KARAOKE SCENE MAGAZINE ONLINE! - TriceraSoft out of business completely? Public Forums Karaoke Discussions Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums Home | Contact Us | Site Map  

Karaoke Forums

Karaoke Scene Karaoke Forums

Karaoke Scene

   
  * Login
  * Register

  * FAQ
  * Search

Custom Search

Social Networks


premium-member

Offsite Links


It is currently Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:54 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:08 pm 
Offline
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:05 am
Posts: 211
Been Liked: 169 times
Quote:
I agree to a point, but if even half of what they claimed was true, settlement wouldn't have made it go away. They allegedly were out to destroy him and nothing short of him being completely bankrupt was going to be acceptable.

Given all the trouble ALL the karaoke producers seemed to have had with sony and their ilk of late *we can't get digital licenses, it costs too much etc* I think his story is at the very least plausible.

I mean you are talking about an industry that will steal the copyrights of music from artists claiming that the copyright was abandoned and/or unclaimed, allowing them to make that music for virtually nothing, and then not having to pay the artist a single dime


The team representing Sony is all about money....PERIOD. Whether it comes from an insurance policy or elsewhere makes no difference. Remember, Sunfly was also added to the Tricera suit. They paid a settlement and were removed from the suit AND granted a license. When Sony sued Slep-Tone, they also included Stingray. They agreed to a settlement early and were removed from the suit while Slep-Tone continued. It's all about MONEY. Your comment "*we can't get digital licenses, it costs too much etc*" is BS excuses used by people who abused their licenses and were conveniently denied new ones on expiration.

Your comment about the industry is accurate. It was the wild wild West back in the late 90's-early 2000's. The cowboys were doing as they pleased with little or no regard for publishing licenses. They are the ones who helped create the environment we live in today.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:50 pm 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6381
Songs: 1
Location: Hollyweird, Ca.
Been Liked: 502 times
KSFGROUP wrote:
Quote:
I agree to a point, but if even half of what they claimed was true, settlement wouldn't have made it go away. They allegedly were out to destroy him and nothing short of him being completely bankrupt was going to be acceptable.

Given all the trouble ALL the karaoke producers seemed to have had with sony and their ilk of late *we can't get digital licenses, it costs too much etc* I think his story is at the very least plausible.

I mean you are talking about an industry that will steal the copyrights of music from artists claiming that the copyright was abandoned and/or unclaimed, allowing them to make that music for virtually nothing, and then not having to pay the artist a single dime


The team representing Sony is all about money....PERIOD. Whether it comes from an insurance policy or elsewhere makes no difference. Remember, Sunfly was also added to the Tricera suit. They paid a settlement and were removed from the suit AND granted a license. When Sony sued Slep-Tone, they also included Stingray. They agreed to a settlement early and were removed from the suit while Slep-Tone continued. It's all about MONEY. Your comment "*we can't get digital licenses, it costs too much etc*" is BS excuses used by people who abused their licenses and were conveniently denied new ones on expiration.

Your comment about the industry is accurate. It was the wild wild West back in the late 90's-early 2000's. The cowboys were doing as they pleased with little or no regard for publishing licenses. They are the ones who helped create the environment we live in today.


Wait a minute.. You're telling me Slep-Tone refused to settle?

I find that difficult to believe.

All I hear lately from PEP, is "Settle, Settle". :angel:


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:01 am 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 2960
Location: Pineville, NC
Been Liked: 983 times
KSFGROUP wrote:
When Sony sued Slep-Tone, they also included Stingray. They agreed to a settlement early and were removed from the suit while Slep-Tone continued. It's all about MONEY.


This is not accurate. If Sony sued Stingray, it was not part of the same suit when Sony sued Slep-Tone. (Technically, it was EMI, which is now a unit of Sony, although Sony filed its own suit later. Regardless, Stingray was not involved in either suit.) EMI sued a completely unrelated company, KTS Karaoke, along with Slep-Tone. KTS's insurance company settled with EMI (over KTS's objection, which EMI got around by waiving any injunctive relief--thereby proving the last four words quoted above).

_________________
Since there has been some confusion:
1. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. Statements I make here about legal issues are for informational purposes only.
2. I am an officer of Phoenix Entertainment Partners, but my opinions on matters not involving Phoenix's business are my own and may not reflect the opinions of the company.
3. If you have questions you'd like answered officially, you are welcome to email me at jim@phxep.com or send me a private message here.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:19 pm 
Offline
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:05 am
Posts: 211
Been Liked: 169 times
Quote:
The team representing Sony is all about money....PERIOD. Whether it comes from an insurance policy or elsewhere makes no difference. Remember, Sunfly was also added to the Tricera suit. They paid a settlement and were removed from the suit AND granted a license. When Sony sued Slep-Tone, they also included Stingray. They agreed to a settlement early and were removed from the suit while Slep-Tone continued. It's all about MONEY. Your comment "*we can't get digital licenses, it costs too much etc*" is BS excuses used by people who abused their licenses and were conveniently denied new ones on expiration.


