Karaoke Forums

Do you believe that SC's efforts will benefit the industry?
If "yes", in what way(s)?
If "no" why not?

Do you believe that you will personally benefit from SC's efforts?
If "yes", in what ways?
If "no", why not?

In any case, do you believe that pirates should be deemed to be "legitimate" simply by paying SC $6500 and receiving, in return, a copy of every disc left in the SC inventory?

I believe that they could push the pirates either out of business or making them compliant to be on a more even playing field with those who actually purchase the discs. And being they will not have anywhere close to as many songs on their hard drive - they had better be a damn good host that can still draw a crowd as they can't rely on their 'large library' as a lure anymore.


See above answer.


Well part of the agreement in the settlement to my understanding is that they have to delete anything that they do not own a physical disc for, so the remaining SC library that is still in production, is going to hurt them still as they will no longer have that 8125 or 8148 or any of the other discontinued discs/artists on their hard drive, making those who actually own these discs that much more desireable for singers wanting to find shows that have those particualr songs/versions. Also I don't know how many songs they would actually acquire in the settlement, but i'm guessing it's a pretty good bet that going from 20-50-100K songs to maybe under 10K with songs that MAY or MAY NOT be ones people actually want are going to hurt them (the pirate) as well.

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

I think SC's efforts HAVE been beneficial as every new venue I've spoken with is aware of the lawsuits and being a little more diligent in screening new hosts' libraries. It hasn't made the proliferation of lowballers come to a screeching halt yet, but I think many of the dive bars which hire them either have nothing to lose or are just playing the odds that they won't get caught.

But to play devil's advocate...what would happen if those hosts with illegal hard drives simply deleted all the SC tracks which are not currently available from SC? There can't be that many of them; actually the Eagles disc and Eddie Money's "Take Me Home Tonight" with the sample of "Be My Baby" are the only ones I know SC have taken off the market.

That way if SC wants to see a physical disc for certain songs, that KJ could just buy those discs since they're still being sold.

_________________
[font=Lucida Console]DangerousKaraoke.com[/font]
[font=Lucida Console]"Sing for the day, sing for the moment, sing for the time of your life!"[/font]

There are several discs due to bands pulling their licenses - Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Heart, Garth Brooks puleed much if not all of his library from all legit manus, Alanis Morrisette, No Doubt, the list goes on of the bands that pulled that SC had recalled or re-released certain discs. At one time before he left, BC- the then studio manager- had stated almost 40-45% of songs they had done with permission got recalled at a later date so they either had to discontinue the sale of that disc which song was on or re-release it with a new song in it's place - perfect example the Eddie Money song was re-released with the Journey song in it's place, in other examples, the disc was cancelled altogether.

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

After reading what Kurt posted on another forum, I bought up a few points. I'm still waiting for him to address them:



Kurt,

1) In another thread, venues that may just say the heck with karaoke and the attending hassles came up. SC has become an attending hassle directly to some, and through information received about you to others

2) A long discussion was had regarding innocent KJs being lumped into your hat full of names. The question came regarding why this would happen if SC were actually INVESTIGATING any information they receive, rather than just adding another name?

3) A point was brought up regarding KJs with illegal or stolen libraries who, having paid SC, can continue on, happily using the rest of their illegal library. This would mean that SC doesn't make a dent in piracy, though they do- as you posted- make some money back. (I still don't understand how these actions would result in a better atmosphere for resuming production of karaoke tracks)


4) How many pirate KJ's have ACTUALLY been shut down (PERMANENTLY out of business) due directly to your actions to date? An approximate number?


5) What, if any, SIGNIFICANT positive effects to the karaoke industry have come about to date from the current actions of SC?


5 items. Would you be kind enough to reply DIRECTLY to them?

**** Especially NUMBER 4****


SC has STATED that their goal is to make money through their current actions regarding Trademark Infringement- which has NOTHING to do with PIRACY ( the use of unpaidfor-stolen- music.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Which also means that any logo attached to those tracks is there without permission- in other words, not legally there at all. If brought to court, a KJ could create reasonable doubt regarding Trademark infringement- simply because SC distributed thousands of tracks with their logo attached without permission.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

The illegal kj must delete all files that does not have a disc, so they would be really losing quite a bit of their library in replacement of a legal library backed by the discs they purchased. They don't continue using all the songs on the hard drive, that's part of the stipulation of the settlement agreement from what I understand.

