Karaoke Forums

Recently, Sound Choice announced that it was returning to production in two ways, one with the reissuance (as part of the GEM series) of some previously discontinued tracks, and one with the recording and distribution of new material for the first time in about four years.

That announcement was predicated on new licenses that SC had received from two of the four major music publishing groups as well as favorable indications from a third group. As a practical matter, because so much of the available catalog is represented by the four major publishers, their consent is necessary to the legal production of new material.

Unfortunately, for reasons that are not altogether clear, the two groups that had issued licenses decided to assert a position regarding ownership of the underlying sound recordings that is very different from any position they had previously taken (or agreed to). The position they are taking stands well outside the established law regarding the ownership of copyright. It is well established the ownership of copyright in a sound recording belongs to the person or entity who makes the sound recording, regardless of the fact that the making of the sound recording may require a so-called "mechanical" license. The music publishers are asserting that, notwithstanding the law, they own the copyrights in previously made sound recordings and would own the copyright in any new sound recordings. Permitting such an arrangement would expose SC potentially to competition from its licensors and would prevent it from conducting other business using those sound recordings--business in which the publishers have no legal say or stake.

Last week, representatives of SC attempted in good faith to resolve this dispute with the licensors in an in-person meeting. We have not yet been successful at our goal of resolving the issue, but we are working on it. Until the dispute is resolved, it will not be possible to produce new music. Ironically, SC has been at the forefront of protection of the publishers' rights by pursuing litigation against operators who pirate SC's--and the publishers'--materials, yet the publishers have chosen to attack SC with these unreasonable positions instead of pursuing the numerous manufacturers who produce and sell karaoke music without paying a dime in royalties.

We are hopeful that we will be able to resolve this issue, because it is the only issue holding up the production and release of new material.

they are claiming that THEY own the SC re-recordings of all the tracks?

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

Yes.

I would like to know if companies such as DT, SyberSound, All Star, or others have run into this situation.

If what Jim states is correct, and the other companies are also running into it, then I would guess that someone made enough noise to awaken the sleeping giants (Publishers/owners), and they will be looking for a much bigger piece of the pie- to begin with.

This would NOT be good for the industry as a whole.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Oh man, it sure sucks when a technicality of law is used to ruin your business plans.
I guess no manufacturer will ever be able to produce karaoke music again.
Bummer.
SC10013-13

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

With no new material I guess we will all be doing Golden Oldies Shows eventually. I'm not convinced that all of this delay is contractual disputes between SC and the owners of the music rights. I remember one of the excuses James gave for the delay and another missed deadline was the over $200,000 that Donna Boris and APS with held from SC. That matter is still pending in the courts and has not been settled. It could be SC doesn't have the money to pay the licensing fees, or maybe the publishers tried to increase the fees and SC could simply not meet their demands. I know I'm speculating again, my bad. One thing I don't understand is why SC keeps setting these deadlines, when they don't even have a firm contract in hand? It makes them look bad when once again they miss their own deadline. How can James say new production will be in a certain month, when they can't even start production until they finish the contract talks. It would be better to give no deadlines until there ducks are in a row, right? Unless they are feeling the pressure that it is necessary to make new product to be taken seriously as a still viable manu. Have a blessed day.

Add this to the blocking of the UK imports and it does look like the publishers are on the move.

Possession of original factory cd's is looking like a real good thing to have again. If copyright holders get into the fight, things will get much worst. Your best line of defense will be ownership of physical material.

Since it is virtually impossible to know exactly what caused this rift between publishers and SC, I will comment on this OP, and perhaps include a possible scenario or two to ponder at the end.

One commentator mentioned that "jumping the gun" on advertising new/reissued material is not wise...this is not difficult to conclude. Having "assurances", even "promises", is not enough to stick one's neck out. Other posts in this forum over the years have made note of other issues SC has encountered by "jumping the gun".

I find it interesting that at least two publishers (which, ultimately, are COMPETITORS) have aligned their positions regarding ownership. If this is what has truly happened, it appears something has changed or newly occurred that has spurred this alignment of policy [hmmmm...repositioning of a policy to suit one's needs--SOUNDs like a familiar CHOICE (sorry, couldn't resist the opportunity to be a bit satirical)]. IF something was done to engage the wrath of the publishers, it perhaps was enough to make the conditions for future production of any type to be outside the reach of possibility. If they are doing something "outside the established law", then it seems litigation would be a viable solution. [EDIT: Just a thought: I am not sure if "established law" might be a bit of a misnomer, especially since if something is a LAW, that in and of itself makes it "established". The only exception that comes to mind is the term "common law", which I have only heard used characterize the long-term relationship between a man and a woman, recognized as legally binding in some states...just not sure if it is relative in this scenario.] Ultimately, it would seem that since they are individual companies, they can choose whether to work with other companies or not, despite past affiliation. One might even speculate that this could be in reaction to some past activity that might have left a bad taste in their mouth. Since, in this case, the only major activity over the last four years has been litigation against end-users and re-release of past music that was accomplished via overseas production, for sale in the US (a practice which, as mentioned often in this forum, was legally halted), perhaps there is SOMETHING about this approach that they might not have liked...

Many companies have had to learn to operate with adjusted profit margins, due to changes in market conditions, supply and demand, technological advancements, etc., or either move out of the way for new companies who understand these challenges coming in and can establish their infrastructure accordingly. Ultimately, the needs and demands of the everyday consumer drive the vehicle on the road of successful commercial production. Sometimes, if a road is no longer financially or logistically viable to be repaired, it is time for a NEW road to be built...

Having a "best line of defense" will only accomplish so much. It seems that if it is determined that the publishers would have a dog in this fight, that even the best case scenario of the loss of useable material for karaoke shows would be significant to any given person's operation...

This is why I choose to under-commit and over-produce most of the time. Has served me very well in my career.

I would almost rather Sound Choice go completely dark then surprise us with a disc than to be promised something that turns into vaporware.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Obviously, "surprise us with a disc" is not a successful business model, but neither is promising the moon and delivering nothing more than "the moon" written on an index card...

"I'm not convinced that all of this delay is contractual disputes between SC and the owners of the music rights."

And some people aren't convinced man walked on the moon.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I think even you would have to admit Timerlea it makes SC look like the little boy who cried wolf, to keep setting these release deadlines, making them public, only to blame some other reason for the delay. It would seem that the company before making an announcement would at least have the contract issues settled. Have a blessed day.

And how many times has Apple or Microsoft or any other companies announced things only to later announce delays? I for one am patient and understand there are delays whether putting out music, building a house, or whatever.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Maybe if it were just one delay, or maybe even two delays, but this has been going on since last Fall. We don't have all the information that is true, but still this with the other set backs for SC, really makes a person wonder who is in charge. Have a blessed day.

You are only assuming what is being said is not true.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Gentlemen...can we not at least agree that, from a consumer standpoint, all that matters is the facts of this matter, those being that product has been advertised to be released, and for whatever reason, that is not happening? Most of the time, changes in release dates for products is the result of circumstances beyond the control of the releaser, and not having licensing in place should not qualify as such. A promise or gentlemen's agreement for licensing, or whatever, is just not enough to make claims under this umbrella, since a manufacturer's signature on a licensing agreement is totally under the control of the manufacturer...

I see it's all speculation until something really happens. I guess the total collapse of CB was a complete surprise to everyone since they were selling and making product up to the very end. The only thing SC is making currently is GEM and maybe a few other disc packages, using the example of CB, just how close are they to imploding? You want facts even a policeman has to take the, what facts he has, and try to come up with some idea about a crime. It was the so called industry experts at the last summit which first put out the idea, if Cloud failed it could lead to the implosion of the remaining viable karaoke manus. The question is still out here, is SC still a viable karaoke company? Have a blessed day.

You seem to have missed the part where I said we have signed agreements.