Karaoke Forums

Sorry to respond so late in the game (not feeling well).

You are correct, there are many songs that I own that don't get played more than once, or even at all. I didn't sell my perfectly good discs back to the manufacturer for far less than I paid for them, only to turn around and re-purchase the very same songs all over again. The only one that won in your situation is Sound Choice.

You basically paid twice for "6,000 of the best songs," most of which you already owned.

Seems kind of silly to me.

_________________
Birdofsong

You, of course, equate them both as simply being a commodity. Therefor 12000 is twice as good as 6000.

While I think Chartbuster is a decent brand (I own the KJPro HD and use it for new releases), I do not consider them the same...as you well know. I still do not regret my decision and in fact think it was one of the best i have made thus far.

Besides if it were all about how many tracks you have, the "100,000+ songs!" hosts would be leading the packs, yet they do not.



Yup. Sooooo why did you bring it up exactly? Other than your blind hatred for SC/GEM?



What is silly to me is that you are still using these incorrect assumptions that I have stated to you & your husband many times are untrue. I guess people believe what they want to believe...but I will humor you yet again. Please try to follow along this time.



And neither did I. Sound Choice gave me credit for returning my antique Foundation & Brick CD's for full MSRP. FAR more than what I had paid. One of the foundations was even quite used from eBay, yet they credited me FULL MSRP as an early adopter. I actually made money of those obsolete pieces of plastic.

"Nice Try" - C. Staley



Hardly. I more than tripled my SC library for 1/3 the price of antique discs. I did not have anywhere close to 6000 SC songs to begin with. I did not "re-purchase" anything (C'mon! Don't you ever listen to your husbands rants about PURCHASE v/s LEASE"? )
I was given a discount for those returned sets at MSRP further reducing the already low GEM introductory price.

For jumping in the pool early with GEM Set #1, I was given some very nice discounts. Discounts I only had to ask for and was given, and to my knowledge were only given once. I now have the best base set in the business for my rig factory ripped at 320kbps for MUCH less than the cost of buying the same songs on twenty five year old technology and love every minute of it.



On that we agree.

The KJ is "selling" nothing of the sort. The KJ sells his or her "services" not a "Sound Choice product" and the venue is the "consumer of those services."

"Access to the repackaged content" is still not a "sale" anymore than "access" to the interior of a taxicab is "selling the whole car" when the taxi is a "service."

Karaoke tracks are "tools of the KJ trade" and not a "product" that is re-sold like a distributor.

Do you have "access" to your mechanic's tools when they fix your car? No. Your mechanic does, he purchased them, he owns them. He can either use them to fix your car or use them to smash all the windows. Even the manufacturer of the tools ("Snap-On Tools" for example), cannot control whether or not the mechanic uses the tools properly or even if the mechanic -the real "end user" - grinds their logo off the tools themselves. They, like SC, are only interested in whether or not his check cashes. He's not reselling any of the tools anyway.... they are the tools he uses to perform his "services."

The mechanic is free to modify the tools he's purchased anyway he sees fit; he could heat them and bend them, cut them shorter, change the way they operate, etc... And although the manufacturer can void any/all warranties or guarantees because of this, I doubt they could do anything about it in trademark or even patent court... because the mechanic is NOT reselling the tools, he sells his "services." The game changes if he were to attempt to resell them.

I can freely modify the output of a karaoke track all I want; I can intercept the signal and change the pitch, speed, key, garble the video and skip displaying any trademark in the video on playback if I want.

#1. I'm not reselling the track and,

#2. I don't care 2 hoots about displaying your trademark or "advertising your product" for free (anymore). It doesn't make me any money.

#3. I don't want my singers to know what "commercially available brand" they can go out and buy (to sing at home or elsewhere) because I want them to come to my show(s). Not to my competitors shows with their disc.

#4. I don't want my competitor(s) to see what brands I use.

The venue benefits from the performance of the KJ's services - not the patrons doing the singing and certainly not any single brand of karaoke disc. And I'm sure that there are plenty of KJ's here that can attest that even with a premium sound system and every SC track in the world, a karaoke show can simply croak and die if the host sucks. Conversely, a KJ with 1 speaker, SGB and NUTECH with a radio shack amp and no effects can be wildly popular if they have the proper skills.

