The Lawsuits Have Started In Virgina

[Rockrz]

Originally Posted by billyo

Sound Choice might not be paying royalties to the artist and producers who made the original songs,and or may not have enough funds to pay them so they going after KJ's to get that MONEY to pay the original artist and KIAA is going along with them to get some, the latter ( bold letters ) is just my opinion

Ever notice how some songs have a few lyrics that are wrong, or where the music has sections that are a little different from the original version?

This is what karaoke companies do when an artist (or their publisher) refuses to give authorization for their songs to be made into karaoke.

Supposedly, this is perfectly legal when a certain percentage of the song/ music is different from the original.

I heard this years ago, and there's gotta be some truth to it, otherwise why would karaoke companies make some songs with what most people would call errors due to being considerably different from the original.

I heard this from somebody who claimed to be good friends with a studio musician who has worked for Sound Choice on numerous projects where they planned to make sections of certain songs to be different than the originals.

Anybody ever hear about this?

[billyo]

[quote=Rockrz;100049]Ever notice how some songs have a few lyrics that are wrong, or where the music has sections that are a little different from the original version?

This is what karaoke companies do when an artist (or their publisher) refuses to give authorization for their songs to be made into karaoke.

in my opinion, i don't think that's true, otherwise most of these cdg companies would be doing this, i think they are not paying or may not have enough funds to pay the original producers/artist.and that is just my opinion, and i dont mean to imply anything.

Supposedly, this is perfectly legal when a certain percentage of the song/ music is different from the original.

no matter how little percentage of the songs/ music they changed, it's still not legal for them to change it.if you look at most of the songs on every disc they produced ,they always list the name of the original artist,
how would we know who did the songs on some of the older songs, without them putting the name of the artist on the label

[Rockrz]

If you've ever followed an artist that sues another artist for copyright infringement, claiming they are copying their song, it usually comes down to how large of a percentage is the alledged stolen song is like the original that determines who wins the case.

They actually have some sort of formula that figures this out and I think they do this with some software program.

Sure, on karaoke discs they like who the artist was and maybe who the publisher is that holds the rights to the song...but that doesn't mean the karaoke producer paid to re-produce the song on karaoke.

I've heard for years (nobody can prove this except for the karaoke producers, and they won't) that many of the karaoke producers, including Sound Choice, don't always pay license fees because there are ways around having to pay this expense and still not get the britches sued off of them.

It's be just like Sound Choice to screw the artist / publisher, and then turn around and claim some KJs are screwing them. Maybe they are reaping what they've sown

[mindonstrike]

Originally Posted by Rockrz

Ever notice how some songs have a few lyrics that are wrong, or where the music has sections that are a little different from the original version?

This is what karaoke companies do when an artist (or their publisher) refuses to give authorization for their songs to be made into karaoke.

Supposedly, this is perfectly legal when a certain percentage of the song/ music is different from the original.

I heard this years ago, and there's gotta be some truth to it, otherwise why would karaoke companies make some songs with what most people would call errors due to being considerably different from the original.

I heard this from somebody who claimed to be good friends with a studio musician who has worked for Sound Choice on numerous projects where they planned to make sections of certain songs to be different than the originals.

Anybody ever hear about this?

I have heard this but I do not believe it to be true.

Case in point:Parodies. If you look at the credits for parodies they will include the original song writers names as well as the parody writer. I believe also that there has to be substantial changes to a song before someone can add their name to the credits and share the royalties. If a song has the "look and feel" of another song, the original writers (or owners if the rights have been sold) will get credit

The movie industry is getting sued all the time over these things. Someone thinks that a new movie is too similiar to a book or screenplay they wrote and will sue, leaving it up to the courts to decide if a work is new or a derivative of someone elses.

[Rockrz]

Originally Posted by mindonstrike

I believe also that there has to be substantial changes to a song before someone can add their name to the credits and share the royalties

The subject I was talking about is karaoke companies changing a song just enough so they can somehow get away with not paying royalties to the original artist / publisher on the music and on the lyrics.

Even when doing this, they still list the original artist of the song on the karaoke disc. If they didn't, then nobody would know who sang they song.

I think we've all seen especially lyrics that are wrong and I know I've heard a few where the music was different in several places

[mindonstrike]

Originally Posted by Rockrz

The subject I was talking about is karaoke companies changing a song just enough so they can somehow get away with not paying royalties to the original artist / publisher on the music and on the lyrics.

Exactly. Usually at the end of every karaoke song (sometimes at the beginning and also on the paper insert with the cd) there is a page listing the writers, the publisher and the royalty collection agency that represents them (BMI, ASCAP etc) and usually the words "Used by permission". If the original artist is mentioned it is only for your information, not for any legal reasons as it doesn't mean squat for royalty collection purposes unless they also happened to be the writers. When I say "credits" I don't mean credit for making the song famous. I mean credit like shown on TV and Movies for who was involved in the production.

Even when doing this, they still list the original artist of the song on the karaoke disc. If they didn't, then nobody would know who sang they song.

