Karaoke Forums

The below line extracted from the below paragraph from Sound Choice's (SC) own investigators website bothers me. I have read Copyright law gives the legal owner of a licensed product the ability to make a copy. I can find no reference to "WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION" applying to Media-Shifted copys if the licensed material is purchased on or before Media-Shifting is restricted. Maybe SC, it's lawyers or it's investigators can give some case law references to decisions applying to copyrighted material Media-Shifting. I understand that Trademark infringement protects Sound Choice's specific product use restrictions. But Copyright law governs copy of media and Media-Shifting is not covered. If Sound Choice has different proof please post it!

"If you copied songs from an original, legally purchased CDG to a computer or hard drive WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION it is an unauthorized copy."


C/P from http://www.apsandassociates.com/soundchoice/

What exactly is a pirated/unauthorized copy?

Slep-Tone distributes karaoke accompaniment tracks on compact discs, primarily in a format called CD+G, or "compact disc plus graphics", although it has recently released a licensed product on CD-ROM in MP3G or “MP3 plus graphics” format. It does not distribute tracks on any other medium. If you copied songs from an original, legally purchased CDG to a computer or hard drive WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION it is an unauthorized copy. If you obtained your Sound Choice tracks by downloading them from the internet, by making copies from discs that you do not own or by buying a preloaded hard drive or karaoke machine (a CAVS System being an example), or created multiple copies from a single original source then you did not legally obtain your Sound Choice tracks and they are considered pirated copies.

i am not a lawyer and do not claim to understand everything.

karaoke has several distinct entintities when it comes to licesning and rights. there are the rights for the LYRICS, the rights for the MUSIC the rights to sync the music and the lyrics together *hence the name sync license.

in the case of karaoke a producer has to pay for the rights of everything except their own trademark. when a karaoke song is produced in the US they own the rights to their version of the song *cover8 because it is considered a new work. But they do NOT own the rights to the lyrics.


the only reason I bring this up is that soundchoice COULD sue for copyright infingement but they chose trademark infringement because its easier to prove.. and here is why.

to the best of my knowledge, here is the basic premise of soundchoice's reasoning.


If you make a digital copy of their product, that copy is what they call counterfeit and not original product which included the trademark attached to that product, so therefore it is technically trademark infringement.


also i think i heard Mr. harrington say something to the effect that the rules for copying a trademark are similar to copyright. if I'm wrong about that, someone correct me because I'm not completely sure of that.

the rights you are talking about only apply to home use and as soon as you get into commercial use of a product, those rights must be obtained by either getting permission from the rights owner or paying for them under whatever provisions are made by law or contract with the rights owner.

that is why bars must pay the performance fees for their particular country *in the UK its mcps, in the US its BMI, ASCAP AND the other one i keep forgetting and in canada is socan*


these fees give the bar the right to hold karaoke in their venue


hope that helps a little

What about black/white, day/night, on/off, own/pirated don't you people understand? And why do so many of you insist on trying to find loopholes in the wording of actions filed?

Your time would be much better spent getting with the program instead of painting a bullseye on your back publicly through the internet. (Duhhhh, ya reckon??)

Or you could take out a full page ad in your local fish wrap saying "I'm a low life pirate, come and get me" which is pretty much what you're doing here on a global scale.

It ain't rocket science people, either you own the disc (non issue, no worry) or you don't and it's gonna' suck to be you. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when and OBTW, it just got hotter in the kitchen...

they are not discussing not owning the disc, they are discussing the idea that you can only use the disc and using the backup is somehow illegal. round and round it always comes back to the beginning, you can legally make a backup copy, but it is apparently illegal according to some Manus to use that backup copy without paying first. If you do NOT pay first (an audit, which you pay for yearly) then that legal backup copy becomes trademark infringement. if you DO pay first, they will agree with you that it is not trademark infringement and go away. that is what is being discussed in this thread, not trying to find loopholes to justify downloading torrents or buying loaded drives for content you do not own.

and speaking of loopholes, isn't it sneaking through a loophole to sue everybody with a computer for trademark infringement on a legal backup copy?

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

As Athena would say:

Your the one calling me things you have no way of knowing are true. There are many reasons to ask and get questions answered. But to just accept demands without understanding why is just stupid.

It seems you have resolved yourself to dropping your pants and getting out the KY jelly! Your welcome to my share of that!

KY is not mentioned on the audit paperwork, i don't think it's allowed.

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

We actually endorse this. Anyone who has been sued, or who is otherwise considering how to respond to an inquiry from SC or any manufacturer, should ask questions about what's happening and the reasons for it. We have consistently, from the beginning of our enforcement efforts, encouraged defendants to speak with an intellectual property before signing a settlement agreement or an audit acknowledgement.

As for copyright versus trademark, a behavior can be affected by different parts of the law. The Copyright Act and the Trademark Act are two different statutes that set up different protections and different rules for different kinds of intellectual property. Sometimes they both affect a single product, and other times only one or the other (or neither) will affect a single product. Something that may be perfectly fine under one may nevertheless be an infringement of the other.

This is as Congress intended in passing both laws. The Copyright Act is directed to protection of original expression--to content, specifically--while the Trademark Act is directed to the protection of marks used to identify the source of goods, in order to protect business goodwill and to prevent consumer confusion as to the source of goods.

Media-shifting is the act of making a copy on one medium of content stored on another medium, such as moving the contents of a compact disc onto a computer hard drive. Format-shifting is the act of converting content stored in one format into another format, such as converting a .wav file to an .mp3 file. Ordinarily, making a copy (as occurs when you media-shift or format-shift) is an activity that is prohibited by the Copyright Act. But the Copyright Act also provides for the defense of "fair use." A use that would ordinarily be prohibited under the Trademark Act is permitted when that use constiutes "fair use." The courts usually look at four factors to determine whether the use is fair or not: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and the effect of the use upon the potential market.

The courts have found that media-shifting can constitute fair use under the Copyright Act, and there have been some limited but explicit exceptions written into the law by Congress. But most of the time, an analysis of whether a media shift is permissible or not focuses on the four factors.

When a user shifts his ordinary music CD to his iPod for personal use, identifying that as a fair use of a copyrighted work is an easy call. While that involves taking the whole work, the purpose is merely for personal convenience, and the effect of that use probably enhances the market for the music by making it more convenient for the user to enjoy it. The DJ who provides music to parties for money can probably also legally store his music on an iPod, even though that use is commercial, for largely the same reasons. Courts do tend to focus on the potential for damage to the copyright owner.

Karaoke is different, however. There is more to a karaoke track than the copyrighted portion. All of SC's tracks are marked with their trademarks. Those trademarks identify SC as the source of that track. Those trademarks are displayed whenever the product is used as intended, but the marks physically exist in the encoding of the tracks themselves, whether they are played or not. Because the tracks also include trademarks, making unauthorized copies of those tracks also implicates the Trademark Act.

Fair use is available as a defense to trademark infringement, but historically trademark fair use has been much narrower than copyright fair use, confined to three specific types of uses: descriptive use of the mark, nominative use, and parody.

Descriptive use of the mark is where you use the words in a trademark to describe goods more generally. The classic example is Kellogg's All-Bran cereal. You can describe your cereal product as being "all bran," assuming that it is, because you are merely describing the product.

Nominative use is when you use the trademark to identify (truthfully) the source of a product when talking about the product. The first example of this was when the music group New Kids on the Block sued USA Today for using their trademark in connection with survey questions about the group; the court found that since there was no way to describe the group without using the name, the paper used only as much as necessary to identify the group, and there was no implied sponsorship or endorsement.

Parody use is when you use the trademark to make social or political commentary or other protected speech, such as "Wal-Mart sucks."

As you can see, trademark fair use is very different from copyright fair use, although there are some common points of reference. The purposes of trademarks make it necessary to restrict copying in a way that isn't necessary when you are only dealing with copyright. Making a copy of a trademark-protected product entirely obliterates the function of the trademark, which is to identify the source of goods. The source of a media-shifted copy of a SC track is not SC; it is the KJ. Yet SC's marks are being used in connection with the use of that copy, in a way that is likely to confuse consumers into believing SC is the source of those goods. That is a clear-cut infringement of SC's trademarks, regardless of what the Copyright Act might have to say about it.

That is only true in the case of a KJ who legally purchased his tracks on CD. In the case of a KJ who did not purchase his tracks, that KJ could not have been the source of the copy because he had nothing to copy from.
With this logic all KJs are the enemy of Soundchoice unless they pay and keep paying.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Really?!?!? I've never been to a karaoke show where I thought, "Wow!!! That KJ sure does a great job of recording tracks, adding lyric swipes and yet he posts someone elses logo on it to giving some credit for it."

I might buy this argument if the manu's trademark was being removed and the KJ replaced it with his own name/brand.

_________________
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.

"Happy Dance Earthling12357!"

I think that we can agree that because SC does not sell media-shifted copies, SC is not the source of a media-shifted track. The source may be the KJ (if he did the media-shifting) or an upstream pirate (who sold a preloaded drive to the KJ).



I don't follow your logic. Yes, of course, SC wants paying customers, and they want their customers to confine themselves to legal operation. If you run from discs, you never have to give SC another dime. If you want to do a media shift, you'll at least need to notify SC and submit to an audit if you don't want to be sued for exceeding the scope of permissible conduct.

So a KJ who runs from discs is not SC's enemy; that person is doing precisely what is contemplated. The "enemy" of SC is the KJ who doesn't pay for his tracks or who does something with the discs he acquired that constitutes a misuse of SC's intellectual property. I put "enemy" in quotes because it's not necessarily an "enemy" situation; it's a commercial dispute that can be easily resolved. Most of the people we deal with are acting not out of malice, but out of ignorance of the law and of the negative impact of their actions upon SC and the market.

Your method of "resolving" your so-called "commercial dispute" for a kj that has paid ONCE for the discs is with more payments, period.

Call a duck a duck.

It will not affect any KJ's business to simply drop the brand altogether and that alone will guarantee that there will be no legal ramifications. No audits, no skype, no lawsuit, no hassles and no problem.

Here's another example of something you've said, that you keep saying, that just isn't true.

A KJ who has paid for his discs and who gets sued for an unauthorized media shift gets a free ticket out of the lawsuit--a free audit, if they request it. No payments are required.

The people who have to pay to resolve the dispute are the ones who didn't maintain 1:1 correspondence.



It's naive to suggest that no one will be affected if they simply drop the brand. There are some people who can run a great show without SC. There are a lot of people who can run an adequate show without SC but who could run a great show with SC. It is entirely possible to make a good living without the product. But most people will find it to be helpful to their business. For most people, dropping the brand is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I personally would not return to a show that did not have Sound Choice unless the place was packed with girls.

I do like other brands but many songs I like, the Sound Choice brand seems to have the best renditions and many songs others just do not have.

That KJ who paid for his discs still pays again by being sued (time and legal fees). A free ticket out of a suit is not free.

An audit to avoid suit in the first place is not free.

That equates to; pay for your discs and keep paying or be sued and pay with your time and legal expenses.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

But isn't copying the discs illegal in itself?

Why not just use the discs and not worry?

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me, other than digital media, where someone can copy their tools of the trade for virtually nothing, and use the copies to earn money and keep their original investment safe?

Yes, you paid for your discs, now use them as intended. You want a second set, then pay for them. I'm pretty sure any carpenter, mechanic, or anyone else out there would love to have a second set of tools for next to nothing. You are paying to be able to have a copy.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I light a bright blue blessing candle for you.... in the middle of my happy dance.

No, it's not naive at all, but it's downright ridiculous to even suggest that a mediocre show can be made "great" simply by having any single brand of disc.