To CB, From The Derailed Thread

[JoeChartreuse]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Chartbusterette

No, because it doesn't fall under alteration of product, but rather under unauthorized display.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Um, the above was in answer to a supposition/hypothotheses that I made up based on the untrue premise that altered product is still OEM original. I was creating an example. It wasn't important.

However, if your hook is unauthorized display, it raises a question for me:

What would make it,or any display of your logo authorized?
I'm not being confrontational. What I mean is what is the process that would make it authorized?

Simply buying the discs to be ripped? A written authorization ( blanket or for each disc or track)? What is entailed?

 

[Guest]

Joe, I don't think you'll get an asnwer, or it is likley to be another case of: "how to say nothing in 500 words."

The keyword in your question is "authorized." Quite simply, there is no requirement that you get "permission" to display trademarks that are already intentionally attached by the manufacturer to a given product. Arguably, even the performance of a pirated track does not on the basis of it's display alone damage the mark. The actual damage occurs in the counterfieting (piracy) - not the performance of the work.

That creates a real problem when you are using trademark as the grounds for a piracy case against a person or venue who has only been identified by "investigators" as having displayed the mark.

The manufacturers retain the sole right to attach the trademark to a product - but, there is no inherent obligation on your part to display the mark when using the product. That obligation is managed by a special contract like the one you sign with a video pool.

A failure to display the mark is distinctly different from substituting or attaching a different or fraudulent mark. This is where the counterfiet product (piracy) comes in. However, the combination of "display and computer" is a lot like seeing blood on someone's finger and assuming it is the result of a crime to which no other evidence has been entered.

The already accepted legal construct of an "archive" precludes your notion that a copy or rip is no longer equivalent to the OEM release. It's not necessary to get that technical. They are for the purpose of material value of intellectual property rights identical.

We can all agree that piracy is an unauthorized use of the trademark. The legal question is: "do you need to show the priacy before you can substantiate the trademark infringed"?" In the absence of a voluntary audit: "can a civil court legally complel an audit (search) or alternatively render a summary judgement solely on the inference that piracy exists?"

It seems that the court is asked to either put the cart before the horse, or place a bet on speculation. My previous experience with the RIAA on these issues indicated that they preferred actual eyewitness to the piracy itself and could not rely on inferences as evidence. The RIAA however, was typically not using Trademark as their complaint. SC & CB howver, are basing the Trademark complaint on piracy - and have not yet shown the priacy to be a reliable fact in evidence.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Actually, I know all that,and agree, but I appreciate the time you spent to post. By "Authorize", I merely meant what would be entailed in regard to a specific manufacturer's ( in this case CB) accepting usage- whether legally binding or not. In other words, what would cause CB's particular requirements to be fulfilled. A matter of curiosity.

 

[Guest]

They've already declared that to be "proof of ownership" of an original media. The "non-binding" certification they offer is "the audit" and the threat is "all others beware."

In other words their opinion is: "you are not in trademark compliance until they say you are in compliance."

The word "legal" doesn't even enter into it. It is not "illegal" to not care that CB hasn't audited or approved you, nor is the approval they give you binding on them.