Karaoke Forums

...and this IS intended for someone who can factually answer it:

Will SC, in whatever corporate form, be participating in Karaoke Cloud Pro, and, if so, to what extent (i.e. 1 track, 10 tracks, 100 tracks, 1000 tracks, 10000+ tracks....)?

It has not been determined yet.

It really doesn't matter. They will still be trying to sue everyone they can get their hands on.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Just curious: What's the holdup???

Looking forward to seeing how it all shakes out...

Not really an issue for me. I won't be getting Clouded. I think, instead of Clouds and Gems these companies should be FIGHTING for legal American downloads, or they should all be jumping on the KJMP-HD system.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

I am afraid everyone's "hopes" are probably not much of a factor in all this...it is gonna shake out in whatever way it can, legally, or at least "alegally" (probably not a word, huh?) "Life In The Grey Area, think we all will lose our minds..."

"Life In The Grey Area, think we all will lose our minds..."


I prefer to not stay stuck in a fog personally

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

I can only speak for myself obviously, but for the record I would be more likely to use the cloud concept if it included the ENTIRE soundchoice library *ie all 18,000 or whatever it was tracks*

Mind you, I would prefer downloads and Digitrax has said they will be offering them according to Bob Latshaw. So if Soundchoice ends up involved in that, I will be all over it.

come to think of it, my 60 days are up so I might collect my thoughts and post my impressions on what i have seen in a few.

-James

My gut is telling me that Sound Choice is going to do the same thing, but independently. I don't think it benefits them as much financially to participate with the other Karaoke manufacturers all lumped together.

The size of their library and the quality of their tracks would allow them to have their own cloud Karaoke. This is just a guess and pure speculation on my part. It would certainly enhance brand recognition for them to participate separately. OR-they could sell their library, trademark- the whole kit and kaboodle- to the cloud people and collect ongoing royalties to boot-this I could see them doing-cash out and also get long term income. Then they could walk away and retire, let someone else deal with all the headaches and hassles.

Even if they don't have their own cloud service, I think momentum is building for them due to all of the law suits. It's putting the fear of god into people and they're going to have to buy the GEM series or not use Sound Choice tracks at all. Although I talk to a lot of people that like to gamble. They play cards, they play the lottery, go to casinos, video poker etc.- some like to gamble by using pirated hard drives-they think they'll never get caught.

Stogie: the financial advantage to Soundschoice would be that they wouldn't have to pay the cost of commercial downloads, all they would have to do is collect their royalties from selling their content. It's a no brainer as far as I'm concerned.

Ah, you forget. They are making good money intimidating "settlements" out of KJs using their very own "1:1" idea.

The whole "1:1" concept hits the breezes if they start downloading. This is why UK mfrs ike Zoom couldn't do it.

They make much more money per KJ via their "settlements" than they would in sales of tracks. Why would they blow it? ETHICS? Seriously?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Joe, exactly how much money is SC making "intimidating" and settling with 1:1 hosts? They're certainly not making it on audits by the time you take out expenses.

As for those who aren't 1:1 and either have to go out of business or get the GEM at an inflated price, well too darn bad.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Read the lawsuit between CAVS and SC... you'll see that SC has made over $180,000 on a portion (only) of just the California suits.

Hosts that are 1:1 are the losers here because they have to take time, expense (especially if they hire a lawyer) just to prove their innocence. It COSTS them money because they purchased SC product.

However, it's my understanding that in Canada (where you are) it's been a pirate haven forever... no one, - pirate or otherwise - has ever been sued (to my knowledge).

How many out of that $180,000 was made from 1:1 hosts?

Out of all the lawsuits filed in all states, how many were found to be 1:1 out of all that have been named up to this point?

Please enlighten us.

It's hard to be intimidated if you are actually 1:1.



False. If downloading were to be permitted, the tracks would have altered trade dress, they would be ID tagged to the downloader, and they would be delivered directly by SC (who would know exactly who had purchased or licensed the product). It would be easy to see if someone had made the purchase or not.



Also false. The settlement program is calibrated for a return to SC, net of expenses, that is about what they would have received with a legitimate purchase. It only looks like more because it costs a lot of money to force people to buy what they're using instead of stealing it. The thing that proves the truth of that is that SC offers its products at regular retail to anyone who has not been investigated for piracy. If SC made "much more money per KJ" via the settlement process, retail purchases would be cut off entirely or would require a pre-sale audit.

Since you spend a lot of time complaining about SC's supposed lack of ethics, perhaps you should consider whether your intentional distribution of uninformed disinformation is itself ethical. Or maybe you should just get your facts straight before posting.

Zero. Also, SC has not yet recovered $180,000 from California operators--that figure is the gross value of settlements, including installment settlements, and does not include ANY expenses for the production of that income. In accounting terms, SC has accrued gross revenue of $180,000 from California operators through the settlement process. It is false to say that SC has "made" that much money.



He doesn't know. And I don't keep track of it that closely, but to give you a conservative number, it's fewer than 10%. It's probably fewer than 5%. In fact, the number of defendants who have claimed to be 1:1 and submitted to an audit, but were found not to be 1:1, is more than the number who were found to be 1:1.

One more thing...

One of the things that the evidence suggested in the Panama City trial was that Chip was collaborating, directly or indirectly, with the defense. I'm not sure whether there was direct contact or the defendants' attorney simply hit the internet for his legal research and found a lot of it in Chip's writings. He didn't seem to have much of a grasp on the law. In any event, the defense in that trial offered up pretty much every "defense," factual or otherwise, that Chip has ever suggested on these boards.

And every last defense he offered was struck down by the court.

Which begs the asking of a question: Why would anyone listen to him, much less rely on his "legal advice"? I mean, assuming that they don't want to lose at trial.

You are speaking as though it is some kind of fact. While you are entitled to your opinions I don't appreciate your direct insinuation that I had collaborated - directly or indirectly - with any defendant in any case - anywhere.

This is simply your own "deranged Chip syndrome" raising it's ugly head (again) in an effort to attack my credibility.

I have never insinuated, directly or indirectly, that anyone could win a court case if they did NOT own the original discs. The very insinuation of such is simply asinine.

Your attack on me here is completely uncalled for. Stick with the courtroom.

Don't you have something better to do?
(Las Vegas comes to mind - you've been tardy there.)

Do you feel so greatly threatened by my information and opinions that you feel you must scrape the bottom of the barrel with these inventions in order to discredit me here?

I'm rather touched that I have that much influence .... or perhaps a little too close to home for comfort?

Actually, It appears that Chip's standard legal advice worked quite well for Robert L. Paynter, the defendant who walked away scott-free after dropping the soundchoice brand.
Although One of the things that the evidence suggested in the Panama City trial was that a more competent attorney may have been able to make some of the charges stick.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF