Karaoke Forums

In the context of my post, and as a listener/consumer, the Trademark is an identifier that makes it easier for me to identify who to contact about the track if I have questions, comments or want to obtain for myself. In all of those cases, the trademark provides value to either me as the listener/consumerto aid me in contacting the said trademark holder and/or to the Trademark holder if I were to make a purchase of that music.

In the case of the pending DigiTrax change, if I heard a track but saw the Chartbuster logo, my inquiry would lead me back to Digitrax who would sell me a DigiTrax marked track.

The point of all of this goes back to your comment about "in the context of a trademark."

The Trademark has value. It loses value if removed or otherwise is not displayed.
At risk of sounding cheerleader'ish, the display of the Trademark also leads me to believe they have obtained it through proper means. At risk of getting kicked off of the cheering squad, IMO, the value of the Trademark is not degraded in the slightest if one owns the original media and then media-shifts.

But I have no problem with paying a very nominal fee to be in good standing with a company while also demonstrating that I do own the original product. Call it protection money, call it insurance. I call it showing a good faith effort to do the right thing in an industry where the majority of those around me are absolutely not doing the right thing.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

The listener is not going to care about the trademark on the track, they're not watching the video they are "listening" to the person singing or perhaps the content of the song. If they somehow missed the title of the song – they'll ask the KJ if they are that interested. The trademark of the karaoke manufacturer doesn't mean anything to anyone except another karaoke singer or a KJ. To the average "listener" it makes no difference because they're not there to singing anyway.



You would not be interested in the trademark per se, you're interested in the advertising for the company that manufactured it. You would never be confused that the trademark you saw belonged to the KJ.


In this particular instance, the trademark has "advertising value." And it is used as a method of advertising and that's where the value is. once again that advertising value is only valuable to another karaoke singer or a KJ.



I will certainly never call it a good-faith effort because I believe it is neither. What exactly do you mean by "good standing?" This is not an industry Association where you pay dues every year and by your own admission they won't guarantee that you won't get sued certified or not.

I'll tell you what; write a check to me for one hundred twenty-five dollars for the sound choice audit, one hundred ninety-nine dollars for the chart buster audit and I will send you back two of the prettiest "good standing" certificates you ever saw. Only the finest parchment paper, handcrafted calligraphy and suitable for framing. And I'll go one step further: I will guarantee you 100% that I will not sue you during the year that these certifications are effective. And you may deduct 5% every year off of the renewal fee as my reward for your loyalty as a customer. Does sound choice offer you "5% cash back?" and I'll even make up a webpage and list your name – in alphabetical order of course – as one of my certified KJ's and if any venue calls me I will demand that they hire you first.

How can you resist? More service, less price, same great certification – now that's value!

1:1 copying as a trademark issue should NOT be an issue. They can't even claim that you benefited monetarily from the copy, if the original is sitting in storage then you have made no extra income. The only benefits are convenience and reliability of digital format and the safety of your expensive, and likely irreplaceable investment in original disks.

ToMAYto....
ToMAHto....

We both know where this is going

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

That is essentially correct. The suits target media shifters- paying customers in many if not most cases, not those who have STOLEN tracks- and even Harrington Law will agree with that. They then MAY drop the suit if the media shifter complies to SC's wishes. The reasoning is that this is the only legal way they have to recoup losses. Since they don't own the music, they can't sue for piracy, and they say their hands are tied.

Since I'm a bit more ethical than they are, I say if you don't have a way to go after the actual track thieves that stole from you ( you know, ACTUALLY recouping of losses), shut up and go away until you do, rather than suing the customers who paid you thousands upon thousands of dollars and made a you a success on a technicality for your income.

Just one humble Karaoke Host's opinion, of course...

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Not true. While SC CLAIMS that they use this method to weed out pirates, the actual suits are specifically targeting those who media shift their logo- and ALWAYS has. Hence, "Trademark Infringement", not "Piracy".

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I have never denied that they are going after those who stole from them, but they do need a way to distinguish those who stole & those who purely media shifted their discs. If kj's refuse to submit then they are as fair game IMO as those who stole.

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

I'd probably do it if it was just "let us see your disks and files", not "let us see your disks and files and business financials, we want to audit you on a whim, mark your property etc." If you're legal now chances are you will stay that way. They would rather have us all in some kind of probation.

Trademark infringement is a fine case against multi-riggers off one set of originals or HD sellers. These are the ones profiting from counterfeits. It's a logo on a screen, a bit different but I liken it to replicated hand bags, watches etc. Brands that carry a high price tag infringed on by Chinese manufacturers. This is what a trademark case means to me.

Joe - I believe Sound Choice would much rather be producing karaoke music and selling said music as their business model. We can argue at length about why Sound Choice failed, but no one can deny that the theft of the material had an impact on their business. I don't believe Sound Choice has a solid legal method of pursuing those that stole the merchandise due to the current copyright and other laws on the books. If the tool to go after them exists as Trademark infringement *and that tool works* why wouldn't they want to use it?

