Karaoke Haters

[Big Joe]

At least Harry has the right shirt on! That ought to impress the chicks.:triwink:

If he no longer has the receipt for the shirt, can he still legally wear it? Would a quick and simple skype audit of his socks and underwear drawer be suffice?

 

[Sound Choice]

Kurt thanks again for sharing the grey zone in which your portion is offered. All the more reason for one to not touch it with a ten foot pole versus the craigslut offerings which wouldnt touch with a 1000 foot pole.

Yes of course Jon. It's much better that 90% of KJs who are running without having purchased original legal content continue to run TOTALLY illegal files rather than take advantage of the opportunity to "get square" with a large portion of their catalog. They have already proven that they do not have concerns about the publishers, so your concerns seem to be misplaced and your "logic" critically flawed.

 

[DJ Auntie M]

wanna see some bikini pics?

No I rather see some thong pics - you guys are unbelievable!!!:trirolleyes:

 

[KjAthena]

Well, I can certainly see now, why kroakie hosts don't make much money :sqerr:


You might want to check out the porn industry -- I hear they pay better... :sqlaugh:

Hey who told you about Kroakie ....he's our mascott:tribiggrin::triwink:

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Yes of course Jon. It's much better that 90% of KJs who are running without having purchased original legal content continue to run TOTALLY illegal files rather than take advantage of the opportunity to "get square" with a large portion of their catalog. They have already proven that they do not have concerns about the publishers, so your concerns seem to be misplaced and your "logic" critically flawed.

Disagree. Once again, pirates won't "get square" or "get legal"- what they will get is ( an undocumented, non-binding, might hit you later if you display the logo on screen from a PC source) pass from you, which is NOT the same as the above.

 

[Guest]

Disagree. Once again, pirates won't "get square" or "get legal"- what they will get is ( an undocumented, non-binding, might hit you later if you display the logo on screen from a PC source) pass from you, which is NOT the same as the above.

Joe,

What is the solution then from your point of view?

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Joe,

What is the solution then from your point of view?

Why keep asking the same dead question? It's too late. Lazy DJs and Karaoke Hosts with absolutely zero business acumen used MP3s and PCs found in virtually every household in America in public venues. This caused everyone with a PC to think they could do it, and everyone who could figure out file sharing to share and steal MP3s.

I predicted it when people like Toqer touted PCs and MP3s, and it happened- because it absolutely HAD to.

What's done ( out of pure brainless laziness and greed) can't be undone.

What's out there is now out there- ya can't fix it. The Fed just isn't interested in funding a special department. However, IF THEY DID, then THEY could make a huge dent.

What CAN be fixed MIGHT be future release on different encoded media, but they will probably be hacked too.

There is no reason to ask the solution question Steve. However, there is also no reason to tout SC for it- they've done NOTHING and made NO DENT in the thousands of pirates out there. Of course, they never claimed that they would. Only people who seem in need of a "Karaoke Saviour" seem to hold them up as anything important.

 

[Guest]

Why keep asking the same dead question? It's too late. Lazy DJs and Karaoke Hosts with absolutely zero business acumen used MP3s and PCs found in virtually every household in America in public venues. This caused everyone with a PC to think they could do it, and everyone who could figure out file sharing to share and steal MP3s.

I predicted it when people like Toqer touted PCs and MP3s, and it happened- because it absolutely HAD to.

What's done ( out of pure brainless laziness and greed) can't be undone.

What's out there is now out there- ya can't fix it. The Fed just isn't interested in funding a special department. However, IF THEY DID, then THEY could make a huge dent.

What CAN be fixed MIGHT be future release on different encoded media, but they will probably be hacked too.

There is no reason to ask the solution question Steve. However, there is also no reason to tout SC for it- they've done NOTHING and made NO DENT int the thousands of pirates out there. Of course, they never claimed that they would. Only people who seem in need of a "Karaoke Saviour" seem to hold them up as anything important.

See this is where we have a difference of opinion, no the computer systems really can't be undone! However, if enough (again that word) "Legit Host" get on board and become proactive against the pirates and start talking to the venues the pirates are working in it can be turned around!

I am not looking to Sound Choice to be a "Saviour" instead I look at them as more of a tool to use against the pirates!

Sorry you don't see it the same way!

 

[JoeChartreuse]

See this is where we have a difference of opinion, no the computer systems really can't be undone! However, if enough (again that word) "Legit Host" get on board and become proactive against the pirates and start talking to the venues the pirates are working in it can be turned around!

I am not looking to Sound Choice to be a "Saviour" instead I look at them as more of a tool to use against the pirates!

Sorry you don't see it the same way!

Let's try it this way: What is your definition of a "Legit Host"?

Is it merely one who owns the SC discs to match the SC tracks on their PC?

I ask this because you give the impression that if SC says all is good, then they are "legit". Is this correct?

 

[Guest]

Let's try it this way: What is your definition of a "Legit Host"?

Is it merely one who owns the SC discs to match the SC tracks on their PC?

I ask this because you give the impression that if SC says all is good, then they are "legit". Is this correct?

My definition of a "legit host" is one who owns the original disc for the files they have converted to MP3G files be it Sound Choice or any other in a 1:1 ratio!

My definition of a "legal Host" is one who owns all the original disc from which they play and has not converted them for computer play!

 

[c. staley]

At least Harry has the right shirt on! That ought to impress the chicks.:triwink:

Apparently, it doesn't seem to work on "chicks."

Seems to work just fine on other men though -- you should be as proud as a rainbow....

 

[Sound Choice]

Joe,

What is the solution then from your point of view?

Does anyone here beside Thunder and me recognize how JoeC always ducks the question regarding offering any concrete and workable solutions? He can dish out criticism, but has NO solutions. A "worthless" poster in terms of offering anything positive for the industry, IMHO.

 

[c. staley]

What's done ( out of pure brainless laziness and greed) can't be undone.

What's out there is now out there- ya can't fix it.

What CAN be fixed MIGHT be future release on different encoded media, but they will probably be hacked too.

You're right. The floodgates are open and they can't be closed....

Even a future release on different encoded media won't work, IMHO. Simply because the songs KJ's want will be available through (other) offshore suppliers. You can re-encode one brand all you like, the songs you want to buy and use today will be available on other brands without restriction.

 

[SoftJock Rick]

Does anyone here beside Thunder and me recognize how JoeC always ducks the question regarding offering any concrete and workable solutions? He can dish out criticism, but has NO solutions. A "worthless" poster in terms of offering anything positive for the industry, IMHO.

Hi Kurt,

I'm not Joe, but I do read what he has to say with interest

I don't recall him ever offering a solution -- perhaps that's why you are busting on him...?



I have a solution for you though:

Make your tracks available for download, at say $1.95 per. This way, a user can buy what they need, and not have to buy "bricks", or whatever you call them.

This guy named Steve Jobs sort of pioneered this methodology (actually brought it to mainstream), and it seems to have worked well for his company, last I heard.


It would seem to me, that if you put your efforts into marketing and selling your product properly, you wouldn't need to waste our judicial system's time with frivolous lawsuits to make your cash flow.


Has that thought ever crossed your mind...?

 

[Sound Choice]

Disagree. Once again, pirates won't "get square" or "get legal"- what they will get is ( an undocumented, non-binding, might hit you later if you display the logo on screen from a PC source) pass from you, which is NOT the same as the above.

Joe, you and your supporters would make horrible lawyers, because you simply do not have a grasp of the english language despite loving to write volumes. Although I am not a lawyer, I try to be quite precise and exact in my responses here, because I know the mindset of the "anti-SC" contingent is to try to misconstrue, take out of context and distort anything that is written by me. Or perhaps you are so blinded by your relentless desire to criticise Sound Choice that you simple do not read and/or understand what it is I write.

