Karaoke Forums

I can't argue that you believe that.

However your use of the term monopolistic is not correct in it's application. Though it could be argued that ALL currently producing karaoke mfr's are engaging in monopolistic competition (definition), you can't seriously be suggesting that SC has ever held or is attempting to obtain a monopoly (definition) in the industry.

"Unfair trade practice" has no relevance in this matter as SC is not engaging in trade with the venues (unless they are running "house-karaoke"), and even then, they are completely within their rights to inform anyone at anytime about any subject they so desire. I do agree that their literature does not make it clear that if you are disc based and not using any type of HDD based karaoke tracks, that you are completely legit and pose no risk to a venue that is in compliance with their own licensing. In my opinion, that fact should be in BIG BOLD LETTERS in any information disseminated by any industry proponent that is attempting to gain ground against illegal operators.

That being said; I would ask those of you who are disc based to consider this...

Create an affidavit that states very clearly and concisely that you are disc based and intend to remain disc based, therefore; you will not seek (insert mfr here)'s permission to create digital copies of their works for use in a digital-copy-sourced production of a karaoke show. I'm not sure of the correct legal way to state that, but you get the drift. Perhaps we, the host/kj's could create a boiler-plate for this. The document should list each disc/track in your possession that was issued by that manufacturer. Your possession of original mfr's CD+G product must be verified by an independent witness who can physically examine and visually identify an original mfr's product to a reasonable certainty. I would suggest a witness/signatory and/or a notary public who could also notarize said affidavit. Submit this document by registered mail to any mfr that you are concerned with and by cooperating you are contributing to the integrity of your business and all of our industry.

In return, AT NO CHARGE, any mfr could issue an acknowledgement or endorsement of the use of their OEM product. You'd also be "legit" on their respective lists and therefore be exempt from suspicion or prejudice. This would benefit the mfr's because it would eliminate hosts/kj's from being suspect before any inquiry ever began.

I would suggest that we (the host/kj's) create a document that illustrates how to tell if your disc based host/kj is using authorized product while producing a show. That document should be included or incorporated into the letters and packets that are being sent out as well as the Safe Harbor and KIAA information streams.

This suggestion relies on the integrity of the legit host/kj and does not contribute financially to the mfr's in any additional form of revenue.

I'd like to discuss this idea without sarcasm or insults and I hope that I have conveyed my message without attitude or accusations. I am coming from a full-time host/kj's perspective who does this for a living as my primary occupation. I started as disc based about 8 years ago with about 500 CD+G's, U-Best's VCD karaoke collection and an AceSonic player. I now own over 5000 CD+G's as well as the complete GEM series and I am considering picking up the KJ Media Pro from CB, but I already own over 6800 of their tracks. I run all of my shows from a laptop utilizing CompuHost and their remote request kiosk. I'd like to see a solution that serves ALL legitimate host/kj's interests.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

Point taken.


It is my opinion that SC is inserting itself between the KJ -to whom it has sold a product promoted to be used commercially - and the venue, the KJ's customer. SC's actions are to dissuade these venues from using ANY kj's that SC has not deemed as "legal" and listed on the threat of possible legal action. If the venue refuses to hire the KJ based on this situation, then SC is spoiling the market (of the KJ's) and that is actionable as an unfair trade practice. The term "unfair trade practice" does not only apply to competitors as evidenced by SC own lawsuits against KJ's that include it as a charge even though SC doesn't "compete" with KJs.

MtnKaraoke wrote:

That being said; I would ask those of you who are disc based to consider this...

Create an affidavit that states very clearly and concisely that you are disc based and intend to remain disc based, therefore; you will not seek (insert mfr here)'s permission to create digital copies of their works for use in a digital-copy-sourced production of a karaoke show. I'm not sure of the correct legal way to state that, but you get the drift. Perhaps we, the host/kj's could create a boiler-plate for this. The document should list each disc/track in your possession that was issued by that manufacturer. Your possession of original mfr's CD+G product must be verified by an independent witness who can physically examine and visually identify an original mfr's product to a reasonable certainty. I would suggest a witness/signatory and/or a notary public who could also notarize said affidavit. Submit this document by registered mail to any mfr that you are concerned with and by cooperating you are contributing to the integrity of your business and all of our industry.

In return, AT NO CHARGE, any mfr could issue an acknowledgement or endorsement of the use of their OEM product. You'd also be "legit" on their respective lists and therefore be exempt from suspicion or prejudice. This would benefit the mfr's because it would eliminate hosts/kj's from being suspect before any inquiry ever began.

And if the manufacturer refuses to without a "processing fee" then you're back to square one... it's just another "audit" and that's always been the root of the problem. If the manufacturer wants to sue a pirate because they have proof that the pirate has no discs.... Let 'em.... sue 'em all day long if you like. The problem is the assumption that unless you (years later in some cases) ask for permission, the product you bought as THEY promoted it is now being classified to your customers (the venues) as "questionable" or even "illegal" or just "not legit." And that's the crap that needs to stop. There is no governing body in this business and you are simply allowing the manufacturers to appoint themselves and charge what they want, when they want, how they want it and threaten your customers with lawsuits unless they get it..... Have you taken a soldering iron to those Chartbuster CD+G discs like they wanted?

