Karaoke Forums

Bazza,

When the discs actually do come please let us know the naming convention of the actual files.

Thanks

Jonn

I plan on taking some pics and giving a full report this evening...assuming my wife is home when the UPS man comes as they shipped "Adult Signature Required" for obvious reasons.

Okay, I've looked over this thing with a fine-toothed comb and these are some of my impressions. Feel free to intelligently argue any point you like, these are my opinion on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis:

Paragrah 1: pretty much boilerplate stuff

Paragraph 2:

"You are responsible for obtaining any necessary licenses or permissions prior to any public performance of the underlying musical works."

Other than the club paying the 3 rights societies (ASCAP, BMI, SEASAC), I can't for the life of me know what other "licenses or permissions" a KJ could possibly need. Lyric reprint and synchronization should already be paid by SC prior to the creation of the karaoke track...right?

Paragraph 3:

So there is a time limit (or "term")of this license. However, I don't quite understand why it says; "for the purpose of conducting a commercial business or for private home use." since it was my understanding that this set is NOT for...

Paragraph 4:
Sec. (a): "It is not for private home use or for license to the general public."

Sec (b) "You may not export the Media or Content from the Licensed Territory."
i.e. Don't move out of the country.

Sec (c): Regarding Media-shifting: "We do not, by this Agreement or otherwise, indemnify you against any action or claim by any third party."

The only "third parties" that I can think of is once again, the publishers or writers... So what they are saying here is that SC is giving you permission to shift it, but if a publisher sues you, then too bad for you.

Sec. (d): Nothing particularly suspicious here.

Sec (e): This basically says that they won't sue you if someone working for you copies your drive ONLY IF you rat on them and the clubs they are working for. Of course, if the person that steals from you simply says; "He/she said I could" then all bets are off.

Sec (f): No removing the trademark or anything else... (i.e. you will display our advertising all the time)

Sec (g): Stickers? This smells like something that they will have a venue look for. i.e. no sticker, don't hire 'em. It will be basically your "on site license" for anyone who wants to check on your hardware. Especially if a venue is signed up with the 'Safe Harbor' program.

Sec (h): Load then entire disc(s) not just the songs you want.

Sec (i): "moral rights?" Would someone please look that one up? I haven't a clue what that is and the problem I have with this entire section is that this is simply karaoke as a "jockey" and how would we ever know if we infringed on the rights of the "creator of content?" Besides, "creator of content" is NOT defined as to whether it is SC that created this content OR the original writer or publisher. It's simply to vague to be trusted in my opinion.

Sec (j) Sorry, my "accounting records" are not for public display nor are they even available under any kind of "agreement" with a vendor. And the sneaky catch-phrase; "audit coverage extends to any Sound Choice®-branded karaoke track" means that if you have any CDG discs that you purchased years ago, they are now fair game under this agreement.

Paragraph 5:

This paragraph basically insures that their logo will always be shown with their tracks and printed nicely in a song book... but that's really not all:

"these provisions constitute appropriate efforts on our part to maintain control over the quality of the karaoke tracks and your services,"

A small word can have a LARGE meaning in contract law. Take the word "and" for example. Let's re-read this again and simply skip over the part that relates to their product and see how you like it then:

"these provisions constitute appropriate efforts on our part to maintain quality ... AND control over your services,"

Does that sound different to you? Since the word "and" is used it certainly does apply to the quality and control of their product, AND their control of YOUR business.

Paragraph 6:

This is again a hollow promise not to sue and it also includes the other big word "OR"...
"you (whether direct or indirect) is a defendant in a currently pending lawsuit in
which we OR a related company is a plaintiff,"

So, you could be fully "compliant" with Sound Choice but if Stingray sues you, all bets are off (again). AND (that big word again) they have not clearly defined what "related company" means. Again, too open-ended.

Paragraph 7,

Section (a)
First of all, your "purchase" of the gem series is not, in fact, a purchase at all, it's a lease. It's a 5-year lease when you first sign it then --if they haven't changed the terms in the 5th year, you'll pay a fee of $100 for the next 3 years.... (is it "per disc?", or "per set?")

Sounds legit to you? Don't count on it because it sounds too good to be true. I beileve that it will be a cold day in hell before they ever "fail to offer specific renewal terms." So your "purchase" of the gem series (6,000 songs at $0.67 each = $4,020.00)is roughly $804.00 per year. Do you think their renewal on a year-to-year basis is going to suddenly drop to a measley $33.33 per year for the next three years?

Why would anyone do this if they already have the cdg that has been paid for? Wouldn't it be better just to buy the cdg and bring it in to your show? They can restrict the home user from bringing in their discs, by threatening you with a violation under paragraph 4, sec (i) as the "creator of the content" then you are now their policeman.

Section (b)
You are not just leasing the songs on the "original medium" but you are also leasing the "identification sticker" that goes with it.

Section (c)
In English: If you don't make your payment(s) or miss payments, game over.

Section (d)
Sure you can terminate it anytime you want.... here's how.

Paragraph 8:
Boilerplate warranty disclaimer.

Paragraph 9:

They can notify you by email but you CAN'T notify them by the same method (email.)

Paragraph 10:

This lease is executed in North Carolina and you agree if they sue you for anything that you will bear the expense of fighting it out there. You ALSO agree that if you sue them for any reason, you also agree to do it there.... not where you live. (they get local lawyers, you get long-distance).

"The choice of forum and choice of laws provisions hereunder are bargained-for terms
of this Agreement." It's a bargain alright, and here's the bargain, "agree or don't get the songs."

Paragraph 11:
Don't drop dead during this agreement or we'll sue your widow AND your kids because you agree to let us do so.

Paragraph 12:

Okay, even I'm confused. See if you can figure this part out when it comes to a modification of the agreement:
"or (b) by our written notice to you of a change in terms coupled with your failure to refuse the change in terms within 90 days after that notice was given, or (c) as to any non-accepted change in terms under part (b) above,"

IN CONCLUSION, (it is my opinion),

That KJ's look at this deal as "buying songs" when in fact, you're "leasing a trademark" that is subject to change.

Naw, I think I'll pass...

Yup, it certainly isn't for everybody. If you don't feel comfortable with contracts of this type, don't do it.

Anyone that signs ANY agreement with this kind of sentiment in mind is foolish.
Items in a contract are there for a reason, and you should be taking it seriously, not saying to yourself, "Ahhh, but they won't enforce THAT part." I've seen much the same sentiment in other threads regarding contracts that SC has come up with, some in regards to serious provisions, not just a $100 renewal fee. At least with the fee, you can always walk if you don't like it.
But if you sign anyway, you get what you deserve.

PS Bazza: Please don't take this personally. Your statement was too good to pass by because it's a prime example of how many on here think, and it could end up being terribly detrimental to them in the end.

People often downplay obvious "red flags" in order to get things they think they can't live without. I've seen it time and time again..."I thought he was a great guy...I know he cheated on his last girlfriend, but he'd never do that to me..." you get the picture. I'd really hate to see anyone here have "buyer's remorse," or more accurately "renter's remorse," just because they had to have the hottest new product when it came out. To all you Gem series customers...good luck to you. I will hope for a happy outcome for you, but have no intention of joining your ranks.

Birdofsong

No offense taken, you took it the wrong way. If I have to pay another $100 after five years, I willl have no problem doing so...it's a drop in the bucket. I just don't think it will happen as peppercorn fees are very rarely enforced. They exist purely for legal "consideration".

Well, I'm glad I took it the wrong way and that you, at least, are clear on what you're paying for. However, my comment that the fact that many here DO think that way still stands. As for the peppercorn theory, don't hold your breath that the Sleps won't collect on it.

Yup! I read it over multiple times and am very comfortable with it. I am getting 6000 of the BEST karaoke songs for my business at a great price and unless I pirate them, torrent them, multi-rig, loan them out or decide to do karaoke outside the US, I really don't have anything to worry about.

I think you misinterpreted the peppercorn scenario, but I hope that's all it turns out to be because the contract certainly doesn't sound that way.

It sounds like the $100 fee is in case they fail to notify you within 90 days of the "then applicable rate change."

That's the way all intellectual property is. You might own the media the property is on but you don't actually own the music, words, images, code (software), etc. You license those from the person who thought it up and is now distributing it.

Lets face it the Gem series is little more than a pre-packaged settlement for people caught running illegal KJ shows.

Of course such a settlement is going to treat the "target" as a criminal because it is for someone admitting guilt. But it seems pretty awkward to be treated as a criminal WITHOUT being caught and to do so willingly.

its also for people getting into the business, for those of use with thousands of cdgs well its just a lot more duplication that we dont want or need


cheers

_________________
:angel:

This is the only item I consider invasive:
Yeah, I don't give any one access to my accounting records. That's between the company and the IRS and you need a subpoena for anything otherwise.

This is long overdue. This gives folks the ability to get an entire set of music, in the format they already prefer to use without jumping through hoops to find the darn media. This is perfect for folks starting out, wanting to expand operations or simply wanting to expand the library.

Cost is a subjective thing, they're charging full retail rates with a 10% discount. Everyone can make decisions according to their own minds. A $100 license fee for a minimum 3 year license is certainly reasonable.

Now I understand how folks look at purchases and ownership. But they are targeting this specifically to businesses. It doesn't look like they are selling it to individuals. They state this is *not* for home use and is for businesses only. They cover, ownership, streaming the content, media allowances, transfers, maintenance, set integrity, auditing (not a fan of that section) and a good number of term and termination items. This is a straight forward easy to read and understand agreement as any license agreement I've seen.

The company I work for licenses a large number of items for us in products from graphic art to scripts to music. Getting those agreements down to a manageable list of demands is always a tussle for our legal department and one of my teams is responsible for our adherence to the agreements. I think we'd have an easy time keeping track of the Sound Choice requirements and steering things within the lines.

As part of this type of licensing agreement, SC should agree to be in your court if you are sued because of use of their product. Think H&R Block's tax program. They don't take responsibility if you are audited - just agree to explain what their program did with the data you entered into it. If it's found that their program is the reason for the error, they will pay the interest and any penalties

If a publisher takes you to task for format shifting, SC ought to at least come to your defense and say that they jumped through all the hoops to be reasonably (used loosely) assured that offering MP3 versions of their discs was done in good faith. If they can't do that, why buy them in the first place?

I don't have a problem with the licensing for five years. Any contract has to have a starting point and an ending point and some kind of consideration (payment to bind the contract) in order to be legal. What I have a problem with is having to pay for songs I've already purchased again, knowing that I might still be investigated because someone didn't see my STICKER, and the thought that SC is not willing to stand behind me and say they did all the right things to help keep me legal. Even signing up now for Safe Harbor makes me feel like I'm putting a target on my back and an arrow on a map to my location. There are 10 pirates to one KJ trying to do it the right way out here. I personally have enough to deal with without SC breathing down my neck.

I would like to know if their logo is on the screen the whole time the song is playing. Is there some other information being displayed before, during, or after the song? Will it show that the song is licensed to me? Personally, IMHO - STICKERS ARE STUPID! If a venue will not hire me without a sticker, even though I have 1050 CDG's in my possession - that's another sticky wicket! If I'm going to advertise for SC more than just their logo before and after the song (maybe during the instrumental break) then I want something more than a 10% or 15% discount for the excess advertising I'm doing on their behalf.

I think that, for now, I will stick with the CDG's I have and continue to find others that interest me. I am perfectly happy choosing Chartbuster songs and only play a Sound Choice when it is requested or I don't have another version. Yes, the SC might be the better version on some songs, but I've had singers who swear by SC say they liked the DK version better after trying it.

If they want to make KJ's legal, maybe they ought to offer better discounts to those who are willing to pay. Use retail for the home enthusiasts and wholesale for the professional KJ's. Those that aren't paying now aren't going to buy the Gem series anyway.

Rather than have a sticker, why not have a website that these investigators (again used loosely) can call up and see if a KJ has licensed his set of SC discs. That could be done through the Safe Harbor Program also and then all legal libraries that are registered would be available to the investigator right then and there. Sure would save on the embarrassment of both the KJ and SC when the KJ shows up to an audit with discs in hand.

What they are basically saying is - "license with us so we know who you are. If you do, we still won't trust that you won't illegally add to your library after the fact and we will haunt you til you're dying day." . I don't see that as a win=win situation. IF I were in the position that SC is in, I would be finding a way to follow the bouncing ball, so to speak. Put serial numbers on media going out and require resellers to keep information on who buys it. Require purchasers to register their copy if it's being used by a host. Contact KJ's personally that use SC songs and are not registered users. If they can't show ownership, then talk legal proceedings. If you work with the legal KJ's, they would be more likely interested in working with you. I know I would be more willing to register if it weren't for the target and arrow (see above). Then, if an investigator comes to my show and sees me using a computer, he can look up on his IPOD that I am a registered SC user and am more than likely in compliance. SC should then be less likely to put my name on a lawsuit and more likely to check their records and see that I own the song(s) played at my show. That way they are not inconveniencing their customer base.

I see way too much copy that tells me SC is out to sue anyone using their music just to find those that are doing so illegally. That's like the old football adage where you grab up the whole backfield and throw out players til you find the one with the ball. I'm not afraid of the audit, I'm afraid of the inconvenience in spite of my efforts to do things the right way. IF SC continues to suggest that we're all crooks, then I will continue to accumulate discs from other manufacturers and use them instead. If they find a way to work in harmony with their bread and butter customers, then count me in. There is always going to be piracy. But the pirates are not paying SC to sue me. And I'm not going to pay them to sue me either if they keep suggesting that I can't be trusted even if I buy all 6000 if their songs.

And just because I may have purchased all my SC discs from a KJ going out of business doesn't make me a pirate - just frugal. They are still manufacturer's discs that originally came from SC. It may take a little longer to find the discs, but I haven't been paying top dollar for them. I can sell the duplicates I get without much difficulty and w/o losing money (they are an valued investment). Hell, some are worth a fortune. Others not so much. Kinda like baseball cards.