Again the original artist is irrelevent unless you hear their voice or hear them playing the instruments. The only ones who matter are who wrote the lyrics and who wrote the music. Though the original artists are often listed on the cd they are not always listed on the cd. It's a customer service thing. Just to help make the sale to you.

I think we've all seen especially lyrics that are wrong and I know I've heard a few where the music was different in several places

Again it doesn't matter how many typos there are or how badly the music was performed, what matters is, is it the same song

[Musicman51]

Sure the American Legion club i've been at for the past 6 years also will allow the public in under certain circumstances. The fish fry, bingo, the area childrens christmas party, jam sessions we put on things like that. And we serve them booze as well except for the children's party. But on a friday night when i'm there doing karaoke twice a month, no public is allowed unless signed in.

[gd123]

First and foremost, if you are named in a SC Lawsuit, immediately counter-sue for $1 million dollars U.S.

SC sues over 2 issues.
1. Trademark Infringement
2. Unfair Competition

With respect to Trademark Infringement, they specifically refer to the "Confusion" clause of the statute.

Confusion is used when a blatant infringement has not occurred. It is the "Catch-all" clause of the statute.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/inp27.htm

The reason for this can be found in the language of the Lanham Act: one must only show the mark is "likely to cause confusion" for a finding of infringement.

So, how does one cause "Confusion?"
SC believes this occurs with downloaded/pirated Karaoke that is used in a commercial environment where a KJ is being compensated. SC is saying that, by using Pirated Karaoke, the SC Trademark is confusing the Establishment's Owners, Singers, and non-Singers because the Establishment's Owners, Singers, and non-Singers have a fundamental right to believe that the Karaoke Trademarks being displayed are from Original Discs ripped to a Hard Drive at a 1:1 ratio and owned by the KJ contractor for an individual Karaoke Show or multiple sets of Original Discs if the KJ is running multiple rigs.

How does one DEFEND against "Confusion" to thwart SC if one is named in a lawsuit?
Having a simple TERMS and DISCLAIMER is your BEST DEFENSE. The Disclaimer would read similar to this:

TERMS and DISCLAIMER
To the Establishment, Singers, and any non-Singer present at any (Insert Your Company Name Here) Show or anyone viewing any unauthorized content recording of any (Insert Your Company Name Here) Show:
So there is no "Confusion" of any Trademark being displayed, either use of or viewing of any Karaoke Song from (Insert Your Company Name Here) Karaoke Song Library by anyone or entity at any (Insert Your Company Name Here) Show means that you have read and agree to the following:
(Insert Your Company Name Here) assures the Establishment, Singers, and non-Singers that all Karaoke Songs sung are Karaoke Tracks directly from the Original Karaoke Discs (1:1) owned by (Insert Your Company Name Here). (Insert Your Company Name Here) uses Karaoke Tracks from the Original Karaoke Discs (1:1) owned by (Insert Your Company Name Here) for all shows, either individually or overlapping, and is in no way associated, affiliated, connected, approved, authorized or sponsored by any Karaoke Disc Company, whatsoever, and does not constitute a legal contract between (Insert Your Company Name Here) and any person or entity. (Insert Your Company Name Here) has legally purchased all its Karaoke Songs and is not operating as a retail company where any of its legally purchased Karaoke Songs are for re-Sale, Lease, Rent, Trade or Give-away. (Insert Your Company Name Here) considers singers who sing at any (Insert Your Company Name Here) Show to be non-professional Singers who are not being compensated in any way to sing. (Insert Your Company Name Here) forbids any recording of any type during any of its Shows.

With the above Disclaimer, you will have taken away SC ability to PROVE that anyone was "Confused" as to the origin of their Trademark...or anyone's Trademark for that matter.


http://www.lectlaw.com/files/inp27.htm

One has a "right to inform the public" that the information it distributes comes from another.102 As Justice Holmes clarified, "A trade mark[sic] 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."104

But, I take it a few steps further by prefacing the Disclaimer with a TERMS clause. This forces everyone to agree to the statements before any Trademarks are displayed.

Although the following actually deals with selling goods, it does make good reading in understanding what is considered "Blatant" Infringement and "Confusion" Infringement:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/inp28.htm

221 The Rosenfeld court follows the traditional disclaimer rule in finding no likelihood of confusion existed. 222 The court reviews the Second Circuit's holdings and found that it "repeatedly recognize[s] that an effective disclaimer can significantly reduce the potential for consumer confusion caused by an infringing product if it clearly designates the source of the product."

The above Disclaimer, also, defends against: 2. Unfair Competition as it specifically states:

(Insert Your Company Name Here) has legally purchased all its Karaoke Songs and is not operating as a retail company where any of its legally purchased Karaoke Songs are for re-Sale, Lease, Rent, Trade or Give-away.

I suppose, if you were found to be selling or giving away pirated Karaoke, unfair competition would exist as you would be selling way below what the Original would sell for. But, in reality, the legit KJ does NOT sell or distribute and SC doesn't run Karaoke Shows. Therefore there is NO competition whatsoever...leave alone UNFAIR...more evidence for a JURY of SC's BS...end of story on Unfair Competition.