In your reference above (where you omitted the background information), I was referring to licensing the new Gem Series set of discs which explicitly spells out the rights granted to licensees (whether the Licensees are "pirates" or completely "legit" or "legal hosts" (using Thunder's brief definitions). The reference to a "large part of their catalog" refers to the thousands of Sound Choice songs on their system. So, EXACTLY OPPOSITE OF YOUR CLAIM, what they will get IS a DOCUMENTED, BINDING, WON'T HIT YOU LATER contract for doing a media shift of our logo from the CD-ROMS to their PC or one other alternate, non-original media.

Our contract is posted on our website for everyone to read and if you understood contract language and even basic English (or were open minded enough to WANT to understand) you would not make such a distorted comment as you just made.

We are utilizing a license signed by both parties in the distribution of this product to provide KJs EXACTLY the information and clarity that they seek regarding format and/or media shifting regarding our brand of products. And that clarity only covers our rights and not that of any third party, because we don't know their exact position. So, yes, they can "get square" with Sound Choice, which was my original statement.

Granted, many might not like the clarity because they can't hide behind any "I didn't know" screen of claimed ignorance anymore. But many do and will appreciate what we are doing, and plan to do for the future of the industry. And the fact that we don't have your support or even understanding will not alter our plans.

 

[Sound Choice]

I have a solution for you though:

Make your tracks available for download, at say $1.95 per. This way, a user can buy what they need, and not have to buy "bricks", or whatever you call them.

This guy named Steve Jobs sort of pioneered this methodology (actually brought it to mainstream), and it seems to have worked well for his company, last I heard.


It would seem to me, that if you put your efforts into marketing and selling your product properly, you wouldn't need to waste our judicial system's time with frivolous lawsuits to make your cash flow.


Has that thought ever crossed your mind...?

Has the thought CROSSED YOUR MIND to read and /or remember my multiple posts stating that at this time, publishers are not allowing COMMERCIAL USE of downloaded or streamed karaoke tracks?

HELLO!!!! Sound Choice was the FIRST company to have legally available karaoke tracks on iTunes or via TV distribution and downloads and streaming - but they are for PRIVATE, NON-COMMERCIAL USE. And I have stated here before that WHEN we can show that the commercial market is a viable one (i.e., money can be made) for the publishers, we will be able to present a business model as to how they can make money in a "guaranteed" model (i.e., they are going to want guaranteed revenue). So far, I could only state to a publisher that about 90-95% of the hosts won't pay for their content.

The problem does not reside with Sound Choice or karaoke producers, the problems reside with Karaoke hosts who won't pay for content that is making them money. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

Also, as to your solution, why don't you take your suggestion to the masses and ask if KJs would rather have 6000 320 kbps tracks on 200 CDGs for which they license for as low as $0.63 per song (paying for the license in cash gets a 15% discount) AND have a permant hard copy for backup, or if they would prefer to download 6000 songs at 192 kbps quality and pay $1.95 each? Seems that our solution is more cost effective and certainly more of a time saver while delivering higher quality.

 

[Sound Choice]

Hi Kurt,

I'm not Joe, but I do read what he has to say with interest

I don't recall him ever offering a solution -- perhaps that's why you are busting on him...?

No, I am "busting" on him because he can only dish out criticism about everything he thinks we are doing wrong, while not offering any constructive workable solutions. I was always taught in business (and even at home) to not bring complaints or criticism to the table without also bringing a solution. Otherwise (in business, anyway) you are going to develop a reputation as a "whiner" and not someone who adds much value to an organization. Anyone can criticise because it doesn't really require much thought or logic, only "hot air". But the valuable people to an organization, or family or industry are those who bring workable and viable solutions to the situation (with an emphasis on "workable and viable").

 

[c. staley]

Joe, you and your supporters would make horrible lawyers, because you simply do not have a grasp of the english language despite loving to write volumes. Although I am not a lawyer, I try to be quite precise and exact in my responses here, because I know the mindset of the "anti-SC" contingent is to try to misconstrue, take out of context and distort anything that is written by me. Or perhaps you are so blinded by your relentless desire to criticise Sound Choice that you simple do not read and/or understand what it is I write.

