Karaoke Forums

As usual, you have completely sidestepped the topic and introduced a new one. Not only that, but you have characterized me incorrectly.

At no point have I ever said that everyone must prove anything to anyone. Sound Choice asks KJ's to do an audit and get permission to media shift. I support that, but it is entirely up to a host if they wish to continue without doing so. Sound Choice is currently the only manufacturer asking for any "proof" so for the rest of them, media shift away.

I do want people to pay for their music (or otherwise not pirate their tracks) because if they aren't, they are stealing. Pretty simple. But that is entirely independent of proving anything.

_________________
-Chris

That is not completely true Danny, ironically SC has hurt themselves and the hosts that buy their products. Some venues have banned the use of SC product at their locations to protect themselves from possible legal action by SC.

Of course Elvis would have to pay the original copyright holder for their original work wouldn't he? As far as karaoke is concerned most singers want the version that is nearest to what they recognize as the original, or the version they are most comfortable with. Just like "Whole Lotta Shakin' Going On" was redone and made a hit by Jerry Lee Lewis. Tell me Bazza isn't that what all of you SC users tout that the product is closest to the original? Close but still a karaoke copy just like if I were to copy the Mona Lisa, it's not the original. It's my take on the original. The whole point is who is paid the royalties, isn't that what this whole legal process dog and pony show is all about?

Come on Chris you and I both know unless a host is ready to go in and do the audit dance SC supporters will still have doubts about them. The only way they can keep above the fray and not have an audit, is not to use the SC product at all, to boycott it totally. That is why other manus have not bothered with this legal process sham. They know it would hurt what little business there is left out here and cost them sales. I want a pony but it isn't practical, some other type of solution must be found to the piracy problem. If not then SC will continue to lose market share to the other manus who have figured it out.

"It’s very untouched by outside influence, so that’s how I learned it. When you give somebody a microphone, and they suddenly sound louder than they really are, anything can happen. [Laughs] You watch people do karaoke, and when you put a mic in somebody’s hand, they change. You change. You really do. Something happens, and I can’t explain it. But when you actually start screaming and stuff like that into the microphone, and you hear the voice coming out through the speakers, and it’s amplified, it’s absolutely thrilling. It’s thrilling, but it’s also kind of inspiring, and it gives you a sense of “What can I try next? What can I do next?”

These words are from Robb Halford of Judas Priest!! THIS is how I justify calling those on the "No Fly" list a bunch of CRYBABY pieces of crap!!!!! This is a man who appreciates music, his fans, and karaoke!!! They ALL should!!!

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

On the other hand smooth nobody can really blame the KJ any longer, if he or she doesn't have a certain song or a particular version of the song by a particular manu, can they? You can shift the blame to the artist who doesn't want their music performed by anyone but themselves. The reason I did not carry SC is because they are sue crazy. I think that every host should have the no fly list printed up so it can be passed out to their patrons, just to show what those artists attitude to karaoke is. Maybe if enough of your customers express their displeasure the artist may change their minds. Of course that won't work for the artists who are dead. Personally if I were an artist I would want people using and singing my songs, as long as they did my work would not die, it would play on.

Now this is an interesting statement.

SC filed its first lawsuit in 2009. (I know that because I filed it.)

You have claimed many times to have run karaoke shows for a long period of time--certainly beginning well before 2009--which calls into question your real reason for not carrying SC. Here are some possibilities:

(a) You don't carry SC because you never did, and the "sue crazy" thing is just an excuse to bash SC.

(b) You carried SC legally at one time, but you dropped it in protest once SC started suing pirates.

(c) You carried SC illegally at one time, but you dropped it because you were worried you would get sued.

(d) You didn't carry SC for a long time, and you were going to, but when SC started being "sue crazy," you changed your mind.

Is it one of these, or something else?

(Look at me, pretending you'll give a straight answer. Hope springs external.)

By the way, if you don't want to use the product, that's fine with us. Please don't think you're penalizing SC by refusing to use it.

My my just one little statement and you give a big response Jim, I must have struck a nerve. I really didn't need SC as long as I had DK that is what was always requested when I hosted, either that or the patron brought their own disc. I'm not the only one that thinks SC by this legal scam is being absurd. It has gotten to the point where not just hosts but venues have decided to ban your product due to your policies. Ironically it is costing you more than you are gaining, something the other manus figured out a long time ago. Something that you and Kurt seem to fail to grasp.

So Lone, exactly how many hosts have dropped SC and how many venues don't allow SC, ten, a hundred, or perhaps a thousand. You make a lot of blanket statements but don't back them up with numbers.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Come on tim if this legal scam of SC was such a good idea and made tons of money, the other defunct manus would jump on the bandwagon. The lack of activity by other former manus indicates to me this is in the negative column. By Jim's own posted admission he is only earning his office operating overhead from all of these efforts. Also recovery is the key to SC being able to resume new production something that hasn't happened in now over 5 years. I really don't care what other hosts do or don't do, I always ran my business on what I did. I choose along time ago not to support SC and I have always been happy with that decision. There is just too much other quality material out here without all the courtroom drama. If I want that I'll watch Law & Order reruns. Oh by the way I'm not the only host that has commented on SC being banned from venues on this forum. It is not something that I just made up, also any hard data would be impossible to come by since only a small fraction of working hosts post on these forums.

Once again you are arguing yourself in circles and multiple tangents. Please try to stay on YOUR topic for once.

YOU stated that SC songs weren't musical works (Originals) because they are "remastered imitations".

I replied that Elvis's Hound Dog fits this exact definition.

Answer this simple Yes/No question if you can: Is Hound Dog by Elvis simply a "remastered imitation" or not?

You answered your own question Bazza it was not an original song, but one done in the style of Elvis Presley. He changed the original, and his version was the bigger hit that is requested most. Is that plain enough?


