Karaoke Forums

Yep and this is one reason why the unemployment rate it over 9%.
Just another company doing business overseas and depriving U.S. workers a chance at a job.
Why don't you just get them made in China? I'm sure the rates would be even lower!!!

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

1) Bottom line, 96% of those polled know that a KJ can be legal without the bogus "certification".

2) Harrington Law skipped out on answering whether SC received WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE OWNERS/PUBLISHERS to MEDIA SHIFT the original recordings. By the way by permission, I mean by U.S. requirements. Still waiting for a reply.

3) No one has tet explained how karaoke producers who admit that they have no authorization to grant media shifting rights can sue someone for not asking their permission- makes no sense at all. If they can't GRANT media shifting rights, they certainly can't demand that someone ask their permission- RIGHT?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

2) I'm not avoiding your question. I just don't understand it. SC doesn't media-shift.

3) The manu owns some, not all, of the rights. Thus it can grant permission with respect to those rights it owns. Our deny it. Permission is thus necessary but not necessarily sufficient.

If disc based yes

I see. Evidently I misunderstood your post five days earlier. To most of us here, $50,000 qualifies as "hand over fist".

Obviously Bazza, after leasing the gem series, there has been some significant hearing loss on your part. You have confused the term "hand over fist" with the fine print of the gem license which is "bend over first."

There is also a difference between being "I am willing to" and "I already have".

$50k was an estimate of what I would be willing to spend to get things up and running quickly. Plans change. I think I can actually do a lot more with much less than that invested. I am also looking at many differrent options from hosting, to owning a bar, to selling some karaoke software to maybe doing all of the above....and more.

My wife and I are taking a weekend trip in two weeks to look at a bar that is for sale here in Washington. To be perfectly honest, THAT is what I would really like to do - own a freestanding bar/club and offer karaoke and live music.


-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Hey, speaking of ownership...sold those SC discs yet? Or are the many hundreds you paid for still collecting dust in your garage for no reason and making you -zero- dollars?



And that would be very cool. I have the same dream, but I gotta win the lottery first.

Actually, I have sold some and I'm very selective about who I sell them to. But using them now is pretty much a waste isn't it? Especially since it appears that we now see SC does no investigation that they'll claimed they've "improved upon" over the years.

Don't worry though, I have plenty more to use as coasters and dropping the brand like a hot rock is looking smarter and smarter isn't it?

2) That's the second time that you have said that, and you have been incorrect both times. I had asked you whether or not SC brought in their studio musicians to re-record all tracks at Media Plas in the UK to make the GEM discs. You said no. Therefore, SC's original CD+G/ BIN library MUST HAVE BEEN RIPPED TO MP3. That is what is known as a MEDIA SHIFT.

Among other things- whether actually detectable by the genpop, much of the original audio information from the original recordings has been deleted- degrading the representation of the music. Again, was SC granted permission by the owner/publishers to do this, or were they able to circumvent this request of permission by producing the product in the UK, which has much looser licensing requirements?

1) SO, I ask again: How does a company that is unauthorized to grant either media shifting rights, or even the transfer of SC's shifted product to a PC, have the right to demand that KJ's ask for permission that THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GRANT?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Why? That's an odd business decision.



Only if you fear them. The recent Rodney thread shows it's nothing to be afraid of.



Smarter? Only if you wear a tin foil hat. Dropping the best base brand in the business and using the discs that you PAID FOR as coasters doesn't seem smart or the slightest bit logical to me.

That is not a "media shift" in the sense you are using it, because SC owns or licenses all of the rights required to move the material from the BIN library to MP3G. What makes a "media shift" an actionable activity is that it is the making of a copy by a person who does not inherently have or acquire all of the rights necessary to make that shift.



I would question your assumption that the UK has much looser licensing requirements. The existence of MCPS is premised largely on the coordination and cooperation of the music publishers. The music publishers aren't obligated to participate, especially not for licensing elsewhere; they choose to do so to have access to the markets for their product at lower administrative costs. For "DJ" music, the U.S. equivalent of MCPS--Harry Fox--handles virtually all of the mechanical licensing in the world, backed by compulsory licenses at royalties that are set by federal regulation. Using Harry Fox is optional, but participation in the compulsory licensing is not. That's why the Black Crowes can cover "Hard to Handle" without getting permission from Otis Redding's estate. All they have to do is pay the royalty.

As for the "degradation" question, the Copyright Act--and the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (in the UK)--does not protect against this form of "degradation" per se. Those are the ONLY sources of law that allow music publishers to have legal control over the copying of their music. Thus, permission to copy is permission to "degrade" unless the license states otherwise, and I can tell you that it doesn't. Moreover, there is statutory and case law support for media-shifting and format-shifting as an exception to the usual right of copyright holders to prevent copying. Thus, if the music publisher cannot use the copyright laws to prohibit the media shift or the format shift, they cannot control the terms on which that media shift/format shift is conducted.

Where you are getting confused is that SC's material implicates both copyright AND trademark. Trademark law does not provide for any compulsory licensing; it does provide for quality control; and it does not include any exceptions for media-shifting or format-shifting for commercial use. (Because trademark law only affects "use in commerce," it does not reach purely private use.) Because SC owns the trademark, it can control the terms on which copies of goods bearing the trademark will be made.



It is true that SC cannot necessarily grant permission that would cover all of the copyrights encompassed by the product, but it has the right to control the use of its trademarks. SC's permission is NECESSARY to shift content that bears the SC trademarks. It may not be SUFFICIENT to shift that content because of copyright held by other rights holders. If you choose to shift your content from the original media to another medium, even with SC's permission (with respect to the trademark and any copyright that SC may own), you, not SC, bear the risk that another rights holder will demand that you ask permission as well. We think the chances of them asking are small to begin with, and they may not even have the right to stop it anyway. But if they get a mind to litigate, they will be litigating against the media-shifter, not SC.

I don't think so. Just like you, I can sell to whomever I like, whenever I like for as little or much as I like. Nothing odd about it at all.


I certainly don't fear them and the recent Rodney thread shows that they are simply suing with no basis in fact. It cost Rodney money for what? Using their original discs? It was a petty, fishing expedition, BS lawsuit no matter how you attempt to sugarcoat it. Rodney was under NO obligation to respond to them - ever. He was just minding his own business. KJAthena's insinuation that he was lying about his discs or that he was even the person posting is typical of the cheerleader "piling on" effect and again, with NO basis in ANY fact on her part. InsaneKJ is just as bad if not worse and would you care to remind me again what exactly Rodney did to deserve this?



Your "best base brand" is trashing even disc-based KJ's that use the product by tarnishing their reputation and dragging them and their clients into court. I have avoided that by simply dropping the brand altogether.

Here's what I've saved:
My business reputation
My client's reputations
No audit necessary
No lawsuit exposure for me
No lawsuit exposure for my clients
No "safe harbor" BS agreement
No "yearly audit" BS

No nothin'

When a tool goes bad, you get rid of it - simple as that. It's nothing more than a tool and not the focal point of my business as it apparently is with you.

Come into my show with an SC disc and we'll be happy to show you the door.

Where is the show so we can make sure that we DON'T come!

BINGO you got that right.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Ask a cheerleader.... or an investigator.


Piling on again timberlea?
Nothing creative of your own an no intelligible response?

Why am I constantly NOT suprised?

Just seems to me that if you want to get rid of something, you sell it to whomever will buy it.

After all these are just hot-potato trash in your opinion, right? Just a "bad tool" you want to wash your hands of.

Then why the intense vetting of buyers? It's just bizarre.



Except you don't get rid of it. You let them rot in your garage and seek out only "qualified" buyers.

Well, using the BEST tools for my business IS a focal point. I want to be sure I keep up my high standards. Music is just one of those.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Because the rights that the owners/publishers have do not include the right to prevent or control it. A karaoke manufacturer has rights that the owner/publisher does not--namely, trademark rights--that must ADDITIONALLY be satisfied.

At the risk of introducing more confusion...here's an analogy: Suppose I own a piece of property that is on an island in the middle of a lake, accessible only by boat, and I build a timeshare resort there. You own the lake. If someone wants to buy a timeshare and visit my resort, they're going to have to figure out how to get there. Let's say that requires your permission. We could handle that in a number of different ways. For example, I could negotiate a license with you on their behalf. And you could specify that they could only travel across the lake at designated times or a designated number of times, or using designated boats/ferries, or that they have to pay you a fee every time they cross, or that I have to pay you some money, or whatever.

But suppose the government decided that your lake was a navigable water, and thus that anyone could use your lake for reasonable purposes, including boating across to get to my resort. You couldn't do anything to stop them.

But they would still need my permission to buy the timeshare, and they would still have to follow my rules about how to use it.



I disagree with you on whether it adds value or not, but even if you are correct that damages would be unavailable, damages are not the only remedy in a trademark infringement claim. Injunctive relief is available also.



You keep saying this, but there is just no case law out there that stands for anything that is remotely like what you're saying. And, to the contrary, there is case law (Dastar) that pretty much conclusively takes the other position, that trademarks and copyrights are separate.

If you disagree, I need for you to cite something other than your anonymous IP attorneys or your own thoughts. Also, you're assuming that the disputes regarding discs that were not properly licensed--if that is the case--weren't resolved in a way that legitimizes the discs that were sold.



To the contrary, I don't think that would be enough to eliminate manu liability, if it were otherwise present.

Rodney didn't think so either.
And he was still using discs.... perhaps you should ask "your side" about the high standards they employ in this "fight for piracy."