Karaoke Forums

Thank You Your Majesty It's Nice To Know You Own What You Paid For Originally.

Even if the graphics are garbled and the music skips?

Make up your mind, will you? On one hand you say that you have "the right to control the output of the product which bears your trademark," including the professionalism – and services – of other KJ's. Now you're saying when they use the trademarked item, they are exempt.

The only one confusing the public here – is you.

So much for the wanting to control quality point.

I actually had several discs that would always graphic garble, but played beautifully as a ripped file because of the rippers error correction ability.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

but it's not a new product
"What pub patrons see and hear is the intangible content of the karaoke tracks. They will see Slep-Tone's trademark and trade dress and believe, rightly, that Slep-Tone is the source of that intangible content."

it is about control, to control the public perception of your product and company.
a 128kbps rip does not allow you to control the public perception of SC quality


why did you put scratches and skips on the original discs? if the output is under your control, you did it purposely.

the end result, SC has no control over the public perception of

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

Is trademark law concerned about a trademark owner applying standards that are in direct conflict with a copyright owner's standards thereby usurping the copyright owner's control?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Without knowing the context of your question, I can't answer it.

Generally, copyright law is not concerned with the quality of goods, although copyright owners can impose quality standards as a condition of copying.

My apologies, I did not offer proper context which left a mysterious unanswerable question.
I was referring to the copyright owner's control over how many copies of their product exist in the world.
It seems to me that a trademark owner shouldn't be controlling the use of their trademark on copies that were not controlled by the copyright owner unless that control is banning the use of it.
I'm wondering how that's not an issue in trademark law?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

The answer is simple. The trademark and the copyright are two separate pieces of property. It's up to each entity to control its own rights. That is what the law requires. It is not up to us to police copyrights for other entities, any more than it is up to those entities to police the use of our trademarks. If the copyright owners are bothered by the infringement, they should sue the infringer.

That almost reaches my point.
You have claimed in court that these tracks are counterfeit tracks because you hadn't authorized the copy to which your trademark is attached.
My question is; aren't these same tracks still counterfeit tracks even after you've authorized the use of your trademark on them?
Isn't it illegal to affix a trademark to a product that you know to be counterfeit?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

The term "counterfeit" is a trademark-only term, because counterfeiting requires the application of a "spurious" (unauthentic) mark.

There is simply no provision in the copyright laws that governs the application of trademarks to copyrighted works or prohibits the application of a trademark to an infringing copy.

English Translation: It doesn't matter even if our trademark was attached to a track that was infringing - even when we made it - because technically, copyright has nothing to do with trademark.

It's all about integrity and ethics. Something that apparently means very little to PEP.

Here is the problem I have with the Rolex equation:

I think that a better comparison overall might be Sanrio (Hello Kitty), who doesn't make all the untold millions of products that are out there. Sanrio authorizes the usage, and controls the likeness of the brand without having to make the actual product.

I think the point stands even with that change.

Right. How does PEP "authorizing" the use of the trademark negate or even lessen the alleged 'confusion' to the very same people they're claiming are confused by the display of the trademark in the first place?

_________________
DJ Don

Our trademarks are only supposed to appear in connection with goods and services we made or authorized.

The confusion arises from the use of our trademarks in connection with goods and services we did not authorize.

If we authorize those goods and services, the is no potential for confusion.

The people who have always been legal KJs will continue to be so. Most new people in the business are pirates and that isn't going to change any time soon. The pirates have clearly won the battle and the war. The courts are now siding with the pirates in federal court decisions and nobody seems to care what Mister Harrington has to say. He keeps spouting his opinions hoping that he might scare up a few settlements every now and then from people who don't really follow up on anything about the latest court decisions. These forums used to be like bee hives and now they are like ghost towns. There are more pirates than ever and why would they come to a site like this one to just be admonished and ridiculed every day? They're too busy downloading every new song that comes down the pike and putting on karaoke shows every night of the week while Jim just keeps on whining about all of the money he is losing because of the pirates. If the law suit business was such a profit making enterprise; we'd be constantly reading about court victories from coast to coast but all we keep hearing about is district courts ruling against PEP's trolling expeditions. Legal KJs have been reporting pirates to PEP and Sound Choice for almost a decade now and very few of the pirates, if any have been put out of business. In fact, they are multiplying like rabbits. The one guy in my area that still plays discs uses nothing but CDR's that he bought from another pirate KJ who started using a laptop to do his shows. Pirates are every where you look so it doesn't look like PEP has a chance of doing any damage to them.

Jim is like one of those salmon trying to swim upstream so he can spawn and it's just a matter of time before he becomes a meal for a hungry Grizzly bear.

The confusion lies within the notion that karaoke hosts know more about copyright and trademark law than a lawyer that works in trademark and copyright law.

_________________
-Chris

You ever heard of "Scared Straight?" Law Enforcement schools Juvenile Delinquents on what it's like to go to prison in hopes that the experience will be enough to scare them into becoming law-biding citizens.

Well, all this "Confusion" has caused everyone to be "Confused Straight."

Meaning, people were sooooo "Confused" that they "Learned" what all the fuss was about and are NO LONGER "Confused."

There goes your "Confusion" argument.

LMMFAO !

Also, time is on the KJ's side. I mean, the more years this "Confusion" argument STAYS in the forefront, the more people are aware of what the "Confusion" is all about. Obviously, when the "Confusion" argument was NEW, well, you had an ARGUMENT. NOT ANY MORE! You've made EVERYONE, at my shows, AWARE and are NO LONGER "Confused."