Karaoke Forums

Sorry, James, I didn't see your question. Stingray is not a participant in the HELP program at this time.

OK…so the disclaimer below stays:



To be clear, you will have agreements with some of the publishers to cover their portion of the 16,500 songs. You will hold royalties in reserve for those you don’t have agreements with. But it will be OK to use all 16,500 songs regardless, is that what you are saying?





Good to know and makes perfect sense. How many tracks does PEP own approximately?



How can you say that? I am evaluating your offer just as many others are doing. A vendetta? Doesn’t that mean a long running feud? I have been on this forum since 2008 and have never disparaged you, your company or your character. I have watched those who deserve such a description have the back and forth with you over the years, merely as a spectator. I, like the others who are here, enjoy karaoke and also do occasional parties as a vocational hobby. Everyone is a potential customer, including me. The fact that I have been in, around and have many friends in the industry over the past 25 years doesn’t change the fact that I am a customer. I may be a retiree, but my money is as good as anyone else's. You are the public salesman, professional legal representative of a company who has elected to use this forum for a variety of purposes since you began posting in 2011. That is my perspective and it is colored with the desire to understand all the nitpicking details of your HELP license, the same way I do when buying a service contract for my washing machine. It drives my wife crazy and I guess it does you too.

I can appreciate that it is perhaps uncomfortable for you to have some old, slightly sarcastic karaoke guy take a look at your spiffy new HELP license and start asking questions that you are maybe not comfortable with. But please give credit where it is due here. I am willing to argue that this group knows more about the legalese and various arguments affecting this industry than anyone. They learned a lot of it from you. Is me pointing out your disclaimers really spreading fear or doubt? Is raising the issue really a source of uncertainty? Isn’t a key to sales, overcoming the objections of your potential customers?

I happen to own a complete set of SC discs and would love to put them on a laptop and not lug them around. I have never done it because the copyright law has not changed. And that is why you have to keep those disclaimers in the license. Will the publishers ever come after guys like me or the venues that have their own rigs? Who knows? But one thing is for sure, being a HELP licensee will easily identify me to those who want that information and request it though subpoena. Isn’t that potential scenario possible Jim?

It's possible a washing machine will fall on you from a great height. That doesn't mean you should stay indoors or give outsize attention to the falling washing machine hazard.

Moreover, what you fail to account for is that the people who are likely to purchase a HELP license have already exposed themselves to a copyright infringement suit by copying the tracks they've copied, but using this material without a HELP license exposes them to a trademark infringement suit that is, as of today, infinitely more likely than being sued by a publisher. We've sued a couple of thousand KJs and are just getting started. The publishers have sued zero. Better to deal with the realistic threat than to hold off in favor of an imagined one.

You're not a real prospective customer, and you're hiding your identity to fling poo at SC. That's pretty cowardly. Step out from the shadows.

Keep this thread civil please..

Yes, JH and KI

AND there is the GREED!!! SOMEONE, originally bought those tracks. You made your money on them. The fact of the matter still stands...........you could not secure your own product from piracy!! That is on YOU< not on those who download it. Instead of taking your medicine like men, and admitting that YOU messed up, you would rather hurt everyone around you. Pretty damned pathetic!! You wonder why the reputation of Sound Choice has gotten so bad. Yeah, you made great Karaoke music, once, but those days are gone. ALL the other, active MFRs have surpassed you in quantity AND quality. Your day is done!! Now you just have your boss' greed to live on. Enjoy it.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Not True. That are massively more copies out there than were ever produced. There are recorded cases of store owners receiving discs, making copies, then putting them back in shrink-wrap. Then they sold hard drives or copies to others. In other words, a lot of money has been made by people that shouldn't even have the product in the first place. If only 1000 discs were ever made, at most, only 1000 people should have the music associated with that disc. We all know that isn't the case.



Now that is just plain silly since no one can secure digital media against piracy. No one ever has and likely never will.



The reputation of Sound Choice is so bad because 1) they made some initial mistakes and 2) people who have a lot to lose have done a pretty good job of dragging the Sound Choice name through the mud. There are great many people that like Sound Choice and like that they are at least doing something.



"ALL" really only applies to the UK manufacturers and KaraeokVersion. All Star is hanging on by a thread. Party Tyme doesn't have near the quantity or diversity of Sound Choice



Why does going after people that steal the product constitute greed?
Why does offering a means of getting in good legal standing for a surprisingly fair price, constitute greed?

greed (noun) - a selfish and excessive desire for more of something

I don't believe that Kurt, James, or any of the small number of folks that work at PEP are greedy. Kurt built something from scratch and takes great pride in it. People had and do steal that music every single day. Kurt and company deserve to be compensated for their work and the folks that steal it deserve to be sued.

