Karaoke Forums

It has been explained by Jim that licensing issues are the reason SC doesn't produce. Whether the way they licensed the GEM helped cause those problems or not is debatable. That loop hole used for GEM closed really fast as the GEM backside slip through.
Whether it was a contributor or not doesn't excuse the antiquated US copyright laws for their fair share of blame and an obvious contributor to SC using the method they chose to license the GEM series. Given the current US environment, I don't blame them for taking the PRS route. Let's face it; if the US laws were anything close to the PRS they would have never had to go that route and the path to producing in the US would be much easier.

Ironically Mr. Boo it is the same antiquated US copyright laws that provide the legal basis for SC to pursue it's legal process recovery efforts. Isn't part of the licensing issues the payment of fees to the publisher's in order to obtain the permission to create new product? If Jim is only working for his office operating costs, and the recovery so far by SC has been the fair retail value of the product, there can't be much money in this whole recovery scam. The GEM series has been out for some time and no new product has been made for years. If as Chris says the sales have been brisk then the supply should be running low by now. When SC runs out of supply unless they can renew production they will we out of business, won't they?

SC has never sued for copyright infringement, so, no.



You keep saying this, and it's just not true. You've misread what I said.



Our usual recovery is well in excess of the retail value. You selected one case--an outlier--and assumed it is the rule, when it is not.



SC purchased an ample supply of GEM series discs before the changes to the PRS rules--plenty to last for several more years, in all likelihood.

You do realize that the PRS licensing process is still available, right? There is nothing to prevent music from being licensed in the UK, sold there, then imported into the U.S.

Oh that's right Jim due to lack of legal standing you can't really sue under the copyright law. Another end run of the legal system all you can hang your legal hat on is the flimsy hook of trademark infringement, less than 1% of the finished product. You really can't sue for copyright content, since you don't own it.

Sorry Jim you posted on this forum that you were only earning your office operating costs from this whole legal process, how did I misquote or misunderstand you?

You sort of answered the question about supply as well, if you still have enough supply to last several more years, with no new production insight, then sales cannot be as brisk as Chris would have us believe. Also if things are so peachy why did you raise the question of SC downloads as a possibility? Two things SC has never done is allow downloads of their material, they always wanted it sold as a complete set, not in a piece meal fashion. The other thing they have not done is join DT on the Cloud service. Many feel if they were to do so would indicate the company was having cash flow problems. Despite your claims to the the contrary, part of the problem concerning resumption of production is the need for capital. Otherwise you would not be exploring other ways to boost the company income.

Not necessarily, if they get really desperate, they could always continue to license through the PRS and start selling the GEM series worldwide, except for the US and Canada..

That would mean they would be writing off a very large share of the world market.

Actually i do have a question for Mr Harrington that I just thought of.

With the prs finally receiving the paperwork for the 'no fly' list to become active in the UK, would it still be possible to license the GEM series as it currently stands?

My understanding is that it only applies to digital downloads, and does not currently include disc sales.

Technically the GEMs are sold on CDs even tho they are in mp3+g format, but i could kind of see it being argued both ways. What's your opinion?

For the record - I have you on ignore, but when I see your misinformation quoted by others, I will correct.



That's right. "IF" I had ever said that, your statement might be remotely believable. Except I didn't said that.



I am not trying to make you believe anything. Here is exactly what I said about GEM sales -



I didn't say anything about how "brisk" or slow the sales might be. Just that they were profiting.

_________________
-Chris

They have to be profiting enough to resume production. Even Jim admits that part of the recovery monies is being put into future possible production. So part of the money they recover is being put back into the business. If as Jim claims they still have enough product to meet the demand for years, then sales cannot be that good. Besides the legal recovery and the sales that it is supposed to generate, what other sources of income does SC have? If they license one GEM series they are technically profiting Chris, evidently they have not made enough to resume production. I know they have other legal problems with licensing, sooner or later they will run out of product Chris, then what?


P.S. Just one question if you weren't sure about the amount of profitability concerning SC, why did you bring it up in the first place?

true. but there are still markets where the potential for success are possible. In Japan and the Philippines,for example, i think karaoke is a BILLION dollar business.

-James

Lone, you seem to think overhead for a law firm doesn't add up to much. I would say overhead eats up a good chunk of revenue. Overhead would include office rental or mortgage, all utilities including, electric, gas (if applicable), telephones, internet, cable, water, staff salaries (not including lawyers, purchasing or leasing of office furniture, computers, copiers, faxes, paper, pens, and other office materials, and a host of other expenses. Depending on the size of an office, it can be anywhere from $1,000,000 and up. If only one client can cover those costs, then the firm is doing well.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

For the record, I asked the question about downloads so as to get information about price points, to help settle a disagreement I had with someone about where SC should price downloads if it were to offer them. This is a discussion we've been having for about four years.

I've said the same thing about the overhead comments. Having one client that covers overhead is a great thing, not a bad thing. Having one that can cover overhead plus mad profit is pretty much unheard of but one I guess every firm would love to have. I would bet that a very high percentage of firms can't count on a single client to cover overhead costs.

One could also assume (since that is what you are doing) that Sound Choice ordered a large amount of product because 1) Larger runs reduce the price per item cost and increase the profit margin on the individual sales, 2) that Sound Choice knows they have a desirable product (which the market has proven is true) and thus wanted to ensure they had plenty of it on hand for sale, 3) Sound Choice was being optimistic and simply ordered a lot.



Don't most karaoke companies sell just one thing - karaoke songs?



What legal problems do they have with licensing? I believe James has posted here that it is primarily cost and control (who owns the final recordings) issues they are dealing with, not legal blocks to going back into production.



This was your 3rd question btw.

I am quite sure they are profiting. Again, I said, "They are profiting from the sale of GEMs.". That is a very simple statement and doesn't leave much to the imagination (even though you somehow imagined that I actually said they were making a "brisk" profit.) I didn't guess at how much. I didn't express any doubt. It is you that isn't sure of how much so you are asking a bunch of questions about it.

_________________
-Chris

I think there is an on-going case where Universal (?) is challenging the GEM licensing path. Someone can feel free to correct me if I am wrong or do not have all the facts straight.

That would be separate from licensing matters for future production.

_________________
-Chris

That was digitrax.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.

EMI amended its lawsuit to contend that SC had no licensing for the GEM series. Recently, PRS for Music told EMI that the GEM series was in fact properly licensed as far as they were concerned, which more or less ends that part of the case. A little while back, the judge hit the pause button for three months while EMI decides whether they can prove they actually own the musical works they've sued over (which is kind of important). Given what I know about how music publishers do business, I'm guessing they won't be able to, but stranger things have happened.

That's what I was thinking of. Thanks for the clarification and update. I just want to make sure it gets out there right.

I think what's interesting is WHY karaoke companies are having so much trouble getting licenses for their product? I'm a small business owner but if I find a way to make the cash register ring I'm going to do it. My opinion is there is not enough profit in licensing karaoke to deal with it.

If they saw a way to make good profits they would smooth the path to get it done. Music Publishers may be greedy but they're not stupid. With streaming music to multiple device becoming the norm, talking about producing something on a plastic disc sounds a little backward anyway.