Karaoke Forums

Just an assumption on my part but:

If a KJ pays to use the GEM series, then they have permission to use all the tracks that are allegedly currently licensed by SC- thus they must be certified by SC.

On SC's GEM users' listing I find 2 or 3 GEM users from NJ and a couple from NY.

HOWEVER, the only "certified" host in NY is Cue (NOT a GEM user), and there are NONE in NJ.

What did I miss?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

You have misinterpreted that.

If a KJ pays to use the GEM Series, they ONLY have permission to use the tracks provided on the GEM series, which is NOT all the tracks currently licensed by SC. It is only (I believe) 6000 tracks. SC has much more than 6000 tracks available, and I'm sure that many of them are still properly licensed. Also, there is NO THUS. Having the GEM Series does NOT make the KJ Certified. It makes them Licensed to use that set... nothing more, nothing less.

SC has 3 separate breakdowns of their listings of KJs:

1. "The KJs or Venues listed below (in alphabetical order by state, then city) have successfully completed the VOLUNTARY audit process for Sound Choice®. At the time of certification, the karaoke library presented by the applicant was found to be strictly adherent to the guidelines set forth by Sound Choice® for the use of their intellectual content." This has nothing to do with whether the KJ has the GEM Series or not. It only deals with a KJ going through an Audit procedure with SC (in my case, the Audit procedure was different due to my circumstances of being a DB KJ). Even if a KJ has the GEM Series, if he/she has other SC tracks, then he/she must go through some sort of audit procedure with SC in order to make this particular list.

2. "Below is the list of KJ/Hosts who wanted to be posted as being GEM Series Licensees (in alphabetical order by state, then city) who have purchased the entire Sound Choice GEM Series." Here is where the KJs you are referring to would get listed. And as I stated before, this has NO BEARING on whether a KJ has other SC tracks or not. It only means the KJ has obtained a GEM Series through the means that SC allows (purchased through SC or purchased through a 3rd party which SC subsequently approved).

3. "The KJs or Venues listed below (in alphabetical order by state, then city) have resolved any prior issues with Sound Choice®." I think this is self-explanatory.


You see me listed there because I went through some sort of agreed upon audit procedure with SC. That's all.

Here's what you are missing... Do the people you are referring to have other SC tracks, or is the GEM series the only SC tracks they possess? If the former, did these people go through some sort of audit procedure with SC?

As a footnote (added 01/07/2014): If you take a closer look at those lists, you will see some KJs who are listed in both the Certified KJ section AND the Gem Owners section (such as Chris Avis (Redmond, WA), Danny G. (Waterbury, CT), Ed Gallagher (Saylorsburg, PA)). That is because not only did they obtain the GEM Series, but they also possess other SC tracks (that were not part of the GEM series), and they went through an audit with SC.

Cue, all of that would fit, except for the following:

1) The tracks on the GEMS ARE the only tracks (allegedly- still to be seen) currently licensed by SC. Any others are not, and so there is nothing SC can do about them. Yes, they paid for screw-ups like 8125 and 8438, but that did not LICENSE those tracks.

Therefore:

2) Paying for the use of GEMS would automatically mean that all (allegedly) currently licensed tracks have been certified- no audit neccesary.

Meaning that any KJ who paid to use GEMS should automatically be entered on the the "Certified" list, shouldn't they?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

And where are you getting that specific information from? Just because SC is not producing any new tracks, doesn't mean the older tracks are no longer licensed. Have you checked each and every track above and beyond the 6000 GEM tracks to verify that statement? I will grant you that there are many tracks that SC no longer has the licensing for, so they can no longer be reproduced for sale to the General Public (thus the reason many of their discs have been discontinued over the years), but those that have already been sold can still be used by a KJ (even the infamous SC 8125). And as for all of the SC discs out there (Spotlight Series, Star Series, Foundation Series, Brick Series, etc...), as I already stated, many of those tracks are not on the GEM series.

Since SC does not appear to be using the terms "Licensed for Use" and "Certified" interchangeably, your hypothesis about this holds about as much merit as the song "I'm My Own Grandpa." If you keep spinning it more and more, it eventually makes sense. Regarding whether or not a KJ with the GEM Series (and no other SC tracks) SHOULD BE LISTED as being Certified or not in SC's site, is a question to be asked of SC (rather than speculate about it).

