Karaoke Forums

I am actually okay with a recurring annual maintenance fee for certification provided there is some real verification that takes place. Just paying $100 a year without have to submit any information or having anyone take a peek at things is a fee without maintenance.

I see this as the cost of doing business.

_________________
-Chris

Police definitions:
1) the civil force of a national or local government, responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order.
2) the internal organization or regulation of a political unit through exercise of governmental powers especially with respect to general comfort, health, morals, safety, or prosperity. b : control and regulation of affairs affecting the general order and welfare of any unit or area.
3) an organized civil force for maintaining order, preventing and detecting crime, and enforcing the laws
4) A body of government employees trained in methods of law enforcement and crime prevention and detection and authorized to maintain the peace, safety

I could go on.. But all that I find are pretty much the same.

Looked for IP troll and I guess no one does it quite like you..

But here is a very good definition of Patent troll and boy!!!

A patent troll, also called a patent holding company (PHC), patent assertion entity (PAE), and non-practicing entity (NPE) is a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question, thus engaging in economic rent-seeking. Non-practicing entities are generally not considered 'patent trolls' when they offer their patented technologies to licensees in advance, such as individual inventors, university research laboratories, development firms, and licensing agents that offer enforcement and negotiation services on behalf of patent owners.[1]

A variation of the problem is when companies do make some degree of attempt to develop products but, when their product fails, conclude that they can instead be more successful at litigating a portion of the profits from those that become more successful at development


Let's just call a cookie a cookie, shall we?

We're not taking new applications yet, but we will as soon as the online application system is ready. I'm told it's close. If it is not ready by Monday we will extend the application deadline.

Agreed. The difference between the certification program and the HELP program is that the former is a minor and tolerable inconvenience and the latter is for all practical purposes removal of my equity in my investment. People who comply with SC's terms, which aren't unreasonable ('don't steal our (@$%&#!)') can verify their compliance for about $8/month after the initial fee. Leasing the GEM program, with the new guarantee (putting aside for a minute the viability, stability, and reliability of the guarantee) is about $60/month using a 60 month basis, which isn't bad considering it includes the tracks themselves and doesn't require any other purchase. The HELP program is $200/month for KJs ($300 for venues)and doesn't include the tracks themselves. I can't honestly imagine what the market for it is, but I suspect the existence of the program provides some benefit to SC even if no one signs up for it.

If there were one single agency handling certification for all karaoke products collecting a reasonable fee based off the number of tracks a KJ had and a small annual fee for confirmation afterward along with additional one time fees for any tracks added and indemnification from lawsuit by any karaoke company to members of such a program - I'd be more excited.

As it is - let us say a bunch of us certify and agree to pay unspecified ongoing fees
How long till every other label on the planet creates a similar program and wants their cut?
To me the KIAA was a much more KJ friendly concept and one I had planned on embracing, but which unfortunately went defunct right before I had resumed regular shows
Question for those KJs who are certified with Sound Choice:
Did any of you get a legal opinion from an attorney on the Sound Choice audit agreement before signing it and if so would you share it with us?

Mr Boo, your definition is of a noun. Now here is the definition as a verb:

verb

Enforce regulations or an agreement in (a particular area or domain):

Enforce the provisions of (a law, agreement, or treaty): the regulations will be policed by factory inspectors

An organization engaged in the enforcement of official regulations in a specified domain: This would be organizations like the AMA, ABA, ASCAP, etc.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

That was our original plan with regard to the annual maintenance fee. However, as we've gotten into this, where we are ending up is as follows:

1. The initial application fee ($150) results (hopefully; the audit has to be passed) in a certification that is permanent as to (a) the discs and hard drive(s) audited, and (b) add-on discs that are reported and documented through the system.

2. The KJ's certification will bear an audit date that will be included on the website listing.

3. If a KJ wants to submit to a maintenance audit, the cost will be $100. If the KJ passes the maintenance audit, the "last audited" date will be updated in the database. We recommend that this be requested annually, but it will be optional, and the KJ's certification won't be automatically revoked if he/she decides to skip it.

why not continue that thought process a bit further?

we can agree that the reason this is becoming "necessary" is because of the people who do not pay for their material at all, not the customers who have media shifted paid for discs.

pass the audit, and the fee is "waived", but it is not really.... next pirate you find gets another $150 tacked on to the damages incurred when you take them to court.

1) legit KJ's who paid for their discs get taken out of the tuna nets at no cost to them (which removes the issue for almost all here, there will always be a few who won't even if YOU paid THEM).

2) more KJ's out of the net makes the pirates easier to find and saves investigation money

3) SC still gets paid for the audits, but paid by the ones who caused the audit necessity to begin with.

everybody wins in this scenario and people who paid for their music do not get charged again for the actions of pirates.

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

I appreciate your input, but that is not how we've chosen to do this. The plan we have settled on accommodates a wider range of interests than what you're proposing. Moreover, if we had the ability to tack additional charges onto the damages, we would simply do so without reference to whether there were others who had been audited.

what do you mean?

i figured it would be easier to add on real charges incurred with catching them, kind of like investigative charges.

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

The word was used in noun form. And SC is not AMA, ABA, ASCAP. Again, SC is an entity whose primary function is to derive income from a dead product (discs) through IP lawsuits. That is the very definition of IP trolling. I state again but this time more precisely.. When it comes to media shifting, they have zero authority and anyone who gives up their rights without consulting the proper counsel is foolish at best. What they do to people that actually steal, I couldn't give two hoots..

What you proposed is great from the perspective of the 1:1 operator, but it doesn't take into account anyone else's interest.



We don't add on investigative charges when we settle or ask for a judgment, and the investigative cost isn't part of the damages calculation. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that it doesn't really work for us.

I am very happy to see that PEP is taking actions on the feedback provided.

Thank You!

_________________
-Chris

It would be easy to make money creating and distributing new karaoke tracks, in a manner that would be completely piracy proof, and Sound Choice would be ideally positioned to do it.

The 1:1 operator IS the ONLY one who counts. The 1:1 operators are SC's customers, the ones whop PAID for their discs. They are they ones who didn't screw Kurt out of money. We added money to his accounts. This is exactly why I talk about SC's greed!! Now you are going to do audits through skype. There is NO COST to that. You aren't paying a rep to come out to a KJ's house to do the audit. Not to mention, those of us who only have a handful of SC material. Why should we pay the same amount as someone with 1000 SC discs?? That is something that has ALWAYS bothered my about the audit program.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

So form a company.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

And, once again (as Mr. Harrington has posted (in this Forum) many times in the past), he and SC are willing to work with you on that... in other words, compromise by lowering the price OR even waiving the fee altogether.

Not for me. I just have an idea, that's all. The problem with the current situation is that people are trying to make refinements to a business plan that no longer works. A business plan that worked would be impervious to pirating because pirating would be irrelevant.

And I have seen it told that if you don't have at least 77 SC discs, there is no discount.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Have you called up to inquire and hear it directly from the horse's mouth? It has been posted here before that he and Kurt would be willing to work with you on that. You just don't want to give SC a dime more of your money to pay for a product that you already paid for (in full) the first time. I understand that. And, you are similar to me, in the fact that you play your physical SC discs at a show (the only difference between you and me is that I am entirely disc based).