MtnKaraoke wrote:

I would suggest that we (the host/kj's) create a document that illustrates how to tell if your disc based host/kj is using authorized product while producing a show. That document should be included or incorporated into the letters and packets that are being sent out as well as the Safe Harbor and KIAA information streams.

This suggestion relies on the integrity of the legit host/kj and does not contribute financially to the mfr's in any additional form of revenue.

This is what you don't understand: The entire "SafeHarbor" campaign is doing nothing to help ANY KJ at all, it's simply designed to instill fear into venues in order to get them to sign away their rights to hire whomever they want. Read the agreement and ask yourself if you were a bar owner - would you sign it? Because if you really don't like KJ Freddy who is "certified" (and sucks) but you like KJ Johnny who isn't and is or is not disc-based, then SC will tell you to fire Johnny and hire Freddy.... and do it in 30 days or get sued.... Most likely on a "tip" from Freddy. It's a lousy situation that simply shifts (pun intended) too much to the manufacturers - because that's who the KIAA is - the manufacturers.

MtnKaraoke wrote:

I'd like to discuss this idea without sarcasm or insults and I hope that I have conveyed my message without attitude or accusations. I am coming from a full-time host/kj's perspective who does this for a living as my primary occupation. I started as disc based about 8 years ago with about 500 CD+G's, U-Best's VCD karaoke collection and an AceSonic player. I now own over 5000 CD+G's as well as the complete GEM series and I am considering picking up the KJ Media Pro from CB, but I already own over 6800 of their tracks. I run all of my shows from a laptop utilizing CompuHost and their remote request kiosk. I'd like to see a solution that serves ALL legitimate host/kj's interests.

Keep in mind that you and others are quickly using the term "legitimate" to mean only KJ's that have submitted to an audit.... and that's simply an unfair characterization.

Okay Chip you've had your say. So, if you are through waving your arms, stomping your feet and wailing at the machine, let those that have something useful to contribute to the spirit of this thread do so.

I really don't think original disc based hosts are too worried about it. If an owner has any worries, no problem, show them your discs. Some people are trying to make mountains out of molehills.

One thing I do agree with is that an independant body do audits for the whole industry.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I would be happy to step aside and await your contributory "pearls of wisdom" on the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTeDxlkn ... re=related

He did- and you didn't add anything useful one way or the other. Do you have a position to state?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

If independent bodies do the audits, would there still be charges, and would they be paid to the various manus?

Yes, I do have a position. For those that are disc based, do not wish to pay the manufacturers for audits and are concerned about the lack of distinction between PC and disc based operators in SCs literature being a possible point of contention with a venue, producing such an affadavit could prove very helpful. The holder would have the benefit of printed documentation explaining the omission of said lack of distinction in SCs literature along with verification that the materials being used were legal, original manufacturer product. Presents far more substantiation to the venue than a possible lengthy verbal exchange.

I, like many, feel that none of this should be necessary. The literature being sent out should clearly spell out the difference between PC and disc based hosting. But, the current literature is what it is. You can rant and rave about the literature coming across as if anyone not being Certified by the manuafcturer is suspect or you can find a way to overcome. To me producing such an affadavit could be the means to the desired end.

The purpose of the literature is quite plain in it's vagueness, they want every host to have the audit and certification, how else can they charge their fees? They want to make it so difficult and time consuming to have the venues check your discs against your song book, they will only hire the certified hosts. They can check their certificate quickly and that is that. Does everyone still think the single license idea is bad? Don't feed the troll.

The part about saying you are going to remain disc-based and won't seek permission to use a computer is a bit confusing. A disc-based person may decide to seek permission and pay the fees to media shift at some time in the future.

I think that clarifying the Safe Harbor info and how the certified hosts are presented on the manufacturer's sites would probably satisfy my concerns. I don't think a disc host should be listed as having a certified library if they haven't been audited as I have heard of some who do a bit of copying here and there. And the computer hosts might resent that the disc hosts didn't have to solder or nick their discs. It needs to be fair in both directions.

Having a library notarized is an interesting idea, if a notary had any idea of how to distinguish from a burn/copy. But really, for any of this to work, it needs to be consistent, there would need to be a central auditing agency with one fee and the audits have to be accessible. Because think how long it would actually take to audit every host out there--perhaps years, even auditing 24 hours/day?

To me, those in areas where suits have hit and there is awareness of the legal issues would find advertising benefit in being certified, be they disc or computer. And some may find it useful in promoting awareness in their area. But the masses may not want to sign up for something where fees and the rules keep changing or more and more manufacturers start demanding fees or they feel the manufacturers are not a legitimate policing body. The certified list means that manufacturers have given people who passed their qualifications the right to media shift THEIR content and that is what the wording on it and Safe Harbor should reflect.

