Karaoke Forums

If they can do that for GEM series owners what would be any different then doing the same for disk owners who have shown they own and play from the original SC disks?

GEM Series Owners and 1:1 audited KJ's are on a list that I'm assuming is provided to investigators that our out looking for pirates. How hard would it be to do the same for KJ's owning and playing original SC disks?

KJ provides list of disks with documented proof (receipts if available and photos of each disk).

Isn't that what they want from audited KJ's that purchase additional SC content after the fact?

_________________
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.

Actually, you only need to be audited once to obtain the covenant not to sue. The covenant is perpetual as long as you inform SC any time you increase your CD collection by 2% or more. They will not require a new audit, just an updated song/disc list and probably photos of the new discs.

SC is looking at that as a possible delivery mechanism for the future. There are some licensing issues that would have to be sorted out, but it is something they are looking into.

+1

Nope. Sorry. If you use the discs you purchased in a karaoke player you are still at risk of being sued.... Apparently, SC has no control over that..... they just file the suits ....

(yeah, right)




2% or more of which brand of song? Any brand? Do they want to know if you've purchased a bunch of Zoom, Legends, etc... and if so, how does that become any of their business?

If you purchase discs off ebay.... how does that become any of their business as well?....

What amazes me is the failure of most of their own contracted-customers to look forward in time more than a week.... Call it speculation if you like -- and I expect you will -- but I see a velvet-lined noose being slipped around the necks of those that sign their contracts while being told it's really a badge of honor...

The 2% applies to Sound Choice material only. I will be sending them an update next week as I will be close to 2% change after I get back home in a few hours and start moving some newly purchased (through eBay and private sales) discs over to my system.

Simple enough to do and a lot less work than many of the other aspects of running my karaoke business.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Let's posit the question as it was actually presented.

If you play at least most of your show from a computer system that's visible to the investigator, play SC from original discs using a player you hide in a booth, and make zero effort to alert anyone that your SC material is being treated differently from the remainder of your correction, I don't think it requires bad faith on the part of the investigator to conclude that the SC material is being played from the hard drive.

If you are openly playing your original discs such that an investigator who is doing his job will notice that fact, you will not be sued.

Chip, I think the problem you and Julie seem to be having is that Rule 11 simply does not require a plaintiff to be 100% certain of the facts before filing suit. All that is required is a good-faith belief that infringement has occurred. You are never going to be at the point where our procedures, properly followed, don't constitute good faith.



2% additional SC songs. We have no interest in whether our certified KJs are playing any other brand.



It's hysterical comments like this that lead me to conclude that you're not being rational about this. If you want to know what "Sound Choice Derangement Syndrome" is, here it is, writ large: the irrational belief that every action taken by SC, no matter how apparently innocuous or even helpful it might be, is evilly calculated to destroy karaoke operators.

The people who have actually been voluntarily audited uniformly report that the experience was a positive one. The requirements aren't onerous and the benefits are real. This isn't an IRS audit. We're not looking to put anyone in jail or extract huge payments from them (as legal operators). There aren't any "gotcha" games. We're not looking to dictate the scope and flow of your business operations. We simply want to assure ourselves that you're making proper use of SC's intellectual property, and in exchange you get our seal of approval and our recommendation when we get requests for KJs in your area.

Why would we want to harm the legal operators who meet our 1:1 correspondence requirements? We don't. In fact, as long as we are reasonably sure that they meet our requirements, we want to hold those people up as paragons of virtue, as models for the karaoke industry.

I understand that is what you think. Apparently, you haven't set any standards for your karaoke entertainment services. First, you were simply going to steal the music. You were allegedly set straight by the members of this forum. Now you have professed over and over again that you are willing to go with sub-standard tracks and do everything on the cheap because your karaoke participants don't care even as much (little) as you do about quality.

I advertise the largest Sound Choice selection available within 100 miles. I live/work in Colorado Ski country and we get visitors from all over the country and the rest of the world here... Sound Choice and Chartbuster are the most requested brands whenever a brand is requested. I am not advertising for a particular mfr, but I am advertising that I (my karaoke company) offer the best selection available, legally from ALL mfr's.



c. staley is the individual who prints signs that inform his customers that he will not play any SC track. He can fill you in on the details and maybe even provide you with the graphics to print your own.



The quality stands on its own. Your stance on the company's business practices aside. Dealing with the audits (I don't know if an inspector ever visited my show, but Kurt Slep himself did) isn't for the quality. Dealing with audits is prudent and practical so that I can 1) Move my CD+G content to a hard drive and use a computer to produce my shows and 2) Possess the licensing and permissions necessary to preempt any legal action from these mfr's. Yes, plural, because even Chartbuster has filed suit against KJ's and venues and has an audit system in place. FYI: Sound Choice is still in business and still produces, they have always had other "sticks in the fire". Their Foundation sets are still considered to be ideal for starting out with a quality base from which to build on. Doing business with these companies and adhering to their policies has resulted in many benefits for my business including but not limited to discounts on their products as well as peace of mind with regard to any issues arising from computer use during the production of a show.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

You and I both know that it does not state that on any compact disc.

That is beside the point.

The state of the karaoke industry (with the exception of your pirate-free part of the world) has made it very difficult to identify who is playing by the rules and who is not. The rules state very clearly that you may not duplicate and use the content of the mfr's original product without being granted the right to do so.

No one has required you to do anything. They have stated that if you wish to do something that infringes upon the rights reserved by the producer/mfr, you must show that you are indeed, playing by the rules.

The proper use of rights that I am talking about is the right to create a digital copy of their product and use it in the production of your karaoke shows.

You seem to be concerned that if you decide to put your SC discs to use, that you or your venue will be named in a suit. It would seem completely reasonable to me to avoid that likelihood by taking steps to make it OBVIOUS to anyone that you are playing the tracks from the original CD+G.

Here's an example of a free and nearly effortless step to get the intended result: Host/KJ says: "The karaoke track you are about to see and hear is being played from the manufacturer's original CD+G" (at some point before inserting said CD+G into the player tray, the Host/KJ holds the disc up, label side toward the audience and then continues with the production of the show). This might happen a half-dozen times per show, if that often. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

Absolutely the most ridiculous suggestion I've ever heard you come up with MtnKaraoke.... And a sign of true paranoia that there would be some (most likely incompetent) investigator "lurking" in the audience. Sorry, I don't run my show under that kind restraint - I haven't for close to 20 years and I shouldn't ever have to.

But I do have to ask: Do you play SC tracks less than a "half-dozen times per show?"

I've never suggested there was ever a plan to "destroy" anyone counsel.... that's your invention.



There are absolutely "gotcha games" going on. And SC is looking to "dictate the scope and flow" of all the customers it can wrangle into getting their product. If they were not, there would be no (read that as "none, zip, zilch") provisions in the Gem series "contract" that would include controlling the "quality and service" of a karaoke show and no provision for the inspection of financial records under ANY circumstances either.

Not to mention the other seemingly innocuous -- but seedy-- provisions your contract grants and assigns to your client or recent actions....

All I would say is that anyone who signs that contract will get a nice "surprise" soon enough. When do you plan on telling your Gem customers (with your recently filed trademark) that in accordance with the contract they've signed with SC that they are actually franchisee's and no longer independent business owners? The restrictions you've given them and the rights you've assigned to your client makes them exactly that: a franchisee.... no longer in control of their own business when it comes to SC product.



Now I believe you're the one who's being irrational.



Can you spread it on a little thicker?

I think you missed a few spots....

Quick, somebody call Jesse "The Body" Ventura. He has to investigate this evil conspiracy and get to the bottom of it.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Another one of your typical "Drive-by-insult-and-run" moves timberlea?

Can you possibly contribute anything other than the above to this thread or debate?

It grows old and tiring... like a broken record...

When you state that our audit and certification program is a "velvet-lined noose," that is very much a plan to destroy. Nooses have but one purpose.



Nice job of conflating the audit and certification program with the GEM license, which is a different topic.

In any event, this merely demonstrates your utter lack of understanding of the trademark law. A GEM licensee receives an actual license to use the trademark--not just a "covenant not to sue." Trademark licenses must have a quality control provision in order to be valid. The right to inspect financial records is in place in the event that (1) the licensee has been playing more shows that he has licensed systems, or (2) the licensee cannot produce discs when requested to do so, in which case we would need to verify that they were not sold. Avoid those two scenarios and we won't look at your financials at all.



Word salad.



Because we want to police the use of our intellectual property? I wonder why any business would want to do that.

I'd be holding up a disc more than 75-80% of the night.

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

Just like your rantings and misinformation, Chip.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Wrong again.

A snare is also a noose.



My understanding is you can't get the Gem without an audit so they are very much the same topic.



(1) A licensee (franchisee) can run more systems than they own of the Gem series... provided the gems are not on them and that doesn't require access to financials. So that's nothing more than another "noose" in my opinion. (and not humble opinion either) Besides, checking discs is EXACTLY what your audit is for... and you've conveniently built that in too... You don't have to see financials if you simply conduct another one of your "audits" right?


(2) They can't produce the discs? They lose the license right? Do you really expect someone who would sell a gem disc is actually going to record the sale in their financials? Really? Still no real reason for access to financials other than curiosity for additional sales.





Policing the use of your intellectual property is -in my not so humble opinion- a facade.

I guess there are a lot of things that are within your "understanding" that you do not actually understand. You do not need to be audited first to get the GEM series.



*sigh* If even half of the things you believe about SC were actually true, I couldn't work for them.




The term "financials" would include bank records, which are harder to hide. So yes, I want access to that to be able to recover the product in the unlikely event that ever happens.



A facade for what, exactly? I'm curious to know how your mind works.

You're right... my mistake.... (quick! somebody call the news cameras!)

A licensee has to agree to audits in the future in order to get the series.

So there's is in effect no appreciable difference anyway, but thanks for the correction.




Excuse me whilst' I pick my jaw off the floor.....

Conscience bothering you somehow?



Your contract doesn't cover "personal financials" does it? Or is the language just vague enough to be all-encompassing?....

Inquiring minds want to know....




I am sure you are.

Time to get more popcorn.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger