Karaoke Forums

OK, I want to be REALLY sure that I understand this correctly.

You are stating that all of the tracks in the GEM series were actually re-recorded by studio musicians directly to MP3 for MediaPlas in the UK, rather than tracks that were ripped from the company CD+G disc library to MP3- which would be media shifting?

Is THAT what you are stating? YES or NO?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Then how the heck do you get away with allowing those who go through an audit to keep their "confusing" tracks without being held liable for "confusing" the public, yourself (by virtue of allowing the "confusing" tracks to remain)?
Ohhhh! That's right! You don't allow it to go to court. Therefore, a judge can't hold you liable for that!

How about, when the day comes to go to court, subpena all a clubs patrons and have them testify if they were confused.

He paid for his discs, but not for the media shift.



It costs SC money to do the audits; what they charge covers that expense alone. Why should SC bear the expense for a KJ to make his business more convenient to operate?



Or use your discs only and be done with it. Otherwise, consider it a very small cost to do business.

This is just my opinion but I would think that the master tapes/digi-files from the original recording process were used to make any of the media sold to the public.

In other words, the same master tapes/dig-files used to make the first Sound Choice CDG's. So even the original CDG's were shifted from the masters.

No. Don't be obtuse. Media-shifting has nothing to do with what SC does before it produces a commercial product. SC does not sell or transfer tracks for commercial use on any medium other than compact discs. If a KJ is using tracks stored on a medium other than the original compact discs, then those tracks must have been media-shifted from original compact discs SC sold at some point. SC didn't make the hard drive (or the files stored on the hard drive). The KJ did, or someone else did (who then sold it to the KJ, directly or indirectly).

A person who becomes certified is operating with SC's approval, so when a certified KJ displays the logo, there is no longer a likelihood of confusion.



What you are suggesting does not make sense. SC has the right to control the use of its trademarks.

Thanks...I would like to use this statement in court. As upon certification, only SC and the KJ know this. Therefore, at the first KJ show, the Patrons of the KJ will NOT be magically enlightened. More likely, still confused.

One could conclude that a certification, in and of itself, does not take away a "likelihood of confusion," as knowledge of a certification event by two parties does not automatically exist in the minds of a third party.

It is the THIRD party that is said to be "likely confused." All SC is doing is taking a "Likelihood Of Confusion" from the KJ...who never had a "Likelihood Of Confusion."

I think the only entity that IS CONFUSED is SC.

I'm sure the HIGH COURTS would love to hear this Psycho Babble.

It is the pre-eminent brand of disk.

If you want to run a great-sounding country music show of karaoke, you can't really get along without Chartbuster. If you want to run a great-sounding non-country music show of karaoke, you can't really get along without Sound Choice. You'll be automatically at a lower level. Will it be the level that causes the transition from great down to mediocre? I am guessing that will vary from night to night.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

That is not how it works. The term "likelihood of confusion" is a term of art in trademark law that bears only a slight relationship to actual confusion.

A trademark is an indicator as to the source of goods. When a trademark appears on goods, it indicates to the market who is the source of those goods. You do not have to be the manufacturer of the goods to be the source of them. Here's an example: I have on my desk a soft drink can that is marked with a registered trademark (COCA-COLA, stylized). On that can, it says, "Canned under authority of the Coca-Cola Company, Atlanta, GA 30313 by a member of the Coca-Cola Bottlers' Association, Atlanta, GA 30327." That legend indicates to me that the owner of the trademark is the Coca-Cola Company, which authorized another company--"a member of the Coca-Cola Bottlers' Association"--to make the product and put it into this can.

Suppose someone obtained the formula for Coca-Cola and started making, canning, and selling it, using the Coca-Cola marks, all without the authorization of the Coca-Cola Company. We would say at that point that because the trademark owner did not originate or authorize the goods, that there is a likelihood that the market will be confused into thinking, falsely, that the trademark owner did originate or authorize the goods. The Coca-Cola Company would be within its rights, if it chose, to reach an agreement with that person to allow them to use the marks, subject to quality controls, royalty payments, etc. Then, if the market believes that the trademark owner did authorize the goods, that will be a true belief, not a confused (incorrect) belief.



No. The certification (which is an authorization to use the trademark) takes away any possibility of confusion. If they believe, based upon seeing the SC marks, that SC authorized the use of the marks, then that will be a true belief, not a confused belief, whether they actually know of the agreement or not.



There are many areas of dispute in the trademark law, but it is black-letter law that a license (in this case, an authorization based upon certification) from the trademark owner defeats any possibility of legal confusion as to the source of goods.

The format shift from CD+G to MP3 deletes audio info from the original recording ( argue all you want- this is fact, and proveable via electronic testing), thus altering the product- making it different from the original- in the same way a KJ shifts his discs to PC. SC has therefore media shifted it's product, creating a ( at least technically) a denigrated and altered version of the original. Question: Did the publishers/owners give permission to use this shifted product as a representaion of their music?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

HarringtonLaw wrote:


Again, "Likelihood Of Confusion" is in the minds of parties, other than, the KJ and SC.

