Karaoke Forums

I don't know if boycotting the product is hurting SC or not, it really makes little difference to me James, I'm only a host for a little time longer. I know that I don't agree with this legal process of yours to settle the matter of piracy. I show my disapproval by not buying your product and not supporting you. I'm not alone in this and if enough hosts and venues follow suit it will hurt SC's bottom line. The last viable market is the commercial host and if you turn them off, where does that leave your company? One manu is not bigger than the whole industry. That is like the tail trying to wag the dog. If anyone is delusional it is Kurt and who ever is advising him legally. I think it is time to face reality and maybe look at another solution to the problem. Like the simple fee to shift your product with no audit. Have a legal day.

Show me a list that ASCAP/BMI publishes of venues who pay PRO fees.

Why the big "secret" from ASCAP/BMI not listing venues? Don't they want venues to be "legit" in payment to the songwriters? Does ASCAP/BMI want to let the public know so the patrons can enjoy entertainment knowing the songwriters and publishers have been properly compensated? Haven't venues in the past been sued, then lost for not paying ASCAP/BMI for karaoke "self-performance"?

Here again lies another JoeC boogyman....

_________________
-- Mark

What is the qualification is to be important to the karaoke industry?

Is DK important?
Pioneer?
Chartbuster?

All out of the karaoke music production business. Yet all important (IMO).

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

The way I look at Safe Harbor is it is a communications line between SC and a venue or SC and a host. It doesn't involve any proof of anything so there is no verification of anything to advertise. It is an agreement that makes it easier to obtain verification that a host is not infringing if the need arises. I give my registration number to a venue and if they get contacted in any way by SC then they can get themselves off the hook by showing they hired me. It shifts the burden of proof to me. It was not an invasive process so it was a step I chose to take that may or may not help but it didn't hurt. It is being blown up way out of proportion to what it was meant to be.

This is all correct. The safe harbor program is a mechanism to enable venues to get help from SC to avoid liability for infringement that occurs on their premises. It's not a marketing tool or a badge of honor for anyone.

And, Joe, we have an excellent reason for not publishing the list: we don't allow business prerogatives to be dictated by people who openly hope for our destruction. And that's all the reason we need.

Kind of like some "smoke screen" blog posts I have read recently!

_________________
-- Mark

JoeC,

"As far as Frank and Athena, both are great people, and you SHOULD be proud of any association. However, I believe that advantage was taken of them due to timing, and they- especially Athena- have been manipulated. Just my opinion."

Your opinion is very wrong. Neither myself or my wife Athena have been taken advantage of(by timing or otherwise) or are being manipulated. We just happen to have strong sense of right and wrong. Athena also has a great deal of passion about wanting to see karaoke viable and thriving in the future. She hopes to see our grandson running shows when he is over 21.

I have given sound business reasons why publishing such a list would benefit both SC and the "certified" KJs.

Show me a sound business reason why such a list from BMI should be published. There are no "certified" performers who could benefit financially from it, and no venues that would gain any more customers by it's mention.

The only alleged beneficiaries of BMI are the artists and such a listing does nothing for them either.

HOWEVER, if one wanted to find out if a venue pays it's BMI fees, it's pretty easy to do- BMI doesn't hide that information.


So, attempted distraction from the subject at hand aside, is there anything at all available to confirm registry of any venues at all with a safe harbor program, or is SC using this alleged registry as another push to "certify" without it having any more substance than the KIAA- another scary phantom that they attempted to use?

1) Where is the physical address of Safe Harbor? Is it also a PO box in an office building without a true presence there, like the KIAA was?

2) If someone wanted to speak to the administrator of the Safe Harbor program, who would that be? If a call were to be made to the administrator, who would answer- and if not the administator, would said person have the authority to give binding answers to inquiries?

3) If one were to register and WANTED to be on a public listing like the "certified" hosts', is it offered?

4) Does Safe Harbor offer documentation to venues that could be presented to others?

5) If a venue wished to be sure that their actions actually DID get them on a registry, does the venue have access to said registry for visual proof?


6) ...and the biggie: Why no public listing of registered venues?

Before I get the standard referral, the answers to ALL of the above are not on the website.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Let's see James you have a handful of certified hosts that are hoping for your success. According to you 95% of the product out here is stolen and so at least 95% are in favor of your destruction? That doesn't look to promising for your side. You have said that SC would be happy with 10% of the business, so you are half way to your goal if you can make another 5% legal, right? I would suspect that the majority of the 95% doesn't care on way or another. The only people in the industry that seem to be interested are the ones that frequent these forums, just saying. Have a legal day.

Because performers can be sued for copyright infringement if the PRO fees are not paid by the venue, such a list could indeed be valuable to performers.



Yes. You can ask the venue for their registration number.



The safe harbor program does not include any form of "certification."



There is no entity known as "Safe Harbor." The safe harbor program (the Sound Choice Verified Compliance Safe Harbor Program) belongs to SC, whose address is 14100 South Lakes Drive, Charlotte, NC 28273. That is a physical address and you can see it on street level in Google Maps if you are so inclined.



My firm administers the safe harbor program jointly with SC. If you call me, I will answer, or at least my voice mail will. And yes, I have the authority to give binding answers to inquiries.



No.



A venue that completes registration is assigned a 10-character registration number that can be verified with a call or email.



If the venue signed up online, the venue has access to view its registration, add or remove operator associations, and verify that its registration is still in place. A venue who chose to sign up by faxing in its papers can do those things by calling or emailing.



Because we don't care to. And that's a sufficient answer. However, I will elaborate.

Whether a venue is part of the safe harbor program or not is between the venue and SC, and that relationship only has meaning in the context of whether SC will, or will not, take action against a venue who hires an operator who is infringing SC's intellectual property on the venue's premises. Registration does not confer any certification on the venue.It is entirely possible for a venue to register yet fail to do what is necessary to maintain the protections offered by the safe harbor program.

One more thing: Even if we were inclined to provide a list, I would recommend against doing so at this time. Recently, we became aware that a person whose identity I will not reveal right now (but whose identity is known to us) has been providing false information on an unsolicited basis to persons who are engaged in litigation against SC in order to try to cause damage to the company. We are investigating that matter and will take appropriate action when we have the full picture. However, publishing that list would only provide this person with more targets.

This is exactly what the company I work for does when inquiring about the venues ASCAP/BMI involvement.

We will not book a gig with a venue without them paying their PRO fees. Our sales pitch always has educational discussion on this subject if deemed necessary and our contract has a paragraph that calls for agreement that the venue is responsible to maintain PRO fees during our term.

_________________
-- Mark

Sounds good on the surface, but is in fact- air. Unless there is some engagement in wrongdoing, a safe harbor venue isn't a "target" for anything. However, I understand the mentality a bit, as many folks who have or run karaoke are worried about being an SC target. Karma's a (@$%&#!), ain't it? I used to run ads every week in the local night life mag, and advertise all of my venues on line as well. I am not ALLOWED to do that anymore thanks to SC. This has little effect on ME, simply because I have been in this area forever. However, you've screwed newer KJs. Your turn, I guess. However, topic at hand, how does a "safe harbor" venue become a "target"?

Bottom line, "safe harbor" seems to exist only on your say-so. A registration number? Call Jim and he'll say yes or no?

I don't believe you have squat for registration-period..

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

What we have here is:

1) Joe's lack of a fundamental understanding of what the safe harbor program is, which leads him to
2) ask a series of loaded, largely irrelevant and misguided questions,
3) to which I have provided reasonable and accurate answers.

And the response is "nuh-huh!"

Welcome to Joe's World.

Some choice SC's karaoke world, or Joe's world, or could it be that we all have our own little karaoke parallel universes, that sometimes collide with each other. Maybe the answers are unimportant because some of us don't think our little worlds will run into each other.

I run ads for my shows in my local karaoke magazine. It seems to improve business, not hurt it.

If a venue/KJ is choosing to not run ads, then they are doing so because they are not informed. If they vet their KJ's (as they should) then running ads is the least of their worries.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Joe, exactly how has SC not allowed you to advertise? You make it sound like the came up to you in their best Gestapo voice and said "If vou advertize ve vill keeel vou so" or in their best Sigfried voice "Ve do not let hosts advertize here in SC" What an asinine statement.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Timberlea, I thought that I stated it clearly: I am not allowed to advertise by the venues because- right or wrong- of their knowledge of SC's actions. The same reason some venues won't allow SC tracks to be played. Though I have tried to educate all venues, only one understands it enough to give me free rein. The rest can only be advertised through direct contact- no public mention allowed.

BTW-- the insult at the end of your reply only detracted from it. Why not try just posting what you want to post and letting it stand on it's own merit? I don't call you names or belittle your posts, whether I disagree with them or not.

The air is a bit fresher on the high road too....

There are some here that can't help themselves, but I think that you're better than that.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

What we have here is:

1) Jim's version of a double standard/runaround.

Jim states that if an SC defendant defaults it is proof of piracy( for which, BTW, the defendant was never sued). If I reply that by that logic, SC's defaults prove lack of investigation and that they sued without indication of wrongdoing, he goes silent.

Jim states that a KJ who does nothing wrong has no need to worry about being a target, but then states that "safe harbor" venues shouldn't be publicized for fear of being targeted ( due to the association with SC's label, from what I gather).
If I reply that if said venues are not engaged in any sort of wrongdoing there is no reason that they would be targeted for anything, he skips over it.

2) Since he has NOT given a reasonable answer to the question of why a listing of "safe harbor" venues is not available for the KJs who have PAID for what seems to be a worthless "certification" for at least SOME return on their outlay, the only conclusion that I can reach is that a registry of "safe harbor" venues would- due to a lack of participants- be an embarrassment to list.

Jim doesn't supply any evidence to to refute my statements, but want people to believe I am incorrect in hopes of more KJs paying to get "certified".

Welcome to "Jim's World".

Please note: If you haven't noticed, I only reply in kind. Were Jim to answer like a gentleman, I would prefer to do the same, and leave the sarcasm out of it. Unfortunately, certain debating tactics- meant to distract from the point at hand- are sometimes used by those trying to deliver a weak point.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

So it is the venues not allowing you to advertise, not SC. Sounds to me it's just an excuse for the venues not to spend the money.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Advertising is intended to do a few different things....

1) Raise awareness - let people know of something new, forgotten or unknown
2) Attract new consumers - regulars are great, new blood keeps things fresh
3) Promote your service or product as "better than the other guys"
4) Public Relations - alter or promote a specific perception of a product or service
5) (and this is the most important one) Increase interest in a product or service

Any venue/owner that tells me I am not allowed to do these things for *MY* business will be looking for a new karaoke host in the near future.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris