Karaoke Forums

Nothing encompassed by a 1-1 media shift.

And yet SC reserved the right to media shift that trademark without permission.

Even you seem to be fudging the line between copyright violation and fair use and trademark infringement for which there is no "fair use".

The content of the media consists of several components. That is why the distinction is made when granting the rights to copy their trademark. That is why they state that they cannot authorize the copying of the underlying composition and/or lyrics as they do not have control over those rights.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

I am not an IP attorney, and I don't have time to research this fully. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. THIS IS ALL IMHO.

The copying of the trademark attached to a sound choice track in a true 1-1 media shift is secondary to the FAIR USE copying of the underlying track.

My music library contains “bona fide Sound Choice accompaniment tracks” legally “shifted” to a different media under the doctrine of fair use. The trademark is legally transferred along with the legally transferred track to the new media.

My right under fair use to shift the digital content of my CD+G discs to a more convenient media is not abrogated because of the transfer and display of the trademark.

CONFUSION or DECEPTION is the crux of any trademark case.

There simply is no confusion or deception in a true 1-1 shift.

Customers or patrons are not confused or deceived about ANYTHING because I chose to change the media from which play the digital content I licenced for use when I paid for said digital content. THEY CANNOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE.

Customers or patrons are NOT deceived into believing that SC sponsored or approved my services and commercial activities anymore than they would be if I played the original disc. THEY CANNOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE.

Customers or patrons are not deceived into believing that the works being performed were sold by SC and purchased by ME because the works performed WERE sold by SC and purchased by ME. I merely shifted the content to a different media from which I play the works performed.

My originals are archived, and SC has permitted archival of originals and use of copies for over 10 years. I have not deprived SC of any sales. There are no damages in a 1-1 media shift.

While there aren't any damages to a legal media shift, It isn't the legal hosts they are interested in. It's the ones who does not have the 1:1 ratio between discs and music on the hard drive.
While we are at it, That permission 10 years ago was before the use of computers for karaoke shows and has nothing to do with Hard drive copies. SC has seen this and clarified their position on hard drive copying to include written permission of transfer of their trademark, which they do have the right to regulate since it belongs to them. They only want to assure themselves that those displaying their trademark is doing so by paying for their product. What is so wrong with that?

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.

A digital copy is a digital copy, especially when one uses wav+g.

"A trade-mark only gives the right to prohibit the use of it so far as to protect the owner's good will against the sale of another's product as his... When the mark is used in a way that does not deceive the public we see no such sanctity in the word as to prevent its being used to tell the truth. It is not taboo." Prestonettes, Inc., v. Coty, 264 U.S. 359, 368, (1924).

“The right of the complainant must be based upon a wrong which the defendant has done to it by misleading customers as to the origin of the goods sold and thus taking away its trade. Such rights are not based on a bare title to a word or symbol but on a cause of action to prevent deception.” Dupont Cellophane Co. v. Waxed Products Co., 85 Fed. (2d) 75, 81, cert. denied 299 U. S. 601.

I ain't selling a product and trying to pass it off as Sound Choice's, and I ain't deceiving anyone either. Therefore I don't believe I need their "permission" to transfer the trademark to a different media.

For me, this would all be a non-issue but for CB and SC now charging a yearly fee for audits. I have no problem with submitting to an audit, subject to reasonable time & location constraints. However I refuse to pay for that audit.

I am NOT an IP attorney and this is NOT legal advice.

I support this point as well. It is not defiance, rather, it is what is RIGHT!

_________________
EveningStar Entertainment & Events
JR & Michele LaPorte
Peoria, AZ

so fair use is only good until the copyright gets shown? if i were to not have the TV on but played the music it's ok, but turn on the TV and bad? that seems weird to me.
i am not an attorney, nor did i ever play one on TV, but stupid sounds like stupid no matter who you are.

i am willing to help narrow the field and go through an audit, or 2 (hell i already did for both certs) and tried to do another but Stellar is not doing audits, or don't care about 1:1, or something as they refuse to respond to one of my now 8 emailed and 5 phoned requests for info (you on her and listening Stellar?)but to say "we're glad you want to help, thank you, but now we want money too" is a load of crap in my mind.

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

Well, one good thing about this thread, Mr. Harrington REALLY cleared up all of the speculation, and back alley legal advice. I just stopped in on the LEGAL FORUM so I could get a good laugh, and I wasn't disappointed. Four pages of bull****, and I know just as much as I did when I started reading. What a @#$#%^* joke. I wonder who the next "lawyer" will be to appear on this forum. I'd sure love to see what Judge Judy had to say about all of this. Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

Point well taken after the opening post I have seen very little else from the lawyer in question. Although Harrington did elaborate on some points in the Seriously post by Joe if anyone want's to look at them.

Really...! I was wondering what happened to the other 6 posts

I was beginning to think his offer was bogus.

_________________
EveningStar Entertainment & Events
JR & Michele LaPorte
Peoria, AZ

What part of I won't be here everyday, I'll get on when I can don't people understand? If he's like most lawyers, he's working 12+ hours a day.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

For the record, I have limited time today, but I wanted to respond to toqer's posts.



The listing you've linked is not my firm. My office is in Concord, North Carolina. "James Harrington" is a common enough name that there happen to be two of us in the Charlotte area. I'm not sure if my firm is in Martindale-Hubbell or not. We don't pay for a listing.

I have been practicing patent, trademark, and copyright law for 10 years, and those three areas comprise more than 95% of my practice.

There is a North Carolina Board of Legal Specialization that does recognize certain specialties, but intellectual property law is not one of them. However, I am registered to practice before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office in patent cases (meaning that I am qualified to prepare and prosecute patent applications). There is no separate registration for trademark cases. I do not hold myself out as a specialist in intellectual property law, and I will leave it to others to decide whether I am an expert.

This is the North Carolina Bar Association, which is a private organization of lawyers. The state agency that actually regulates the practice of law is called the North Carolina State Bar, and its website is ncbar.gov. None of what you posted matters to anyone's ability to practice law in any particular area.

That is an old website that probably needs to be taken down. The current site is http://harringtonlawpc.com. We've had a couple of name changes due to personnel changes in the last couple of years.

I'm certain that Mr. Farrell wouldn't be interested in receiving your calls, as he is busy with actual substantive grievances. But if you want to report something to the Bar, you should direct it to the Grievance Committee at that same address. You are welcome to do so at your leisure.

My client is aware of my posts here. I've posted nothing on here that I would be unprepared to defend in court if necessary. It was suggested that I shouldn't post here because, as we've seen, the pro-pirate people who are here will go on the attack. However, I believe that you have a right to accurate information about what we're doing and that it's in my client's best interest that the straw-grasping, the guesses, the speculation, and the outright fabrications be challenged with accurate information.

Just to be clear:
I don't believe there are any "pro pirate" people here, as you put it.
If there are, please indicate of whom you speak. I'd truly be interested, as I'm sure would others.
There are only people here who are ANTI pirate.
Please don't confuse the fact that there are people here who, while they ALL AGREE that SC and the other manufacturers should get paid for their product, they don't necessarily agree on some of the methods being used to "investigate" and determine who is and is not a pirate, particularly the methods used by yourself and your client.
Again, I would like to stress that there are NO "pro pirate" people here, and I would prefer it if you would refrain from referring to those who are "anti - SC METHODS" as such.
(please do NOT read that as anti-SC. It is the METHODS that are the issue, not the company itself.)

Mr Harrington, did you boo boo on the link as it goes to a Chicago firm?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I noticed that to.

Maybe he meant http://www.harringtonlawpc.com

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.