Karaoke Forums

Never happened. Please stop spreading this false statement.

If you are using the original materials you bought, you won't have to pay anything to register.

If you want to use copies, there may be a small fee, depending on several factors. This is not different from the policy in place when the materials were originally sold.

"Original Materials" meaning using the physical cdg disks I bought, at shows?
"Copies" meaning the media shifted copy of my original material to ONE hard drive, used at shows instead?
Am I correct? I'm asking in order to clarify the issue as I don't mind registering the product. I DO mind an unnecessary audit due to
a lack of clarity causing an "improper" registration due to "media shifting". 6 CB e450 disks are not worth that hassle.

_________________
Purple Frog Karaoke Cuz we all feel odd and love to "croak"

This is exactly right.

Thank you for the clarification.. I'll keep my eye out for the registration announcement.

_________________
Purple Frog Karaoke Cuz we all feel odd and love to "croak"

----------

@ TriceraSoft1: Considering that letter is from 6 years ago, I thought that the KIAA was short-lived and does not exist anymore. Am I wrong?

Thanks for posting that letter, which indicates the requirement to prove 1:1 correspondence to avoid being sued.

ATTN: Moderators
You might want to move this to the legal section since it responds to Harrington's quote above -- which is not in line with the OP subject matter. -- Thank you.



That "request" was from a defunct and currently out of business entity claiming to represent a vaporous ".org" that never did anything but collect "dues" or "membership fees" from unsuspecting KJ's. But I would request that you cite -- in the law counselor -- where there is a 1:1 correspondence "requirement" because I don't believe there is one written in the law.

We go 'round and 'round on this every couple of years to correct the misconception that you "sell discs" as opposed to "license intellectual property" because I don't believe that you can go back and forth depending on what is convenient to sue for. You demand a 1:1 correspondence for CD+g discs but with your regurgitated gem series, you only license the intellectual property contained on the discs on which you package that intellectual property. Your contract with licensees clearly states that they don't own the discs, that they can be recalled and you have repeatedly referred to it as a "possessary license." (Notice that the "help license" doesn't require that same 1:1 correspondence at all because there is no "original media" because it is all "counterfeit" by your definition.)

Answer this hypothetical situation counsel regarding the two types:
A long-standing KJ that has purchased a quantity of SC-trademarked original discs AND licensed the gem series over the years, is purchasing what?

(a) CD+G discs of 8 or 15 karaoke songs each which they are not allowed to copy OR,

(b) A license allowing them to use the intellectual property on either the cd+g discs or gem series in the form of the audio, trademark, trade dress etc. associated with the original purchase that is contained on the discs.

You cannot select both, nor can you combine or divide these choices.

Now, let's say that the KJ -- who runs all this off a laptop while keeping the discs at home -- has a house fire.... or the discs are stolen.

Are they out of business? Did the gem owner's license go up in flames too?

I will assert that if I have a bunch of original SC discs, I have a license to use the content of the discs even if the media that contains that content is damaged because I'm purchasing "songs" (intellectual property license) and not "discs" (the media). It does not require the trademark owners "approval" for me to use them even if the original media is rendered damaged or unplayable in a standard cd+g player.
(Feel free to wind up your spin machine on this one because no matter what you spin, I don't believe it requires a contract or "permission" from the trademark holder.)

It's rather funny though that 1 of the 3 companies mentioned in the letter purchased an entire set of DK from us (presumably to "become legal?").

On a related note to the OP.
I've been collecting the MR Entertainer 100 packs and Decades.
It seems I cannot buy the new 2015 locally or shipped to the USA.
I like the graphics on the ENT over SBI even though it's usually SBI tracks.

_________________
Purple Frog Karaoke Cuz we all feel odd and love to "croak"

The letter was on Sound Choice letterhead and did not even mention the KIAA until the third paragraph.



Our ability to impose a 1:1 correspondence requirement can be found in the following statute:

------------------------------

15 U.S.C. § 1114(1):

Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant ... use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive ... shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter provided.

------------------------------

In order to play karaoke tracks from a computer hard drive it is necessary to copy those tracks from somewhere. If you are a professional karaoke operator, providing commercial karaoke services, and you use a copy (reproduction) of our mark in connection with those services, and you do not have our permission, then you have committed trademark infringement, and we can sue you.

In the beginning, we did not give ANYONE permission to do that.

Later, as indicated in that letter, we relaxed that a bit, allowing people to get permission by proving 1:1 correspondence. That program evolved into our Certified KJ program.

We now have several programs by which you can get that permission: Certification, GEM license, HELP license. Each of those has specific requirements, but those requirements are rooted in your obligation to get our permission before using copied tracks that bear our trademarks.



We go 'round and 'round because you either can't understand or refuse to understand our position.

We once sold discs. People are free to use the discs we sold them however they would like. If they want to make copies and use the copies, they need permission.



CD+G discs are a different product from the GEM series, and they have different rules.

The contract with GEM series licensees clearly states that we, not they, own the discs. It also clearly states that the licensee has the right to possess and use the discs as long as the license terms continue to be met. They can only be "recalled" if there is a specific material violation of the terms, notice, and the failure to cure the violation. We refer to this as a "possessory license" because it is a license for the possession of property we own.



The HELP license is a different product from CD+G discs and from the GEM series, and it has different rules as well. It does not require 1:1 correspondence; instead, there are other requirements that must be met, including payment of an ongoing license fee.



A KJ who purchases original CD+G discs is purchasing discs. A KJ who licenses the GEM series is purchasing a license to possess the GEM series discs we supply to him, along with a package of other rights regarding the trademark.



Says who? The fact that you want to cabin these products in particular ways doesn't mean we are required to do that, nor that we do either one.

