Karaoke Forums

This what you were referring to?


http://karaokescene.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=21622&p=301019&#p301019

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

Moonrider's statements on page two of that thread are closer to what Paradigm has referrenced. However it should be taken within the context of that thread.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

The MCPS/PRS has a single licence for karaoke, with a published rate.

In the U.S., both a mechanical license for the music and a separate synchronization license are required. To license a karaoke track in the U.S., a manufacturer would have to go through the process of identifying, contacting and negotiating licenses with each individual rights holder (composer, publisher, etc) for each song they wished to produce (the Harry Fox Agency does not handle the synchronization licensing).

I can appreciate SC stating it is easier and less expensive to license in the U.K. compared with doing so in the U.S. Being less expensive to license in the U.K. does not necessarily mean the rights holders are getting less in royalties.

Nor does it necessarily mean the rights holders are getting more in royalties either.

yes, that was what i was referring to Hiteck.

i remembered thinking it a bit odd, but seeing that he is in that business as a published musician, he would know what he gets paid and where more money comes from. it sounded logical coming form the source.

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

It means they are getting exactly what they agreed to. They are not obligated to participate in MCPS. They choose to do so.

Perhaps someone should ask why the music publishers charge much higher rates in the U.S. than in the U.K. for the same activity, instead of casting aspersions on SC for making a good business decision to get the best available pricing for its licensing. I find it hypocritical for people to criticize SC for licensing in the UK to save money (and therefore making profitability easier to attain at lower prices) in one breath and in the next breath complaining that SC hasn't made new music recently or that its prices are too high (despite being lower today than they have ever been).

In what country does Stellar and Chartbusters license their karaoke tracks and pay fees?

That is correct. They also have the option of participating in MCPS with the exclusion of karaoke licensing only as well.

Here is what you actually said about that, which may or may not have been what you meant:



The portion in green is what I take issue with. Whether it's licensed in the U.S. or in the U.K. for worldwide distribution, it is still "licensed with the artists and publishers." MCPS represents the artists and publishers in the UK in a similar fashion to the way that ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and HFA represent the artists and publishers in the US. Those artists and publishers voluntarily take a smaller rate for licensing karaoke through MCPS than they take licensing it directly in the US.

When you say "avoid actually licensing the product with the artists and publishers," you are making a statement of fact, not opinion, and in this case, it is a false statement of fact.



Yes, I do. The price per track when the tracks were licensed directly in the U.S. was between $1.53 and $2.39, roughly, for single discs, and a bit less than that for volume purchases. The GEM series, however, can be obtained at around 75 cents per track with a volume purchase. (Since it is for professional KJs only, the GEM series is only available in bulk.) In fact, the lower pricing has drawn some complaints on this very board from people who bought tracks at the higher prices.

And yes, MCPS's license now excludes the US and Canada. But discs produced prior to the date of the switch are still licensed and can be sold and distributed under the former terms.

http://www.prsformusic.com/SiteCollecti ... 7%2010.pdf

Interesting.

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

1) See emboldened. YOUR view, with which others disagree. I would also add the question of attaching a logo to a track that was produced without permission, hence the addition would be unauthorized as well. Keep in mind tyhat settling a case such as the Eagles STILL doesn't mean licensing.

2) There are no holders to report copyright counterfeits to? Um, how about the owners? Of course, this would bring undue atention to unlicensed productions as well....


3) Well, they may certainly be unverified rumors, but by the sound of them, it seems that SC wants to make some money auditing disc based hosts. Guess we'll be more sure after the December meeting.

BTW- I'm fairly certain that I had ANOTHER visit from an SC twit this evening. came in, made tiny conversation about start times, then took a look at my setup, asked where the computer was. I explained that I don't use one, pointed to the disc binders on the table, and and ( pretending that I thought he was an actual patron) told him to feel free to come back, and if he wanted me to, I could play his own mfrs. original disc for him- at which point he left.

4) I'm glad you understood me. While I may debate with passion, I have absolutely no desire to include negative personalizations or flames, and consider them the last resort of a weak position. Again, I'm glad you're here.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

http://www.soundchoicestore.com/country ... r-941.html

22.95 divided by 15 tracks = 1.53 per track


http://www.soundchoicestore.com/best-of ... r-369.html

i don't know, 19.95 divided by 7 tracks = $2.85 per track. that's higher than before (according to your math)

the price has not come down, at all, but every one of these discs is produced in the U.K. is it not?

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

It also doesn't mean that all who are considered rights holders in the U.S., as opposed to the U.K. are getting paid all that they deserve, if at all.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

[quote="JoeChartreuse BTW- I'm fairly certain that I had ANOTHER visit from an SC twit this evening. .