Trying to say that "Likelihood Of Confusion" is removed simply because a KJ and SC have an understanding between themselves doesn't, somehow, automatically remove "Likelihood Of Confusion" from parties apart from the KJ and SC.

Therefore, an argument can be made that "Likelihood Of Confusion" never existed to parties apart from the KJ and SC.

Your argument is VAGUE, at most, and Psycho Babble at the least. It'll be a nice try to make a leap from 1 & 2 to 3 when 3 hasn't a clue what 1 & 2 are/were up to.

You still haven't explained how parties other than the KJ and SC will have resolved their "Likelihood Of Confusion." Because to resolve "Likelihood Of Confusion," wouldn't the parties, other than the KJ and SC, need some basis of "Likelihood Of Confusion" in the first place. I mean, were these parties, other than the KJ and SC, aware or made aware that they were experiencing "Likelihood Of Confusion" at some point before the KJ and SC reached an agreement? Or is the meaning of the statute just rhetoric and not something that has to be substantive?

You can't prove that NOW "they believe, based upon seeing the SC marks..." just as you can't prove they didn't believe prior.

HarringtonLaw wrote:

A Disclaimer indicating the exact source of the Trademark causes Harmony. A Trademark is NOT TABOO.

I appreciate the explanations on the terms in this thread. I however see no advantage to certification due to the limitations placed on a KJ by doing it. A KJ will by buying all legal CD+Gs and maintaining a 1:1 ratio of MP3 tracks pose no loss to the karaoke cd manufacturer. Even though unauthorized media shifting does occur the OEM of the CD+Gs makes no MP3 or CDG sales of this product therefore has no losses. The original Trademark may or may not extend to cover the shifted media as long as the original is not being used and is on a 1:1 ratio. Without proof of loss how would you hope to win a case much less get an award by the court?

Workmen, money does not have to enter the equation. We had a school that had an outside mural and on that mural were some Disney characters. It was up for years, however, Disney found out and very quickly those characters were taken off. The school was not making any money off it, nor did they receive permission to depict those characters. It all comes down to licencing and permission.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Sure the school was sent a demand letter to quit and they did. But you can bet that demand letter also told them a lawsuit was pending if they continued and that would have been for money. Disney sells licenses to display those characters so they probably quoted an outrageous amount or take them down.

On the other hand SC sold their trademark license with the cd and now is saying it can require another payment for the trademark just because it is media shifted even though the original is not used. The trademark license was attached to the CDG song not the media type. Sure if you use the cd and the ripped CD+G 2 licenses are needed.

And that CD+G is not an exact copy of the master tape. And that master tape is not an exact copy of the original performance.

Using your logic, the only way to be truly original would be having the musicians in the room playing live.

Close, but no. The karaoke producer (supposedly) has a license for the master and a certain amount of direct ( same media) copies of the same.

I do not believe that that license includes ( severely) ALTERED representations of the music presentation that was approved.

BTW- Another question comes to mind:

Companies are licensed for a certain amount of copies to be distributed. How are downloads properly recorded and added to hard media sales to match the approved number? I mean, I know it's possible to count them, but how can they be VERIFIED in regard to licensing?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

i would think the same way anything purchased online is recorded. every purchase of a specific SKU (song) is recorded to keep track just like the SKU (CD+G) is recorded. beyond that it is the same as verifying how many copies of a CD get sold then copied for backup. the only thing missing is the piece of plastic.

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

How does Sound Choice police the media shifting done by the hundreds of non-KJs who have purchased their discs and ripped them to computers?

So if I purchase the entire Foundation series, rip them to digital files, and every weekend invite 30 of my friends over for a private karaoke party (which does happen, I have personal experience) how in the world do we stop the confusion of those folks viewing that logo? Or do they not count? Is it OK for them to be confused if they're not in a bar?

So media shifting is only an issue if you're making money from it? If not, let's see some home investigations. By the way, the majority of the torrents and hard drives with digital files are made available by folks who aren't working KJs.

Trademark infringement requires "use in commerce." In our agreements where that's relevant (usually a business exit agreement), we refer to services provided "when a significant motivation for providing the services is the inducement of the transfer of money or nonfinancial compensation from one person to another." That does not mean that the KJ has to get paid. A volunteer gig where the goal is to raise money for charity would still be covered, but a home party where a home user of karaoke tracks provides them so that friends can sing, where no one is getting paid, would not be.

"Use in commerce" is undoubtedly broader. In fact, "use in commerce" usually refers to any conduct that Congress may regulate under the Commerce Clause. Because torrents make use of a public computer network that is regulated by Congress, the use of a torrent as a delivery mechanism for counterfeit karaoke tracks would be a trademark infringement. That is true whether the provider is a commercial user or not, and whether the provider gets paid or not.