Karaoke Forums

http://www.soundchoicestore.com/questio ... pg-23.html

This is their FAQ on their policies as found on their website. The other thing is people have called and talked to them about it. It was also stated on here that you can still pass an audit if you are only missing a small percentage of discs--can't remember what the actual percentage was. Per people who have done the audit, they seem to be more hard
line on pirates than a basically honest host who just can't account for a few discs. I had also asked Mr. Harrington on here if the "failure allowance" meant that if you played a singer's disc and then couldn't produce it at an audit, then that wouldn't be cause for failure and he confirmed that. At least as long as it was just a few missing songs.

People on here who have passed the voluntary audit say they were only asked to show their SC discs. People who are pirate suspects may get the "full treatment" with anything and everything leveraged against them to make sure they can't continue to carry on illegally. Most would probably back that.

Thanks leopard lizard, but I've seen that page. Didn't see mention of the cost for the audit I'm assuming since its been stated on here is $125, but what about next year?

Do I have to go through an additional audit if buy one more disc, 200 more disks?

Is it $25 to keep the cert if I didn't buy enough additional discs to require an audit and is it another $125 if I did? Will the rate change without any notice?

If I decide to start hosting and choose to use SC content that would require me to submit to an audit and pay for it to be considered legal in the eyes of SC.

Is it unreasonable for me to ask questions where answers prior to the process?

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

Time - It took 2 hours. Hardly an issue....to me. Some may balk but I would argue that it is trivial.
Uncertainty - I didn't have any.
Expense - It was $125. I realize I am not a full time KJ, but even as a part time KJ I have spent much more that $125 replacing speakers, cabling, ams, sound boards, etc in the last year and a half. It is a cost of soing business.

None of those three are anything to fear. Budget for time, keep good records and discs for the uncertainty, and budget for expenses.

The bulk of my music has been acquired in the last 8 months and I have been fairly meticulous with cataloging it as I have obtained it. Regardless, the SC Audit is only for SC discs which is about 1/3 of my collection for my production system. They don't audit the whole thing, just SC.

I won't speak for Sound Choice and the white paper concept. You can request the audit forms from them which do provide detail on the process. The caveat being that when I requested my audit forms, they still listed the X-Acto knife method.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Umm, that doesn't say a thing about audits. I don't really need them to explain fine print on antediluvian policies that represent one manufacturer's interpretation of law.


Sound like intimidation to me.

Again, my problem is this. It's all stick, and no carrot. The music industry is doing NOTHING to make things less ambiguous in an authoritative, standard, clear, and concise fashion. It's all about individual opinion as expressed by multiple companies, and the accompanying legal intimidation and enforcement. And they are grabbing up their legitimate customers as well as the pirates in the net.

I can undergo a Sound Choice audit. What's next? DK comes back from the dead and audits me? Chartbuster wants to have their whack at me? Pop Hits? All of their long-lost cousins? Where does it end? You would think that after years of crying foul and claiming injury, they would get their act together and do something which would clear up the whole thing and make it legally unambiguous. Instead, they take fragmented and capricious actions, then act aggrieved and put upon when people dislike them for it.

The industry needs to clarify the law. They don't need to ask for more and more power to enforce an ambiguous law,which is what they are doing now.

I'm basically immune. I am not in the business, because I have been intimidated out of it. I am definitely aggrieved, because I spent $10,000 and am being treated like a criminal.

EDIT: If I needed to be in the business, I easily could be because I have the music and could easily comply. It's just that I don't need the hassle because it makes more sense for me to pay attention to my day job than take on a part-time business which could expose me to legal hassles I don't need. If I didn't have to fear that, I might take on the occasional job.

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

I truly do empathize with you and others regarding all of this.

I chose to follow the requested process requested by the Big 3 here in the US and I feel very comfortable that I am not going to get dinged by them or anyone else for how I run my show.

I feel I have a reasonable understand of the law and legalities of how things work for us and I feel I have complied with the requests that relevant parties have made.

Beyond that there may be risks. I believe those risks to be very minimal. I have already made a choice to accept them. I don't believe I will have any issues going forward that any disc-based host isn't susceptible to as well (waxing/waning markets, competition, seasonality, etc).

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

[quote="hiteck SC has apparently changed their policy on being able to use backups (copies of cdg's) in a show. That's fine (I guess), but how are we to know what's ok and what isn't if it isn't published.

If you make a policy and specifically if you change a policy shouldn't you let your customers know?[/quote]

MickyJ, I was referring to the above when I published that link. It seemed to be a two part question besides questions about the audit. And Chris answered that you can request a paper giving the terms of the audit so it would seem both have been answered.

As for "intimidation" I don't feel intimidated. Maybe someone who stole their music and is now being "intimidated" out of using it might be. Not sure what "rights" they have to use stolen music and not be intimidated out of using it. It isn't aimed at people who have their 1:1.

I do feel a bit "squeezed in the middle" however--I do have worries about every manufacturer wanting money and CB has changed their fee/terms a few times. And while at the moment we are still disc, if we are to get new music in the future or have anything reliable to play it on we will probably be forced into computer and into jumping through the hoops. But the more I learn about it, I think the problem is not entirely in the power of the manufacturers to solve it in a universal manner until the laws/licensing changes. So each is doing what they think best and as it has not been done before, they find themselves tweaking it as they get more experience with it. I do think they have listened a bit--SC changing from the xacto knife to the ink is a real biggie for me.

Umm, that doesn't say a thing about audits. I don't really need them to explain fine print on antediluvian policies that represent one manufacturer's interpretation of law.

[quote]



I can undergo a Sound Choice audit. What's next? DK comes back from the dead and audits me? Chartbuster wants to have their whack at me? Pop Hits? All of their long-lost cousins? Where does it end? You would think that after years of crying foul and claiming injury, they would get their act together and do something which would clear up the whole thing and make it legally unambiguous. Instead, they take fragmented and capricious actions, then act aggrieved and put upon when people dislike them for it.



LIKE! As I said, they are not adding value in their customers eyes. To charge honest people who spent thousands on their product is ludicrous and bad business practice. Of course, if you never consider getting back into the business, it makes sense! It should be up to them to figure out a better way, this is obviously alienating customers and that is never a good thing.

_________________
KingBing Entertainment C'mon Up! I have a song for you!!! [font=MS Sans Serif][/font]

I'm not aiming my gun at people when I hunt. But if I shoot indiscriminately, I may hit htem.


If I had to be in the business, I could be. I am basically 1:1, minus the aforementioned downloaded tracks from Tricerasoft and the like. But I am intimidated out of being a weekend warrior, because I don't need the hassle nor the risk. You can say it isn't a risk if you are 1:1, but any time you are sued there is a risk.

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

You're welcome --I actually researched, developed, and tested that solution before recommending it to SC for adoption. A good bit of my (obsolete) music CD collection bears the scars.

More to the point, however, it was a change we made in response to concerns that came up on this forum. And that is the larger point: If you see something we're doing that we could do better--whether that means more effectively, with a lower negative impact, or more efficiently--I would appreciate hearing about it, either here, in a private message, or by email at jharrington (at) harringtonlawpc dot com.

Here is my suggestion which you probably can't do but it makes me feel better to think about it:

Tack a few hundred onto each settlement from pirates and put it into an audit fund. A host pays for the audit and if they pass they get a refund from the pirate fund, if they don't they forfeit. That way, the pirates pay for the legal hosts.

But really I understand that you can't afford to have employees doing audits all day at no charge. I think people are just hoping it evolves into a central audit with one fee and a small renewal for updates rather than never knowing how many manufacturers are going to come at you and under what terms/fees, etc.

The other thing is I see where MickyJ is coming from--as a hobby type host doing a few shows a year, half his income could be taken by audit fees. Most hobby hosts are already subsidizing their business for the pleasure of doing it or excusing their dischaholic fix but paying for audit fees gives them nothing tangible in their eyes. As a host in an area where business licenses and taxes, etc. are required, we already are pretty much forced into trying to make it a business and recoup our fees so an audit would be cost effective as far as the expansion it would allow in convenience, professionalism, etc.

Can you get more information on SC's website about the audit process and terms for use of logo/tracks by a certified KJ?

How about what is expected after year one is complete? Is there addtional audits/costs based on conditions? What are those conditions?

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

Exactly how much did you end up paying to the three for their certifications? And I don't mean just dollar wise, include your time, aggravation (which you have posted), etc.

Just how long will it take you to recoup what you have paid out for:
1. Stellar's piece of paper.
2. What ever you got from CB. Count the tracks you bought that will never be played.
3. SC's devaluation of you discs by marking them, the time you spent doing you audit, take you hourly rate and multiply it by the time it took you to actually get everything together, go where ever do the audit pack it all back up and go home. These must be included as an attorney would charge you these if he came to you for something, and so on.

Let us know exactly what it cost you and just how long you feel it will take to recoup the monies spent.

I figure never as you can not recoup it doing your regular karaoke gigs unless you raise your rates.

No hard feelings just want to know.

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

I'll see what I can do. I know they are looking at revamping the site. I will make sure that information is added as soon as it can be.

What makes you think that the discs are devalued by the marking process?

Since the marks are not visible under regular light, and the marks are in a non-data area of the disc, what exactly is the basis for your assertion that the discs are worth less marked than unmarked?

Anything in not in original form is a devaluation. Ask how many people here would let you mark their SC8125. I doubt you will find any and if you do then they really don't care about the value of something unique.

