Karaoke Forums

Bruce, I'll tell you what, make some cola, put it in a can painted "Coca-Cola Red", using the same font and call it "Bruce Cola". I'll guarantee that Coca-Cola will be sending you at the very least a Cease and Desist letter.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

it is not Athena saying it is that way....

there are no record labels in the world that will sue you for transfering music to a hard drive and playing form it, there are no karaoke labels in the world that will sue you for transfering the music to a computer and playing from it, save for two.
Sound Choice and Chartbuster are the only entities that will sue you for transfering the music from disc to hard drive and using it.

Athena is not the one making that determination, Kurt and Norbert are.

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

There is no color called and copy righted as Sound Choice red. There also is not a specific font called Sound Choicevetica that I can find

How is it that when I go to a show where the logos have been removed, or don't happen to be looking at the monitor when the logo comes up, I can still tell if a track is a SC track, just by looking at the lyrics?

Same thing with CB.

There is a particular look and feel to the way that both companies carried out their execution of the graphics portion of their karaoke tracks. The look and feel is unique to each company. The law refers to that concept as "trade dress," and it can be protected just like a trademark.

I'll believe that when Sound Choice takes someone all the way to a court room and wins a judgerment against them. So far all I see are threats of law suits that cause people to cave in to the demands rather than pay much more to a lawyer to take the case.: not to merntion the hassle of going back and forth to court for god knows how long until the case is decided. Most of the people settle because it is simply the path of least resistance and that is what Sound Choice counts on. I'm just glad that I'm just a singer and not in the karaoke business. I'm just tired of KJ's telling me that I can't bring in a compilation disc of Sound Choice songs, that I have purchased, because they are scared to death of being put out of business by the mighty "Goliath".

Do you think some poor karaoke host who does one show a week can afford to get scooped up in the Sound Choice net because he played a song that a customer brought in on a personal disc? Sound Choice has created an environment where KJ's alienate singers because they are afraid of the big bad wolf at the door. Those KJ's will eventually lose enough of their following that they will turn the bar owner off of karaoke for good because the singers will be complaining to the bar owner about not being allowed to sing songs that they went out and purchased just for that reason.

I know I know. That's not Sound Choice's problem. They really don't care about the little guy trying to make a little extra cash. All they care about is squeezing a little more money out of people who already bought their product once. There will always be another karaoke host a short distance away who will thumb their nose at Sound Choice's strong arm tactics and play a customer's disc because Sound Choice can't be everywhere. I heard it somewhere that someone is selling hard drives with Sound Choice tracks with no logos and all of the colors have been changed so they look nothing like Sound Choice tracks. I believe they have RED backgrounds with white letters that change to blue. I don't think Sound Choice ever used that combination.

Las Vegas Casinos calls their Bluff and Sound Choice conveniently "forgets" to file the paper work on time.

Bruce, do you actually believe that with the hundreds of cases against both hosts and venues that not one of them went to an attorney (especially the venues) to see if the cases were bogus and that SC couldn't win. Maybe they didn't roll over but discovered they were in fact in the wrong.

In the Coke scenario use a red that is close to Coca-Cola or a scheme close to Pepsi or any colour/font/script out there, whether beverages, airlines, vehicles, or whatever. Heck, McDonald's has forced restaurants called McDonald's (the owner being a McDonald) to change their names.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I actually believe that out of hundreds of cases against both hosts and venues that not one of them went to a judge for a decision becuase the arguments were bogus and SC knew they couldn't win. That's why Las Vegas has become a "Karaoke Free Zone" where anyone who doesn't lie down is allowed to "media shift" without permission from anyone because it isn't really needed.


This Coke/Pepsi argument is getting tiresome and boring because it is just plain false. Have yourself a stroll down the soft drink isle of your favorite grocery store sometime and take a look at their generic soft drinks. Then compare any name brand product to any generic equivelent. If you have eyes, you will notice that the generics are intentionally designing their packaging and their names to resemble the name brand with which they hope to replace themselves. Go to walmart and pick up a bottle of Dr Thunder or Mountain Lightning and see if you can guess what they are trying to replicate.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

And just to prove his point
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wVqggOtA9s

Look at the color of the can. Look at the script. Both look like Coke, and although they do not say Coca Cola it does say Original Cola....

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

As long as you procure licencing from the rights holders to add the lyrics swipes..and use your own font and trade dress.....it is my opinion that you would be OK. Seems like a lot of cost and work to me .....but personally I don't care.

I am proud of my cheerleader status...as far as the way I see "it" ...I am just repeating the statements made by the manufactures stance...it is not MY decision to make...they own the rights not me.

Athena

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

From what I can tell, Sound Choice and Chartbuster both seem to use a font called "MS Sans Serif" or "Arial Narrow". Are you trying to tell me that I can't use those fonts when I make my own karaoke tracks because they are "OWNED" by SC and CB? Why didn't Sound Choice file a law suit against Chartbuster for using "their" font? If they didn't sue Chartbuster for using this so called "Sound Choice" font; how can they turn around now and decide that no one else can use it? Did one of their competitors ask permission to use the "Sound Choice" font and get the okay to do so....or did the people at Chartbuster just use an available font on their computer that was coincidentally the same as the one that Sound Choice also picked? Stellar sued Panorama for using a similar picture on their products because it was an effort to deceive the buying public that they were from the same company. I really can't see someone losing a law suit over using a particular font that came with their computer when they bough it.

I just checked. My computer didn't come with the Coca Cola font.

Isn't this rich? If I want to make a song for my own personal use and not for re-sale; I'm expected by KJATHENA to procure licensing from some artist or his representative.....something that SC and CB both failed to do on numerous ocassions, and they sold thousands of them to an unsuspecting public. Talk about a double standard! I've been reading up on Trade Dress and IN MY OPINION, a font or a color is merely functional and not an artistic addition to the product being discussed. Sound Choice never patented a Sound Choice font and there is no color called Sound Choice Black. There are plenty of private label colas out there that come in red cans. As long as the red isn't EXACTLY the same color as the patented RED that Coke uses; they are selling millions of them with no hassle from Coke. I'm sure if COKE even tried to stop them; all of those huge grocery chains would have every COKE product pulled from the shelves and PEPSI would make a killing. I don't think that anyone has ever purchased a can of store brand cola and confused it with a real COKE product.

no Brucefan4life it is not me that expects anything it is the way the LAW is written. You might want to do some reading on the subject. And while you are reading check on the lawsuits brought against ANY of the manus for not paying the rights holders.


Athena

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

The karaoke manu's were sued, and lost, because they produced and marketed their wares on a grand scale and made millions pf dollars from using some unlicensed material. If I make one copy of a song and only sing it when I go to a karaoke bar, I'm not making a dime and therefore a recording artist isn't searching the karaoke bars looking for someone like me.

Personally, I think that they would be flattered that I went through all of that effort just so I could sing one their songs. I'll let you know if I ever get sued by Bruce Springsteen for singing Jungleland. Okay?

I do, and not only that, I believe it's a "gimme"- which is why SC won't ever go to court. Once they lose their income model is gone.


1) Their logos are attached to hundreds of unlicensed (pirated) songs. Paying the settlements to the publishers does NOT make them licensed. The logos are STILL attached without permission, and thus legally invisible.

2) SC is taking money to ignore the media shift, but more important, they are saying that they won't tell the publisher about it- What they call "unclean hands". They have a ZERO chance of winning in court on a legal basis. Of course, anything can happen. A judge may have marital problems, be in a bad mood, his dog pi$$ed him off, whatever- but there is no LEGAL case that SHOULD win in court.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Sorry Joe, it doesn't compute. Hundreds of suits and not a lawyer to push the thing. Nope, not buying. If the lawsuits were harrassment (as some have claimed) why do the courts allow them to continue? As for people talking about L.V. where does it say the suit is dead and gone? I don't see anything and in fact Jim has stated it is ongoing.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I am still waiting on you to show me some controlling or persuasive authority that makes this true.

By contrast, I have cited a statute (15 U.S.C. 1115(b)) and case law (Dastar) that show that it is false.

By the way, that statute...it states that an incontestable registration on the Principal Register (which is a designation that applies to SC's marks under 15 U.S.C. 1065) is conclusive evidence of the registrant's (SC's) right to use the mark on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the registrations.

Conclusive evidence. Not "presumptive." Conclusive.



SC does not "take money to ignore the media shift." Any publisher who wants to know whether a media-shift has taken place can go to the SC website and pull a list of certified KJs. That list contains full contact information for every KJ who has conducted a media shift with SC's knowledge and forbearance. If we're somehow keeping that secret from the publishers, that must be the worst-kept secret in the world.

As for your second comment, even if we were, that is not what is meant by "unclean hands," and you are so far off track with that, I'm not sure how to get you back on track.

Hey, I'm still trying to figure out how a company that admits that it has no authority to grant the right to media shift can sue someone for not getting their permission to do so....

...and before you tell me that SC CAN grant permission to media shift SC's logo, please keep in mind that no one requests, needs, or desires the trademark on it's own merit ( without music or lyrics). No one can be shown to gain specifically because the logo that is added to property that is owned by others.

Even if the logo had any value of it's own, please note:

The ownership of a single, solitary, original SC disc that had been ripped would make the logo "1:1".

Once I get past THAT I'll work on the other stuff....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I like the way you think Joe!

You are becoming the new Chip...

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

This is actually an important point, Joe. In the hours of discussions I've had with one of our IP attorneys at the firm I work for, this theme came up on several occasions...the fact that in this instance, the mark is not being used as a mark. I think it's a very important distinction, and so did the attorney.

_________________
Birdofsong

The fact that we do not have the authority to speak for other rights holders does not mean we cannot speak as to our own rights.

If you need permission from A, B, and SC, it is no defense to an action by A or B that you got permission from SC. And if you get no permissions at all, then SC can sue you just as A and B can.



I am confused by the term "owned by others." Whether you like it or not, SC did create the actual works that are being used; they are still SC's property, either through ownership or direct license.

But, leaving that aside, I can show, through our own studies and through a great deal of anecdotal evidence, that the product quality and the goodwill associated with it are major motivating factors in track selection by KJs, both in deciding which music to acquire and in selecting tracks to play when the singer has no brand preference.

You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) at the number of times KJs have told me (during investigations), without my asking, that if there are multiple versions of the song I want to sing in their book, I should choose the one marked "SC." This is true even though they have no idea who I am.

Because the trademark is a symbol of the goodwill, it does have a great deal of value.



If we were talking about displaying the logo at a show, unconnected to any particular track, you might have a point. In that situation, you would at least have an arguable nominative fair use argument--if your show consisted solely or even mostly of SC tracks, which you either played directly from discs or you were a SC-certified KJ.

But when you play tracks that aren't from discs or you aren't certified, the display of the mark in connection with tracks you've copied yourself becomes a false designation of origin, and thus a trademark infringement.

Joe, allow me to pose a sincere question...you know that I'm not just any attorney, that I've made my career on intellectual property law generally and trademark law specifically, and I've about 90% of my time the last three years litigating trademark cases for SC, with the result that a company that was about to shut its doors is now ready to turn the corner.

Do you really think I would take that kind of risk on some half-baked theory that could be defeated as easily as you suggest?