Sorry, I stand corrected - it was the EMI suit I was referring to. Another case handled by the attorney Paul Stacy and his team which is who I was referring to. Stingray settled in mediation and they were the big fish in my opinion. Stacy likes to drag in anybody he can to increase his earnings and Stingray represented one of the biggest if not the biggest karaoke (or karaoke related) company ever. They were preparing for an IPO and the last thing they needed was to be dragged into this suit. I didn't say Slep-Tone didn't settle, I am saying that they fought longer before settling.


Attachments:
Screen Shot 2017-02-09 at 7.16.43 PM.png
Screen Shot 2017-02-09 at 7.16.43 PM.png [ 294.08 KiB | Viewed 4505 times ]
Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:13 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4532
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 336 times
JimHarrington wrote:
This is not accurate. If Sony sued Stingray, it was not part of the same suit when Sony sued Slep-Tone. (Technically, it was EMI, which is now a unit of Sony, although Sony filed its own suit later. Regardless, Stingray was not involved in either suit.) EMI sued a completely unrelated company, KTS Karaoke, along with Slep-Tone. KTS's insurance company settled with EMI (over KTS's objection, which EMI got around by waiving any injunctive relief--thereby proving the last four words quoted above).


Wow.... and I put my waders away for the winter....


Attachments:
Pinoch.jpg
Pinoch.jpg [ 68.23 KiB | Viewed 4462 times ]

_________________
"For all the back-and-forth I have with Mr. Staley, the thing about him is that he follows the law and our policies in his karaoke operations. We have no interest in putting him out of business, because he's not violating the law." -- HarringtonLaw (a.k.a: Jimmy "The Weasel" Harrington)
Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 9:18 pm 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 2960
Location: Pineville, NC
Been Liked: 983 times
The names of the parties to that litigation are a matter of public record. Stingray was not a party to the litigation at all.

If you're going to accuse me of lying, you really should pick something that's a little harder to verify.

_________________
Since there has been some confusion:
1. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. Statements I make here about legal issues are for informational purposes only.
2. I am an officer of Phoenix Entertainment Partners, but my opinions on matters not involving Phoenix's business are my own and may not reflect the opinions of the company.
3. If you have questions you'd like answered officially, you are welcome to email me at jim@phxep.com or send me a private message here.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 5:02 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4532
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 336 times
JimHarrington wrote:
The names of the parties to that litigation are a matter of public record. Stingray was not a party to the litigation at all.

If you're going to accuse me of lying, you really should pick something that's a little harder to verify.


So you are denying that Stingray settled? Really?

"Technically, " Stingray was not named in the suit. But they settled before the suit because they knew where that was going to go.

_________________
"For all the back-and-forth I have with Mr. Staley, the thing about him is that he follows the law and our policies in his karaoke operations. We have no interest in putting him out of business, because he's not violating the law." -- HarringtonLaw (a.k.a: Jimmy "The Weasel" Harrington)


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:26 am 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 2960
Location: Pineville, NC
Been Liked: 983 times
c. staley wrote:
So you are denying that Stingray settled? Really?


Most infants begin to develop object permanence between 4-7 months, so it's surprising that you don't seem to have developed it at whatever age you are now. But I'm willing to work with that. Look! Here's the ball that disappeared before--it's magically re-appeared!

JimHarrington wrote:
KSFGROUP wrote:
When Sony sued Slep-Tone, they also included Stingray. They agreed to a settlement early and were removed from the suit while Slep-Tone continued. It's all about MONEY.


This is not accurate. If Sony sued Stingray, it was not part of the same suit when Sony sued Slep-Tone. (Technically, it was EMI, which is now a unit of Sony, although Sony filed its own suit later. Regardless, Stingray was not involved in either suit.) EMI sued a completely unrelated company, KTS Karaoke, along with Slep-Tone. KTS's insurance company settled with EMI (over KTS's objection, which EMI got around by waiving any injunctive relief--thereby proving the last four words quoted above).


I did not deny that Stingray settled with Sony. (I have no direct knowledge of a settlement. I really don't care whether they settled or not.) I was correcting Michael's statement that Sony sued Slep-Tone and Stingray together. Stingray was not a party to any litigation between Sony and Slep-Tone. I offered the information about KTS because that company, not Stingray, was the one sued with Slep-Tone--and because the circumstances of the KTS settlement demonstrate that it was solely about money, which agreed with Michael's statement.

c. staley wrote:
"Technically, " Stingray was not named in the suit. But they settled before the suit because they knew where that was going to go.


For someone who maintains steadfastly that he had absolutely nothing to do with the suit, you sure seem to imply that you had information about what the suit looked like before it was filed.

(Of course, the second part of quoted text above is actually a lie on Mr. Staley's part. Once again, he's confusing his utterly unfounded guess about the facts with actual facts.)

_________________
Since there has been some confusion:
1. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. Statements I make here about legal issues are for informational purposes only.
2. I am an officer of Phoenix Entertainment Partners, but my opinions on matters not involving Phoenix's business are my own and may not reflect the opinions of the company.
3. If you have questions you'd like answered officially, you are welcome to email me at jim@phxep.com or send me a private message here.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 2:24 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4532
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 336 times
JimHarrington wrote:
c. staley wrote:
"Technically, " Stingray was not named in the suit. But they settled before the suit because they knew where that was going to go.

(Of course, the second part of quoted text above is actually a lie on Mr. Staley's part. Once again, he's confusing his utterly unfounded guess about the facts with actual facts.)
You mean the "utterly unfounded but highly accurate guess" right?

JimHarrington wrote:
For someone who maintains steadfastly that he had absolutely nothing to do with the suit, you sure seem to imply that you had information about what the suit looked like before it was filed.
And this is the perpetuated lie on Mr. Harrington's part as he (once again) implies that I had something to do to instigate the copyright infringement against them. I'm sure that how and where I get information drives you to the point of boiling anger....
Sorry about that.... carry on.

_________________
"For all the back-and-forth I have with Mr. Staley, the thing about him is that he follows the law and our policies in his karaoke operations. We have no interest in putting him out of business, because he's not violating the law." -- HarringtonLaw (a.k.a: Jimmy "The Weasel" Harrington)


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 4:07 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm
Posts: 4285
Location: Phoenix Az
Been Liked: 874 times
c. staley wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
c. staley wrote:
"Technically, " Stingray was not named in the suit. But they settled before the suit because they knew where that was going to go.

(Of course, the second part of quoted text above is actually a lie on Mr. Staley's part. Once again, he's confusing his utterly unfounded guess about the facts with actual facts.)
You mean the "utterly unfounded but highly accurate guess" right?

easy fix, ...show it.
anything you can't back up IS just a guess

guess ɡes/ verb
verb: guess; 3rd person present: guesses; past tense: guessed; past participle: guessed; gerund or present participle: guessing
1. estimate or suppose (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct.
"she guessed the child's age to be 14 or 15"

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 7:15 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4532
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 336 times
Paradigm Karaoke wrote:
c. staley wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
c. staley wrote:
"Technically, " Stingray was not named in the suit. But they settled before the suit because they knew where that was going to go.

(Of course, the second part of quoted text above is actually a lie on Mr. Staley's part. Once again, he's confusing his utterly unfounded guess about the facts with actual facts.)
You mean the "utterly unfounded but highly accurate guess" right?

easy fix, ...show it.
anything you can't back up IS just a guess

guess ɡes/ verb
verb: guess; 3rd person present: guesses; past tense: guessed; past participle: guessed; gerund or present participle: guessing
1. estimate or suppose (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct.
"she guessed the child's age to be 14 or 15"

Take a look at the excerpt above that KSF posted. This is not brand new information, it came out years ago when the suit was filed. I read everything remember?
Defendant = slep tone, Plaintiff = EMI. It's not really much of a guess is it? If Stingray thought they had a chance, they would not have settled in advance of anything....would they? Would you?

See the entire complaint (if I can attach it here, I will. Otherwise, email me and I'll send it to you.) I can't upload it, but you can find it here:--> http://dkusa.com/PDF/EMIcomplaint.pdf

The excerpt above is paragraph 45, section (e) of the complaint against Phoenix Entertainment Partners.

So now you know that Stingray's involvement (or "pre-suit settlement") is not really a guess, or a lie but fact. Now, I'd like to see Mr. Harrington prove that his constant implications (lies) about me instigating the suit against them has even a shred of objective, factual information. (prepare for the cricket brigade)

_________________
"For all the back-and-forth I have with Mr. Staley, the thing about him is that he follows the law and our policies in his karaoke operations. We have no interest in putting him out of business, because he's not violating the law." -- HarringtonLaw (a.k.a: Jimmy "The Weasel" Harrington)


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 12:13 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm
Posts: 4285
Location: Phoenix Az
Been Liked: 874 times
he is right Chip...
Stingray was not included in the suit.
however
they were mentioned to show that Slep-Tone was selling/transferring assets to Stingray that they did not have legal authority to sell/transfer.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:20 am 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 2960
Location: Pineville, NC
Been Liked: 983 times
LOL. I think I'll let you figure out where you went wrong, Mr. Staley. I will, however, give you a hint: Look at the date on that complaint.