It's the "services" that have the value - not the trademark.

You can’t see me right now, but I’m giving you a standing ovation on this one. BRAVO!!!!

thank you Chip, stated better than i could formulate in my head. this is what i was trying to say.

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

Interesting. So when SC ripped their original recordings to MP3 ( deleting audio info, thus degrading the original recording- kind of like the "bad rip" that Harrington Law described)on a PC ( the GEM series), then burnt them to discs, did they have the original owner/publishers' written permission to do so? Or, since if it was done in the UK, did they merely circumvent the same?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

It wouldn't matter if they ripped the tracks 20 times from the master tape and then again 20 times from CD.... None of that "counts" until the final form -whether it's CD or MP3+G, has been set and is being sold. That then becomes the "starting point" of the product.

You'll notice though that with the gem series, in order to expand it, they'll have to find another territory/country to license from.... Borneo perhaps? Trinidad & Tobago?

Or the United States. It's not as though SC broke the law in licensing the GEM series. The music publishers agreed to rates established by MCPS at the time the GEM series was licensed, and those licenses allowed for worldwide distribution. If the music publishers agreed to rates in Trinidad & Tobago that allowed for worldwide distribution, and those rates were less than offered in the U.S., a manu like SC would be foolish not to take advantage of the lower rates. When SC adds to the GEM series, they will make an appropriate licensing arrangement.

That depends on which country's laws you are talking about.
United States or United Kingdom?


For products "Made in the U.K." and it can be argued that their product was not made in the U.K. but merely "assembled" there. The music wasn't re-recorded there (the largest "work percentage"), the producer's screens and graphics were most likely not done there either.

It certainly appears to have passed the "Made in USA" labeling requirements though. It can be argued that the sound recording portion --the most labor-intensive -- exceeds 50 percent of the cost of the rest of the processes (graphic encoding & disc burning). And those sound recordings were not "re-created" in the U.K.

While the U.K. doesn't have any specific laws that I could find regarding determination of country of origin, the MCPRS does require that licensing is for products "made in the U.K." for distribution - worldwide or otherwise.

I have sent a query to their licensing dept. asking for a clarification of this requirement.

I'll forward that on when I get an answer.



I'll bet.

Both.



From the KAR license:

2. GRANT OF LICENCE

2.1 Subject to the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement, the Society hereby grants to the Producer a non-exclusive licence to do the following during the Term:

(a) to make Karaoke Product containing one or more Repertoire Works (including the on-screen reproduction of the text of the lyrics of such Repertoire Works) in the United Kingdom as permitted under this Agreement; and

(b) to Release such Karaoke Product in the Territory.

2.2 For the purpose of clause 2.1(a) “make” shall mean the creation and making of copies of Product Masters and the making of copies of Karaoke Product for Release.

I can confirm for you that the Product Masters for the GEM series were in fact made in the United Kingdom, and that the copies of Karaoke Product for Release were also made in the United Kingdom. If you were a GEM licensee you would be able to see that these facts are clearly disclosed on the face of the product.

At the time of licensing, the Territory was worldwide; it has since been revised to exclude the U.S. and Canada.



Despite whatever evils you feverishly imagine SC to have committed in bringing its product to market, SC is actually one of the more conscientious companies out there in terms of what it does to ensure its product is sold legally. Where there have been disputes, they have generally been of an "honest different of opinion" or inadvertent nature, kind of like violating a zoning ordinance you never knew existed and that nobody knows the reason for.

Of course, a KJ's music selection or sound system is not the "be all, end all". But it is also not to be so easily discounted either...there are major differences.

Just because Eric Clapton could take a cheap kids guitar and Sears guitar amp make it sound awesome in concert doesn't mean he does and tosses his Fender Stratocaster and Marshals in the trash. He wants the best tools of his trade, the ones that make him sound the best. It gives even the seasoned pro that extra sonic edge he desires. That is why I primarily use SC.

Exactly. Eric Clapton -- performing his service -- is the "end user" not the crowd at the concert. The crowd is the "consumer" of his "services." The guitar is not the focal point and the fact that he can take "a cheap kids guitar and Sears amp" is an acknowledgment of his skill and and the quality of service he can provide.... it ain't the guitar, it's the player.

