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 Sun Mar 26, 2017 10:54 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: Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:36 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4464
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 303 times
JimHarrington wrote:
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.
Sounds good on the surface, but the liquidation of a C corporation is a double-taxed event and an LLC member is liable for the full amount of self-employment taxes so federal tax liabilities usually increase.

Nice try.

Besides, you still have 3 more years to pay on your settlement which is a huge liability on this LLC:
Image
I would have to ask myself -- if I were a prospective investor -- based on the history of Slep, and with this ball 'n chain, would I feel safe investing a dime?

_________________
"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: Mon Feb 13, 2017 7:29 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6085
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1659 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?


I will be selling my karaoke company to my wife in a few months. Is that also going to be considered shady?

_________________
-Chris


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:51 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:07 pm
Posts: 399
Been Liked: 80 times
I worked at a place where the company was transferred to the daughters name so they could get tax breaks as a minority owned business. Seemed kind of shady to me.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 9:27 am 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 2715
Images: 1
Location: Florida
Been Liked: 1056 times
Karaoke Croaker wrote:
I worked at a place where the company was transferred to the daughters name so they could get tax breaks as a minority owned business. Seemed kind of shady to me.
Or just transfer to Elizabeth Warren's native American status. :lol:


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:47 pm 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 2877
Location: Pineville, NC
Been Liked: 975 times
c. staley wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
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.
Sounds good on the surface, but the liquidation of a C corporation is a double-taxed event and an LLC member is liable for the full amount of self-employment taxes so federal tax liabilities usually increase.


Now you're just throwing around jargon in the hope of impressing people who don't know better.

Slep-Tone is not a C corporation, and it wasn't liquidated anyway.

An LLC member that is not a natural person is not liable for "the full amount of self-employment taxes," whatever that's supposed to mean.

At some point, do you think it might possibly be a good time to reassess why it is that you think you're so much smarter than the people running Phoenix and investing in Phoenix? I mean, not to be unkind, but I'll point out that (a) we've stayed in business almost 7 years since the last time we recorded a new track, (b) our brands are the #1 and #2 commercially most-played brands of karaoke music in the U.S., still commanding more than 50% market share despite the lack of new material, (c) we're growing at a time when several karaoke producers have left the business or been consolidated, and (d) you couldn't keep a seven-system mobile entertainment business running over that same period. We're keeping the lights on, paying the rent, meeting payroll, turning a profit, and so forth, AND (according to you) making YUUGE payments to Sony, yet supposedly we're idiots and you're...not?

Explain to me how that works, 'cause I'm just not seeing it.

_________________
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: Mon Feb 13, 2017 2:10 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm
Posts: 4153
Location: Phoenix Az
Been Liked: 842 times
chrisavis wrote:
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?


I will be selling my karaoke company to my wife in a few months. Is that also going to be considered shady?

and why would you do that?
real curiosity if there's a benefit

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


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 2:21 pm 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6085
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1659 times
Paradigm Karaoke wrote:
chrisavis wrote:
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?


I will be selling my karaoke company to my wife in a few months. Is that also going to be considered shady?

and why would you do that?
real curiosity if there's a benefit


Two people, 3 full time jobs, and we both want better work life balance. She wants to quit her day job. I like my day job more and more every day. So she is going to take over the karaoke business (I will still be the tech support guy) and I am going to focus on my day job career for the next 4 years.

It will also give me some freedom to do more coding which I want to do so I can finish up some karaoke related projects and start new ones.

_________________
-Chris


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 2:41 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4464
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 303 times
chrisavis wrote:
Two people, 3 full time jobs, and we both want better work life balance. She wants to quit her day job. I like my day job more and more every day. So she is going to take over the karaoke business (I will still be the tech support guy) and I am going to focus on my day job career for the next 4 years.
There's nothing preventing her from running the business (and getting paid for it) no matter who owns the business on paper. It's different if you want her to qualify for some kind of "women owned business" deduction.

_________________
"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: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:15 pm 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6085
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1659 times
c. staley wrote:
chrisavis wrote:
Two people, 3 full time jobs, and we both want better work life balance. She wants to quit her day job. I like my day job more and more every day. So she is going to take over the karaoke business (I will still be the tech support guy) and I am going to focus on my day job career for the next 4 years.
There's nothing preventing her from running the business (and getting paid for it) no matter who owns the business on paper. It's different if you want her to qualify for some kind of "women owned business" deduction.


My reasons are *my*reasons. Not to mention the last person I want or need advise from is someone who lied and continues to lie not just to me, but to everyone on this forum. You are not trustworthy. Particular when it comes to karaoke related matters.

Besides.....I am the one with an active and growing karaoke business, not you. I would be happy to consult for you, but I don't think you can afford me. :)

_________________
-Chris


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:40 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4464
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 303 times
JimHarrington wrote:
... I'll point out that
(a) we've stayed in business almost 7 years since the last time we recorded a new track,
(b) our brands are the #1 and #2 commercially most-played brands of karaoke music in the U.S., still commanding more than 50% market share despite the lack of new material,
(c) we're growing at a time when several karaoke producers have left the business or been consolidated, and
(d) you couldn't keep a seven-system mobile entertainment business running over that same period.
We're keeping the lights on, paying the rent, meeting payroll, turning a profit, and so forth, AND (according to you) making YUUGE payments to Sony, yet supposedly we're idiots and you're...not?

Explain to me how that works, 'cause I'm just not seeing it.

First of all, I never said you were idiots... you assigned that to yourself and seriously, who am I to argue? But, "not to be unkind" let's take a real look at what you believe your accomplishments were.
Quote:
(a) we've stayed in business almost 7 years since the last time we recorded a new track,
I've been in business over 20+ years and I produced "new tracks" just 3 years ago... And I haven't been sued for infringement by anyone.. ever.
Quote:
(b) our brands are the #1 and #2 commercially most-played brands of karaoke music in the U.S., still commanding more than 50% market share despite the lack of new material,
You "acquired" the brands. You didn't have diddly squat to do with CB other than buy it and as for SC, you need to quantify your boast of "more than 50% market share" because that would be only for music that by all standards today are "oldies." (We have a brand new "oldies station" here in Detroit too) Sunfly, SBI, Karaoke Version and even KSF kick your butt for anything past 2011. But I believe that the companies that own (or have owned) "your acquired brands" hold the record for the most times sued for infringement. And you're still paying off one of those suits.
Quote:
(c) we're growing at a time when several karaoke producers have left the business or been consolidated, and ...
The fact of the matter is that you're not "a karaoke producer" and for all intents and purposes, you've also "left the business." Your "growing" is nothing more than a reflection of your "lawsuit business" which has nothing to do with supplying this business.
Quote:
(d) you couldn't keep a seven-system mobile entertainment business running over that same period.

Ah, here's the lie.... I knew there would have to be an obvious one somewhere... because you couldn't resist... While it's common knowledge that I've chosen to lighten my work load over 7 years ago, it's also plain to see that you are suffering from the delusion that you actually believe your company is an industry source for product.

However, you've been unable to keep a single recording studio open or make good on a single (repeated) promise of new music "over that same period."

Rent free.... in your head...

_________________
"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: Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:11 pm 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 2877
Location: Pineville, NC
Been Liked: 975 times
c. staley wrote:
First of all, I never said you were idiots... you assigned that to yourself and seriously, who am I to argue?


Just today:

1. You've suggested that we made some sort of costly tax-related error in how we structured the business transaction under which Phoenix came to own the Sound Choice brand, because for some reason you think that we didn't consider the tax implications of such a move.

2. You pedantically directed me to a Wikipedia article about the MD5 hash algorithm when I pointed out that MD5 checksums could be used to determine conclusively that you were lying when you said your Red Peters tracks were individually watermarked, suggesting that I didn't know what I was talking about because I'm just an attorney, when in fact, in addition to being an attorney, I've been a professional software developer for 16 years (with a total of 35 years of programming experience). On top of that, the article you linked actually demonstrated my point, which shows that either you didn't understand it or you were throwing off chaff to distract others who don't have the technical knowledge I have.

I must therefore conclude that you think that you're a lot smarter than me. I will concede that there are probably some areas where you have more knowledge or experience than I do, but those areas do not include the law or technology.

c. staley wrote:
as for SC, you need to quantify your boast of "more than 50% market share" because that would be only for music that by all standards today are "oldies."


More than 50% of the karaoke tracks played at public commercial karaoke shows in the United States carry the Sound Choice trademarks. About 10% more carry the Chartbuster marks. In some markets, particularly where country music is prevalent, the Chartbuster number is higher and the Sound Choice number is lower, but they add up to more than 50% overall.

"Oldies" or not. In my extensive experience, more than 90% of the music that actually gets played at karaoke shows was first recorded before 2010.

c. staley wrote:
While it's common knowledge that I've chosen to lighten my work load over 7 years ago


That's an interesting euphemism.

_________________
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: Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:56 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm
Posts: 4153
Location: Phoenix Az
Been Liked: 842 times
chrisavis wrote:
Two people, 3 full time jobs, and we both want better work life balance. She wants to quit her day job. I like my day job more and more every day. So she is going to take over the karaoke business (I will still be the tech support guy) and I am going to focus on my day job career for the next 4 years.

It will also give me some freedom to do more coding which I want to do so I can finish up some karaoke related projects and start new ones.

that makes a lot of sense. it is a different scenario than what i was referring to
if you sold it to yourself to continue what you have been doing, that's a different story.
you are selling to someone who is taking over the business.

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


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:20 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4464
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 303 times
JimHarrington wrote:
Just today:

1. You've suggested that we made some sort of costly tax-related error in how we structured the business transaction under which Phoenix came to own the Sound Choice brand, because for some reason you think that we didn't consider the tax implications of such a move.
Since you've switched into "victim mode" I would ask you to please quote the passage where I claimed (or even implied) that you either "made an error" or "didn't consider tax implications" of anything. You are now making up stories and lying about where they came from. I did however, convey that the change in structure was suspicious and that liabilities (other than the UCC filing above) could have been left behind because it happens everyday.
JimHarrington wrote:
2. You pedantically directed me to a Wikipedia article about the MD5 hash algorithm when I pointed out that MD5 checksums could be used to determine conclusively that you were lying when you said your Red Peters tracks were individually watermarked, suggesting that I didn't know what I was talking about because I'm just an attorney, when in fact, in addition to being an attorney, I've been a professional software developer for 16 years (with a total of 35 years of programming experience).
What year did you graduate the "Bob Latshaw School of Narcissism?"

JimHarrington wrote:
On top of that, the article you linked actually demonstrated my point, which shows that either you didn't understand it or you were throwing off chaff to distract others who don't have the technical knowledge I have.
But you don't know for sure right? (yeah.. I thought so.)

JimHarrington wrote:
I must therefore conclude that you think that you're a lot smarter than me. I will concede that there are probably some areas where you have more knowledge or experience than I do, but those areas do not include the law or technology.
And I will concede that you certainly have all the experience when it comes to sitting on the wrong side of the infringement table...

JimHarrington wrote:
c. staley wrote:
as for SC, you need to quantify your boast of "more than 50% market share" because that would be only for music that by all standards today are "oldies."

More than 50% of the karaoke tracks played at public commercial karaoke shows in the United States carry the Sound Choice trademarks. About 10% more carry the Chartbuster marks. In some markets, particularly where country music is prevalent, the Chartbuster number is higher and the Sound Choice number is lower, but they add up to more than 50% overall.

"Oldies" or not. In my extensive experience, more than 90% of the music that actually gets played at karaoke shows was first recorded before 2010.
You mean "infringed on before 2010" don't you? Including the 3-year lapse in the distribution and contract date from Red Peters. So your brands are attached to more infringement lawsuits - as a defendant - than any other manufacturer (alive or dead) in the history of this business. And now you think I'm going to lift a finger to prove anything for you and Avis? Really?

Speaking of integrity: It's amazing that when in their heyday, both brands (the companies that had recording studios) were spitting out a disc or two a month....

But now, for some strange reason, you can't seem to get permission to make a single song.... or in the last seven years. I guess it's just more difficult to make music when you have to "do the right thing" right?

You and Avis are both welcome to label me whatever you want. It's just noise anyway.

_________________
"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: Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:48 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4464
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 303 times
chrisavis wrote:
My reasons are *my*reasons. Not to mention the last person I want or need advise from is someone who lied and continues to lie not just to me, but to everyone on this forum. You are not trustworthy. Particular when it comes to karaoke related matters.
The word is "advice" not "advise" and I don't recall offering you any advice at all. But as usual, you spin the situation around just to get your dig in.... I simply made an observation because I really don't care what *your* reasons really are and once again, you mistakenly think I somehow give a shhhh...

chrisavis wrote:
Besides.....I am the one with an active and growing karaoke business, not you. I would be happy to consult for you, but I don't think you can afford me. :)
"... the active and growing karaoke business" that you are now planning on leaving? Remember this from July of 2015?:
chrisavis wrote:
I agree with Lonnie. Knowing what I know now, I would likely not go into this business. At least not as a primary source of income. And I would certainly be hesitant to put up with all the crap involved to do it the right way just a supplemental income.

How soon we forget...

_________________
"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: Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:28 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6085
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1659 times
c. staley wrote:
chrisavis wrote:
My reasons are *my*reasons. Not to mention the last person I want or need advise from is someone who lied and continues to lie not just to me, but to everyone on this forum. You are not trustworthy. Particular when it comes to karaoke related matters.
The word is "advice" not "advise" and I don't recall offering you any advice at all. But as usual, you spin the situation around just to get your dig in.... I simply made an observation because I really don't care what *your* reasons really are and once again, you mistakenly think I somehow give a shhhh...


Again.....you keep responding. :)

_________________
-Chris


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 6:40 am 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 2877
Location: Pineville, NC
Been Liked: 975 times
c. staley wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
Just today:

1. You've suggested that we made some sort of costly tax-related error in how we structured the business transaction under which Phoenix came to own the Sound Choice brand, because for some reason you think that we didn't consider the tax implications of such a move.
Since you've switched into "victim mode" I would ask you to please quote the passage where I claimed (or even implied) that you either "made an error" or "didn't consider tax implications" of anything. You are now making up stories and lying about where they came from. I did however, convey that the change in structure was suspicious and that liabilities (other than the UCC filing above) could have been left behind because it happens everyday.


The only people you victimize are the ones who follow your dubious advice.

c. staley wrote:
Sounds good on the surface, but the liquidation of a C corporation is a double-taxed event and an LLC member is liable for the full amount of self-employment taxes so federal tax liabilities usually increase.


Your statement, which is based on factually and legally erroneous assumptions, implies either that we erroneously structured the transaction or failed to consider the tax implications of the transaction.

c. staley wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
On top of that, the article you linked actually demonstrated my point, which shows that either you didn't understand it or you were throwing off chaff to distract others who don't have the technical knowledge I have.
But you don't know for sure right? (yeah.. I thought so.)


I can't tell whether you're lying or incompetent, yes. Neither is a credit on your ledger.

c. staley wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
"Oldies" or not. In my extensive experience, more than 90% of the music that actually gets played at karaoke shows was first recorded before 2010.
You mean "infringed on before 2010" don't you?


No, I mean recorded before 2010. I realize that you're desperate to redirect the conversation away from the simple fact that our brands still command a majority of commercial karaoke use, despite being "oldies."

c. staley wrote:
And now you think I'm going to lift a finger to prove anything for you and Avis? Really?


Mr. Staley, I don't particularly care whether you individually watermarked your tracks or not. As I recall, after I mentioned how difficult it is from a technological standpoint to produce an individual watermark in an MP3+G file that's visible onscreen, you made the boast that your files were individually watermarked. Chris put your claim to the test, demonstrated that it was exceptionally unlikely it was true, and invited you to show otherwise.

Does this matter? The subject doesn't matter. I'm really unsure why you would undertake to watermark tracks that (a) aren't likely to sell that many copies in the first place and (b) you have no intention of policing for piracy. (If you were trying to figure out how to do it just for the technological challenge, maybe that would be a good reason.) But, like a lot of the pretenders I encounter, you're just smart enough to make ignorant people believe you know more than they do, but not smart enough to realize that a true expert will see through the boast. And that matters because if you'll lie about something of little consequence, you'll lie about big things, too.

_________________
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: Tue Feb 14, 2017 7:54 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6085
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1659 times
JimHarrington wrote:
c. staley wrote:
And now you think I'm going to lift a finger to prove anything for you and Avis? Really?


Mr. Staley, I don't particularly care whether you individually watermarked your tracks or not. As I recall, after I mentioned how difficult it is from a technological standpoint to produce an individual watermark in an MP3+G file that's visible onscreen, you made the boast that your files were individually watermarked. Chris put your claim to the test, demonstrated that it was exceptionally unlikely it was true, and invited you to show otherwise.

Does this matter? The subject doesn't matter. I'm really unsure why you would undertake to watermark tracks that (a) aren't likely to sell that many copies in the first place and (b) you have no intention of policing for piracy. (If you were trying to figure out how to do it just for the technological challenge, maybe that would be a good reason.) But, like a lot of the pretenders I encounter, you're just smart enough to make ignorant people believe you know more than they do, but not smart enough to realize that a true expert will see through the boast. And that matters because if you'll lie about something of little consequence, you'll lie about big things, too.


This.

_________________
-Chris


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 9:15 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4464
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 303 times
JimHarrington wrote:
Does this matter? The subject doesn't matter. I'm really unsure why you would undertake to watermark tracks that (a) aren't likely to sell that many copies in the first place ...

The tracks were apparently good enough for the owners of your brand to infringe upon, record, encode, press, distribute and sell when the disc was issued wasn't it?
Songs from Red were sold on "your brand":
SC8900
SC8927
SC8532 (2 songs)
SC8700
Without so much as a $15 compulsory license fee.... Your brand even licensed a couple of these (after being caught).

And according to SC's own studio manager "B.C", (Bob Clifford) at the time, and in SC's own forum, he plainly stated that the series of novelty discs were the highest selling discs of all at the time.

Nice try..... again.

_________________
"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: Tue Feb 14, 2017 9:59 am 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 2877
Location: Pineville, NC
Been Liked: 975 times
c. staley wrote:
And according to SC's own studio manager "B.C", (Bob Clifford) at the time, and in SC's own forum, he plainly stated that the series of novelty discs were the highest selling discs of all at the time.

Nice try..... again.


Deflection, once again.

We're not talking about the most popular brand of karaoke tracks in the U.S.

We're talking about the tracks you made. How many have you sold?

_________________
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: Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:54 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4464
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 303 times
JimHarrington wrote:
How many have you sold?
Sales information is really none of your business, but I can tell you this: Over the last 3 years, a helluva lot more than you've sold since your brand has produced exactly zero for the last 7 years.

_________________
"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 
 
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: djdon, The Lone Ranger and 101 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

cron
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