Karaoke Forums

Since the last version of the frontend, we've tracked every account in a mysql database. Mysql has a nice ODBC connector, so I just imported everything into a open office spreadsheet and started playing with it. Here are the results in google docs format.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key ... jaGc&hl=en

7 Bamboo's karaoke is run 4 nights a week with this system, 22 months at 4 nights a week comes out to about 352 days. What we can conclude from that is if it were run 7 nights a week, we could see the same amount of money in about a year.

Some of the interesting stuff I found out...

Out of the $31k used in the system, almost $5k of it is "float" meaning, credits waiting to be spent. This could be regulars that have held onto their cards for a while, or cards that had credit on them but lost. This boosts the nightly average up to $88@night. Once we get the new system up, $1 per spot up bribes will automatically come into play, increasing your revenue even further.

The only time I have to touch the system is when a mic needs to be cut (as shown in the other thread) Other than that, the EMU 1820m compressors do a beautiful job of keeping both music and vocals at a constant level throughout the night.

Bottom line is, sign a contract with SC, buy about $1000 in old PC's, dollar bill validators, and touchscreens, and you could have your own little money machine somewhere (provided the venue already has a sound system) Just stop by once a week to empty out the cash. $32k@year if you can get the place to run 7 days a week. This will multiply even further if the venue is busy and requires more than 1 stage (Kurt assured me that if you have 1 pc with multiple audio/video out, you can do this on one set)

Wish me luck on the first test guys. I'm gunning for a large venue in my area capable of multistage.

(Oh and before the issue of sound isolation in a multistage environment comes up, it's easy, just look at how movie theaters do it)

§ 106 · Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to
the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or
lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform
the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual
images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

§ 110 · Limitations on exclusive rights:
Exemption of certain performances and displays

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:

(5)(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), communication of a transmission embodying a performance or display of a work by the public reception
of the transmission on a single receiving apparatus of a kind commonly used
in private homes, unless—
(i) a direct charge is made to see or hear the transmission; or
(ii) the transmission thus received is further transmitted to the public;

(II) if the performance or display is by audiovisual means, any visual
portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a
total of not more than 4 audiovisual devices, of which not more than
1 audiovisual device is located in any 1 room, and no such audiovisual
device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio
portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of
a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4
loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space;
(iii) no direct charge is made to see or hear the transmission or re-
transmission;
(iv) the transmission or retransmission is not further transmitted be-
yond the establishment where it is received; and
(v) the transmission or retransmission is licensed by the copyright
owner of the work so publicly performed or displayed;

In a case of different rooms in the same venue they are all in the same building. Therefore in the case of private rooms with the server being located on premises 1 set of discs would equal 1-1 as long as the same song could not be sang at the same time.

I WAS WRONG

I have been corrected via email from a KJ that was audited for this issue this last week. A separate set of discs was required for each room. I haven't been to a Asian style karaoke bar in many years The last time I was in one they were using Jukebox style disc players. I had based my earlier opinion on incorrect info.

I agree that running a server, whether at home or on-site,to several different venues/rooms IS multi-rigging.

But reading what TOQER read, it seems that Curt was OK with multi-rigging from a server to several rooms.

But then again correct me if I am wrong, SC is suing for display their "pirated" logo????? Not actually playing the "pirated" karaoke track.

As I have interpreted it, you would be wrong...the suits are over "shifted" logos without permission, not "pirated" logos. Of course, this does not speak to how this particular technicality might catch people in the crossfire...

I agree that running a server, whether at home or on-site,to several different venues/rooms IS multi-rigging.

But reading what TOQER read, it seems that Curt was OK with multi-rigging from a server to several rooms.

But then again correct me if I am wrong, SC is suing for display their "pirated" logo????? Not actually playing the "pirated" karaoke track.

The suits are over the use of unauthorized counterfeit tracks to put on commercial karaoke shows, not mere display of the logo. The logo is attached to tracks that SC didn't make--copies that were made by the KJ or someone else.

I still believe that is an oversimplification. The offense as I have seen listed is TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, and if that is the claim, that is what must be proven, correct? If that is not proven, I believe any other claims could not be addressed.

The use of unauthorized counterfeit goods to provide services is a form of trademark infringement.

For my proposed example I was very careful to not describe the computer as a server. It could in fact be the exact same laptop that is being used at a karaoke show. A server serves something up to another computer. My scenario does exactly what a karaoke host does in a club, play directly from a single computer to multiple screens. There is no difference except the distance between the playback device (karaoke computer) and the display (1 or more TV's/Monitors).

-Chris

The suits are over the use of unauthorized counterfeit tracks to put on commercial karaoke shows, not mere display of the logo. The logo is attached to tracks that SC didn't make--copies that were made by the KJ or someone else.

So how do you play different songs at the same time from one computer?

First, whether authorized or not, copies of original content are not COUNTERFEIT (fakes) despite how Jim feels like defining the word, but what COULD be unauthorized copies.

If the suits were about COUNTERFEIT (fake) tracks,

A) I have never seen an SC case on that basis- again EVER.

B) As proven on another thread, even hosts without the discs (download hosts) can certainly have bought and paid for SC tracks- thousands that were offered WITH AUTHORIZATION FROM SC. These hosts would have tracks on their PC without owning discs- yet still be PAYING CUSTOMERS.

C) SC has yet to either PROVE a SINGLE instance of counterfeiting, or even sue for it.

Their case is ACTUALLY based on media shifting their logo-period.

The fun part is that, for quite awhile, they offered AUTHORIZED downloads through several sites ( per information printed on the liners of jewel cases from THEIR discs). This means that hosts who downloaded their tracks never MEDIA SHIFTED them. The media shifting was done PRIOR to the KJ's download, and with full authorization from SC. This means that any host that downloaded SC tracks never media shifted, is not liable for it (because SC authorized the shift), and if they have the download receipt ( whether SC agrees or not), can tell SC to screw off.