Handing a Fender Stratocaster to any Joe Schmo who can simply pay for one and call him "certified" won't make him a star either. Just as a mechanic can use a "Craftsman" tool or even a cheap Taiwan-made wrench and fix your car. It ain't the wrench.

Karaoke songs are simply one of "the tools" of the trade as well. Nothing more.

Having SC tracks will not guarantee you a higher income if your skills as a host suck.

Slicing and dicing and moving the nutshell....

Define the terms "Product Masters" and "made" as you've used the term here please.

You are implying that the sound recordings for the product were completely re-recorded -song by song? I'll bet you a donut that most likely never occurred. That is the most labor-intensive and costly phase of the creation of any karaoke track. I'll take a guess that the finished "product masters" were created entirely in the U.S. and transported to the U.K. where a copy was made for production use. So, using your statement; yes the "product MASTERS" created in the U.S. were "made" (copied) for production (assembly) in the U.K. is most likely a more accurate account of the story.

The graphics are easy to change and would take less than 5 minutes per track - a minimal expense to say the least. The plastic discs they are recorded on are also a minimal expense as is the screen printed labels.

As far as the text printed on the discs; that's just as suspect as "Used by permission" was on SC8125 and dozens of other tracks at the time they were sold to unsuspecting KJ's.

Your continual obfuscation is created by simply splitting hairs on technicalities.

A duck is a duck.


( I almost fell out of my chair)

eh, hem.... Not according to the records publicly available on Pacer of lawsuits regarding licensing of hundreds of tracks... or lack thereof.



uh, yeah....sure, that's the ticket!

Boy c. staley, you sure spin stuff around.

What you are saying isn't anywhere close to how I read Mr. Harringtons post.

Please explain.

but, i believe he is correct. all of those songs were already recorded, so to re-record them would be a waste of money. it is thinking the entire process through, kind of like on another thread asking about favorite manus by sound quality...........one post put Karaoke Channel 2 places under SC, they are SC tracks. thinking the entire process through gives you a better understanding of what is happening. SC is hurting for money, no one disputes that. SC has been hurt bad by piracy, no one is disputing that. to take a financially borderline company and spend obscene amounts to re-record all the tracks you already have would be asinine from a business standpoint.
the CD's were made in the U.K., no dispute.
the PRODUCT MASTERS were made in the U.K., not the songs themselves. the master is the compillation of tracks in their final order. so all that was done is the same music you have on the U.S.A. discs were put on another drive in a different order and turned into a new master.

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

Exactly. Thank you.

Chip, the term "Product Master" is defined in MCPS's KAR license. You know where to find it. I assure you that the Product Masters as that term is defined in the KAR were made in the UK. No "re-recording" is required to make a new Product Master.



I'm not obfuscating anything. You have accused SC of not having proper licensing of the GEM series by violating MCPS's conditions for licensing. You have claimed that MCPS requires that the product be made in the UK. I have shown you the section of the KAR that lays out exactly what is required, and I have confirmed for you that the terms of the KAR regarding "made in the UK" have been met.



A lawsuit does not, by itself, mean that the defendant did what it was accused of, and it certainly doesn't mean that the defendant wasn't conscientious about what it was doing.



I guess my reference was a little too oblique for you to catch.

What Mr. Harrington just said.

Then substitute the word "copied" for "made" because by your own admission, that's exactly what has gone on here. Again, splitting hairs.


As much as you would like to imply that I have done something that I have not namely, accused sound choice of anything, I understand perfectly clear that it is your job to stick to the technicalities presented before you. This means that if you purchased a frozen pumpkin pie, defrosted it and baked it at home, you could enter it in a contest in claim "It's homemade, I made it."


"A lawsuit" (as in 1) perhaps is something I would agree with. A dozen lawsuits claiming the same infringement (which is what we have here) is a little more telling Wouldn't you agree counsel?

It's the same as receiving a speeding ticket from a cop with a mis-calibrated radar system. I can understand that happening once, but a dozen times –by a dozen different cops– and there something else going on.



I understood your reference perfectly, I just don't agree with it.