Karaoke Forums

That would be true, cueball, except that we do put a lot of pirate hosts out of business, both directly and by forcing venues to hire non-pirate hosts.

That being said, we're limited in what we can do regarding brands we don't own. Instead of criticizing us for that, how about putting pressure on the other producers to litigate?

That's all fine and dandy (that you SAY you've put Pirate KJs out of business), Us everyday KJs have seen no proof of this. Us everyday KJs don't go scouring through those legal websites to view cases, and even if we did, those facts are not included in there. You have Non-Disclosure agreements with these people, so not a word can be spoken about it (although, I don't see what you would be able to do about it if a KJ said something like, "Yeah! SC/PEP sued me and forced me to get out of the business." ... not that a KJ would likely want to talk about that anyway). I've said this before.... you should make it PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE that such and such lost against you for blatant piracy, and is no longer allowed to work in this business. I wouldn't be surprised in the least, if you put a pirate KJ out of business (as a settlement in one of your lawsuits), that the same Pirate didn't come back into the business under a different name. KJs know each other, and I'm sure that if one of those banned Pirate KJs was seen hosting a new show, you would get an earful of notifications from those that are trying to run an honest show if you (SC/PEP) were to make these things public knowledge.

With regard to Venues, that statement (highlighted in Red) is not quite accurate. You may be putting pressure on some Venues as to whom they hire, but you are not necessarily restricting them from still hiring a Pirate Host. In that regard, your main restriction is that the Host being hired is at least one of the following:
1. The KJ is only using original discs.
2. The KJ is a Registered GEM Licensee.
3. The KJ is registered on your website as being Certified.
4. The KJ is an active participant in the HELP program.

With regard to number 4, the only people I can see subscribing to the HELP program would be the Pirate KJs (because they are not 1:1). However, they are still Pirates, even under the HELP program, because they are still using pirated SC tracks in addition to all of the other Manufacturer brands (which you have said you have no control over (highlighted in Blue)).

As to your statement about putting pressure on the other Manufactures to litigate against Pirates, who's left? Most of them are out of business or stopped producing Karaoke Tracks (Pocket Songs, Just Tracks, Pioneer, DK, Music Maestro, Stellar Music (Pop Hits Monthly), Panorama Music (Top Hits Monthly), Nikodo, Priddis, JVC, RCA). Then there's your newer brands (from the last few years) that are (from what looks like) being made out of their garages (I won't mention the names for risk of possible libel or slander). You have 3 major players now: Sunfly and Zoom (both overseas), and Karaoke Net (making a new name for themselves with their rebranded Sysbersound and Party Tyme libraries, plus their acquisition of Pocket Songs and Just Tracks library). And then there's Karaoke-Version (Online site for downloads) that's still in business (Tricerasoft seems to have cut the US off).

Didn't you approach Zoom and Sunfly years ago (when you were first starting up all these lawsuits against KJs), with a request to also sue on their behalf (if you found pirated Zoom and/or Sunfly material during your audits of a KJ's system)? And didn't they refuse your request to do so? If they refused to be involved in litigation through your efforts as a Lawyer, why would they even begin to listen to a few KJs here (in the US)?

I don't know because I've never purchased from an HD seller (except perhaps chartbuster directly) or used torrent software. But really, why does that matter? Does it matter that a pirate uses 320, 192, 128, or 64 kpbs? It doesn't matter at all, that's a "false truth" that's been planted in your head by Harrington because he needs to try to add some stated measure of "required quality" in order to have something to sue for at a later date and act like the audio -- for which PEP no longer owns or even owns the rights to at all -- has something to do with them.

One of Harrington's favorite hobbies is "technicalities." So, "technically," yes his one-sided contract "requires" his quality standards and I doubt that anyone who has his pirate's license really uses tracks of those bitrates and why should they or even Harrington care? It's not like he's going to pop up one day and demand to check the quality as long as he gets the monthly payment -- unless he runs out of other reasons to sue, or the monthly payment stops.

I believe that if you sign a contract and then stop paying them, you might as well paint a big bulls eye on your backside because there are a number of technicalities he can sue you on based on the contract you sign.

PEP only "covers themselves" in their contracts. Read one. They are about as one-sided as can possibly be written or better yet, give a copy to an attorney and ask if they'd either sign it or simply drop the brand. I'll bet that more often than not, they'd tell you to just drop it.