There is an ancillary statement to possibly defend against Public Performance as I believe this has been totally distorted as NO ONE IS GETTING PAID TO SING.

Since SC sends scabs to your shows to "gather evidence," You should have a CONTENT DISCLAIMER in all your Song Lists that would read similar to this:

CONTENT DISCLAIMER
This Song List is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute a legal contract between (Insert Your Company Name Here) and any person or entity. All information within is subject to change without prior notice. Although every reasonable effort is made to present current and accurate information, (Insert Your Company Name Here) makes no guarantees of any kind.

Further defense against SC is to force SC, during "Discovery," to produce all 4 licenses on ALL there Karaoke Songs. An argument could be made that, if SC didn't have permission to re-create, FOR SALE, the Intellectual Property (IP) in the first place, they wouldn't of had the right to put their Trademark on the IP in the second place. In other words...they are the thieves and profited until the record label or Artist forced them to pull the IP...Hence the "R" numbered discs.

SC's credibility would be tainted in eyes of a Jury. This will be plausible and sustainable evidence as SC never states what IP was infringed leaving it open for you, the defendant, to choose which IP it was that they have a picture of...their evidence. They do not want to name an IP as, if you produced the Original disc the IP was on, they would be dead in the water. This leaves their IP "evidence" open for debate and ambiguous, at best. More smoke for the JURY to show the deception of SC's lawsuit.

Simply choose the Eagles 8125 disc, assuming you have an Original, or, choose any Original that was later replaced, to clear up the ambiguity as they will NOT be able to show all 4 Licenses for the works on those discs. It's a catch 22 for SC. If SC says that's not the disc of works where the evidence came from, then, make them state categorically which work it was. If they do, then produce the Disc...end of story. But they won't...they don't want specific IPs because you would be able to produce them. The aforementioned is a way to force them. If you can't pin them down...more smoke for the JURY to show SC's deception.

I know I'm talking about IP, but the IP is what the Trademark is on. Kill the IP and the Trademark goes with it.

I suppose SC could argue that, even though the IP was not perfected, it is still their Trademark and you infringed upon it. You could, then, use Kurt Selp's own words, from various forums, that, as far as he and SC was concerned, as long as one had a 1:1 copy, which would include media-shifting to a Hard Drive, it was OK. Use his own words against him. So, it does matter which IP one was talking about because if one was to produce the Original...it was alright with Kurt Slep and SC and more reason to the JURY that the Lawsuit was nothing but a fishing expedition and FRIVOLOUS!

The NEW discs that SC is still producing further evidence that the SC Lawsuit is on shaky ground. The new discs come with a new WARNING LABEL that states:

COPYING THIS DISC OR ANY SOUND CHOICE SONG TO A HARD DRIVE FOR COMMERCIAL USE WITHOUT THE PROPER PERMISSION OR MAKING MULTIPLE COPIES FROM A SINGLE DISC OR FILE CONSTITUTES WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT WHICH MAY INCUR STATUTORY DAMAGES OF NOT LESS THAN $750 PER SONG.

So, what does this mean? Two things:
1. Obviously SC has a problem proving that the consumer was properly informed that they could NOT media shift the songs from the OLD DISCS to a Hard Drive. Why else would they change the warning. More evidence in for the JURY of SC's frivolous Lawsuit.

2. By the statement in the warning of NEW DISCS, "OR ANY SOUND CHOICE SONG," SC is trying to make all their songs comply retroactively. So, I would say, if you have any of these songs in you database...remove them immediately.

Further comments
When I purchased a SC Disc, I was never informed that I couldn't use these songs on a Hard Drive. Neither from SC itself, as I have purchased discs directly form them in the past, or from Vendors.

I did not walk through a door and SC magically became a business partner of mine because I purchased one of their discs. And, since they are not a business partner, they are not permitted access to any aspect of my business...leave alone my Song Library.

I heard rumors that SC wants to claim that their IP was never intended for Commercial use.
If they try that tactic, I have several inserts from Jewel Cases that state (This Is From SC8295):

BE PREPARED FOR ANY kj RIG!
Because you never know what situation you night be out in while hosting a karaoke show, Sound Choice now has several "speciality" CDGs that no KJ should be without!...Add our Surco Hispanico (Latin) Series discs and our Jewish songs CDG to the other Sound Choice products and you will have a complete CDG Karaoke library, ready to maximize your profits!

Hope this gives hope to the Legit Karaoke Community!

[Musicman51]

Looks like you've done your home work gd123. This may be helpful to some. Sure doesn't hurt. The disclaimers sound like a dandy idea in any case. I may just print those up and stick them in, may not help, but sure won't hurt. Up here the guys are putting the KIA{A} logo in their song books {they all use disc}. Stating the kia{a} is not a legitimate organization, and don't be fooled by them, and not to hire any over priced kj who claims he has a better show because he's a member and charges more. And that the kia{A} has absolutly no governing power, or standing at all in the karaoke business. They're making me up a bunch, and i'll give a few to anyone who ask me for them.