P.S. Many karaoke tracks have on them in the style of and then the particular artist.

That is all fine and dandy, good for you!
The first sentence in the above quote should be true for every host, glad it is also true for you.
The second sentence in the above quote proclaims your personal choice and that is great also, more power to you!
But, and that is a huge but....if there is any and I mean any truth in your above statements, then for God's sake Lone...why do you keep insisting on this personal vendetta against Sound Choice?

It is my belief now that there is no truth in your above statements and therefore every post you have made and will make in the future must be scrutinized with the assumption of untruths being spewed.

_________________
Music speaks to the heart in ways words cannot express.

It is not a personal vendetta against SC RLC, I just want to know why out of all the manus alive or dead SC found it necessary to go the legal route? They are the only one's, I don't count PR because they have done very little here to date. Karaoke was meant to be a fun thing not a series of legal challenges. If you are a working host you now have no fly lists, SC jumping up and down making a show, and the threat of the publishers becoming more involved. The net result of all of this is the shrinking of available supply of karaoke tracks the bread and butter of most hosts. The very tools needed to do their job. Most hosts want to take a simple approach and blame everything on the pirates or the HD sellers. In a way all hosts that are still working in the business need to take responsibility for their own business first.

Next they need to come to some kind of a compromise about the issue of piracy, the current method of dealing with it is failing, plain and simple. It was failing when I started posting on these forums and is still failing today. I don't think what I'm spewing is untruths I'm just presenting a different point of view, that many hosts are uncomfortable with. After being in the business for 19 years I think I have a right to my opinion. I think the actions of SC have been more negative on the industry than positive, and I'm not alone in my views. Sorry if others don't agree with me.

There was an article in the newspaper today about 2 people from Bradenton, Fl. that were arrested for making illegal copies of music and movies. They had six thousand unauthorized copies that they made on 1:4 copier. The arrest was made by the Manatee County Sheriffs Dept.

The sheriff's confiscated all there cd/dvd's, computers and hard drives. The sheriffs had a sting operation and got the 2 guys for selling bootlegged goods. Not really associated with SC activities but certainly interesting. You now can see it does not have to be the FBI that can stop this type of illegal activity.

On a similar note just last week the Sarasota, Fl. courts released Sarasota city from any wrong doing in the controversial use of a "stingray" surveillance device which was filed by the ACLU. A stingray is a piece of equipment that mimics a cell tower and can intercept any ones cell phone call in the area. Currently only a few municipalities have them, but all major players such as FBI, CIA, State Troopers, Us Marshalls etc have them. This is not made up crap, but is real infringement on our right to privacy. The reason Sarasota got out of the charges is because they said that the surveillance data belonged to the FBI and made a statement that the city did not actually own the equipment. What is next?

Karaoke is a business, like any other business. It is to make money off a product, whether one is a producer, a venue, or a host. Karaoke for fun would be just the home user of the product.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

BINGO. They don't. So:
While Jim is fond of repeating that SC' permission is required for shifting, even though it is insufficient, he neglects to mention the following:

No SUFFICIENT permission is available on a large scale because the publishers / owners don't give it - in general.

SC sues for unpermitted shifting and display of their logo. However, no one would be shifting their logo if it wasn't stuck on to someone else's property- that of the owners / publishers. The music and the lyrics. Without these, SC would have no shifted logo, and nothing to build thejr (extremely weak to non-existent) cases on.

No way to intimidate for income. Therefore, SC is once again making money with the use of the publishers / owners' property, none of which goes back to them - at least not voluntarily.

They are making money off others' product AGAIN and this time they don't even have to worry about licensing, because they are no longer producing.

In my opinion, THIS, along with the way the GEMs came to be, was the major thunderclap that awoke the giants. they got tired of what they could perceive as poaching.

All with the help ànd support of some KJs and others.
Sure, other companies screwed around, but SC is atually double- dipping, if you see what I mean.

What is happening, and what will happen was predictable, and predicted years ago. It had to happen. Way to go, SC.

Yes, something had to give eventually, but it didn't have to be as extreme as this will be, and we would have had more time to prepare - although I actually started doing so some time ago as I saw it coming...

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Jim has mentioned on numerous occasions that their (SC) doesn't exempt one from what a Copyright holder could do. But why mention that when you can fearmonger.

The works on SC discs are derivatives or arrangements if you like, of the original works and any problems of the rights are between SC and the rights owner, and have nothing to do with the SC TM.

Everytime a GEM set or disc is sold, leased or whatever you want to call it, the rights holders get paid. In regards to discs, it is when it is either sold to a wholesaler/retailer or directly to the customer. So yes when someone named in a suit pays for a GEM, the rights holder gets paid. It is included in the price of the set or disc.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

So tim you are a host and you don't think karaoke is fun? I thought the purpose of becoming a host was to do a job that you would enjoy and have fun with, so it wouldn't seem like work. I don't know about you but most of the time I had fun when I was hosting, I think it shows when the host only does it for the money. Again that is just my personal take on it. I don't agree that only the home users have fun if that is the case no wonder home parties are starting to compete with regular venues with karaoke shows. After all it is supposed to be entertainment, right?

Whether SC does or does not pay royalties for the GEMS in use has absolutely nothing to do with my post.

SC is deriving an income based on litigation and intimidation that could not be obtained without their logo being attached to the publishers' / owners' property. No one would bother to media shift the logo alone - no purpose to it.

Therefore SC is deriving an income through the use of the publishers' / owners' property, yet not voluntarily passing the income from the suits and intimidation back up the line. While this may be legal - though I kind of smell the possibility of a suit - it would certainly be enough to make the giants angry, as it smacks of poaching on their turf. Well, it did, and it should. However, that is no help to us.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."