A lot of the pirates were at one time "legit" KJs who bought all of their discs. These same KJs, at some point, decided to go the pirate route and sold off all of their legal discs to recoup some of their money. Some of these KJ "collections" have been bought and sold and copied so many times that no one knows who the original owners are any more. If Sound Choice would have somehow added a serial number to each and every track on each and every disc, they might have a handle on who started the trend of buying copying and selling off once you ripped the songs to your hard drive. I think they are trying to do something like that now but the cat has been out of the bag for way too long. The only people that I see buying their new set of songs are the pirates that they catch along the way. Most of the pirates are probably thinking that the ocean is a pretty big place and what are the chances that Sound Choice's Navy will find their small dinghy in that big ocean. IF, and that's a MIGHT BIG IF, Sound Choice finds them and begins legal proceedings, they can then settle up with the Navy and take their medicine. Maybe one of these pirates will stand up to Sound Choice and a precedent will be set where Sound Choice has no right to file a law suit against a person for simply showing their logo on a screen. I can't fathom a judge siding with Sound Choice in a scenario where a KJ tells the court that he did indeed play a Sound Choice track that a customer brought to his show and that is why he can't produce the disc to satisfy Sound Choice's audit. A KJ should be able to play a customer's disc without the fear of Sound Choice barging in and wanting to audit the KJ's entire collection of songs. Displaying a logo is not enough probably cause to make someone a criminal in the eyes of the law; and the last time I checked, Sound Choice was NOT the law.

One other thing that has been jumping out at me is the number of songs in this package deal. There are roughly 900 Spotlight discs alone in the Sound Choice collection which comes out to 13,500 songs. There were also some songs that were only on the Foundation sets and the Bricks. The GEM set is for around 6,000 songs if I'm not mistaken. Are there that many duplicates in the Sound Choice catalog? Have they lost the licensing for so many songs that they can only sell 6,000 of their original tracks?


Judge to Sound Choice's lawyers: Do you mean to tell me that you are suing this hard working DJ because he bought your product and then put it on his computer to make his job a little easier to perform??

Sound Choice Lawyer: No Your Honor. We believe that the DJ in question is, in fact, a music pirate based solely on the fact that he uses a computer to play his music.

Judge: Oh I see. Since you don't have a legal right to make the DJ prove that he is not a pirate you have concocted this TRADE MARK suit to force them to disclose where and how they acquired their music. NEXT CASE!!!

What is Sound Choice's plan when they visit a show that still plays nothing but discs but the show is one of many that is run by a multi rigger? What if the DJ is set up where all of his discs are in sleeves in a big box and no one can actually see if the discs are originals or copies?? Is having a copy of a disc on a CDR technically a format shift when it comes to this trade mark law suit? It is still in CD+G format. Can a pirate just burn all of his Sound Choice files to CDR discs and play them through a traditional karaoke machine to avoid Sound Choice's wide Trade Mark net?

Bruce:to the best of my knowledge the GEM series is 6,000 songs because that was what they could reasonably afford to produce. Soundchoice is still taking a huge risk on this new series.

They wanted to produce a set that would encompass every generation from the 1940`s to the present AND span every popular genre. Let`s face it, soundchoice produced a LOT of songs that they probably never should have, because they couldn`t even recover their production costs.


There process was to start with the most popular 10,000 songs they ever produced, and whittle it down based on what they could re-license, popularity by sales volume etc.

If they make enough money they may release additional sets at a later date. They may even start to produce new music again. Anything is possible.

In the mean time, there hope is that Clark Music, the company in australia that was selling custom cd+gs of their music, will be able to re-license the music from Stringray and start offering custom cd+gs again.

If this happens their entire catalog of 18,000 song will be available..

Also just for your information, there are two kinds of `shifting`. Media and Format. Format shifting is when you change what the product becomes *ie analog to digital by ripping a cd+g disc* MEDIA shifting is when the format doesn`t change, but you still create two copies.

Therefore technically creating a burned cd+g is still Media shifting and still requires proper permission.

-James

Kurt has said before that this would be the "cream of the crop", gleaned from KJ suggestions and market research. He has also admitted that there are SC songs that never should have been made and never played.

On a side note, my tracking notice from UPS contained the following ad: "Watch for NEW Sound Choice Product Lines! Foundation Singles and Spotlight Select". Is this old news? Or new news? I don't recall ever seeing "Foundation Singles".

Foundation singles were released a couple years back, basically breaking the Foundation sets into individual discs. The Spotlight select were also a couple years old targeting more older genres & more matched songs per discs based on same type of artists.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!