Karaoke Forums

Just an observation/question concerning the whole CD to Digital transition with this karaoke stuff, from an "outside looking in" perspective:

The original media for distributing these tracks has always been a disc of some sort, correct? Given the obvious limitations of that media for commercial use in today's computerized world, the transition to the digital world has begun, with its own set of unique issues. There seems to be some different means of distribution that are being utilized (data discs, protected downloads, subscription services, etc.).

When the only media of choice was a disc, it was the ONLY means of getting these tracks, meaning that individual home users AND commercial users had to use the SAME product. However, now products are being made available digitally that are specifically differentiated between home and commercial users. Here is the question: What has changed LEGALLY/LOGISTICALLY (from publisher's agreements) that provides a path for distributers to make this differentiation? If there IS a difference, what is it that justifies as much as a ten times difference in price points between said products?

I cannot help but feel getting some perspective here might help those potentially affected...

I'm sure this data is "business private" and will not be forthcoming..

How rude of you to ask..

None of those same publishers had a problem giving apple, amazon or Walmart the permission to offer downloads of MP3 files.

I'm not sure that home users and commercial users have had to use the SAME product. SC, for example, put out discs that were directed to the home user (the multiplex discs that had tracks with and without lead vocals) and discs that were directed to the commercial user (the 15-track discs). Of course, there were no restrictions from purchasing outside the target market. SC also developed the Karaoke Channel (which is now owned by Stingray); that service was always restricted to the home user for reasons I'll discuss below.

But that probably doesn't get to the meat of what you're asking.

To understand what's going on, you have to understand the music publishers' motivations. Publishers make money in exactly one way: through licensing uses of the songs in their catalogs. It's important to recognize that publishers are distinct entities from "record labels." Record labels produce recordings and pay royalties to publishers. Every time a copy of a song is made, and every time it is publicly played, the publisher who owns that song wants to get a royalty. It's like an airline; any seat that goes unsold on a flight will never make money for the airline.

Originally, the publishers' position was that no one could make copies without permission and payment. While that describes the Copyright Act generally, it does not take into account fair use, which allows for a limited amount of royalty- and permission-free copying under limited circumstances. As the publishers have pressed this issue, the fair use doctrine has gotten better defined, and there is now a general consensus that personal, non-commercial copying that does not involve distribution to others is OK. That has meant that there are a lot of digital copies of songs out there, and naturally it means that people share them, even though the law says you can't. The publishers found that it was expensive, both as an expenditure of funds and reputationally, to pursue that kind of activity; they found that making the subscription model easy and cheap meant that they would get some money for that kind of activity.

(I'll point out here that at one point I probably owned 1500 CDs, which is a large collection by some standards and not by others, but rather than buying maybe 50-100 CDs a year, I now pay $10 a month to Spotify and get ready access to 95% of what I used to own and almost 100% of what I want to listen to. I would pay an extra $2 a month to have access to the Beatles and a handful of other artists whose work isn't on Spotify, but I did keep my Beatles CDs.)

But times are tough for music publishers anyway, and they are looking for ways to make money. They have, I think, decided that downloads are going to be available whether they agree or not, and they can be served from places where jurisdiction is iffy, so the publishers have relaxed their rules on downloads by establishing a mechanism for that to occur. However, like anything new--particularly in an industry that is extremely conservative (not politically; I mean in terms of changes to procedures)--it will take some time for new revenue models to work themselves out. The publishers, as a rule, tend also to be sort of volatile; they sometimes offer up shifting interpretations of agreements when it suits a particular purpose at a particular time. They are also often very large organizations with several levels of approval needed when changes are requested.

(If you are a fan of the program Mad Men...it's like when the new agency was trying to get signoff on new ideas from GM, they were told that the process would take years. Music publishers are very much like that.)

As for price point variations...we could have a semester-long class on the economic structure of pricing in the karaoke market. As always, the value of something is what someone will pay for it. Analogizing once again, this time to the phone company...back in the old days, when I had traditional telephone lines at my home and my office, I paid roughly three times for each office line what I paid for my home line. Each had exactly the same features, was served on the same network, was serviced and billed by the same company, and was subject to the same regulatory scheme. If you needed service on your line, they had one phone number for commercial service and one for home service, but calling one always gave you the option to be transferred to the other. There was only one difference: While I might conceivably forgo having a home phone (especially if I have a cell phone), it is inconceivable that a business would do without a phone. Commercial users of essential goods almost always pay more for less convenience. That is just the way of the world.

That is not accurate in the slightest. Those three entities spent YEARS negotiating for the right to sell MP3s.

While I do not have an issue with analogies from an entertainment and editorial position, for the most part I find that they are inaccurate and often convolute the point. It happens all the time on forums: people use analogies, others shoot holes in them, present analogies of their own, the OP comes back with backup analogies to defend them, et. al.