If you purchase a CD+G disc, you can either (a) use the disc in a player capable of reading a CD+G disc, or (b) get our permission to copy it to use in different equipment.

If you purchase a GEM series license, our permission to make a 1:1 copy--at least as regards our own rights--is bundled into the agreement.



Hopefully that KJ had insurance that covered our discs (in the case of the GEM) or his (in the case of CD+Gs). Buying insurance is a good business practice; if you don't, you're taking the risk that something like this would happen. If the KJ has insurance, he will likely have the resources to replace the lost discs. If not, that's terribly unfortunate. If he wants to replace the GEM series discs, he'll need to buy a new license, whether he uses insurance money or personal resources. Of course, we would probably work with him on the price if he's having to come out of pocket. Of course, the property the KJ allowed to be destroyed is our property, and we would need to deal with that in some fashion.



Let me reword your parenthetical for you: "No matter what facts you put forward, including the specific text of the law that gives you the right to require permission, I will NEVER NEVER NEVER BELIEVE YOU!"

When you buy CD+G discs, you're buying those specific discs. Your ownership of those discs, specifically based on the doctrine of trademark exhaustion, gives you certain rights: The right to resell the discs without permission of the trademark owner, the right to use the original discs in commerce, and under certain circumstances, the right to repair the goods, such as by resurfacing the disc. You do not have the right to reproduce the discs, then make commercial use of the copies, without the permission of the trademark owner.

That is why we have said consistently for many years now:

(1) Use the discs you bought, or
(2) Get our permission to use copies, or
(3) Don't use copies.

This is not complicated.

Curious....
What would be the confusion or mistake made, or deception in using a reproduction (copy of the disc) if the disc is owned and media shifted without permission?
Who would be confused or deceived?
How would they (who would be confused or deceived) actually be confused or deceived?
How would the confusion or mistake made, or deception in using a reproduction that cause damage to the trademark owner?

What the confusion or mistake made or deception is the part of the code that stands out to me.

I'm sure this has been asked and answered, but I've not seen it. If you'd be so kind to indulge me, thank you.

_________________
DJ Don

he has covered this before and if i remember right....
the confusion is that it implies you are endorsed or sponsored by SC.
singers would be deceived into thinking that they were singing SC material when they are not.
the damage to trademark holder is part i have always been confused on myself.

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

He has further explained that damage would be do to bad rips, with artifacts, and errors, making SC look bad.

It's all BS for Sound Choice wants to control KJs and what they do with products they have bought and paid for with their hard earned money. And EVERY way of them controlling you costs you money. YUP, money on TOP of what you paid for the discs. What a wonderful scam!!! Now they have bought out the CB trademark, not the music, just the trademark. WHY?? To control us further, and eventually make MORE money off us, without producing a damn piece of music. THEN, they have the audacity to beg for money to produce new music, and hit us with a list of songs that have already been released by everyone else. What a ridiculous joke the whole thing has become. Sound Choice is a joke, that keeps getting funnier with everything they do.

All the other companies are out to create Karaoke songs, and make money the old fashioned way, earn it by PRODUCING music, not suing people and coming up with gimmicks to make money off the backs of old customers.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

It only costs if you only copy them. Play them on a machine and there is no extra cost. So other than that, exactly how are they controlling you?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

None of the other companies care. None of the other companies are making their customers jump through hoops. None of the other companies are trying to control KJs!! SC IS STILL controlling KJs that play disks, by not allowing them to use the music in any other form without paying extra to do so.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

And if every other company jumped in the lake would you join them? It is up to the individual companies whether or or not they want to enforce their copyrights, trademarks, IP or whatever. Just like it is up to you whether you want to leave your house or car door open with the keys in them. Again, how is SC controlling you other than charging a nominal cost for copying their product?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

The confusion arises because of the issue of false designation of origin.

For purposes of trademark law, the "origin" of goods is the person who makes the actual goods that are marked and in use--in this case, the person who made the copies. (This is the holding of Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox, a Supreme Court case from 2003.) But the Sound Choice marks are supposed to indicate Sound Choice as the origin of the goods, so a patron who sees our marks on goods someone else made without our permission--even if they have 1:1 correspondence--the patron is likely to be confused into believing the goods are genuine, when they aren't.

The damage comes in several forms, but probably the most significant is the loss of our ability to control the quality of the goods that bear our trademarks.

I'd think a patron (or whoever saw the trademark) would only likely be concerned about any confusion if they were looking to purchase what they see from the person showing the trademark. Simply 'seeing' the trademark doesn't result in confusion because there's no other action beyond that, and they won't know, nor will they care, if the displayed trademark is coming from a disc or shifted media. I can see only a benefit for the trademark owner by showing their trademark and not damages. "Hey. A displayed Sound Choice trademark! I love their stuff! Let's go buy some Sound Choice products!"

The trademark will be displayed regardless if it's from disc or shifted media with permission (or even without). How does 'permission to media shift' eliminate confusion?

And again, I'd think controlling the quality of goods only comes into play if there's some other transaction beyond that, like a sale of said goods.

_________________
DJ Don

You're free to make that argument, but let's don't forget, also, that the venue is generally (a) buying the KJ's services, which is a commercial transaction involving the use of our marks, and (b) using the KJ's services as part of another set of commercial transactions--the sale of food and beverages.

Your theory takes control over the use of our trademark--the decision about what products to mark, what quality level they will have, and how our marks are used to promote our goods and business--out of our hands and puts it into the hands of other people. That is the exact opposite of what trademark law is supposed to accomplish.



Requiring our permission to media-shift gives us control over the quality of the goods that other people make that bear our marks. That helps us maintain our brand image at the quality level we select, and it gives patrons the confidence that when they select a Sound Choice track to sing to, regardless of the location, they are getting a consistent level of quality.