Karaoke Forums

Not to hijack this thread, but the fees paid to ASCAP and those other Mafia like organizations are to pay for commercial performance, right? So why does the KJ need to pay the third party that actually does not own the music, lyric or much else except the SC logo?

Trade dress my eye.. I claim BS..

For those that might not be familiar with the differences, below is a link I prepared with an exact comparison of the above mentioned tracks against the original. I'll agree that the piano in the SC track is more prominent, I'll still wager that the DK version "is closer to the original."

Click HERE for the 1:38 sec comparison

They all seem to be in a different key

Nope. Same key.

The DK seems to be in a slightly lower key as they are quite often.
SC disc says it's in the key of C and DK gives no such information.

I make no claims of having pitch perfect hearing. It just sounds just a bit different to me.

Is there some software that tells you what key a song is in?

It's a different sound of piano, but all on the same key. My recording on SS was recorded half a step lower.

And please keep in mind Micky that because your recording (very nice I might add) was done with the key changed that I used the straight-from-the-source recordings as a comparison with no key changes.

There's no judgment here on which recording a person "should like" better than the other... it's all subjective. And for my subjective ears, DK sounds "truer" to the original than SC. There are plenty of other songs where SC wins out, but the point here is that the singers (at least where I work) are not dependent on any particular brand -- they're not as picky.

I could sing either one and it wouldn't make a difference to me...but then again, if I was itching to sing that particular song, I think I could sing along to any version of that song. It's a fairly easy song to sing.

Chip, the DK version is not a bad version at all and you can clearly hear the SC weakness, their poor mastering!! I've always said that they are way too compressed and very electronic sounding but I need to remind myself that they are for karaoke, not for professionals who are looking for a pro backing track...

Please keep in mind that my recommendation for the brand only applies to karaoke, I rarely use their tracks for my solo performance due to their poor mastering and the fact that todays brand such as Zoom and some Karaoke-Version tracks offer a much better sound.

In this case, it really is a question of personal preferences, I would take the SC version with the DK mastering result Thanks for the kind words on my recording!

1) Really? He gave the factors and formula for SC's determination of damages? THAT was the question. If he did, and I somehow missed it, would you be kind enough to copy and post that information?

2) Um, since I was the originator and OP of this thread, the only way to be "back on track" would be to post in regard to the subject basis of the thread- my question...

I guess if Jim Harrington had no answer, I shouldn't expect one from others. On the other hand, I guess you are right. As stated earlier, no information from JH does constitute an answer to my question- there are no damages.

Enjoy your hijack.....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Joe,
You are completely ignoring my direct response to your original post and it makes me sad.
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=25456&start=20 (it's the second post on this page)

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

No question IMM, the DK version is more accurate.

The fact that you don't like my answer does not render it false.

There are no "factors and formula" for damages for "media-shifting the logo" because we don't sue for that. You might as well have asked how we calculate the damages for assault.



And the branding--logos and trade dress--tells you who made it, and therefore what quality standard to expect. A trademark has no meaning apart from its function as a source identifier.



I am saying that what you are describing is not the basis of our trademark infringement claim. This is not about "duplication of the trademark." It is about the application of the trademark to an item that SC did not create, which is a special class of trademark infringement known as counterfeiting.



What we sue for could be described as copyright infringement. It is also trademark infringement. The two are not mutually exclusive, and it is common to see acts described in the law in two or more different ways. Good grief, in the Lanham Act even trademark infringement is described in two different ways (compare § 32 [1114] with § 43(a) [1125(a)]).



That is certainly one way to calculate damages. Of course, it doesn't have to be that complicated. The statute says our actual damages (which could be what we would have derived from sales, or there could be other ways of getting at it, like damage to goodwill) plus the infringer's profits from the infringing activity. The statute also says we only have to prove gross sales--the defendant has to prove any offsets or costs.



No, no, no, and no. Your position about "permission" does not find any harbor in the actual law. I have proven this to you many times, and yet you refuse to counter it with any argument (probably because there isn't any; it's settled law from both a statutory and case-law perspective). And these suits are not about the display of the logos alone. They are about the creation of unauthorized duplicates of SC's product, applying SC's trademarks and trade dress to those duplicates, and using those duplicates in commerce by supplying them to customers (venues) and patrons for use in a karaoke show.



You have the answer, but the fact that you think the answer is significant for these lawsuits means that you have the wrong idea.

There is no need to prove monetary damages for media-shifting a logo, of itself, because that is not the act we are suing for.

Sound Choice has been selling songs for roughly 2 dollars per song for quite some time. I'd say that the music and lyrics are worth about $1.999999999999 of that $2.00 and the Sound Choice mark is worth about $0.000000000001

Multiply that $0.000000000001 times; let's say by 25,000 songs and it comes out to a whopping $0.000000025
But that is just my opinion.

Are you people really that dense? One wants a formula that doesn't and won't exist, another who thinks trademarks are basically worthless (ask any company the value of their TMs). Why do you think they protect their TMs rigorously and sue infringers? You can't even open a fast food place selling hamburgers and call it McDonald's, even if that is your name.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Who said trademarks are worthless

Are you serious I had in mind to open a fast food and call it McDonald, thanks for the heads up... I guess I won't get sued

If I added the Sound Choice Logo to my homemade CD+G files and tried to sell them as Sound Choice tracks; that would be considered counterfeiting. Ripping Sound Choice tracks to my hard drive is not counterfeiting anything. It is a fair use of what I have already paid for.

For home use maybe, but remember that you can't play their disk in public, so I'm assuming playing your ripped SC file from your hard drive in public would still be illegal

No, that's garden-variety trademark infringement.



It's not a fair use. Trademark fair use requires that you use no more of the mark than is necessary. You can play the tracks from the disc; therefore, it is not necessary that you make a copy of the contents in order to play them. For that reason, it cannot be a fair use--and that defense was rejected by the district court in Florida after our trial.

And once again. All we see here are people's opinions of how they want it to be. I'm waiting for someone to post an opinion that winds up as law and signed by a judge. Until then, I and many others will continue to do things just as we have been doing for years.