Karaoke Forums

Please list all the different ways you can take the discs away because your term "material" is far too vague for your licensees.

Except if you actually look at the records.. like the lawsuits filed against them by the publishers and reasons for those lawsuits as well as the over 2 MILLION dollar stipulated settlement that they would pay for not having those licensed.

Problem was, they never made a single payment on those agreements and the CAVS judgment against them was the straw that broke the camel's back. So they dumped as much stuff on the market at "deep discount pricing" and disappeared.

And that's what caused the problems for Digitrax when Universal yanked ALL of their stuff overnight. The contract Digitrax signed with Universal specifically stated that the tracks they wanted to stream had to already be licensed for karaoke use and since Digitrax didn't license them, game over. Because CB never paid on the agreement, they weren't licensed either and even if they did, the licenses are not transferable to Digitrax anyway.... game over again.

So, the truthful answer here is not that "licenses on CB products are now expired" at all; they were never licensed in the first place and because no payments were made on the settlement, they reverted to "never licensed." If CB had made payments, then they would have been deemed "licensed... after the fact" but that didn't happen either.

All the facts -- not opinion -- are readily available on Pacer. Don't believe me, look it up for yourself if you want to verify it.

Not surprising that Harrington would simply gloss over the whole back story regarding his new trademark acquisition. .

Alan. If you buy karaoke version you are buying karafuñ,

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

I see they are same company but it's "KaraFun that offers the Pro subscription for 129USD or 149CAD. Karaoke-Version looks like Consumer site.

I looked a KaraFun, even downloaded the app to my Mac. I like that they use Karaoke Version songs, but I didn't see any way to import my library.

_________________
Karaoke that just sounds better!

CompuHost | KJ Media Pro | Karaoke Kiosk | Bose L1 Model II system | B2 bass | ToneMatch audio engine | Shure VHF SM58 wireless mics | Countryman E6 Earset with Shure UHF wireless beltpack

The windows version allows for importing tracks. If you notice the songs on the mac version, they are 21000 picks of most requested songs.

Here is my affiliate link if you like to get started with Karafun Pro:

http://www.karafun.com/?aff=614

Got this from KV today... The email was answered by KaraFun:

Hello ,

Thanks for contacting KaraFun's Customer Care Team. I'm Annie and I'm here to help!

All of our songs have been obtained legally and are covered for karaoke use under production licenses. If however you will use these songs in a public environment for commercial use (for example, restaurant, bar, etc.) we recommend getting in touch with the music performance society to make sure that you are indeed covered for the composition aspect. In the US these societies could be BMI, ASCAP, HFA....

Let me know if you have further questions, I'll be happy to help!

Best,

I figured I'd ask them what the policy was over a Karaoke Versions about using their karaoke tracks *as a karaoke host in the USA. Question answered.

Edit: Added to the above sentence.

Do keep in mind you contacted Karafun customer care to get this reply and not Karaoke-version.com customer care

In Canada Licensing requirements:
*Licensing is from Re-Sound for the Mobile KJ (Karaoke) http://www.resound.ca/tariffs/#live-events
*If you're using DJ tracks the AVLA license is also required http://www.connectmusic.ca
*Bar Owners pay the Socan Fees

No, the question was sent via the Karaoke Versions contact page (http://www.karaoke-version.com/contact.html). It was Karafun that answered it.

I hate for you to be miss-informed, but I would reply to that email and clarify "pertaining to Karaoke Tracks purchased and obtained from karaoke-version.com website" other than karafun Pro subscription.

LoL!

_________________
-Chris

They are the same company. What I got from that reply is that as long as the PRO fees are paid, you can play the tracks. Good enough for me.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

If I am misinformed, then its by the company who owns and produces it.

Rather then debate me, send Karaoke Versions a message in dealing with the legality of karaoke host playing their songs (in the US, not Canada) and feel free to post the result as I have done.

If we get two different answers, then we can be confused together, and set them to make a more iron clad policy.

Until then, I'll take the company's word that it's legal.

We are all on the same side here: I also sent an email to Karaoke-Version.com support saying: I am awaiting an answer from them.

THIS is what we have become......

_________________
-Chris

I already got an answer from them a year ago stating that as long as performance agency fees are paid then they are legal in a commercial setting. Good enough for me. They are the second choice for me due to pricing. I'd rather deal with Karaoke Version rather than Karafun because Karafun's streaming service bites unless you have a great connection with your internet. It buffers while playing rather than buffering before play so sometimes the video lags or freezes during performance. Tricerasoft's streaming service does not lag because it downloads the song file temporarily to the player's computer before play.

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

Karafun Pro library is all offline, not streaming? In settings you can enable sync offline and all tracks download to your device. (70gb total size)

I realize that the term "material" is probably difficult for you to understand, but pretty much all of our licensees seem able to understand it without much difficulty, seeing as how their compliance with the agreement is, as a whole, very, very good.

But here are some of the things a GEM licensee might do, that would cause them potentially to have their discs taken away:

Multi-rigging from a single set
Transferring possession of the discs to a third party without permission
Distributing the content to a third party (other than an employee or contractor temporarily and specifically for the purpose of putting on a show in the licensee's name)
Uploading the content to a network
Incorporating the content into a different product
Removing copyright or trademark notices and other information from the content
Set splitting
Refusing an audit (max of 1 audit per year)
Violating the quality control terms of the agreement
Defaulting on an installment payment agreement

This is probably not all of the possibilities, and there is more detail in the agreement that clearly lays out what the conditions are for keeping possession, but I think [s]you[/s] a reasonable person could find very little to fault in that list.

We also provide a minimum of 14 days' notice of a breach before a default occurs, and only then if the breach isn't cured does a default occur.

If you were an actual GEM licensee, you'd know this, but we work carefully with GEM licensees to make sure they understand exactly what the expectations are, and we work hard to avoid default and repossession. As a general rule, we would strongly prefer not to take back the discs, the only exception being egregious cases.



See, now, here's another example of a logical leap that you can't seem to help making.

I don't know the status of CB's licensing when the Stovalls were running the company. You don't either. The reason why we don't know is because we haven't examined the records.

First, you can't look at PACER and know that you have the whole truth. Complaints are accusations, not evidence. A court case might mature to the point where evidence is developed, but unless and until you see all the documents, you can't conclude anything.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, you cannot conclude that because some publishers sued for copyright infringement that CB had no licensing at all. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

So, my statement is the most truthful statement that can be made: "As far as I am aware, all of the publisher licenses used to make CB product are now expired." I can make that statement because CB has been out of business for longer than the duration of virtually every karaoke license that has ever been written. That statement is also responsive to the question that was asked, and not to some unasked question you dreamt up and blamed me for not answering.



What's not surprising is that you would conclude that the status of CB licensing has something to do with our acquisition of the CB trademark rights. One has nothing to do with the other. The status of CB's copyright licensing when it was run by the Stovalls has nothing to do with us, nothing to do with the trademark rights, and no impact on our plans. What we are interested in is (a) making new CB product on the parameters we have stated and (b) preventing the CB brand from becoming freeware by confining it to use by those who have actually purchased the product.

Well, first some housekeeping and we'll start off with dodgy word magic:

AND..... presto! Change-Oh!
Golly Wilbur, isn't "an officer" what you'd call "a part of?"

[singing]
"knee bone connected to the thigh bone,
thigh bone connected to the hip bone,
Harrington connected to the Slep-Tone.... "
[/singing]

Seems a little fishy to me.... but I digress... so let's move on...

Of course it's not "all of the possibilities" because there is more detail. Like refusing to turn over "accounting records relating to karaoke entertainment activities." Right?

Explain to all the licensees out there what business it is of yours to have any access whatsoever to their personal business accounting records? Or even to know -- or care -- what a licensee charges for their karaoke services? It looks like a stethoscope on their wallet...
You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own "facts" and you can't possibly state as a fact that I "don't either." As the Stovall's would say; "You're just flappin' yer jaws." You have no idea what I know, who I've talked to or anything else. (Except you do know that I had a few words with EMI... and that was expen$ive for you.)

Duh... Contrary to your belief, I don't rely just on PACER so it's not a "logical leap" at all. You have no idea what documents I've seen or had access to. And let's talk in English here counselor: "A court case might mature to the point where evidence is developed,.." is called a "fishing expedition" when you don't actually have evidence and who knows more about "developing evidence" than you?

I can "conclude"exactly what I want to conclude -- based on what I've seen with my own eyes. Unfortunately, you haven't and therefore cannot. But just because you can't determine any facts, doesn't automatically mean I can't either or that there are none. I'm not privy to everything and you aren't either. Get over it.
Now you're just putting words in my mouth to make yourself look better.

But it's nice to see some confirmation from you that while you hold out a tin cup for your licensees to help fund "Sound Choice songs" your actual intent is: (a) making new CB product.

Perhaps you'll need a secondary tin cup for this one.... but it can be smaller... after all, you did say "public domain children's songs" right?

[quote="c. staley"]
You have no idea what I know, who I've talked to or anything else. (Except you do know that I had a few words with EMI... and that was expen$ive for you.)
[quote="c. staley"]

This hatred of SC has developed into you doing everything you can to put them out of business but it just makes things more expensive and more restrictive for the rest of us. In the meantime, KJAthena gets blamed for stirring things up with the publishers when you have actually been inciting them to file lawsuits????

Not at all. I've never "incited" anyone to sue anyone else. I don't have that kind of magical power. Perhaps if they hadn't infringed on the publishers in the first place, they would not have been sued by them. You're wanting to blame me for their actions but sorry, I'm not buying it.

The ones most responsible for publishers making "things more expensive and more restrictive for the rest of us" were the infringing manufacturers themselves. They created the atmosphere of distrust with the publishers. I can't do that, and neither can Athena.

And if you think that "this hatred of SC has developed into you doing everything you can to put them out of business..." then I've already succeeded haven't I? Slep-Tone is out of business, I'm not.

All I did was tell the truth... a truth that not even Slep-Tone could deny and never challenged, but you think that telling the truth was somehow the wrong thing to do? Really?