(Beyond that, why are you arguing that I'm wrong about something I never said? Michael said Stingray was sued with us. They weren't. I was merely correcting his factual error, which wasn't malicious, just a misremembrance. I never said anything about them settling a claim or being sued separately. Yet you're hysterical about my supposed contention that they never settled, which I never made. I don't care if they did. It's their business decision, not mine.)

_________________
Since there has been some confusion:
1. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. Statements I make here about legal issues are for informational purposes only.
2. I am an officer of Phoenix Entertainment Partners, but my opinions on matters not involving Phoenix's business are my own and may not reflect the opinions of the company.
3. If you have questions you'd like answered officially, you are welcome to email me at jim@phxep.com or send me a private message here.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:26 am 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 2960
Location: Pineville, NC
Been Liked: 983 times
Paradigm Karaoke wrote:
he is right Chip...
Stingray was not included in the suit.
however
they were mentioned to show that Slep-Tone was selling/transferring assets to Stingray that they did not have legal authority to sell/transfer.


Yeah, except the judge laughed at that contention. These were tracks that we plainly owned the copyright in and could transfer to whomever we liked.

They also accused us of infringement based on the fact that Slep-Tone had a link on its website to the Karaoke Channel, a service that was and is 100% licensed, on the theory that we weren't licensed to "distribute" those tracks and linking to the Stingray website was "distributing."

_________________
Since there has been some confusion:
1. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. Statements I make here about legal issues are for informational purposes only.
2. I am an officer of Phoenix Entertainment Partners, but my opinions on matters not involving Phoenix's business are my own and may not reflect the opinions of the company.
3. If you have questions you'd like answered officially, you are welcome to email me at jim@phxep.com or send me a private message here.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:22 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4532
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 336 times
JimHarrington wrote:
LOL. I think I'll let you figure out where you went wrong, Mr. Staley. I will, however, give you a hint: Look at the date on that complaint.
Hang on a sec.... I have to wade through quite a pile of the infringement complaints against SC/PEP to make sure I have the right one.....

"that complaint?" Here you are again, splitting hairs with technicalities in your sad attempt to bolster your credibility. How about we just go back to the "original complaint" against Slep-tone? You and kurt made your attempt to weasel out of the lawsuit by trashing the original defendant corporation and conveniently leave a few costly liabilities behind in the process.

But that didn't work out so well for you did it? The court allowed EMI to keep you on the hook with "this (new) complaint" and you ultimately settled for a pretty hefty payment plan.... So the "date on that complaint" really doesn't mean much as long as your yearly payments to EMI are made on time.

Nice try.

_________________
"For all the back-and-forth I have with Mr. Staley, the thing about him is that he follows the law and our policies in his karaoke operations. We have no interest in putting him out of business, because he's not violating the law." -- HarringtonLaw (a.k.a: Jimmy "The Weasel" Harrington)


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 11:28 am 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 2960
Location: Pineville, NC
Been Liked: 983 times
This is a good example of how you present "facts" that are nothing more than self-serving assumptions that have no basis in reality.

We didn't "trash" Slep-Tone to avoid liability. We didn't "trash" Slep-Tone at all. Its assets were purchased for fair market value, well in excess of any amount that might have been required to satisfy any liabilities. Moreover, when Phoenix completed that purchase, we sent a notice to EMI and Sony. (If we were trying to avoid liability in that suit, why would we announce the transaction to the other side?)

Our opposition to the suit against Phoenix was based on the fact that Phoenix had not done any of the things it was accused of in the suit. The filing was a strategic maneuver by EMI to try to delay the trial because despite two years of discovery, EMI still hadn't uncovered evidence of infringement. It didn't work, because the judge declined to delay the trial of the first case.

_________________
Since there has been some confusion:
1. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. Statements I make here about legal issues are for informational purposes only.
2. I am an officer of Phoenix Entertainment Partners, but my opinions on matters not involving Phoenix's business are my own and may not reflect the opinions of the company.
3. If you have questions you'd like answered officially, you are welcome to email me at jim@phxep.com or send me a private message here.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 2:30 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4532
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 336 times
JimHarrington wrote:
This is a good example of how you present "facts" that are nothing more than self-serving assumptions that have no basis in reality.
Oh geez!... here we go again... Give me a minute to put on my waders....

JimHarrington wrote:
We didn't "trash" Slep-Tone to avoid liability. We didn't "trash" Slep-Tone at all. Its assets were purchased for fair market value, well in excess of any amount that might have been required to satisfy any liabilities.
It doesn't matter what "price was paid" because it sold from Kurt.... to Kurt. According to you, you're not a partner.... And if he wanted a partner to buy-in and purchase a portion of his company (slep-tone) he could have simply sold them stock and nothing else would have had to change. If he didn't take on any partner(s) then it makes even less sense. So I believe you're simply being dishonest.... again. At the minimum, lying by omission and once again, not being completely honest with the readers of this forum. Give us an explanation that tells us "why" not "how."

JimHarrington wrote:
Moreover, when Phoenix completed that purchase, we sent a notice to EMI and Sony. (If we were trying to avoid liability in that suit, why would we announce the transaction to the other side?)
I strongly believe you were looking to avoid liability... but not necessarily just in the suit. I believe there were other liabilities you wanted to leave behind. Slep Tone must have owed a ton of money to somebody.

JimHarrington wrote:
Our opposition to the suit against Phoenix was based on the fact that Phoenix had not done any of the things it was accused of in the suit. The filing was a strategic maneuver by EMI to try to delay the trial because despite two years of discovery, EMI still hadn't uncovered evidence of infringement. It didn't work, because the judge declined to delay the trial of the first case.
While on one hand, you claim that PEP operates the business "in succession" as though you've been running it all along and claim that the karaoke tracks that pirates use were therefore, created by or at least owned by PEP. But when it came to this suit, you suddenly "had not done any of the things it was accused of?" Same owner right?.... More baloney from you:
Court on 3-26-15 wrote:
CASE ACCEPTED AS RELATED. Create association to 1:13-cv-00749-LLS.
Case 749, filed in 2013 was against Slep-tone, and 02099, filed in 2015, was "Slep Tone et al" (for those of you that don't know, "et al" means "and others" so in this case, it included PEP because slep tone had been vaporized by then.)

Ultimately, PEP realized that this suit would not bode well if it went all the way to a jury and settled. So yes, your settlement speaks volumes. EMI doesn't want to put you in the poorhouse either, they want you to make at least enough to make their (I can imagine fairly hefty) settlement payments.

But this still doesn't explain the truth behind trashing the slep-tone corp.
It doesn't make sense, you've never explained it truthfully and it certainly doesn't smell very good. (kind of like "poop" actually)

_________________
"For all the back-and-forth I have with Mr. Staley, the thing about him is that he follows the law and our policies in his karaoke operations. We have no interest in putting him out of business, because he's not violating the law." -- HarringtonLaw (a.k.a: Jimmy "The Weasel" Harrington)


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 6:27 pm 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 2960
Location: Pineville, NC
Been Liked: 983 times
Your imagination is certainly fertile.

_________________
Since there has been some confusion:
1. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. Statements I make here about legal issues are for informational purposes only.
2. I am an officer of Phoenix Entertainment Partners, but my opinions on matters not involving Phoenix's business are my own and may not reflect the opinions of the company.
3. If you have questions you'd like answered officially, you are welcome to email me at jim@phxep.com or send me a private message here.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 11:22 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm
Posts: 4285
Location: Phoenix Az
Been Liked: 874 times
do have to admit though Jim, selling the company from Kurt to Kurt does look very shady.
what reason would someone have to sell themselves the company they already own if not to avoid some liabilities attached to the original company?

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 2:12 am 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 2960
Location: Pineville, NC
Been Liked: 983 times
Paradigm Karaoke wrote:
do have to admit though Jim, selling the company from Kurt to Kurt does look very shady.
what reason would someone have to sell themselves the company they already own if not to avoid some liabilities attached to the original company?


The organization did take on a new investor who preferred the LLC form for tax reasons. (Note that Slep-Tone is a corporation while Phoenix is an LLC.) It had nothing to do with any tailing liabilities in Slep-Tone.

_________________
Since there has been some confusion:
1. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. Statements I make here about legal issues are for informational purposes only.
2. I am an officer of Phoenix Entertainment Partners, but my opinions on matters not involving Phoenix's business are my own and may not reflect the opinions of the company.
3. If you have questions you'd like answered officially, you are welcome to email me at jim@phxep.com or send me a private message here.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 98 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Privacy Policy | Anti-Spam Policy | Acceptable Use Policy Copyright © Karaoke Scene Magazine
design & hosting by Cross Web Tech