In your reference above (where you omitted the background information), I was referring to licensing the new Gem Series set of discs which explicitly spells out the rights granted to licensees (whether the Licensees are "pirates" or completely "legit" or "legal hosts" (using Thunder's brief definitions). The reference to a "large part of their catalog" refers to the thousands of Sound Choice songs on their system. So, EXACTLY OPPOSITE OF YOUR CLAIM, what they will get IS a DOCUMENTED, BINDING, WON'T HIT YOU LATER contract for doing a media shift of our logo from the CD-ROMS to their PC or one other alternate, non-original media.

Our contract is posted on our website for everyone to read and if you understood contract language and even basic English (or were open minded enough to WANT to understand) you would not make such a distorted comment as you just made.

We are utilizing a license signed by both parties in the distribution of this product to provide KJs EXACTLY the information and clarity that they seek regarding format and/or media shifting regarding our brand of products. And that clarity only covers our rights and not that of any third party, because we don't know their exact position. So, yes, they can "get square" with Sound Choice, which was my original statement.

Granted, many might not like the clarity because they can't hide behind any "I didn't know" screen of claimed ignorance anymore. But many do and will appreciate what we are doing, and plan to do for the future of the industry. And the fact that we don't have your support or even understanding will not alter our plans.

Kurt,

Let's not try to obscure the obvious by promising anything when in fact you can --at ANY time in the future -- change the terms or completely discontinue your "Gem purchases/Leases/rentals" or whatever you want to call it. Or you can simply "sell off the paper" on the rentals to some other company just as you sold the catalog to Stingray. So, you can "hit you later" at anytime you want.

You always have a "finger in everyone else's pie" this way and simply want to make the Gem series a permanent and continuous source of income. I get it. Your "plan for the future" isn't for "this industy," it's simply for "your income."

Consequently, those with discs now actually have something you can't permanently attach yourself to and are now "worth more" than they used to be. Which also explains why you'd be more than happy to credit Bazza for the discs he sent back to you. I'm sure you'd be happy to credit anyone who wants to sell back their discs to you in exchange for a permanent income stream in the form of a Gem Series Rental Agreement.

 

[SoftJock Rick]

Has the thought CROSSED YOUR MIND to read and /or remember my multiple posts stating that at this time, publishers are not allowing COMMERCIAL USE of downloaded or streamed karaoke tracks?

HELLO!!!! Sound Choice was the FIRST company to have legally available karaoke tracks on iTunes or via TV distribution and downloads and streaming - but they are for PRIVATE, NON-COMMERCIAL USE. And I have stated here before that WHEN we can show that the commercial market is a viable one (i.e., money can be made) for the publishers, we will be able to present a business model as to how they can make money in a "guaranteed" model (i.e., they are going to want guaranteed revenue). So far, I could only state to a publisher that about 90-95% of the hosts won't pay for their content.

The problem does not reside with Sound Choice or karaoke producers, the problems reside with Karaoke hosts who won't pay for content that is making them money. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

Also, as to your solution, why don't you take your suggestion to the masses and ask if KJs would rather have 6000 320 kbps tracks on 200 CDGs for which they license for as low as $0.63 per song (paying for the license in cash gets a 15% discount) AND have a permant hard copy for backup, or if they would prefer to download 6000 songs at 192 kbps quality and pay $1.95 each? Seems that our solution is more cost effective and certainly more of a time saver while delivering higher quality.

Kurt,

Reading your doom and gloom, says something...

You are basically saying you have no great chance for survival, based upon your current operational methodology.

So, somebody has to pay the piper (and the car payments) -- let the lawsuits begin!



Perhaps this business is no longer going to get any reasonable ROI.


Perhaps it is time to move on... :dontknow:

 

[Chuck The DJ]

wow,,,,, I really may have to go the extra mile here.... where are my nudes????????