I think it sucks that everyone knows - and I mean EVERYONE knows - that the music is being stolen and their hands are somewhat tied against being able to just go after people who stole it.

If I walked into a store, picked up a Sound Choice disc, and walked out without paying for it, I could be in jail in a matter of hours. But going to someones house, copying their FULL Sound Choice library (+every other manufacturer that ever existed and does exist), and walking out somehow means different laws apply.

I guarantee you that if I were to replicate Ford Mustangs and giove them away for free, Ford Motor Corporation would be all over me. Why Shouldn't Sound Choice be offered the same benefit of protection?

If I start advertising myself at my shows as DJ Joe Chartreuse (or whatever you call yourself at your show) you have remedy against that. Why shouldn't Sound Choice?

People get too mixed up in it being Trademark vs copyright vs theft. Sound Choice (and presumably now PR) are using the existing laws that work for them to get relief.

Finally, I also believe that if there were an effective way for them to single out *ONLY* those that pirated/stole vs those who only shifted, that they would. They put the word out about getting a hold of them to prove 1:1 compliance and the industry by and large ignored it. When the folks that were told they would be sued unless they take a particular action, ignore the warning, then get sued, they really have no leg to stand on.

-Chris

ps.....I also think it sucks that there are only financial implications for piracy. There should be jail time....wait....PRISON time. Theft is theft is theft. It IS a duck.

_________________
-Chris

I doubt it. Even Harrington has agreed that it is more profitable now to sit at home in your pajamas and simply sue KJ's than it is to actually create music.


It's the only tool they have.


This is somewhat of an unfair comparison wouldn't you say? If you walk into a store and steal something, the only reason that you will be in jail in a matter of minutes is because the store has put into place safeguards (such as security cameras and personnel) to guard against shoplifting – before it happens.

The store does not send its crack investigative squads to go through the neighborhoods looking for every person that appears to use their product and knocking down their door demanding to see the receipt. Or like an ice cream truck, expect the people in the neighborhood should come running out with their receipts and pay them simply to look at them.


And I will guarantee you that Ford will make sure that there is some good hard evidence first.


interesting comparison. Especially since sound choice has registered trademark for the "production and exhibition of karaoke shows." This means that those purchasers of the gems series are now literally – franchisees of sound choice when ever they play the sound choice track. And like a franchisee, they have an agreement in place with sound choice that allows them to monitor the "service" that they provide to end users such as venues, and they also have the right to monitor a gem users financial records. A duck is a duck, sound choice may want to call them "licensees" but in reality they are now "franchisees." If they were not franchisees there would be absolutely no reason for sound choice to file a trademark for the production and exhibition of karaoke shows.


Relief is one thing – a profit center is another.


I disagree. I believe your mistakingly putting the responsibility on the customer and not on the vendor who created the product in the first place.


Another disagreement. If there is no reason to sue me in the first place, and you send me a letter telling me that you're going to sue me unless I jump through your hoops, I will definitely ignore it. And when it comes to filing the lawsuit, we will see who is jumping through who's hoop.

Apparently, you have been oblivious to a pattern which is very apparent; if a KJ is sued and put up resistance one of two things will happen:
1. They will be quietly and voluntarily dismissed.
2. After a sufficient amount of saber rattling, and possibly an agreement that doesn't mean much, they will again be quietly and voluntarily dismissed as long as there is some type of confidentiality agreement.

One aspect of media shifting that you also have been oblivious to, is that sound choice requires – if you want an audit in advance – that you must violate the trademark laws before that audit takes place. Do they give you permission to copy their trademark for the purposes of an audit? I have yet to see that happen. So by the time an audit is available, you are already a "technical infringer."

And let's keep in mind that once they have told you that you need to infringe their trademark first, you also need to pay them for them to verify that you have in fact infringed their trademark.

This is not only completely false, but also utterly ridiculous.

There is no obligation on any prospective auditee's part to violate the trademark laws before being audited.

Trademark infringement requires use in commerce. Use in commerce is hard to define, but what it definitely does not include is conducting a 1:1 media-shift to a medium that you do not use in a show. It would be an easy thing for a disc-based host to rip all of his discs to a hard drive that he does not use in connection with a show, then apply for certification and audit for the drive, and only use the drive once certification has been received.

If people do jump the gun by using their media-shifted tracks commercially, they are technical infringers, but there is a path to getting permission.

You have a highly distorted view of what is actually involved in preparing and prosecuting a lawsuit.



This is again one of those things of which you are absolutely certain, that just isn't so.

The creation of a franchise relationship requires three elements: A trademark license, significant control over or assistance with the business operations of the franchisee by the franchisor, and a required payment from the franchisee to the franchisor. (That's 16 CFR § 436.1(h), for those who are keeping score.)

The second element is missing. Although the GEM license contains some specific requirements that licensees must meet with regard to the use of the GEM tracks themselves, SC does not involve itself in, much less control, the licensee's business operations, nor does it provide significant assistance to licensees in their operations.

Without that second element, there is no franchise.

Now, addressing the second part of your misinformed position: SC chose to register the SC marks for those services because doing so would allow SC to go to bat more clearly and easily for its licensees against infringers on unfair competition claims. It was probably not strictly necessary to do so, but it has made it easier so far.

Not according to some of the people who have posted on this very site in the past. Those KJ's claim when they called for an audit, they were told to rip their disk to the hard drive – first – before the audit can be scheduled.

"Obligation" is one word, "requirement" is another. Both are equally valid. I'm not about to go searching through this site to repost information from forum users about the requirement to rip their discs prior to an audit. You can look that up yourself, it is here.

[/quote]

Whiplash alert! It's interesting how you will say on one hand, that you will sue people and demand discovery in order to determine whether or not their drives "simply contain trademarked counterfeit material" and now you've taken an about face claiming that trademark violations only occur "when it is used in commerce." so it appears as though it's perfectly "legal" to have every track on the planet on your hard drive – as long as – you don't "use it commercially."

Simple possession of material you deem as "counterfeit" does not constitute trademark infringement anymore than owning a gun means that you are a murderer.

"copy and paste" gets tiring I'm sure.


You are not disputing that parts 1 and 3 are present and in place....

Here is #2:


Consequently the caveat: "always read the fine print."



You have already stated that sound choice does not put on any karaoke shows – shows are put on by its licensees. A "gem renter" however, is an independently owned and operated licensee – according to you – and not a franchisee. Once again, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that they are in competition with you and then turn around and claim that your franchisees are actually independently owned and operated "licensees." This is simply once again, your method of throwing as much against the wall as you can, seeing a what will stick.

You missed the key word in the regulation: significant. Every trademark license requires quality control to one extent or another. But not every trademark license is a franchise agreement, because what is required for a franchise is significant control.



There is so much wrong with this that I can't even tell what point you're trying to make. Try again, please.

okay, at your request, I will make it s-i-m-p-l-e-r:

1. You claim that GEM licensees are not franchisees.
2. Your trademark claim is that SC "puts on karaoke shows"
3. You admit sound choice does not put on karaoke shows.
4. Now you claim that SC is "in competition" with other KJ's when you also admit that they do not put on karaoke shows.

Please explain to me how you can (on the left hand) claim that you do not put on karaoke shows – it's only your licensees – and then claim that the purpose of the trademark is for your lawsuit claim of "unfair competition."

Either you are – or you are not – in competition with other KJ's.

1. If you are:
If you claim you're in competition with other KJ's because of your registered trademark that extends through your licensees – then your licensees are not in fact licensees – they are franchisees.

2. If you are not:
then your trademark application was incorrect and by your own admission sound choice does not engage in the practice of putting on karaoke shows And can therefore not be in competition with other KJ's.

It's very simple: if you're in competition, then gem owners are franchisees, conversely if they are not franchisees but independent business owners, then you are not in competition with other KJ's and you don't put on karaoke shows.

You – as usual – want to have both sides of the cookie.

If your knowledge of trademark law were more than superficial, you would recognize that our "trademark claim" is no such thing. The application itself is quite clear that our use is through licensees, which is something that is expressly permitted under that part of the statute governing registration.



Once again, the superficiality of your knowledge of trademark law is leading you down the wrong path.

Under the Lanham Act, "unfair competition"--an action under § 43(a)--need not be brought by a person who is in competition with the infringer. All that is required is that the person who brings suit have been damaged by the infringing conduct.



Because the infringers are competing unfairly with our licensees. That damages us by diminishing the value of a license, which is a direct harm to SC even if we are not directly competing with the infringer. It is also a harm to our licensees, and this arrangement allows us to pursue claims that benefit those licensees.



This is simply not so. It's not what the law says.



See above.



Chip, I know you're trying hard to understand this. Trademark law seems really simple on the outside, but in reality it is some of the most complex and arcane law on the books. You can't read a few Wikipedia articles and gather enough knowledge to understand it as thoroughly as someone who's been practicing it for more than a decade. Our position on all of this is internally consistent and fully within the law. I'm sorry that disappoints you, but it's the way it is.

I really don't appreciate the patronizing attitude you display - even though it's a tool you use to attempt to discredit me. It is also a "backhanded acknowledgment" that there is plenty of truth in what I've presented or it wouldn't upset you so.

When I read this I literally laughed out loud. I am the opposite of upset.

I don't know how to make it any more clear. You are just wrong.