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

I'm not sure I'm in the correct forum for this question...but here goes anyway! When I request an audit from Sound Choice, what do I need to show them?
Original discs *check*
Receipts *long gone!*
Song book? *check*

The SC that I have isn't much, Foundation from .. 10 years ago purchase, Bricks 1, 2 & 3.. and a few odds and ends. That's it. The receipts for these purchases went out with the trash years ago. We're only required to keep records for what? 7 years? It's been at least that long since I purchased these disc's.

Also, I media shifted all my disc's not knowing it was illegal. I thought as long as I could show the original it was fine (1:1). Do I have to now shift back to disk based shows? Redo my books to include song number again?? That will be a huge amount of work...

I got permission from Chartbuster to media shift... will Sound Choice give me permission BEFORE an audit so I don't have to make new books... (I emailed them a week ago and have had no reply)

_________________
SoundChoice Certification coming soon!

May have answered my own question... from SC website (link posted by Leopard Lizard above) "We understand the desire to make life easier by shifting all your song content (i.e., not running the original discs) to a computer and running your shows from a laptop. Unfortunately, this format/media shift from CDG to MP3G files on your computer is not an authorized right that is granted to Karaoke producers in their CDG licenses from the publishers, therefore Karaoke producers cannot in turn grant you full rights to make this shift."

So by SC's website they don't have the authority to grant permission to media shift....

By this statement, CB doesn't have the right to grant permission either...

_________________
SoundChoice Certification coming soon!

I as I'm sure others would appreciate having that information readily available and straight from the horses mouth so to speak.

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

OMG! Later in that webpage SC says that they'll grant a “Covenant Not to Sue” document BEFORE an audit. Sheesh.. they'll agree not to sue when it sounds to me that they don't have to right to grant permission to media shift.. how can they have the right to sue for it then?

Kept seeing the word "ambiguous" in these forums.. and now I know why!!

I give up! Time for the call to SC to arrange an audit... this is what someone was saying about twisting our arms to pay for such audit.

I don't mind the audit, but am going to mind very much if this turns out to be another yearly cost of doing business.

_________________
SoundChoice Certification coming soon!

There is a lot of confusion because of slight shifts in the policy over time as some things have worked and others have not.

Lisah, here is some information that hopefully will clarify things for you.

1. In order to media-shift SC's tracks, you need SC's permission. That permission covers the rights that SC has (including trademark and some copyright). Without SC's permission, the media-shift is unauthorized and you could be sued. Please see part A below for an explanation about what the material on the website is talking about.

2. In order to get SC's permission, you need to be audited. The audit process is relatively simple and will require you to submit to a review of your discs, your hard drive, and your songbook or a printout of the tracks on your system. The discs will be marked with a UV ink that is specially formulated to be applied to the plastic that the CDs are made out of. It is generally not visible under normal light. (It may be visible for a short period of time after it is applied; after about a week, we find in most cases that it becomes invisible again.) Your hard drive will be examined to verify that the tracks you have on it are in 1:1 correspondence with your disc collection. The cost of the audit is currently $125, and that covers the cost of administering the program.

3. For a pre-suit audit, you do not need to submit receipts. Having them available is not a bad idea, though. For a post-suit audit, it may be necessary to provide receipts, if you can, to resolve questions about the timing of your acquisition of the discs (and to prove that you own them and aren't merely borrowing them from someone else).

4. If you have already ripped your tracks to your hard drive, that's OK. You do not need to delete them, remove them from a book, or otherwise hide them. The point of the audit is to compare the hard drive to your discs--you have to have moved them before we can audit you.


----

Now, part A:

A. In any given karaoke track, there are potentially four or more persons or corporations that have rights in various pieces of the work. The manu (such as SC) can give you a "license"--basically, a document that says, "You have our permission, and we won't sue you for doing this"--that covers all of the rights they have. But there are other entities, like the music publisher, that may have other rights that you might be violating if you media-shift a track.

In our view--and believe me, we have researched this question thoroughly--the music publishers probably (a) aren't interested in stopping you from doing a 1:1 media-shift and (b) would have a tough time in court if they were to try. The main reason for this is a 1984 Supreme Court case, Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., that said, essentially, that various kinds of shifting of copyrighted content amount to "fair use" and therefore cannot be stopped by the copyright owner. (This case is referred to as the "Betamax" case, because the dispute was over the use of Betamax recorders to time-shift the content of broadcast television.)

Since all of the rights in your media-shifted tracks are based on copyright (except for SC's trademark rights), a 1:1 media-shift probably falls into the exception created by the Betamax case as to the copyright rights. So, with an audit from SC and permission based on the trademark rights, and your legal ability to shift and avoid copyright infringement liability, you are probably covered.

The reason why it's "probably" is because (a) we can't speak for the music publishers, and (b) if they want to sue you to challenge your right to do the media-shift, we can't stop them. I have yet to see any of the audited KJs even approached by a music publisher, much less sued. I'll be surprised if they ever are.