Some of the GEM leasees were folks that were forced to obtain the GEM to avoid costly fines after being caught with tracks they had no discs to match.

And those people fall/fell under this category on the SC site (if they choose/chose to be listed... I'm thinking they had a choice to be listed there, since there are ONLY 10 listed, and I'm pretty sure (ASSUMING (YES! I used that word)) that SC had more than 10 KJs obtain a GEM set as part of a settlement agreement):

Cue, then that raises the question of why you would spend the money to lease the GEM and then not take advantage of one if SC's biggest selling point of being able to be listed on their site? Very odd.

Here's one example. Maybe there are more people out there in the same situation as Paradigm Karaoke...
Please note: This was NOT intended to imply that Paradigm ever ran a show with pirated material. To my knowledge and understanding, he has always run his show with a legitimate library. I only used his quote as an example why some people might NOT want to be listed in SC's site (regardless of which heading they would be listed under).

As another example... Didn't Joe Chartreuse once post something which stated that most venues in his area will not allow a KJ to play any tracks from SC?

Isn't that a little like telling a bar you can't work for them and you will tell everyone to stop patronizing their establishment if they serve Jack Daniels?

If a KJ can't overcome the stigma of being certified and/or using Sound Choice material, then they are not selling themselves very well (Sorry Paradigm).

I have come up against this a small number of times in my area and I have always been able to have a discussion with the venues and ensure them that they will not suffer any ill effects by having me being a certified host or using Sound Choice. In fact, they will have a better show because of those things.

Once the venues understand that the singers, for the most part, don't care about the brand, who is left to care? The Manufacturers? Well I have taken care of that specifically by being certified and by doing my part to take care of my business.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

"If a KJ can't overcome the stigma of being certified and/or using Sound Choice material, then they are not selling themselves very well (Sorry Paradigm)."
why is anything good for the industry coming with a negative stigma attached? wouldn't that make it bad for the industry?

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

It's very hard for me to say with any experience because I don't live in an area where Sound Choice has been shunned like that. I am not saying that people love sound Choice in the Seattle area, but it isn't despised here the way some people claim it is in other parts of the country.

I believe the community plays a big part in the how the perceptions are formed though. If the community took a beating from Sound Choice, then of course, there will be a backlash against them. Particularly if you have very vocal people in that community. In the Phoenix area, you have the Starz Karaoke folks who pushed back hard. I believe that raised awareness to a level that allowed more people to know about it. many of those that know about it are probably pirates and they jump on the anti-Sound Choice bandwagon and it picks up steam.

Maybe part of the difference here in the Seattle area is that we didn't have anyone swept up in the net that was actually legal. To the best of my knowledge, the people here that were sued, were actual pirates. They weren't KJ's that shifted without permission, they were people that stole the product and were found out.

So I suppose if you have competitors that use being certified and or Sound Choice against you, how do they justify it? How exactly can someone use the fact that you are legal, certified and use a great product against you? How can a properly educated venue refuse to hire a KJ because they use Sound Choice and/or were certified by them (or Stellar or Chartbuster).

I honestly don't understand, so I am not asking rhetorical questions. I want to know how a legal or pirate KJ can turn a legal, certified KJ into the bad guy because of that or because they use Sound Choice material?

Again, any resistance I ever met I have been able to overcome by having a conversation with the venues.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

I do believe that education can eventually overcome the stigma but do understand it. You have to imagine a different mindset where owners are sick of regulation and don't want one more entity telling them how to run their business or who they can or can't hire. They also don't want to lose the option of paying someone less. Many of the places that would object to a legal host are also the ones who are trying to have music under the radar of BMI et al.

A pirate (especially if they are the nephew, friend, neighbor of the owner) can leverage that attitude and equate legal with higher fees and unwanted bureaucratic attention. They will also "educate" the singers to believe that legal means their song selection will be reduced, they will have fewer venues to choose from meaning longer waits to sing and their home hard drive parties are in jeopardy. I have had so many tell me that getting free music off the internet isn't stealing if they would never have bought it in the first place, anyway.

A metropolitan venue may be very used to higher scrutiny and consider it all as part of doing--and stayng in-- business. A more rural venue is used to being left alone and resents intrusion. Rural can also be a bit cliquey and whoever was there first or longest has the loyalty and thus the credibility.