Also keep in mind that PEP's definition of "pirate" includes YOU if you have purchased the product and use a computer and not signed one of their one-sided agreements, marked your discs, or allow them access to your business accounting records on their demand or don't report any changes in your library. They have no qualms over suing customers and their venues and their track record proves it, period.

And why is that since even you admit that it's "not human ear audibly inferior?" I'll say again that it just flat-out doesn't matter. It's nothing more than another point on which to sue you. They don't even have the right to grant you permission to use the track off a computer commercially to start with but they want to control the quality? Really?

And since the lawsuits began in 2009, please notice that not only has the karaoke acquired more channels to be pirated directly, your status of "being legit" hasn't rendered your pirate competition less worthy than you on a monetary basis and I can only estimate that your pay is in line with the market rate in your area. You are not now, nor have your ever been, being paid a premium for your honesty.

I have maintained a higher rate of pay partially because of my diligence to protect my venues from their trolling lawsuits. My venues don't care about "karaoke brands," they care about the till and they do care more about not being sued. Because of the contracts and the ridiculous lawsuits, the brand name is nothing more than poison if you use it or allow it to be used in your venue. I can't think of a single venue that has ever been sued that didn't use the brand - not even "sued by mistake." But there are plenty of KJ's that own the discs that have been sued and their venues right along with them. So what does that tell you?

His "legal points" are on the way out and I'm sure that they'll be filing as many lawsuits in the 9th district as fast as they can before those nine states are out of the "troll zone."

In my case, PEP can't "force" my venue to do diddly squat. Not diddly. Ever.

And I don't believe that any vendor should be in a position to be able to force any customer of mine to do anything.

"Limited" is a bit of an untruth wouldn't you say? How about explaining to the nice KJ's out there what you "can do regarding brands we don't own?" Should be a pretty short list.

"Earth to Harrington, Earth to Harrington!" sorry, nobody's home. I'm surprisingly not amazed that you'd suggest -- much less actually type -- something as stupid as that.

But they did force YOU to do some diddly squat.....

_________________
-Chris

Wrong again, but your (misguided) determination is admirable.

(I'm going to channel Mr. Staley for a moment.)

That's FOUR REPLIES in this thread with NO RESPONSE to my comments about your support of pirates and piracy.

... crickets chirping ...

That must mean you agree with me.

Off your meds or something? Here's a couple right off the bat:



No, that must not. I understand that you would love for me to agree with you, but unfortunately, that's not about to happen any time soon.

On the other hand, seeing that you have not corrected any apparent "misinformation" in any of the replies I've posted to other people here, that must mean that you agree or you wouldn't have brought this up as a diversion and a deflection.

Your new slogan should be: "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

I'm referring to this post specifically.



No response to it at all.

Let's see if there actually any questions here to start with.

This is where you mislead everyone: you make it sound as though all a person has to do "is show us their discs and we will turn them loose." That's about as far from the truth as you can possibly get. You don't want to see their discs, you want them to sign an on-going contract, you want them to mark their disc collection, and you want to enforce every single one of the terms in your contract. So you can tell the truth here; you're not interested in seeing their discs – you're only interested in getting a contract.
Those "technical infringers" that refused to roll over – because of your terms – continue to be sued, as well as their venues. So don't try to come off acting like some innocent victim just trying to do "the right thing."


Let me stop you right here: the ONLY portion that you own on that disk – is the trademark. Phoenix entertainment partners did not manufacture that disk, they didn't print the disk, they didn't sell the disc 20 years ago. Unless you think that we're supposed to believe that you own the copyrights as well. We know that you don't. so you can get off your high horse immediately and stop saying that untruth that "we sold the discs" because you didn't. The company that did is out of business.

Does it also informed them that they will be signing a binding legal contract in order to do so? Conveniently left that little fact out of the letter didn't you?

And, In every single case where you have sued a disk owner, how many of them have not signed your contract? I can think of only one. And that doesn't include Rodney.[/u][/i] There was no investigation – and I don't care if you say "a letter in the mail is an investigation" – because it isn't. Perhaps you can explain to all of the KJ's here, why you agreed to increase the settlement percentage with APS investigations when they claimed they would tell the world that there were no investigations if you didn't. And if you would like a copy of that contract to refresh your memory, it's available on pacer. You agreed to it.. and later walked away from the lawsuit against them because you were "not interested in pursuing" over $100,000 that you say was "stolen" from you. Where's the malpractice suit against Boris? You whined that she took more than her fair share too... but you did nothing of a substantive nature against her. (oh, a "complaint with the bar" - big whoop.)

Prove it. Substantiate where you derived all of this "scientific-looking data." Because I think it's about as trustworthy as believing a club "voted their own Pizza #1 in the City!" Prove to all of us here that you did not make up these numbers - I challenge you to do something other than more lip service.

I would expect that any lawsuit filed in a federal court – an HONEST investigation – be exactly 100% correct. I never said – not even one time – that sound choice should not sue pirates. What I did say is that you should be 100% sure that that person doesn't own discs. You don't do that. You sue people based on how many songs they have in their song collection, or just because you think they might not have discs – it is that word "preponderance" that helps you make a living, it's certainly not "evidence."

Here we go again. You had over 6 years to figure out this problem. And every time you bring it up, you try to push the solution-finding portion onto someone else. And usually, it's the same group of customers – that you include in your lawsuits along with their customers. (I'm beginning to think that you're actually the slow learner here, but you have a financial interest in not learning.)

You make it sound as though not being sued by you is a bad thing.... I promise you it's not, although I'm sure it infuriates you to no end.

It's not a cop out at all – on the contrary, it's the truth. None of us professional KJ's work for you, sound choice is simply a brand of disc and the company was nothing more than a vendor. I know that you would like to inflate your status to something greater than that, but that also would be – a lie.

So? What's your point? If you are attempting to suggest that no one can operate a successful karaoke show without using your brand – you are telling yourself a lie. I used the brand for years, and I haven't lost a dime since I've dropped it.

Your refusal to believe the very words of Kurt & Derek slep from 1998 is understandable; you need that to go away for financial reasons. Otherwise, that's a great big load of your crap that you are trying to state like it's some sort of fact. In six years you have not been able to point out one single instance – NOT ONE – where you can prove that I have done any of the other things that you have described in that paragraph.

It's all patently FALSE and you know it.

I will say this: I did expose a lie to EMI that came directly off of your own former servers. And rather than admit that your client lied to the court system, you wanted to turn it around and make it sound as though I contacted EMI in order to initiate a copyright suit against you. (I laughed for hours by the way)

In a vindictive move against me, your law firm subpoenaed me for a video deposition and demanded an entire inventory of every product that I own that contains your trademark, every single communication I have ever had with anyone regarding your company name for the last five years, and everything else that they could think of that wasn't relevant to the copyright suit against you. In the meantime, your law firm did not challenge the authenticity or the truthfulness of the declaration that I provided to the court. (If you want to impeach a third-party witness counsel, you should probably first attack their declaration as being untrue or not factual. Real law schools teach this. Your law firm could not and did not do that in this case.)

In other words, I told the truth and you wanted to punish me for it. Now tell me again why anyone in their right mind should trust you?
Here we go again: I didn't "have to drop anything" including your brand. And I don't believe that you are actually privy to how many years I've had a day job... so, since you seem to know so much about me, why not tell me how long I've had this day job. I will guarantee you that you that your insinuations are nothing more than lies.

you are not "standing between legality and unrelenting piracy" at all. As a matter of fact, it appears to be quite the contrary: almost every single case over the last 6 years (and I believe you said there was at least 1500 or so) have been quietly settled and pushed under the rug – including those KJ's that pushed back. I notice that you've never given us an actual story about what happened with Expressway entertainment in New York. I would make an educated guess that you simply gave them what they wanted in order for them to shut up and go away before athe declaratory judgment the were seeking was handed down. So, if your legal theory regarding trademark infringement is so bulletproof, why didn't you all the court to make this judgment? Sounds a little fishy to me..

In Oregon, when it was finally determined by a court – they ruled against you on the legality. Again in the seventh district in Illinois, you were ruled against TWICE. Once by the court, and another time by the appellate court. So don't stand there on your pedestal and act like you are some guardian of goodness because you're not. You're simply in it for the money (you told us that time and time again) and you don't care who you have to sue to do it.


Glad to see you are finally admitting it.

It's interesting that you would want me to show you what I do – when you fully admit that you are not out to stop piracy, you're out to make money – and collect money from people who "stole something from you." But you are certainly not out to stop piracy – you license it with a convenient monthly fee.


Here's the one word that too many other people are afraid to say to you: "no."

@ Chip:


But, doesn't the company who bought out their assets now have the right to lay claim to all of that?




@ James Harrington:

Could you please take a moment away from your bickering with Chip to answer my recent response back to you?

No. They own only the trademark, not the sales or other history of the (now defunct) company.

Can they claim that "they sold the Chartbuster discs too?"

We know they did not.

These are all good points. The main reason why it's hard to see the impact isn't that KJs can't talk about it, but because there are many, many more pirate KJs than we've been able to sue. But I recognize that you would like to see more of a public impact, and we'll do what we can in the future to make that happen.



And that's also a good point, but again, we're limited in our ability to police others' materials. We do try to do that via contract, but we can't be too aggressive about it because it could be construed as a violation of the antitrust laws. It's true; a host may be square with us and still be a pirate. As much as I'd love to solve that problem, I don't have a lot of options to do so.



An operator who is paying for a HELP license is not, in our view, using "pirated" SC tracks. Pirates don't pay for their booty.



Who's left? Party Tyme, the UK producers, KV, KSF, and Digitrax. If all of them were as agressive about enforcement as we are, the landscape would look different.



It's a big misconception that anyone can sue on anyone else's behalf (with some limited exceptions that don't apply here). In order for us to sue based on infringement of Zoom or Sunfly, we would have to own the underlying intellectual property. We did at several points suggest to Zoom and Sunfly that we could help them develop a litigation program, share resources, etc., but they would have to sue in their own names. They have about the same interest in coming here to sue as we have in going there to sue. It's just too difficult to accomplish. If we could figure out a way to do it for them, maybe we could undertake that.

This is what happens when people who don't understand the law try to explain it.

Trademarks do not exist in a vacuum. They symbolize the business goodwill of the company that uses them. For that reason, it's not possible, legally, to "own only the trademark." It cannot be separated from the business goodwill that it symbolizes.

Phoenix acquired all of the assets of Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation. Those assets included trademarks, copyrights, income streams from licensing, and contracts with various customers and vendors, as well as intangible assets like the business goodwill and the ongoing business of the company (known in accounting as the "going concern value"). Phoenix is the successor-in-interest to all of the history and operations of Slep-Tone. The transaction was structured so that Phoenix stepped into Slep-Tone's shoes and continued the business. As far as the outside world is concerned, they are the same company, run (at least in part) by the same people, with the same employees in the same facilities, selling the same products, and having the same policies and procedures.

Most importantly, this kind of transaction happens all the time when a business needs to reorganize to meet certain business needs--such as, for example, when a business takes on a new investor and the structure of the existing corporation isn't suitable, for whatever reason, for that investor's interests. There may be tax implications associated with taking on an investor that make the use of the old corporation inadvisable. Or the old corporation may carry liabilities that the new investor isn't interested in taking on.

So much of your argument, Mr. Staley, is wrapped up in your effort to de-legitimize Phoenix as a business. Unfortunately, your argument isn't well informed on the law or on normal, everyday business practices, so it falls flat. I have said many times that what hurts people usually aren't the "unknown unknowns," the things that you don't know that you don't know, but the things of which you are absolutely certain, yet that simply are not so. This is an excellent example of that.

You act like a contract is some magic document that creates indentured servitude on anyone who signs it.

The contract exists only to make clear what each side will do before, during, and after the audit. It is as much for the KJ's protection as it is for ours. I suspect that if we tried to do audits without a contract you'd complain that we refused to put in writing what we would do. (A complaint that you've had in another context.)



I have yet to see a person who genuinely has 1:1 correspondence refuse to cooperate with an audit if they've been sued. Doing so would be colossally stupid.



Here is what the letter says:

If you currently possess legitimate original media (discs) that correspond to your non-original tracks on a 1:1 basis, you have a time-limited opportunity to demonstrate that 1:1 correspondence to us through an audit process. The audit process is similar to the audit we conduct in connection with our Sound Choice Certified KJ program. There is a fee for this service. If you wish to apply for certification, you must contact us within three business days of receiving this notice. If you successfully demonstrate that your unaltered system meets the 1:1 correspondence requirement and all of the other terms of the Sound Choice Certified KJ program, we will dismiss this action.

