JoeChartreuse said:That means that they can't be hooked for Trademark Infringement, because they too are running mfrs. original product, right?
Chartbusterette said:So, you freely admit of your own will to removing the trade dress and trademarks from Chartbuster Karaoke product? You freely admit to adding your own trade dress in its place? You freely admit to attaching un-approved advertisements to our intellectual property?
Chartbusterette said:Actually, the legal team is more than eager to take this all the way through the courts. Thus far we haven't seen any precedent. Perhaps you'll be the one to step forward, yes?
c. staley said:What a load of crap! Can you show me the license you have to "freely advertise" in any of MY SHOWS? If I want to remove your advertising logo on the playback, warble the audio, drop the key 10 times or do anything else, you are powerless to do ANYTHING and you know it.
c. staley said:You're simply trying to convince unknowing KJ's that you somehow have bestowed upon yourself some type of "partnership" and the KJ is a minor partner. Remember: YOU'RE the VENDOR..... the KJ is the CUSTOMER.... you are not a "partner" and by no means a "superior."
c. staley said:I'm sure that the legal team is "eager" but I don't think you'll have any insurance companies footing the bill for your defense afterward... do you?
c. staley said:It's amazing that the moderators here will simply let a manufacturer threaten and attempt to bully anyone on these boards.
Chartbusterette said:Quite the contrary. Let's take an example shall we? Say you record the broadcast of the Superbowl, and then using various editing tools, remove the NFL logos, the team logos and the commercials, and then replace them with your own or those of your business partners. You leave the rest of the game unchanged. You then play that altered version in a public performance. Do you think the NFL has a beef with you? Do you think that falls under "fair use?"
Chartbusterette said:I'm going to state this very simply: we are the content owners of our own intellectual property. As is prominently displayed on each of our releases following the copyright notice, "All Rights Reserved." That means any right not granted to you by the government is reserved to us. That includes the right to rip up our intellectual property and replace wholesale parts of it with your own devices.
Chartbusterette said:That's a straw dog, as you are well aware. But then, you are fond of putting little jabs like that in your posts, statements that add nothing to the debate but that are intended only to inflame, in lieu of actual substantive contribution, aren't you?
Chartbusterette said:Um, right. Defending our copyright is "bullying" and promising legal action on those who violate it is "threatening." Appeal to the moderators if you think we're out of line. We'll abide by their decisions willingly.
c. staley said:Sure "let's take an example"... but LET'S MAKE IT A FAIR EXAMPLE. You are now changing the rules by adding the stipulation of "recording and THEN editing."
c. staley said:If I wish to "rip up" anything on the playback -including your unwelcomed and unauthorized advertising logo - it is well within my right to do so.
c. staley said:Not at all. I'm simply saying that your business insurance won't cover the cost of this type of litigation, just as it hasn't in the past.
c. staley said:How many years has Compuhost, MTU, Tricerasoft, Sax n' Dotties, RoxBox, Sack-0-nuts, MP3G tools, and others been out... selling their products to "copy your content for commercial use" and you certainly didn't do diddly squat about it? Now you want to threaten every KJ on the planet? How about suing a few of these software "enablers" because they specifically sell their products to copy yours FOR COMMERCIAL USE and your refusal to stop that kind of action speaks volumes doesn't it?
c. staley said:Still waiting the proof you claim you have that the SGB library you supposedly purchased has the "registered copyrights" you claim they have. Show me the copyrights on those tracks you'd like to defend.
c. staley said:So yes, "threatening and bullying" would be the correct nomenclature. Unless you prefer "bluffing" instead?
Proformance said:4.) You are now relying on the opinions of me and other people to instruct you in that which you won't bother to study yourself.
[/I]
Bazza said:1) Uh huh.
2) Your words, not mine. Sure doesn't sound like a "what if" question to me.
3) For a guy who claims to be a neutral player watching from the fringe, you sure make a lot of biased claims.
4) How exactly do you know what GEM sales are or what their current stock situation is?
Or is this another of your "questions" and not a statement of fact? :rolleyespill:
Chartbusterette said:If you could make those edits on the fly, the same violations would still occur.
Proformance said:No, they wouldn't.
Chartbusterette said:Unless you lack the courage of your own convictions.
Chartbusterette said:No, because it doesn't fall under alteration of product, but rather under unauthorized display.
Chartbusterette said:Brilliant argument: "No they wouldn't." In what world does your saying it make it not so?
Chartbusterette said:The recording would make it easier to edit. If you could make those edits on the fly, the same violations would still occur. But of course, you know that already, you are merely trying to throw a red herring into the mix because you have no answer, do you?
Chartbusterette said:No you don't. "All Rights Reserved." It's not fair use, it's not parody, and it's not educational. If you are performing the same type of edits, then you are in violation as well. Are you?
Chartbusterette said:You don't know what our insurance policies and riders are. You are just blowing smoke for the sake of trying to appear like you know more than you do. Furthermore, that's another straw dog, as you are alluding to us being a defendant, not a plaintiff.
Chartbusterette said:It certainly does speak volumes... about copyright law. We can't touch the toolmakers, as long as the tools have valid uninfringing uses, any more than we could sue the makers of locksmith tools if a burglar uses them to break into our house.
Chartbusterette said:Why, Mr. Staley, as I've already said multiple times, simply send me your real name and address and I'd be happy to send you all of that paperwork, at our own expense.
Chartbusterette said:I invite you to test that theory. Videotape such a performance by yourself and send it to me.
Unless you lack the courage of your own convictions.
JoeChartreuse said:2) With all due respect, I'm not responsible for others' interpretations of what I write. I will say that in normal usage, a question mark DOES indicate question.
JoeChartreuse said:3) Who said I was neutral? Not me- EVER. I merely said that I am unaffected by much of what is happening. Neutral?!? Hell no, I'm incensed on an ethical level, and at the very least non-plussed on the business level. This goes for actions by the manufacturers AND KJs both.
This is what I mean about interpretation. Neutral? I've been called a lot of things, but NO ONE has accused me of claiming that- not after all of the posts over all of this time.
I can't even imagine where the thought of me being neutral came from. If you mean that my posts aren't ALL anti-mfr, or ALL anti- whatever- the- " other side"- is either, you're right. Both "camps". make good points and bad. I am not "aligned" to anyone or group.
JoeChartreuse said:I would repeat the same advice. go back and read it. I said that the deadline WOULD ( The deadline was still not proven fact at that time) make the GEM supply finite- which would mean that SC WOULD have had to load up prior to that deadline.
Bazza said:(Snaps Fingers) The quote in question is right here. Written by you:
"SC actually has the nerve to demand a licensing fee for product that they have no right to produce or sell here, and on top of that, some KJ's actually think that this is OK."
No parentheses. No question mark. A direct quote from you. Unaltered.
.
Bazza said:2) OK sorry....not "Neutral, but "Non-Aligned". :rolleyespill:
3) Whether or not the supply is finite tells you nothing of the existing stock situation. You have no idea how many were made or how many have sold. Using the word "Overstock" was intentional on your part to imply lack of sales and/or a failed product.
JoeChartreuse said:The above quote was not the one in question. The quote above was MUCH earlier, taken out of context, and was actually in regard to discs manufactured here. Taken from a completely different and much earlier post than the one in question. Stay focused yourself.
JoeChartreuse said:However, I would also add that ANY karaoke company that sells product in the U.S. that is not licensed is certainly open to and risking litigation. Do you disagree?
JoeChartreuse said:2) HUGE difference.
JoeChartreuse said:3) Not even close. I brought up the need to bring in a huge amount of product ( Because it IS finite- unless SC figures out a way to make them here with full licensing) to illustrate how much of SC's resources must be sunk into them, and not to illustrate anything else. This was fully explained in the actual post, had you read it.
Bazza said:JEEZ this is like trying to get a dog to watch TV.
1) It is the comment THAT I questioned from the start of this as evidenced by the QUOTE box encompassing it in every post!. It isn't out of context at all! In fact it appears to stand alone.
2) You assert that the GEM discs from SC are illegal. That is the word you choose to use so often. No, I do not believe that they are illegal.
3) Oh yeah, light years. :laughpill:
3) This "full explains" nothing as to the use of the word "Overstock". You simply do not have a clue as to the Sound Choice stockroom quantities. For all we know, the GEM series may be close to sold out.
JoeChartreuse said:It doesn't, and it was out of context.
JoeChartreuse said:The Gem series is unlicensed in the U.S., and therefore open to litigation. I'm don't know why this is hard for you, but most understand that lack of licensing is a bad thing.....
JoeChartreuse said:That's about right- Neutral is HUGELY different from not aligned- another comprehension difficulty?
JoeChartreuse said:Yup, they could be close to sold out, though I have HUGE doubts- but pretend it's true-so what happens next? Please share....
A place to debate everything and anything!
