Karaoke Forums

8) I'm just wondering if the idea I floated over two years ago is due for another look? I have always felt that a simple fee to shift material from one media to another is the go to move for manus like SC, rather than this one size fits all legal approach of theirs. This shifting license would apply only to SC and is offered without the audit. The license has to be renewed every year in order to continue to use the SC product. It would eliminate the need to license the $5,000.00 GEM series, which is to cost prohibitive for most KJ's. If as James says the number of illegal hosts are 90% or more, it could net a great deal of money for SC, and the only cost would be the printing of the licenses. At least this way there would be a record of the number of hosts out here, and that way you could begin to get a handle on the problem. If the yearly license fee is the cost of an audit $150.00, and most hosts sign up it could raise a great deal of money for SC on a yearly basis, without the legal expenses they are now incurring. I know that this is too simple a plan for such a complex problem, but it is a way to settle things quickly and still recover money for SC. Now I'll wait for the incoming. Have a nice day.

...Just wanted to pull this quote out:

"This shifting license would apply only to SC and is offered without the audit."

...So, without an audit does that mean a TRUE PIRATE could just get a certificate that would cover his/her ILLEGALLY OBTAINED SC TRACKS? Meaning that they never purchased any original SC Discs.

...Not trying to be a jerk here but I just don't see that working.

Which sounds like something similar to Stellar Records' (Pop Hits Monthly/Sing It Now) CAP Program.




And then you would need to get a license from:
Backstage
Dangerous
DK
Legends
Lost Classics
Music Maestro
Nikkodo
NuTech
Performance Tracks
Pioneer
Pocket Songs
Pop Hits Monthly
Priddis
Sound Images
Standing Ovation
Sunfly
Top Hits Today
Top Hits Monthly
Top Tunes
Zoom

Just to name a few.

And how much would you suggest the KJ pay for all of those? I don't know about you, but I haven't done a show in 1 year now (due to my regular job interfering with that). But, when I was doing shows, I was doing about 10 to 12 shows in the whole year. I was getting paid between $150 to $200 per show. Now, at (your proposed) $150 per license per Manufacturer, I think I would end up paying to do a show instead of earning.

Simple fee to shift?

The very act of shifting requires that you have an original mfr's product from which to shift.

How do you determine whether the shifted product originated from an original mfr's product that is in the possession of the shifter?

I would create a fee structure like the following:

Shift fee without an audit = $10,000.00 (annual) per system.

Shift fee with an audit = $150.00 (annual) per system.

The idea of a blanket fee without verification rewards thieves and punishes those of us who have played by the rules regardless of the brand of karaoke that is used.

The idea that you brought up 2 years ago was nonsense then and it still is now.

In Canada, for media shifting for commercial use we have AVLA where you can pay a yearly licence of over $330 + taxes for DJ music. Unfortunately due to the sync licencing, karaoke is not included. But that may give you an idea of what the possible costs could be.

Paradigm Karaoke wrote: "that is the point, unless you have done an SC audit, you ARE a thief in the eyes of Slep-Tone until you prove otherwise. no one else is calling you a thief."

... I hear ya and agree, if a KJ shifts without permission. However, I'm not completely Digital nor am I a completely Original Disc Based KJ. I'm a self-proclaimed Hybrid Host (Media Shifted with all others Karaoke Manufacturers except SC, I play their tracks from original discs).

...The reason for my "rebellious rant" was because it looked like a poster (from a few post up) was suggesting that I join the rat squad, turn in my friends and try to avoid looking in mirrors. His posting directly followed mine. Didn't know he was referring to Athena. Especially since she hasn't posted in this thread or these forums for some time now.

...As I side note, yes, I would much rather have a "One-Stop Karaoke Audit" System than paying several different Manufacturers for multiple audits.

A fee to shift without verification is worthless to me. An audit to verify legal status is a necessary evil. To assume that everyone who pays your fee has the discs or paperwork to show they legally buy their music makes an <span style=font-size:10px><i>(@$%&#!)</i></span> out of you and me.

I guess you might be missing something- SC does not have the authority to give you permission to shift the music or the lyrics, and the publishers aren't looking for a fee.

SC only has the say-so on their logo, which is completely worhtless in regard to running a karaoke show, which means no damages can be sought.

"So karaoke is not included in Canada, so really no type of license is necessary for karaoke in Canada? The thing about Canada is AVLA is government run and not one company trying to do the job of government and take upon itself the regulation of the karaoke industry. Have a blessed day."

No, wrong as usual. If you bothered to read the site, you would have learned that they tell you you have to obtain the permission and pay any fees yourself. AVLA IS NOT a government organization and as far as I can tell, receives no government funding. They are organized more closely to that of SOCAN in Canada or ASCAP and the rest in the US, collecting for the copyright holders.

Now folks see how easy it is to get bad information on the net especially when one doesn't verify their claims.

No, wrong as usual. If you bothered to read the site, you would have learned that they tell you you have to obtain the permission and pay any fees yourself. AVLA IS NOT a government organization and as far as I can tell, receives no government funding. They are organized more closely to that of SOCAN in Canada or ASCAP and the rest in the US, collecting for the copyright holders.

Paradigm, permission from the Copyright holder and for a Trademark, the Trademark holder. I thought I had put it in. Sorry.