I am finding this to be one of the most uniquely discombobulated industries I have ever run into, which is why I am continuing to show interest. One of the responses to the OP had a detailed response to the LOGISTICAL side of the question, but the lack of information from the LEGAL position is another of many symptoms revealed here that this industry is in need of some specific regulation. However, given its relatively low priority level in the big scheme of things, that might be a long time coming. It is not difficult to see the attempt to accomplish some form of this from within the manufacturers, but this type of activity often does not tend to be in the best interest of the consumer. The relative ambiguity that the industry has operated under for the bulk of its existence is most certainly contributing to this. Who really knows what it is going to take to get things out of control.........?

Oh, and to prove one of my earlier points: I am fairly certain that the telephone industry has some sort of government regulatory control over it, keeping it from charging, say, ten times the amount commercially for the same level of product as a typical consumer. It just seems that a two to three times higher charge would be more in line, given that there is very little, if any, difference in cost between one consumer and the next in the karaoke scenario. Bending over and receiving "the way(s) of the world" is not a recommended position to take...

Here is a DIRECT correlation analogy: The average entry level account for Sirius XM is around $12 a month. The average entry level account for Sirius XM for BUSINESS is $29.95 per month, and that even covers ASCAP, BMI and SESAC fees! AND it is essentially for a BETTER product, since many of the stations are a different feed that do not have vocal interruptions of any kind. Let me do the math...that is approximately a 2.5 times difference between consumer and commercial...and this is in an area where they actually have somewhat of a monopoly (not as much since the use of internet radio with smartphones and unlimited data plans has been increasing exponentially...).

Disclaimer: These numbers are for comparison purposes only. This is not an attempt to advertise for Sirius XM....

These days, ^^^ are almost over..

AT&T is rapidly changing all phone service over to IP telephony.

IP data is not regulated by anyone, and prices will go up dramatically.

BOHICA

Bend Over, Here It Comes Again

It is even worse than that. Verizon is fighting a battle on the East Coast right now. Lots of land line copper was rendered unusable after the Sandy storm. Verizon doesn't want to replace the copper and instead wants customers use their Wireless services.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... -whos-next

This is a disturbing, yet understandable trend as it absolutely reduces quality of service, and for some land lines are the only means of getting phone service. Not to mention a host of services that are not compatible with wireless telephony (home alarm systems, medical devices, and more)

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Forgot to add tangent conversations as a by-product of using analogies as well...

Many, if not most 3rd world countries never had land lines.

Cell towers were the only way to provide telephone service.. so they built them.
(Impossible to wire a nation, and no need to)
Phone companies here want to keep the easy money they have had for the last 50 years..
Basturds..

The biggest problem with it is that wireless phone service is STILL nowhere near as good as wired service. I keep a house phone to do business calls from, because I hate dropping a call in the middle of being on hold.






BTW, Hi everyone!!

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

That is because the phone companies are cheap.. They refuse to provide the correct infrastructure due to costs.

The same reason the steel industry was wiped out. Refused to upgrade.

And the tangent continues..........

In answer to the OP regarding pricing differences:

A producer has to make a master, then press ( or burn these days) a disc. they have to pay for the production equipment, a run of a LOT of discs, the discs themselves, the blank labels, and the printing, etc....

Buy a download and none of that applies, PLUS- you buy it, they send the download, and then...THEY STILL HAVE IT. They make the next sale with the same file.. Dam near costless, dam near pure profit....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

i have yet to have a call dropped....except from my land line when they decide to do work on the line. almost 7 years with no issues from Verizon but land lines....you can keep those untrustworthy pieces of $h!t.

and by the way....Hi

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

One thing about a landline is they work when the power is out. With cells, when there is no power to the towers, there are no calls.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

All true and the koolaid that the phone companies spout to keep you connected..

When Hurricane Sandy wiped out the east coast, the cells were the only thing working.. All the land lines were down..

Your turn..

Sorry.....you missed the question completely. It was addressing the difference between the new digitally offered products for consumers and the one available for commercial users, since essentially the delivery system and the product are the SAME! A difference, whether justified or not, has been said in this thread essentially to be a part of life, which is not justifiable as a reason. I am just saying that, if the amount the publishers are getting payed is the same, and there is little or no significant difference in distribution cost, the difference in pricing should be in line with these differences, not, in some cases, ten times the amount. There have been industries with relatively more importance that have been interceded by government for circumstances such as this, and I doubt that the powers that be here would want something like that. In situations where rules are made up as they go along, despite or in lieu of governing laws, the consumer will be on the low end of the totem pole...

Thank you everyone for providing such a GLARING example of one of the excessive results of making questionable analogies...