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

Without permission, most of the recalled tracks were because of loss of licensing so they had to pull them from market at that point, doesn't mean they didn't have permission, they just lost permission after a while.

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

If an illegal KJ already knows that SC is filing these lawsuits and that person deletes all SC files b/4 they are investigated, then SC cannot file suit against those hosts since all this only covers SC logo copyrights, not other karaoke dics companies. Is that correct??? I ask because..........

The hubby and I went to a wedding in MO back in Oct. We were up there for a week and went to a small bar that had karaoke. The KJ kept announcing he had over 60,000 songs and I finally asked him flat out if he had paid for his music or not. This moron admitted he had not and I told him good luck in court and was gonna leave it at that and just leave the place............but he knew what I was talking about. Said he knew what SC was doing and had already deleted all SC tracks and they could not go after him since he no longer had any SC tracks on his computer.

As for his claim of 60,000 songs.......well, I can only tell you that after my confrontation with him, the hubby and I left in disgust.......but we were there about 2 hours first and he did not play any SC. All tracks were from other manufacturers.

....and yes, he really had no shame in admitting he didn't pay for one song on his computer!!!!!!!!

The crooks will find a way.

I think you're being a little unrealistic Lonman. "Permission" by way of a "license" is actually a "contract."

If YOU were a manufacturer, would you sign any contract that would permit you to spend thousands of dollars on in preparation, pressing, packaging etc. and leave it so open-ended that your good-faith investment and work in the fufillment of that contract could possibly be compromised by an artist simply saying; "I changed my mind?"

Of course not.

These licenses are set up with a specific limitation of the number of discs allowed to be sold that contain the track(s) in question. Once the contract has been fufilled and sales have been completed to the satisfaction of the contract, another contract to extend must be negotiated. It is at that time that any further licensing can be refused. But until a contractual limitation has been reached or satisfied, I don't believe the artist or publisher can do squat about it because it would constitute a breach of their end of the contract.

You are welcome to believe whatever you want from manufacturers but personally, I don't believe that ANY licensing can be "pulled" in midstream from any manufacturer without repercussions from the manufacturer.

So, do manufacturers "lose" a license.... I think not. Is it possible for a license to "not be renewed?" Absolutely. As in the case of DK and the applause series where some tracks could not get renewed and were not included.... but NOT A SINGLE DK disc to my knowledge ever had a "license pulled" by a publisher.

[ however, similiar to the famous 8125, DK had only one disc they issued before licensing and they learned their lesson and never did it again.]

Remember that it is quite common for contracts to be date-limited. Expired permission would be quite possible, even expected.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

Dk lost license on several tracks which is why the Milennium set does not contain everything that was released on the original 99. Pioneer lost licensing which is why they had to re-release discs with new song titles. Publisher pull licensing for any reason they would like. I forget which it was but a song that was coming out for a movie a few years back, all karaoke manus had to pull that song from their library. Alanis pulled all her rights once 'things got bettter' for her. Yes they do and can pull them.
And like Mickey said, many were dated for certain times and that is the cause of the loss of licensing.

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

Here is where we disagree....

Licenses DO in fact, have a "range and scope" whether it is a time limit, disc limit or whatever it is still part of the original "contract." If the contract is specified by date and that date has passed the contract has been "fufilled" and expires... it is not "lost" nor is it "pulled." It is simply "not renewed."

I will pose this to you again; If you were a manufacturer and you had a license from the publisher for Alanis to produce and sell 5,000 cd's that contain a track, AND you've spent $12,000 to produce the cd's and sold 1,000 of them, would you simply stop selling them without a fight? I think not. You have a contract and have compensated them for the contract and have not violated any portion of your side of the contract.... they can only sue you in court to stop you and even then, they'd better have a real reason other than "times are better" or "I changed my mind" in order to make it stick.

DK did NOT "lose licensing" on any track... they licenses they had were satisfied and/or expired as they should have. They simply were not renewed. To say anyone "lost" licensing implies they did something wrong or violated a contract etc...

NOW, here's the other side of the senario:

If you were a manufacturer, and you did NOT have a valid license for the tracks you'd been selling and the publisher calls you up and says; "Stop selling our music without a license" would you put up a fight? Not if you know what's good for you. You have NO leg to stand on at all and you'd better quietly comply or they can drag your butt to court and stomp you to pieces.... In the meantime, you've made some money on the discs you did sell.

So maybe you operate that way.... create tracks and sell them as fast as you can... when someone catches you, simply apologize, act stupid and stop selling them or rearrange the track listings... by that time you've already made $30,000 and not spent a dime on licensing.... Like All Hits, SGB, Dangerous, Helluva Disc, Ameri-Sing, Dr. Music, Radio Starz. Top Tunes and others....

Not really.

The SC effort is too targeted and too limited to really deal with the problem.

They may reduce piracy of SC disks to a limited extent, but there are a lot of other manus out there that are just about as good or better than SC anyway. Maybe another company or two might join in with SC like chartbuster but even then a minority of manus are likely to ever join in.

There will always be a mountain of other pirated songs out there. People will learn that pirated songs from manus out there besides SC are "safe" and pirated SC is pretty safe in the home setting.

Its like a city that discovers that they have a major problem with car theft, and they put a major effort into checking if Toyotas are stolen. Pretty soon the theft will move to other makes of cars.

It may benefit SC in the short term, but in the long term the Karaoke market will become dominated by pirates with 200,000 songs (from a hard drive) but no SC songs. Eventually most singers will become less familiar with SC and they will loose a lot of their brand appeal.

Even without the "pirated" hard drives there is enough "grey" karaoke out there that is just re-branded tracks from past defunct companies, being sold for impossibly low prices.

Of course we have the problem that some companies like "SGB" may have been legit at some time in the past, but are now being sold for prices that barely cover copying the disks and packageing. It is not ever going to be practical to sort out a KJ who may have bought a legit copy of SGB (if there ever was one) 15 years ago vs the recent copy mills.

The KJ, if he LOSES ( which would require a truly inept lawyer- I've actually done more research on this than I bring up)- would only have to delete the Sound Choice tracks that do not have corresponding discs.

Again, this suit is not about piracy, but trademark infringement. The KJ would not be in court in regard to illegally obtained tracks, but there ONLY due to tracks with the SC logo attached. NO OTHER TRACKS are involved. He will be free to walk out of court with ALL OTHER TRACKS intact, to be used at his next show....

This is what I mean when I say SC isn't fighting PIRACY ( the use of illegally obtained tracks)- and it's PIRACY that allows the cheap KJ to charge what he does- no music costs.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Kurt himself said that they released tracks under the assumption that the deal was done, only to find out later that it wasn't. The prematurely released tracks NEVER had licensing.

As for tracks that were recalled: Whether they had licensing or not, they are still in circulation and are the Manufacturers' responsibility, not the KJ's.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Excellent analysis with which I totally agree!

And what you said makes perfect sense in the circumstances that you envision. But.... your vision of the events doesn't actually concur with what had happened. For one there never was a license granted!

It seems, and this has been discussed of late by those who know more than I, that the standard procedures of the karoake industry included the karaoke manufacturers to get VERBAL approval from the publishers and to begin production before having the signed licence agreement in their hands.

The publisher, in turn, must get written permission from the composer and lyricist before they can provide licensing to the Karaoke manufacturer! Using the Eagles, as an example, Henley and his composing partner (another Eagles whose name I forgot) denied permission when they got the actual paperwork and found out that SC wanted to produce karaoke versions of their songs.

By the time the reality became known to SC, the discs were not only produces and distributed , but many were sold. And yes, therefore, SC had no choice but to retrieve them. They had no legal grounds to stand on in regard to having produced the disc. They had no more right to produce the disc back then, than if you decided to produce an Eagles disc without anyones permission today!

The question ISN't whether the SC Disc is available from SC or any other merchant. The question is whether or not the KJ owned the track prior to being "called out" by SC.

So what if all the pirates immediately eliminated all SC tracks from their drives? Most would still have upwards so 20,000 tracks remaining from other manufactureres. And deleting the SC tracks is a small price to pay for staying in business and avoiding a hassle with SC. And meanwhile, in doing so they have continued in business without an investment in their library and they would still have a wonderful karaoke library left!

