And the same goes for virtually every other TM. TMs and logo associate you with certain companies. You can go to a foreign country, not be able to speak or read their language but if you see a familiar TM, then you know what it is. That is what makes them valuable. This why you'll see TMs licenced to T-shirt companies, etc. It's what makes a $5.00 t-shirt worth $20.00. To say a TM has no value is utterly ridiculous.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger