Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums
https://mail.karaokescenemagazine.net/forums/

Interresting question
https://mail.karaokescenemagazine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=23231		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  PyleDriver [ Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Interresting question
Can Sound Choice enforce the use of thier tracks for songs they didn't have the licences and permission to make in the first place? If so, why...

Jon
Author:  JoeChartreuse [ Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Interresting question
OK, here we go....! I'll wait for Jim's reply...
Author:  PyleDriver [ Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Interresting question
Has this been asked and answered? If so, can someone direct me where?

Jon
Author:  ggardein [ Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Interresting question
One word......Logo....
Author:  DannyG2006 [ Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Interresting question
ggardein wrote:
One word......Logo....


What he said!
Author:  JimHarrington [ Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Interresting question
PyleDriver wrote:
Can Sound Choice enforce the use of thier tracks for songs they didn't have the licences and permission to make in the first place? If so, why...

Jon


There is a lot of misinformation about that situation out there. There have been some disputes, but all of them have been resolved, and you don't have to worry about playing music that you have on an original Sound Choice disc.

Regardless of the licensing status, those tracks still bear the SC logo and SC's lyric sweeps. SC is the only entity with the right to control the use of that logo and those lyric sweeps as trade dress. That is a matter of trademark law. Any disputes over licensing are a matter of copyright law. Because those are two different areas of the law, upstream problems with one don't have anything to do with the other.
Author:  JoeChartreuse [ Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Interresting question
Surprisingly :wink: , Jim and I disagree here. After researching, I have come to the opinion that logos affixed to an originally unlicensed track have legal business being there. The track was produced without permission, ergo the logo was attached without permission. It is legally invisible.

SC's answer to that is since they have paid settlements after the fact, the logos now count, because the music owners have been satisfied. However, paying the settlement only releases them from further liablity- it does NOT imply licensing. Everything was still done without permission, including the logo attachment.

I do not believe that the case would hold up in front of a judge after being argued by a knowledgeable attorney on the other side.

Just another viewpoint.....
Author:  PyleDriver [ Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Interresting question
Joe I have to agree with you. If SC's position was valid why can't they produce that track for me then... Say I have a bootleg of a song in question, and I comply to the 2% tolerence, why should they have a fit if I used it. Afterall they can't produce it, so I can't buy it, but I got it...May 10th is our big day, (we pay off Chartbuster in April). We're looking to buy the Gem - Sapphire 5 + 900 songs for 4770.00. Many times I'm buying an extra CD for one or two songs, so theres not 900 extra songs. If I need, I should say want, a song and they still make it I'll buy it. Case in point SC8430 has "Old Man" and "Back In The Saddle", the rest is in the GEM... BTW I have pulled all the SC from our book and have had only 3 complaints (lost singers) in 4 months. I will add we gained many more than that having the Chartbuster 6000 and being Certified by them... To be honest we're questioning is it worth the price and headache to do business with SC. With CB, ASK, Karaokanta and Karaoke Box we're covering most everything we need... $4770 will buy one bad (@$%&#!) sound system...

Jon
Author:  JimHarrington [ Wed Feb 29, 2012 3:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Interresting question
JoeChartreuse wrote:
Surprisingly :wink: , Jim and I disagree here. After researching, I have come to the opinion that logos affixed to an originally unlicensed track have legal business being there. The track was produced without permission, ergo the logo was attached without permission. It is legally invisible.

SC's answer to that is since they have paid settlements after the fact, the logos now count, because the music owners have been satisfied. However, paying the settlement only releases them from further liablity- it does NOT imply licensing. Everything was still done without permission, including the logo attachment.

I do not believe that the case would hold up in front of a judge after being argued by a knowledgeable attorney on the other side.

Just another viewpoint.....


To be fair, I don't think there is any case law that is precisely on point on this issue. I think it will be a case of first impression in front of whatever court looks at it first. The reason why I come down where I do is that (a) the track at issue is not the one that SC supposedly made without permission, but the one that the KJ made without permission by ripping the track, (b) the KJ has no standing whatsoever to assert the rights of an unrelated third party as a defense, and (c)SC has not been accused of trademark infringement. The law regarding unclean hands requires that the wrongful conduct be of the same character as that which the plaintiff is trying to prosecute.

Moreover, while this argument could be made for a few tracks (successfully or not), it simply wouldn't apply to a huge portion of the catalog--probably in excess of 90%. So while Joe's theory makes for an interesting thought experiment, as a practical matter it means nothing even if he is right because our case would still be valid as to most of what is on the hard drive.
Author:  PyleDriver [ Wed Feb 29, 2012 3:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Interresting question
The problem here is, does SC have the rights to assert the question in the first place. That needs to be established first and foremost...

Jon
Author:  JimHarrington [ Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Interresting question
PyleDriver wrote:
The problem here is, does SC have the rights to assert the question in the first place. That needs to be established first and foremost...

Jon


Yes. 15 U.S.C. ยง 1114. SC is the undisputed owner of the trademarks and has the right, per federal law, to use a civil action to prevent others from using the marks in confusingly similar ways.
Author:  PyleDriver [ Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Interresting question
It does not include a provison for this type of case. If I missed it could you point it out?...This is like a man who paints his logo on my business without consent. I sue him to remove it and win. I decide that I like the logo on my building and leave it and place a second one on the building. He later then sues me for copyright infringment for having a copy of the logo he put up wrongfully in the first place...Hum sounds like a mess...

Jon
Author:  Second City Song [ Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Interresting question
I don't know Jon.

Say I take the blueprint of your building.

I build my own identical one of the blueprint but use a different contractor who uses different workers who use different lumber and a different brand of paint then put my logo on it.

Then you come by & sue me for using your blueprints without permission. I settle with you on the blueprint deal but you can not force me to destroy the building or remove my logo from the side.

Isn't that what a karaoke rendition is? Different musicians recording off a blueprint?
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/