4) While I may debate with passion, I have absolutely no desire to include negative personalizations or flames, and consider them the last resort of a weak position. Again, I'm glad you're here.[/quote]
Joe, this is why I have felt some impatience and frustration with you lately. You can't call people twits and call yourself someone who doesn't name call in the same post. Well, you can actually do whatever you want. It just irritates me, sometimes.

By the way--looks like SC just hit Oregon and Southern California--anyone notice?Make money at home
Trademark Law
Karaoke Rentals

So, how can I Make money at home doing Trademark Law and Karaoke Rentals?

Gotta LUV these new SPAMVERTISEMENTS that keep popping up on the New K-Scene. .

According to the MCPS web site, all music licensed for karaoke up until Dec 2010 or somewhere around there (I believe it stated) was licensed 'worldwide' which included mechanical AND sync licenses to the artist. Anything licensed after that is worldwide - except for Canada & US, unless otherwise negotiated.

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

WOW! I simply have to quote a quote and reply from HarringtonLaw:

"-----------------------------------------------------------------
For illustrative purposes only, I will insert my "opinion" in the quoted text IN RED:

SC Studios wrote:
1) Yes, it’s a legitimate disc. In an effort to bring back more “out of print” Sound Choice titles that had been discontinued due to expired licenses <- which they can NOT renew in the U.S.


2) or low sales, our UK branch is licensing the songs through MCPS (which is easier and less expensive than US publishers <- Because the artists and publisher don't deserve what they feel they should be able to get?"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I'm not sure whether the red replies were HL's or Chip's.

However,

1) It is certainly my understanding that SC's licensing has NOT been either "renewed" or re-applied for here in the U.S. ( in regard to those tracks that actually had U.S. licensing to begin with) nor have they applied for new licensing for those tracks not previously licensed.

I I am in error here, please feel free to post a link to the information that would lead to a correction on my part.

2) Whether or not SC agrees with the artists and publishers - and OTHERS- on what they deserve, it is certainly those parties' right to demand and get what they wish- IF SC wants to distribute U.S. licensed tracks.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Chip's.



I'm not sure how many more times I will have to say this before it sinks in, but I will keep repeating it until you acknowledge it.

Your "understanding" is incorrect.

SC obtained licenses through MCPS. At the time of licensing, the MCPS license was a worldwide license. Thus, those tracks that were licensed under MCPS are licensed in the U.S. It is true that the MCPS license changed to exclude the U.S. and Canada. But that did not void the prior licenses.



Yes, you're right, they have the right to demand and get what they want. And that is exactly what they got, period. MCPS participation is voluntary. They knew what the terms were, and they got everything they agreed to.

Joe, this is why I have felt some impatience and frustration with you lately. You can't call people twits and call yourself someone who doesn't name call in the same post. Well, you can actually do whatever you want. It just irritates me, sometimes.

[/quote]
===================================
I agree with you to a point, Mimi. However, some clarification is in order.

1) What I state is that I try not to POST negative personalizations and flames ON FORUMS. I never claimed sainthood in non-cyber situations, and this was a real life situation.

2) Now, in regard to the visitor, I didn't call him a twit because of his connection to the mfr., but because he performed his job like a twit. BTW, and to be fair: While I am sure of his connection to a mfr., I only surmise said mfr. to be SC because they are the most aggressive, and because they are active in my area now. Also, this was the only venue that allowed me to post the show on line- at least for a little while.

He apparently planned and used a "canned" approach and didn't have the brains to adjust it when the situation demanded it. Hence, he walked in and asked when WILL karaoke start tonight- while watching the show in progress.. Twit hint #1

Then, without any subtlety at all, he asks what kind of computer do I use- while standing INCHES from my table- which is in full view- and looking at my open binders full of original discs, my players, and not a computer in the joint. Twit hint #2

As soon as it finally dawned on him- while looking at my discs- that I was disc based, he became a blur heading for the door. Maybe they get paid by the referral?

Because he was doing his job so poorly, he was actually not giving the mfr. their money's worth. I would think that even those who support SC methodology would want better.

I will do my best never to flame someone who ison the forums simply because of differing opinions, but in real life, if someone acts like a twit, then I will describe him as such. If he acts like a hard worker and an intelligent individual, I will do the same.

So I state my personal opinion that this guy acted like a twit, which leads me to believe he is one.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

1) Thank you for the clarification.

2) I fully acknowledge and retain your statements in this regard- I just don't neccesarily agree with them.

While I have knowlege of MCPS calling itself a worldwide license, I have never seen any evidence that that the U.S. accepted that description, which is why I requested a link to an authorized U.S. source- not MCPS- for verification. Even if this IS verified, as both you and Chip mention, U.S. based artists can and do opt out of MCPS, or opt in with the exclusion of karaoke production..


To add to that, and to repeat myself as well, any tracks that were never licensed still aren't. This would mean, for instance, that the custom discs available that I've read about here containing the tracks found on the original SC8125 would still be unlicensed.

Any additional information would be greatly appreciated.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."