Karaoke Forums

Why the difference in price?? DT cna licence the download, but CAN"T LICENSE THE USAGE. Therefore, no reason to charge one price for home use- the only one allowed- and commercial use, which they can't license.

SO- why the price difference?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

It appeared to me that most of the "for home use" cloud solutions I have seen design their delivery tool so that it is difficult to incorporate in a KJ's show. I haven't looked at the Virtual DJ solution so I can't place this comment direction on that solution.

Joe, I edited something at the end of that post in question, not in that first paragraph (which contains the sentence I am talking about). I see that you edited your post but you still altered it. The quote that you edited, where did I say CLARK cost me $53 per disc?

Let me warn you about Karaoke Channel. Harrington told me, point blank, if a SC inspector happens to see you playing KC songs in public, it WILL be reported to their legal people and you could get named in a suit. If he hadn't told me that, I would be buying up KC songs like crazy, since they are actually SC.


James, you want to get in on this??

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

The KARAOKE Channel
730 Wellington Street
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
H3C 1T4

Now if the (SC) songs were sold to an OUTSIDE company? Why would J.H. have anything to do with it(whether it's use is legal or not), unless it was merely/solely a strategic (artificial) move to avoid paying licensing fees to US Music companies and/or continue to sell (illegal karaoke tracks) in the US and keep it in the family? What is the connection?

If you pay for downloadable content what inhibits you from using that content? Besides someone just saying so! I mean legally, you buy content from outside the USA and pay for it, what is to stop it from being used? Now I can see if it was recorded from TV and then used without being bought, but there is nothing on the website that I could find alluding to it's restricted use of PURCHASED songs(not streaming). Even if someone here could find it, it is not plain as day.

Is JH suing people on behalf of K-channel?

_________________
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it sarcastically!
The Truth often gets in the way of a good story.
Record companies should make every song in a karaoke version and kill the dispute!

EXACTLY!!!!!!!

_________________
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it sarcastically!
The Truth often gets in the way of a good story.
Record companies should make every song in a karaoke version and kill the dispute!

Just going by what I was told. JH is NOT suing on behalf of KC, BUT his inspectors TELL KC about people who are using their product commercially, and then THEY sue you.

Seeing that Harrington is on site right now, How about it, Jim, tell us about using Karaoke Channel music in public.

Ok, either Harrington's position has changed on this, OR he is refusing to say anything.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

A bar here used Karaoke Channel (they would download on the spot FROM KC yes paying for them) - and they WERE named in a suit, now are GEM owners and no longer use Karaoke Channel from what I understand.

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

I don't know if I would worry so much about using something you paid for? Especially when it's price point is higher than that of US competition, $1.49 per song K-Channel, $.45 per song All Star karaoke? I am not a mathematician but it looks like 3 times the cost for zero usability. The Gem has so much fluff plus you never really own it.

I am going to buy all the rare songs before they disappear.

If you use K-Channel songs without buying them I would sue you too.

_________________
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it sarcastically!
The Truth often gets in the way of a good story.
Record companies should make every song in a karaoke version and kill the dispute!

You aren't getting it, are you? Sound Choice monitors the use of it's product AND the use of KC. If an inspector sees you using KC in your show EXPECT to be named in a lawsuit, just as if you were using SC on your computer without permission, regardless whether or not you bought it!! They enforce the "not for public use" clause. Trust me, if it were something not to worry about, I would have a TON of KC music by now. I would replace my whole Sound Choice collection with Karaoke Channel, if I didn't have to worry about being sued for it. I buy from Tricerasoft, All Star, DigiTrax, Zoom, Sunfly, SBI, and Karaoke Version, but I will NOT buy ANYTHING having to do with Sound Choice until they drop their litigation model, or Karaoke Channel gets licensed for Commercial use, which I have been told, by them AND Harrington, they are not interested in doing.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Obviously the decision to bring a lawsuit, or not, would be in the hands of Stingray. However, what you have said is accurate. If we see an operator using KC songs in a commercial show, that activity is reported to Stingray for disposition.

It ought to be a sufficient answer to say "because they can," but your assertions about licensing are an incomplete statement of the rules (and laws) regarding licensing. A more complete statement, which I will give below, illustrates exactly why there is a price difference beyond DT's whim.

First, DT--as the owner or exclusive licensee of the copyright in the sound recordings--has an exclusive right in the public performance of the sound recording because it was transmitted via a digital download. Ordinarily, the owner of copyright in a sound recording cannot control the public performance of the sound recording. The one exception is when there is a digital transmission (delivery) of the sound recording. For that reason, DT can set conditions on public performance of a sound recording in a way that music producers normally cannot. The fact that permission that DT gives is insufficient to enable a public performance does not mean that the DT gives is unnecessary.

Second, the music publishers have the right to set conditions on DT's ability to sell downloads. Those conditions include additional fees associated with downloads that are sold or distributed to commercial users, to be paid to the publisher. That causes DT's costs to be higher for downloads to commercial users; as a result, DT charges more for commercial users to obtain the tracks.

This also explains why other companies that offer downloads restrict them to private, home use only. They either do not have licensing for, or do not want to pay for, commercial downloads.

_________________
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it sarcastically!
The Truth often gets in the way of a good story.
Record companies should make every song in a karaoke version and kill the dispute!

You have something wrong. DTE's downloads do not have different prices. They cost $1.99 each. There IS a difference between their Cloud subscription prices.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Thanks for pointing that out. I was referring to the cloud pricing, not individual downloads--but I'll point out that at $1.99, there is ample room in the individual download pricing to pay the higher royalties associated with commercial use.

I will also say that I have no direct knowledge of DT's licensing practices; I have knowledge of what the music publishers are agreeable to these days, but it is entirely possible they are operating under different parameters.

It's still too bad that your client refuses to open up his product to single downloads.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

downloads?!?!?! they cant even get licensing to make discs anymore.

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

!!! True!!!

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Short memories...

From: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=26604&p=348339&hilit=+resolution#p348339

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

The fact that permission that DT gives is insufficient to enable a public performance does not mean that the DT gives is unnecessary.

1) The download distributor cannot give any usage permissions AT ALL. Therefore, any INSUFFICIENT permissions would, by definition, be UNNECCESARY.

2) Since digital transmissions are neither considered Original Manufacturers' Media, nor easily proved to be Original Manufacturers' product, a host is certainly taking chances with liability.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."