And as Dan suggested, maybe it won't be long before SC is forgotten, just as Pioneer has been?

And what if the local pirate is also smart enough to alert the venues where he works to what SC is doing? And what if he "slighly" misleads the venue in the process of doing so? If the pirate was willing to work with an illegal library, I am sure he wouldn't hesitate to lie to the venue!.

And what if in the process of lying the pirate informs the venues that he correctly tells the venue that he has no SC tracks and is, therefore, not exposing the venue to any potential legal problems with SC and that they, thereofre, have nothing to worry about should0 they ever get a letter from SC!!!

Tovmod,

Yes, you are correct... there never was a license granted according to the story... So SC went ahead and produced, encoded, pressed, packaged, shipped and sold the discs withOUT a license...

Doesn't seem like a very prudent business decision does it? Would you invest several thousand dollars without getting paperwork first? Nope. The only reason you would that I can think of is simply to beat your competition to the punch because if a KJ bought an eagles disc (in those days) they usually wouldn't do it to upgrade from an existing disc.


Too many "what if's" here.... but I'd add to it; "What if the venues just flat out didn't want to have anything to do with karaoke anymore?"

There's lots of other entertainment options, trivia, texas hold 'em nights, game shows and a myria of "bar games."

I think the problem with the "illegal" tracks that SC made is that unlike many of the other Karaoke companies they have a definite physical location and a long term existance.

For that reason a band like the Eagles has somewhere to point to if they think someone is making an unlicensed karaoke disk with their songs. It is pretty easy to get in contact with SC if a band/songwriter has a issue with a karaoke track. On the other hand a lot of the other karaoke companies are just about impossible to assign a physical location or find the person to sue.


Disks like the SC "Eagles" disk can probably be made in a day or at most two by a competent group of studio musicians to learn and play the songs. The lyrics, artwork package design etc would take a day or so for a tech who has done several such disks previously. Pressing several thousand disks and packaging them would take less than an hour for a major production facility.

On the other hand the messages back and forth between bands, lawyers etc could take months of negotiations, especially if one or more people involved is not quick to respond to their mail. Many less active bands/songwriters are unlikely to have legal advice on hand to respond quickly.

As a business decision the costs to "make" the CD could be minor (especially if the Band making the cover is under a contract, and the techs are salaried). If the approval delays are generaly long, and the failure rate is low it is probably easier to go ahead and make the disk before the final approval is made by the songwriter. (although releasing it is probably a bad move).

So did Music Maestro.... and they never licensed a single track. And the difference is that MM didn't bother to bring attention to themselves either... they didn't ask, they just did it. There's NO evidence that SC did anything different, other than "he said, she said" and the difference here would be that they got caught. MM put out a (lousy) rendition of Hotel California years before SC8125



Gee, that makes it sooo much easier to crank out unlicensed material doesn't it? I happen to know an artist (personally) from the SC8117 disc that SC NEVER asked for permission... EVER... and the artist had to get attorneys after them. This was of course, after about 4 years of distribution of what was admitted by Bob Clark ("BC"studio manager of SC) as the "most popular disc ever made by SC."



I understand however, this is not a viable excuse for distributing and making money off unlicensed material. It's a reinforcement that "being first" to market certain songs/artists has ALWAYS been more important to the manufacturers than doing it legally. i.e. their motto is; "sell it today, license it tomorrow... if you have to."



"Minor costs" is a relative term. $5,000.00 may mean a lot to you or me, but not as much if you're a millionaire several times over. And if you've made your millions by operating under the "sell today, license tomorrow" theory, it's just another expense.

IMHO, I think SC has perpetuated the world's biggest snow job on most KJ's. Everyone seems to want to waive the flag as though SC is the most honest, upstanding, sterling company that ever existed and that they are somehow only an innocent "victim" in the piracy problem. Wake up and smell the coffee, they are not. They are not doing anything now that champions the legal KJ and is out to slay the pirates... exactly the opposite; they will leave the legal KJ's alone and simply sell discs to the pirates. They're not out to put pirates out of business, they are out to sell them $6,500 worth of discs.... period.