Karaoke Forums

I think that you don't really know and neither do I. You are simply more willing to assume and that SC has an intentional agenda to avoid non-profits where I can accept that, as you mentioned earlier, the non-profits aren't as high profile and it would be easy enough for them to get skipped this whole time.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

It would seem reasonable if SC really does plan to go back into full production at some later date, they would be interested in not tarnishing their trademark, to the point future sales would be injured. PR is not faced with the same problem, as Joe has pointed out they were created to do the dirty work, so DT the production component of their alliance, would not have their trademark and image damaged. Think of it as DT is the good cop with Gretchen, and PR is the bad cop with the lawyers. When we are talking about this situation it is uncharted territory since there is no case law yet concerning the manu taking on a non-profit.

and the suits are for making a profit from the karaoke, which they are not.


no they do not. guess who does a moose, Eagle, VFW, and DAV, though sometimes i wish i didn't. the smelling like smoke after every show drives me nuts.

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

Who said they weren't paying their BMI fees? All the one's here in California do this is one of the most regulated states in the country. Like I said they have bands, jukeboxes, and karaoke, all three and to keep their liquor license they have to keep everything kosher. They are in compliance with the law or they would lose the liquor license and their non-profit status. L&L is the one who said the local non-profit in her area wasn't paying BMI fees. She failed to name the non-profit or really where they were operating, that would not fly in California.

The difference is tim the business's are setup primarily as a business. Where the non-profit even though it may have business tendencies is set up as a non-profit. That is why they are two different animals and are treated as such under the tax code.

That is why it is nice playing in California Paradigm there is no smoking allowed even in private clubs or non-profits. Each must have an outside smoking area or special smoking room. This is what I meant that it is one of the most regulated states in the country.

I disagree. I know of a KJ in NY who does a once-a-month gig at a local Moose Lodge. He advertises it as such, and even states that the place will be open to the General Public on that evening. There is no sign-in or check-in sheet for any of the attendees to register on. The KJ can't sign/register our names on some guest list, because the KJ doesn't know if (let's just refer to me here) I am going to show up, or if I do show up, whether I will show up alone, or bring half a dozen friends with me. Maybe the Moose Lodge has some kind of open log for "Public" nights like that... I couldn't say.

Oh, and as for the smoke... TELL ME ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!! I hate it too.

edit: I've been to this show at that local Moose Lodge a few times, and I've never been asked to (let alone seen) a sign-in visitor's sheet/book.

They may be different under the Income Tax law but you show me where they are different under either the Trademark or copyright laws. There are some exemptions for educational institutes and others but not for non-profits like the Moose or Elks and the like.

As for tarnishing their Trademark or reputation, I doubt if a lawsuit would even make it in a paper and if it did, it would be a short blurb on the back pages somewhere.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

If the host is a member guests can sign in and list him as the sponsor, of course they have to leave when the host leaves, but that isn't until the karaoke is over anyway. The host is there later than anyone if he is breaking down the equipment and taking it home that night. I'm not familiar with the state laws in New York cue, I know here in California periodically the AB does come out and check out all bars both public and non-profit, everything has to be up to date and current. If not the owner risks losing their liquor license, in the case of the non-profit they also risk losing their non-profit status.

If the non-profits are paying fees to the publishers that would cover the content of the karaoke tracks. As far as the logo is concerned infringement would attach in a similar manner to regular venues. That still leaves the manus with the same problem getting trademark infringement to attach, not an easy task tim.

P.S. If no possible jeopardy would attach tim, with 4 years into the legal process and over 100 suits filed and 1,000 settled hosts and venues, why didn't SC file one case against a non-profit? Was Jimbo asleep at the switch? Is PR just more up on it's legal process game? It would seem that hosts that are in the business know many karaoke hosts work for non-profits, so it's no big secret. It's hard to believe that since suits drive sales, SC would overlook such a big prize. Unless that prize would be more trouble than it would be worth. Just like they don't go after the home abuser user, even though that is where the bulk of the theft is. They just wrote all of those losses off, and decided to go after the public host and the venue he or she works for.

a. You are assuming they didn't;
b. They haven't gotten there yet; and/or
c. It may be they are in compliance.

The point being is you do not know and are making assumptions.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Showed you.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

SC's reputation isn't as tarnished as you wish to believe. The relatively few KJ's that are on these forums compared to what actually exist and the folks that run shows in areas where SC has been active know what is going on. Also, as evidenced here, there are a bunch of people that still buy SC, support was SC is doing, and have no issues with SC.

There are a LOT of KJ's that have no idea SC has ever sued anyone. I still speak to KJ's that still don't know that SC has stopped production 4 years ago. So I think you give these forums way too much credit for having spread the word.

If SC start production again at the same quality they had before and with relevant music, people WILL buy the product. I will. I know many of the cheer leaders will. And I imagine the certified and GEM folks will. If SC take products to the open market, then there will be a bunch of others that will too.

When we are talking about this situation it is uncharted territory since there is no case law yet concerning the manu taking on a non-profit.



You still don't get it. Non-profits don't get an exemption on this. The existing case law will apply to them just as much. But I don't think it matters because the number of those institutions compared to commercial venues is so small that SC may never run across one to sue. if you look at SC's pattern so far, they focus on areas where there are higher concentrations of higher profile venues. They are going for the low hanging fruit. There is still a lot of it out there.

-Chris






PR is not faced with the same problem, as Joe has pointed out they were created to do the dirty work, so DT the production component of their alliance, would not have their trademark and image damaged. Think of it as DT is the good cop with Gretchen, and PR is the bad cop with the lawyers. When we are talking about this situation it is uncharted territory since there is no case law yet concerning the manu taking on a non-profit.[/quote]

_________________
-Chris

You know this is a fact.....how? Because all of their registrations are in a centralized registry that you have access to? That you have personally verified this?

I will take that bet. I bet there is at least ONE non-profit that hasn't paid any of the fees. Maybe out of ignorance, maybe on purpose. But there is at least one in the state of California.



I will take this bet too. There will be at least one non-profit in CA that skirts the rules. They are run by people and people are greedy. Someone is cooking books somewhere.



Because CA has the manpower to check out every single place on a frequent enough basis to verify this?

If this can happen, so can karaoke piracy -

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-12-09a.cfm

http://www.heavy.com/news/2012/12/willi ... ason-peck/

http://www.overtonlawfirm.com/2011/08/1 ... -contract/

Bad people are everywhere.....

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Chris California is one of the most over regulated states in the country, I will say this much I have worked for several non-profits in my time, they all tell me the red tape and expenses are a pain in the backside. If there are any that are getting away with anything it won't be for long.

Would seem Chris they are legally exempted under Title 17, maybe PR should rethink there suit. Thanks earthling I don't know how to do the like thing but you are very much liked.

earthling, glad to see someone is looking things up, somewhat. That would cover any copying the non-profit did themselves for themselves, not for an outside organization. In other words, if the copied their own stuff for public performance, it is perfectly okay, as long as the money recieved is used for CHARITABLE PURPOSES AFTER EXPENSES ARE TAKEN OUT but it would not cover an outside entity, such as a DJ or host and their copyright material. Further, they still need their performance right licences (ASCAP, etc). It is a narrow limitation.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

So which is it all of this legal process has had no impact on the industry by and large, or it has had a major impact it can't be both ways? If hosts have no idea about SC's legal suits then just how effective has been this suits drives sales business model? That would explain why so few hosts have licensed GEM or subscribed to Cloud the word simply hasn't got out? If they start production again who is speculating now Chris? Just how many cheerleaders and GEM hosts are there totally? Surely not a enough to make SC a viable producer again. That is not true the non-profits don't get an exemption Chris see article 17 up above, I guess that's laid to rest. Even if they were held accountable under normal law, they could only be sued for copyright infringement by the manus not track content, that is the publishers domain. Only one problem with your example Chris high profile areas with large populations also have more non-profit organizations not less. You are right Chris they are aiming low it is just of question of how low will they go?

Why wouldn't it cover an outside entity such as a DJ or KJ host tim? Wouldn't they be included in the expenses that are taken out? It is talking about all expenses, food, entertainment, decorations etc. etc. etc.

If you had read my earlier posting or investigated the links I provided, you would have known this a whole page ago.
Also, since United States Copyright Law supersedes State Law, the over regulated folks of California have the same exemption and most likely the "private clubs" in California are not paying performance fees with the exception of those who are opening their doors to the public.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

From what I have been told the service company that puts in the jukeboxes pay the various publisher's fee's and adds that to whatever they charge to put in and maintain the boxes. So at least those are paid.