Karaoke Forums

It is protected.

It serves Joe's purpose to ignore the fact that in a karaoke recording there are two copyrights at issue. One is the copyright in the composition--often referred to as the "underlying musical work"--which is what the publisher owns. The other is the copyright in the sound recording, which is owned by SC in some cases and by Stingray with regard to the pre-2007 (and licensed exclusively to SC for its field of use). In Joe's apparent view, only the composition copyright counts.

That would no doubt be deceptive, but that is not the only way to be deceptive.

SC's products are compact discs. It doesn't make hard drives or other types of media. When you copy a Sound Choice track to a different medium, you are making a new physical good that is now marked with the SC logo. Even if you were able to do it as an ISO image, thereby guaranteeing a bitwise copy of the CD, it is still a different physical item.

SC did not make that item, nor did it authorize you to make it, but it's marked with a logo that says SC did. That is deceptive and confusing.

Actually, they tend to sue for infringement because their trademark is attached to something that is NOT their product. Which is exactly what SC does.



SC's product is known and loved as well, and that renown and respect was earned through careful attention to the minutest detail in producing the 18,000 karaoke tracks SC produced. If you say that SC's product has no value, you are either a fool or a liar.



Irrelevant. Whether you are talking about SOUND CHOICE or COCA-COLA, the value of the trademark is in identifying the source and quality of the goods.

You go into a store to purchase a Coke. You are confronted with a refrigerator case full of identical, unlabeled bottles containing brown liquids. How do you know which one has Coke and which has something else?



Yes, and Coca-Cola has numerous trademark registrations and common-law rights covering those kinds of items.



Except for the one product that actually matters.



Now you say "could" and "probably," whereas before it was "definitely."



There is an actual argument there--you just refuse to acknowledge it because it entirely undermines your point.

We would be delighted for the publishers to join in our suits. They have been extended an open invitation to join in.

I'm not sure they will.. Too many issues now with creative accounting.

Heaven forbid they had to reveal a set of books. (One of many?)

As a reminder, check out the forum rules here. viewtopic.php?f=18&t=4722

SC didn't make (or authorize) the conversion of a CD+G into an MP3+G. The MP3+G is a poorer quality recreation of the original SC product.

_________________
-Chris

What if the conversion is to CDG & wave?

_________________
Music speaks to the heart in ways words cannot express.

Without permission (authority), it is not allowed except as prescribed under the applicable Acts.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Still confused me...a bit perfect copy to a drive reduces the value of the mark, however playing an aging disc where the foil is deteriorating and adding garbled lyrics does not reduce the value because SC made that disc originally?

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

Does a wrecked Ford devalue the worth of the Ford TM. Does a perfect replica of a Rolex increase the value of the Rolex TM?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Trademarks are about "quality control."

You are focusing on the "quality" part, when in fact the trademark law focuses much more heavily on the "control" part. An unauthorized bit-perfect copy to a drive might be very high in quality, but it is entirely outside of SC's control, and therefore an infringement. In reality, of course, most of the spurious copies in use are quite low in quality in comparison to the original.

your control over the use of a scratched disc is...

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

And Ford's control over a wrecked car or Coke over a broken bottle is? Paradigm, you're assertions over a scratched or damaged disc is irrelevant to the protection or use of a TM on the producer's product or service.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Well Jim if SC or Stingray own the copyright in the sound recording why don't you sue for that as well as TM infringement? Wouldn't that give you more to go on, and strengthen your case?

They would have to join in since the composition copyright is owned by them, the basic underlying material for your product.

You mean like SC got sued by EMI because they didn't get PERMISSION to use the composition content copyrighted material they used in their product?

Well Lone, that case is in process and none of us know what the conclusion will be. Regardless that is between EMI and SC and not us. If SC loses, so what, we'll continue to buy their product.

McDonald's was sued and lost to the old lady and her coffee spill, do you think it was a big detriment on their business? Did throngs of people stop going there? Nope, everyone carried on as usual the masses continue to eat there. Wal-Mart has been sued by various people but business is still up? Why? Because people really don't care or make it their business, they will continue to do business with businesses that have been sued.

For some reason you want to take it personally to a point where it appears to have become an obsession with you and some others.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

You BELIEVE you have seen SC's logo being sold as a stand alone on other merchandise like mugs and T - shirts? Either you did or you didn't. Which is it? If you did, please let us know where they are sold. If you didn't then why post it?

You have failed miserably at answering my two non-shifting questions.

SC is who to thank for current and future sourcing problems. They have annoyed the giants into it, and not one single person here has given ANY reason to believe otherwise.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I have apparently been giving you too much credit for intelligence. Since I have not brought up licensing, legalities, royalties, or trademarks, and have stated this several times, One must wonder why you continue to address THOSE points rather than those made by me. Hope for distraction from the fact that SC has angered the giants? Fail. SC
simply found a way- and probably legally - making money in suits and intimidation "settlements " that they could not possibly make without the attachment to others' property without having to pass back those monies to them. No legalities or licensing involved - they are simply pissing off important people with a lot of clout and WE, not SC ( no longer a music producing part of our industry - now mostly parasitical) will be the ones to feel the result.

That leaves comprehension problems....

Btw- I would love to know how you define my "purpose ". Yes, I know it would be another distraction. Maybe a " Joe 's Purpose" thread?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."