_________________
-Chris

Oh please even YOU should be able to see the fallacy of that statement. "SOMEONE, originally bought those tracks".
That much is true, and yes they made their money on that original sale. But then SOMEONE decided to copy and sell/give away those tracks to anyone who would take/buy them - denying SC of original sales to ALL those other people. The ONLY true greed I see are those kj's who want it all for little to no money!

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

+1. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

Smooth what about the GREED of the PIRATES that do not pay ANYTHING for their music?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

There is plenty of greed there, too. But the HELP thing is ridiculous. I have said it before, and I stick by it. It is greed.Charge a one time fee, like Stellar did, and be done. Charging people for their entire career is just plain greed. It only accounts for the original 16,500 songs. Nothing new, and you would be hard pressed to find all those songs at the require 192KB bit rate. So, if you haven't gotten ALL those songs, you are getting ripped off. THAT is greed!! Let's say you can only find 5000 of them at the required bit rate. Now you are talking about paying in perpetuity for only less than a third of the collection.GREED!!

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

LOL yeah that worked out so well for them.

Or those that originally stole the tracks or bought loaded hard drives can try to find the original discs and not have to worry about paying the annual fee anymore. Again KJ's with their own greedy self entitlement to getting/wanting something for nothing (piracy) is far worse than a company that all those kj's stole from just trying to figure out a way to recoup the losses from those kj's.
In reality this could be a good program for legit kj's wanting to expand to multi systems. They can copy their existing catalog, pay the fees while buying the discs they can find - then drop the program once they find what they are looking for and have a set of legit discs for the other system(s) too.

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

i feel the [url]rate[/url] is ridiculously high, but the [url]concept[/url] itself [url]may[/url] have some merit.

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

Thanks for acknowledging my point on copyright infringement as it confirms my earlier posts. Many people seem to have been lulled into a sense of entitlement/legitimacy to “media shift” their CDG libraries to their computers or hard drive. The concept that a KJ can media shift as long as they have the original discs and are 1:1 ratio is really confusing to many. It gets easy to confuse the rights you are actually granting, which is limited only to trademark/logo and not the copyrights. PEP is trivialising the likelihood of publishers filing a suit, kind of in the way that a drug company advertises a new drug for mild depression. The first 75% of the air time talks about what your symptoms are and how the new drug will improve everything. The last 25% quickly explains all the side effects risks like, stroke, heart failure, liver damage, blindness, seizures etc. followed “Ask your doctor if taking XXX is right for you”. The disclaimers are read so fast and in monotones - people don’t really consider that taking the drug can cause catastrophic damage. The family members of those who have suffered such consequences probably all said the same thing - “I didn’t really pay any attention to the disclaimer.”

Like I said, I am just an old guy who is a stickler for details and I am trying to be as respectful as possible. I don’t see how asking these questions is tantamount to “flinging poo” at you and I’m sorry you feel that way. Did you not expect to have questions once you used this forum to promote your new license? Is it considered inappropriate for us to discuss the disclaimers? I know you have a percentage of your site itself dedicated to showing them. So why are you so agitated when users of this forum read your proclamations and wish to get clarity? It is not an attack and it should make no difference to you what my name is. I am entitled to my privacy just as the other users on here are. You can call me an interested member of this open forum because that is who I am.

So the business model, if I understand you right looks like this:

1. Sell HELP license in perpetuity.

2. Sell GEM leases until the sets sell out.

3. Investigate and litigate against everyone you can find. Question: Can a HELP licensee get a discount or credit for each non-licensed venue he can report to you that you successfully litigate or settle with?

4. Produce new content once revenues from 1-3 starts flowing in.



Looking forward to seeing the revised license and new language.

I "get agitated" by reading overt attempts to spread FUD about our products from people who have no actual interest in the products and who use the anonymity of this forum to hide their bias.

For example, you claim there is a real chance that HELP licensees are easy pickings for disgruntled publishers who are just waiting for the chance to sure them, and all that's needed is a subpoena. But what you don't mention are following facts:

1) No publisher has ever sued a karaoke operator for copyright infringement.
2) It's necessary to have a lawsuit in place before a subpoena could be issued.
3) Number 2 could be satisfied by suing Phoenix, but a protective order would prevent the use of Phoenix's customer lists for prospecting for lawsuits against operators.
4) Consider the recent lawsuits from Sony and EMI. Those were ongoing for more than two years. Our GEM licensees are listed on our website. How many of them got sued? Zero.

We've published that list for five years or more, and of the hundreds of publishers who have interests in our catalog, how many sued anyone on that list? Zero.

If they have no interest in going after people based on publicly available information, why on earth would they go through the expensive hassle of a lawsuit to get similar information for the same type of claim?

Does the disclaimer deserve some attention? Sure. But it's not there to "protect" Phoenix. It's there to inform prospective customers about what we cover and what we don't.

When a person who has an agenda of destruction spends paragraph after paragraph talking about remote possibilities in order to make those possibilities seem more significant than they are, yes, I'm going to refer to that by what it is: flinging poo.

The washing machine warranty was developed to limit liability for the manufacturer.

Same for any manufactured product.

Medical potions have disclaimers for the same reason.

Yet yours is different? Not designed to limit liability?

Hmm, let me think on that..

I think everyone is relieved that up until now they have not been litigated by the publishers. I made my point. We are liable if we media shift. It is on us to get approvals from them if we want to do it, just as your disclaimers say. I am not a lawyer, so I appreciate your attempt to assuage my concerns with the procedural difficulty that would be faced in attaining your customer list. Neither of us can predict the future and as the number of litigation targets continue to diminish through attrition, I think the odds rise that things could change and that concerns me. You are entitled to your opinion and I am mine. A difference of opinion does not qualify me as having an agenda. And to say that by asking these questions that legitimately concern me, says more about you than it does me. Perhaps PEP would be better served in having someone with more more experience in dealing with the public rather than the lawyer who handles the litigation for the company.

Maybe things will change. But my opinion of the new SC will sadly be shaped by the accusatory nature of your responses to my inquiries. I say responses generously as you really didn’t answer all of my questions:



Contrary to your stated opinion, I actually do hope that SC will one day return as a karaoke producer. Am I holding my breath? Maybe a little…

Product warranties impose liability, not the other way around.

Drugs carry disclaimers because they are required by law, not because they limit drug manufacturers' liability (they don't).

Copyright infringement is a strict liability offense. Disclaimers don't affect liability if there is underlying infringement.

So, yes, the disclaimer is there to warn operators of potential liability, not to limit our liability.

Smooth... ask yourself a question...

How would you feel if you owned a business in which people were profiting from the use of your product and yet, you never received a single penny for it.

How would you feel? What would you do?

I have no doubt that Sound Choice® would rather be producing and selling karaoke tracks than filing lawsuits. But you see, people don't buy them, they steal them. It's sad that only 10% of KJ's across the country are operating legally. The other 90% are stealing from you. That's a large number. Again, all of the thousands and thousands of pirates across the country using your product while you never received a single penny for it.

Since that number is so high, SC has to assume that most of KJ's are operating illegally. At one time I had problems with the lawsuits but I get it now. And I understand and agree with the way they are handling it. I support them in their efforts to try to recoup what was financially lost because of piracy.

_________________
Electro-Voice Evolve 50... Taking Sound To The Next Level.

Neither of us can predict the future with certainty, but my track record at predicting the path of this industry to date has been pretty accurate.



You're not entitled to your own facts.



No, what identifies your agenda isn't having "a difference of opinion." It's the particular tactic you're using. I couldn't care less about your opinion. What bothers me is your concern-trolling--attempting to steer opinion on an issue by focusing on false concerns that don't apply to you.



If what you were doing was asking real questions, based on real needs for information, I would be happy to answer them. I think that my record on this forum over the past four years has been very clear: I answer questions with the best information available to me. I do my best not to spin things, although I'm sure some would disagree with me on that point. In any event, wishing for someone else isn't useful; you're stuck with me.

The principal problem with you is one of attitude. You've made some statements in this thread that, while couched as opinions, are really unsupported assertions about the state of things, and you've used generalizations that attempt to make your argument seem stronger when it's quite weak.

Consider the person who needs to get from New York to Los Angeles. The person can fly or drive. You tell that person, "The plane might crash, and if it does, you will probably be killed." That statement is technically true--planes do crash, and when they do, death is fairly probable. But it's extremely misleading. Statistically, the person who drives across country is much more likely to be killed than the person who flies. Choosing to drive for safety reasons is foolish.



I don't have an exact count, but PEP owns everything Slep-Tone recorded after 5/1/2007, which is at least 100 tracks. It is also possible that there are some other tracks that were not conveyed to Stingray in 2007 and that are therefore also PEP's.



Forgive me if I don't believe you. Your words say one thing, but your tactics say something else entirely.

I am not sure if taking the approach of something not applying to someone is a reason to discourage their participation in discussions. Quite often, a non-biased third party might have insights that those involved in a given situation cannot see clear to recognize...