Karaoke Forums

You mean the people that SAY they bought is and put it on their computers. Everyone knows that a LOT of people are stealing the content. The only way to prove they possess the discs is to ask them to prove it somehow.

No one has proposed any kind of alternate solution that can be implemented at scale that is affordable. The manufacturers have to do something to protect their content and this is the only viable means right now.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Actually Chris there is a way to avoid having to prove anything and that is simply to boycott the SC product. No SC no need to prove, this can be implemented by the individual host on an affordable scale, and it quite effective in complying with SC's wishes. The other option is caving in and licensing GEM then you don't have to prove anything either.

Perfectly valid if you never had much SC content to begin with. But there are many people that have invested thousands of dollars in SC over the years and that is NOT a realistic scenario. There are plenty of people that like the SC sound and prefer SC over other brands so it again, is not a realistic scenario.

I guess I have caved in. Twice. Since I will soon have two GEM's.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Once you have licensed your GEM series Chris you didn't have to prove anything to anyone did you?

I still have to provide a 2% variance as per my audit agreement, so....Yes.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

There. I fixed it for you.

not quite....
you are not avoiding "getting caught stealing", I am not avoiding "getting caught stealing", Chris is not avoiding "getting caught stealing", Lon is not avoiding "getting caught stealing", the ones stealing are not the ones paying, it is the ones NOT stealing who are paying for this.
Licensing the GEM is not the only way to be an honest American either. i am an honest American, Lon is an honest American,

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

Fix your own posts Bazza I meant it as I wrote it period.

Just one question Chris how many times have you gone back since licensing GEM, for this 2% variance check? Since SC has made no new product in four years, and they don't check any other brand but their own, there is no variance that needs to be checked is there. If you want to set up another rig you just license another GEM and your covered, right? So for all practical reasons there is no need for a variance check is there?

Brian, if Chris buy any SC discs that contain music not available with the GEMS, he has to report it if he grows his collection 2% or more.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Naturally I'm not familiar with SC's methods of regulating their product since I don't use it smooth. Is this just the SC in his collection if it grows 2% or more? This surely doesn't apply to other materials which are not in the SC sphere of influence, right? I doubt very much anyone will be going back and checking on content after GEM is licensed, unless several more rigs are added without any GEM series being licensed. Just like the host that licensed GEM doesn't have to go through the bother of an audit. The sale has been made and they go on to the next potential sale. The only time they will go back through the list most likely is when they have exhausted all the potential new prospects and decide to go through the libraries once again.

Touched a nerve eh? No surprise.

The honest among us know what's going on here.

It seems that if Sound Choice can't get a SLAM DUNK victory over the Karaoke Kandy Store; I find it next to impossible to believe that they could win a cxase against someone like Lonnie; who actually owns all of the Sound Choice discs that have been media shifted to his computer. That being said; why should someone like Lonnie PAY to be audited. He has a gig where he gets paid 7 days a week. A piece of paper that says he is certified is useless to him. The only person that makes out in that situation is Kurt. Sounds like a Double dip to me.

I already went through the audit by my choice about a year & half ago.

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

1) Want KJs to prove something for the karaoke companys' benefit? Fine! Just pay the KJ for his/her time, which is equally valuable or more so. If there are no problems, the KJ has been compensated for the waste of time. If there ARE discrepancies, than add the cost of the audit to the "settlement" or suit.

I have brought this up several times, it's fair to EVERYONE, and no one has yet posted a sensible reason why it shouldn't be done this way.

Charging for an audit that is only of benefit to the company doing the fishing ( and signing the most ridiculously ballsy document I've ever seen in the process) is pure chutzpah. SC notes that the audits cost money to do, once again because they have to pay for the auditors' time ( Maybe, that is. If the auditor is someone who gets a piece of what they can make off of a settlement- like Jim- then the cost is pretty mush zero from the front end) then what they are doing is saying that the auditors' time is worth money, but the KJ's time ( which is part of his saleable product) is not. Sorry, but that excuse doesn't fly.

So, any VALID reason why my suggestion wouldn't be fair?

2) Use of the phrase "alternate solution" suggests that what SC is doing IS a piracy solution. We- I believe this may include you as well, Chris- have seen that it is not ( and unfortunately, pirates have seen it too- the price of incredible mismanagement) and therefore isn't valid either. As a matter of fact, what they have done in court may well have made pirates even more comfortable.

F PR is running on a similar concept, I can only hope they end up with a better execution. Time will tell.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

The reasoning for the host paying SC for the audit would be that the host is the one who benefits by being allowed to make a copy of their product--convenience, less carrying, etc. Why should SC pay the host so the host can get the benefit?

You do understand the obtuse nature of the post which you are responding to, correct?

_________________
-- Mark

the benefit is not the issue, the issue is making sure a host does not get sued for not purchasing the music they purchased.
if you are using a computer, you have stolen all your material and own no discs unless otherwise stated and Insane McCarthy will lable you a pirate...anyone remember McCarthyism?
basically Kurt is saying "someone is stealing my stuff so until they are all turned in, the rest of you will have to pay me for their theft".

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