Karaoke Forums

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.

Despite the reason the amount ordered was ordered Chris, by Jim's own admission they are sitting on a huge inventory of unsold product. This product I assume has been paid for and is carried on the books as unsold inventory. To recover the cost they have to sell that product. SC is no longer in the production end of the business, currently
they are the legal dept and sales end of the business. The two work hand in hand since "suits drive sales". Since most hosts legal or illegal who carry SC product already have what they need, with the possible exception of a few hosts expanding their business or starting out new. The only way SC is going to recover it's investment in the unsold inventory is this legal process, that is why they have years of supply, it will take that long to unload it, at their present rate of success, in the courtroom.





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

While it is true that what they are selling is karaoke songs, they only have one product delivery system the disc, which it has been pointed out is outdated. The reason Jim floated the idea of possible downloads was to have another stream of revenue become available to the company coffers. The current recovery process is too slow and the returns have not been what SC or Jim had hoped for. Another possible stream of new revenue for the same underlying product would be to join Cloud and obtain money that way. I can only believe that SC is cash strapped and needs revenues increased to try and at least create the illusion they are still in business.



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.

I like how you lump in SC's profits from the karaoke industry as a "negative."

No one has ever been forced to buy or use SC products. If SC earned a profit from its activities, it was because its customers believed they would receive a benefit at least equal to the price paid for the products.

That's basic capitalism and basic free-market economics. If you don't like it, there are other economic systems that might be more to your liking.

waking (and p.o.-ing) the sleeping giants

I don't buy the whole "sleeping giants" theory as if they had somehow forgotten about Karaoke. If there is money to be made in the lean times of the music biz, they know about it.

not some mini-corp IP troll with nothing to work with but a picture attached to [the music publishers'] work.

So Joe, all the other karaoke companies, past and present, just slapped their logo on a disc and just sold them? C'mon man, try to get real.

Yeah, SC had nothing at all to do with making the tracks. They just stuck the logo on and went to town suing.



(In case anyone had any doubt, that smiley is rolling its eyes. It pitifully underperforms the level of eye sprain I incurred in real life, reading what Joe said above.)

Now I'm a little confused Jim didn't you say that SC does not sue under the copyright law.

Rather it sues for trademark infringement, the logo they just stuck on the finished product.

If you can sue for content as well under the copyright law, why don't you? You don't because you don't own the underlying material the product is based on.

Nu Tech has several tracks that they copped from other manus, including SC

Lone, have you even read the Act? It's more than just the "retail value".

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1117.html

This is a civil matter tim that is the way SC has framed their suits. When you are dealing with civil suits you are always looking at damages, how was the plaintiff actually hurt and assigning a dollar amount to the injuries in question. Basically SC is suing for lost sales, that boils down to the fair retail value of the product. In both the Panama City case and the settlements in California the value attached has been around $5,000.00. Jim appealed this award and lost in the case of Panama City. In California SC's agents collected the money and never paid SC their cut. Now SC is having to sue their own collectors, how much of that money will they ever see?

If SC lucked out and managed to squeeze a few extra dollars from defendants in the early part of this legal process. Those days of easy pickings are over. That is why SC is so willing to settle for licensing of their GEM product. Like Jim says they are sitting on years of unsold inventory, and the only way they are going to move it, is to use the suits drives sales business model.

Boy Lone, you sure do like to try to twist things.