When the bugs get worked out and there is a central auditing body, then the wording could reflect that the host has been certified as having paid for each song in their library. I don't even know how to say "legal library" or what that would encompass with all of the controversy about the unlicensed brands and those companies that are saying they okay downloads. That will have to be yet another refinement/argument. And once downloads/computer use is officially "legalized" then perhaps even a different system would come into use--like simply registering who buys what. This is all new and ever-changing so there are bound to be complaints/suggestions as it goes along.

The license idea IS bad without something in place to verify that a library has been purchased. A license that gives a few dollars to each manufacturer is not going to make up for the amount of lost revenue through piracy nor thin out the ranks of those who try to gain un unfair business advantage through stealing.

How is the current piecemeal approach going to fare any better than a license approach? The audit give a few dollars currently to each manufacturer, and is not going to make up for the amount of lost revenue. Has it really thinned the ranks of the pirates that are determined to stay in business, you clean out one group and another takes it's place. The license could raise almost a quarter of a billion dollars per year, 500,000 hosts X $500.00. How many lawsuits would the manus have to file to recover that much money? Not to mention the costs involved that none of the manus can easily afford right now. True it would leave all the players on the board, if the pirates lease the GEM series under the current plan, they already on the board. So I don't see what the problem is with one License, when you look at all the potential costs of having each trademark certify the hosts.

If there are no protections from having their product stolen and a manufacturer relies on a flat fee each year to stay in business then what is the incentive for trying to make a better product, be more competitive, put out more product, etc? A manufacturer ought to be able to profit from their sales if they sell more, not have some communistic division of set fees.

You forget that SC has sold it's capacity to make new product. They have become professional legal litigants, only interested in recouping as much money, as the can from the last viable segment, of their market hosts both legal and illegal. In the case of SC especially I would think the single license approach would appeal to them, since they have abandoned the idea of new production. Chartbuster might be more reluctant since they are still making product currently. If and when they make new product they could use the money collected from the license to better protect their product. I would be very much surprised if SC ever makes any new product. That is just my personal opinion of course. The reality is the train has left the station, and a new one must be boarded to get to the final destination. The flat fee would only apply to the product already made, any new material would be up to the manus to protect, if they can't it is the end of production anyway.

I'm willing to bet if/when SC decides to put out new product, they would have full capability to do so. If they did sell the studio, i'm speculating they didn't write themselves out of the contract and have a contingency clause that would grant them access when needed.

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

Leopard Lizard:

I am a notary. A notary can't perform an audit. They can only do 2 types of "notarizing" if you want to call it that:

(1). The most frequent type of notarization is the acknowledgment. Acknowledging a document means that the properly identified signer personally appeared before the notary on the date & in the county indicated, that the signer either signs in front of the notary or acknowledges that s/he did indeed sign the document as well as acknowledging that the document was signed without coercion & that the signer is aware of the documents contents. That's it.. a notary cannot be a witness for anything other than the signature on the document.

(2) The second most frequent type of notarization is the jurat, often called an affidavit. For a jurat, the signer must personally appear before the notary & either swear, or affirm, to the truthfulness of the document & it's contents, & sign the document in the presence of the notary. The notary doesn't confirm or deny whether the contents of the document is truthful or not however, if the signer is found to be lying, it can be a charge of perjury.

What you are asking is for a notary to become a witness, they can't notarize anything relating to their own actions. Nor can they notarize any document for themselves, their families, or even their in-laws in some states.

That is why I find that an interesting idea but not really proof of anything. I was thinking of the yearly statement we have to give to our county assessor telling how many discs we have broken down by the years they were bought. One could have that notarized but it just shows you say you have so many discs--doesn't mean they are legal discs.....doesn't mean they match your songbook.

i hope they did for one reason only, they stated in a court document that they did. if they did not, lying on that doc could come back and bit them.

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

That is of course based on the idea that they will ever get back into the production end of the business, at all.

What is confusing about that statement? I made it, and I mean/t it. I am Disc-Based, and I have no intention of ever doing a Format Shift. Besides that, I consider myself to be very PC-Illiterate (another reason I don't intend to Format Shift).

I've got somewhere over 700 CDGs, and the time that it would take me to get over it (being PC-Illiterate), and convert everything would take me way more time then I am willing to invest in this. I do this as a hobby (I posted in several topic threads that I only do 12 to 14 shows in the entire year).

My operation to cueball is a hobby/business although, I do at least 12 shows a month and sometimes more, depending on how much work I want to take on. It would seem that if you are just casual about this business that other hosts don't take us as seriously as the full time host, whose entire income is derived from karaoke. You probably do the gigs for the enjoyment of the whole karaoke experience and the chance to be with friends, the money aspect of it is of a secondary nature. It would seem the day of this casual business model is drawing to a close, and in a way it is sad, that something that is supposed to be fun has turned into a legal free for all.