Karaoke Forums

An analogy using ANY product, other than 1s and 0s "Duplicated" by a COMPUTER, is LUDICROUS.

That's why there are "LOT" designations of the SAME product...because, once a NEW LOT is designated, the color, pattern, texture, thread variances, and overall dimensions MAY VARY...of what...THE SAME PRODUCT.

You get NONE of that with a COMPUTER! If it were so, making LEGAL "BACKUP" copies of software may NOT work when needed. If YOUR computer is NOT duplicating EXACTLY, you have a F'ed up computer.

Who is the FOOL that doesn't know this?

And, don't give me any BS about BIT RATE...Oh!!!!...that changes everything. Really? And if I rip the SAME track to the SAME bit rate 100 times...EVERY TIME...guess what...they are the S A M E.

false
many people bought the CB HDD, CB Flash Drives, CB SD Cards all digital for computer use and must pay you.

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

Not to mention the SCDG's of CB that were made by CAVS and fall under the protection of their trademark? These would be the easiest to check all you have to do is see The SCDG's.

If you use the original media of any type, registration is free.

CD audio is 1,411.2kbps. The maximum bitrate under the MP3 specification is 320 kbps. You cannot rip CD audio to MP3 without dumping more than 75% of the data from the original track. It's an imperfect copy at best.

That's not true if you are using original discs and downloading them on a hard drive player. There is not compression it is as close as you are going to get to the source material without actually playing the disc itself.

He's not "selling the product" at all. He's selling "HIS services" not "the product." Again this is another example of Harrington trying to scramble facts to fit his agenda.
Wrong again. That's EXACTLY what you are saying. See below when you say "Toastedmuffin might be a pirate"

It absolutely does not. Please explain to Toastedmuffin how the only thing you own -- the trademark -- becomes part of "a transaction." He's not selling a trademark and patrons do not "benefit" simply from the display of a trademark.
According to past history, this is not anywhere near the truth either.
Not true according to 2 federal districts that cover a dozen states. There's no actionable infringement by using a computer to play back karaoke tracks.
Not true again and currently, there are KJ's who have paid PEP almost two years ago for this "verification" and have yet to get what they paid for. So based again on what has actually happened versus what Mr. Harrington claims would happen, are two different things. Mr. Harrington doesn't appear to be selling "permission" at all, what he's actually selling is "contracts."
Of course if you look through this forum, you'll find that Mr. Harrington's definition of "piracy" is simply that of a "misunderstanding with publishers" of some sort. Phoenix Entertainment Partners as a matter of fact, will be paying off the last "misunderstanding" until the year 2020. But he is correct, some pirates simply say "it was a misunderstanding."
There is no trademark infringement here according to two federal districts so no, there is no such thing as "compliance." Notice that Mr. Harrington "requires proof" but refuses to "provide proof" that the tracks the trademarks are attached to were legally produced in the first place. Of course he has repeatedly stated (paraphrasing) "We're not required to prove anything to any KJ." If it limps like a pirate and can't show proof (like a pirate)... and smells like a pirate..... well, you can guess the rest.
Let's call it what it really is: "If toasted muffin isn't using disks and hasn't signed a contract with us, he must be a pirate so let's sue his venues."

The continued double-talk from Mr. Harrington is absolutely astoundingly stupid. I just don't understand how he can do that with a straight face, but then again he probably isn't. He's most likely laughing his rear off at all of the KJ's that believe him and sign checks.

If you are going to quote me, I suggest you stay on the same page or maybe I should try to get a point across in one line.

Karaoke CDs are not clothing...your analogy, not mine.

I was using "BIT" Rate as an example. You assumed MP3. I use WMA.

Your LOGO IS NOT AUDIO.

Show me where the LOGO loses data during the COMPRESSION of the AUDIO...DUH. Because, on a Karaoke CD they are TWO INDEPENDENT DATA tracks. The Audio Track and the Graphics Track. Go ahead and TELL ME, that the itty-bitty Graphics LOGOS, contained on the GRAPHICS Track are even large enough to get compressed.

The DISPLAYING of your Logo is what you are saying is confusing the Public due to the Logo being, somehow, altered during the COPYING stage and are NOT representative of a TRUE SC Logo.

Prove the GRAPHICS TRACK gets altered!

That's why it's called MP3+G and NOT MP3G or WMA+G and NOT WMAG

But was it a Rolex or a RoNex?

The logo is not the product. "Quality control" refers to the quality of the gods or services to which our logo is attached, not to the quality of reproduction of the logo. The application of our logo to goods and services over which we had no control or input in the creation is inherently confusing.

You seem awfully emphatic for someone who lacks a basic understanding of the issues. I suggest that you might profit by following the old adage "seek first to understand, then to be understood."

I understand you Jim you are out for a buck and you don't care how you make it, end of story. While it is true maybe I'm not as all knowing as you pretend to be. Fact is I never had to go to court when I was hosting, I never had to pay you one penny of tribute, all the money I earned went to me, I did not have to cut you in. I did all of this so tell me smart guy who ended up on top? I'm living off the fruits of my labors and you are still chasing legal ambulances. I consider it a victory that I never had to bow to you or Kurt, to keep my business running.

You seem to keep forgetting that even though 2 federal districts have clearly defined it for you. But you blame others for comprehension problems? Really?
How about the "application of your logo to goods that were illegally produced? And you have NO "control" over the "services" of any KJ that hasn't signed one of your one-sided contracts that specifically gives you that right. You can bully your "controlled licensees" all you like, but that's the end of your chain. Nice try.

Nothing like a personal insult to leave behind because someone recognizes that your company is nothing more than a trolling operation.

Your reaching for the last straw is becoming more and more comical as you become more and more desperate for lemmings to follow you. In the mean time, the trolling avenues keep closing in your face by the courts. We're still waiting for the service mark lawsuits to materialize...

But by all means, carry on... Don Quixote was persistent too....

Humm, did you see the TOPIC of this thread?

SERVICE MARK

The FACT that a LOGO was placed INTO SC tracks is a defense that the track could NOT be identified without a LOGO.

Anyone with their eyes CLOSED cannot identify the AUDIO of a SC Track, no matter if it were played from a CD or a compressed track on a HD. Hence an AUDIO/VISUAL work. The LOGO IS PART OF THE PRODUCT and NOT mutually exclusive.

Without the "VISUAL," you don't have KARAOKE. So, if you are simply complaining about the AUDIO not being up to your standards, then, we may have this scenario:

You sitting in court explaining how you can hear the difference between an HD Audio Track and the SAME CD Audio track.

But your honor, I have this equipment that can discern the difference.
Do the people in a typical BAR setting usually have this same equipment or comparable equipment on hand or available?
Well, NOT TYPICALLY.
So, you can't, actually, hear a difference without special equipment showing you the difference?
Well, NO.
So, how is the LAY person confused?

Come on if the patrons could tell the difference, don't you think they would complain either to the host or the venue owner? It simply doesn't happen no confusion no case.

The problem with *might* Is you think that word means you can do whatever you please. Allow me to demonstrate:

While PEP *might* own the Chart Buster trademark, a quick search on the Internet using the web address Chatbusterkaraoke.com, as printed on the label of the actual CD, doesn't lead to PEP.rocks, but instead KaraokeCloud.com.

Karaoke Cloud does not clarify that The Chart Buster brand's logo/trademark is owned by a different company: PEP. The Karaoke Cloud website, in no way I could find, connects to the PEP.rocks website in dealing with the legality of any CDs or other form of media produced by Chart Buster.

So a person *might* think that KaraokeCloud.com has more to do with Chart Buster then, PEP.

To take it a step further, typing the search term "Chartbuster karaoke" in my Google browser, PEP.rocks does not come up on the 1st page of my search, but on the 2nd. For most businesses who would have a vested interest in it's product (or in your case, the trademark/logo), that *might* as well be page 1000. And while it's true that Karaoke Cloud doesn't come up before the search link to PEP.rocks, it *might* not need to if someone is holding the actual media in their hand.

True, I found it on page two, but most people *might* not want to look that hard, specially when from using the web address, they got onto the Karaoke Cloud site.

One more step now: Typing Soundchoice.com (The one printed on Sound Choice CDs and inserts) into my browser doesn't lead to the PEP.rocks page. It leads to a simple splash page with no mention of any company name or links to the PEP.rocks webpage at all.

Why is that? Did PEP lose the rights to the web address Soundchoice.com? What if I was a new KJ looking for more information on maybe buying more CDs or information about Sound Choice Product, such as a current catalog of the GEM series? How would I know how about the policy of PEP to register my product? Or that PEP owns the Chartbuster logo?

You *might* have lost a way to connect with new people who want to try some more of your product (Like using that certified host finder to find approved shows). You also *might* have connected with a new KJ to become a certified SC KJ.

To some KJ's around here they *might* think it seem like PEP doesn't want to make it easy for a new Karaoke host to find some valuable or important information that *might* save them a lawsuit!

So while you *might* have the rights for the CB trademark, someone who doesn't deal with karaoke forums *might* think that the product of the defunct Chart Buster brand is owned by Karaoke Cloud, and therefore by extension, it's logo.

And finally while PEP *might* think they are a karaoke manufacturer, they haven't produced a karaoke track in 6+ years. If PEP isn't a karaoke manufacturer, then what are they?

So, if I perfectly replicate a Rolex watch, I'm free to put Rolex on it, since consumers won't be able to tell the difference?

Apples and Oranges Jim, we are talking about audio tracks, not high end watches, that you can actually hold in your hand and evaluate. The knockoff watches can be and are taken to the swap meet and sold, bingo confusion in the market place. Hosts are not selling a physical product, no discs no confusion. According to you what the host is selling the venue is customers, so what does that make the hosts? Peddlers of human bodies? We didn't make the customers at least not many of them or I would be sued for child support among other things.

So, if I perfectly replicate the services of United Van Lines, so that customers can't tell if they're dealing with the real deal or not, I can call my moving business "United Van Lines"?

I'm not comparing anything. The product I have bought and used BEFORE PEP bought the trademark is the same exact product that it was AFTER PEP bought the logo.

No one recreated the product at all... it was the items same all along. The fact that you bought a logo does not mean everything that came before it is no longer valid.

Now if you want to sue over those two Chart Buster public domain CDs you "released" feel free to do so.

If I buy a United Van Lines franchise, then later get sued for trademark infringement because I put the logo on multiple trucks, am I wrong? Am I only allowed the 1 truck I bought to move with. even though using multiple trucks was never discussed by either party? Not sure your analogy is very good.

How about if the disc maunfacturer (Sound Choice) told me 'all rights reserved' (which are not printed on the discs or the packaging, by the way) but never discussed what those rights were, is that a lie by omission or failure to disclose? The seller could make up those rights as he went along, could he not?

The discs are printed with:
"Warning. This material is protected by federal copyright laws..."
It doesn't say anything about being protected by trademark laws, and PEP no longer owns the copyrights to the material on the discs.

"Unauthorized duplication, public performance, or broadcast (of the COPYRIGHTED material) is a violation of applicable laws (whatever COPYRIGHT laws can be found to apply).

Copyright law and trademark law are mutually exclusive, are they not?

While you may have registered the TRADEMARK, it's not discussed on the discs or the packaging that it cannot be used (displayed) without permission.

_________________
DJ Don