So no, it doesn't use scary language about a "binding legal contract." But there's a very good reason for that: The "binding legal contract" simply lays out the procedures for the resolution process so that everyone is clear about what we're doing. We want operators to understand, beforehand, that failing the audit will significantly impact their ability to defend the case.



I am not convinced that the one you're referring to is an actual disc owner. But maybe he's been foolish enough to listen to you whispering in his ear. Will you pay his damages if it turns out he could have gotten out of the lawsuit for nothing, and didn't because he listened to your idiotic advice?



I have explained what happened in that case on numerous occasions.

We dropped the litigation against Steve Brophy because it became clear that no judgment against him would ever be collectible, and because the information he was withholding from us no longer had any value to us. He lost his house and his primary means of making money. We're not in the habit of getting judgments we can't collect on.

We made a similar calculation about a malpractice lawsuit against her. We could have sued her, but chances are we'd have gotten nothing (since she had no insurance), and it would cost us $100,000 or more to pursue the lawsuit.



So the answer is, no, you don't have any answers. You prefer to complain. And that's why I say you're not interested in stopping piracy. You're interested in revenge against us for making it necessary for you to slash the size of your operation massively. And that's fine. Stop pretending that it's otherwise.

My father worked for Bell Helicopter for a great many years. I can't fly a helicopter and I wouldn't presume to tell anyone else how to fly one either. My father wasn't a helicopter pilot either. he just worked with a bunch of them.

My father also worked for Boeing (I am not a pilot and neither was he) and Martin Marietta Aerospace (I am not a Shuttle astronaut, neither was my dad). But he did work with a bunch of those folks.

My daughter works at a cosmetic surgery office. She's not a surgeon. Neither am I. But my daughter does work for a bunch of surgeons.

My wife used to work at a compounding pharmacy. Doesn't make me a pharmacist. She wasn't one either. She just worked for some.
My wife also worked for one of the largest chemical manufacturing and distribution companies on the planet. I am not a chemist, nor do I act like one. She isn't a chemist either. She just worked for some.
My wife currently works for a company that makes some pretty cool video games. But I am not a developer. Neither is my wife. She just works with some.

Likewise......knowing someone that works FOR an attorney or even doing work FOR a bunch of legal types, doesn't make you an attorney (and certainly not a trusted legal expert). Neither does watching Law and Order. Or spending hours reading legal briefs on PACER.

In fact, there is only one credentialed attorney on this forum that I am aware of.

_________________
-Chris

Show me where the KJ is protected from anything other than your separate, "covenant not to sue." Unless that is the ONLY thing of value (not protection) for a KJ. Everything else in the contract either benefits you or indemnifies you from suit. Anyone who signs that needs their head examined.

How could you possibly know? You don't, but you'd like to sound like you do. If they have the discs, you switch hats and tell them that they are being sued because they "didn't get permission" remember? It's a convenient trap and you end up with the contract... your ultimate goal. Now, they are all your "controlled licensees" aren't they?

No mention of a contract at this point, but it's apparent that the defendant must PAY YOU to prove that they are not pirates...

But remember, you're not suing these customers for "piracy" anymore, now it's "a failure to get permission" right?
So, you sue them if they don't have discs... and you sue them if they do.... either way, you will make them pay you something....
Notice that there is still no mention of your contract but it's now called "apply for certification" ain't that interesting?. You simply call it "all the other terms of the SC certified KJ program" which includes your contract, so you purposely avoid that and gloss over it like it's inconsequential.

On the contrary, it's closer to that of a "bait and switch" by purposely omitting that an on-going contract is a requirement. There's nothing in your letter that promises a dismissal without a contract and a payment - period. So were you lying then when you say "if they can prove 1:1 correspondence we release them" or lying now when it's apparent that a contract and a payment are conditions of that release because what you say and what the letter says don't match up very well. Unless once again, you are relying on a "technicality" that is omission.
I don't give a squat if you're convinced or not.
You're not willing to admit that you've voluntarily dismissed defendants who wouldn't back down from your intimidation. I know that you have and that's good enough for me.
Wait a minute, let me get my waders... because you don't seem to have a problem suing a KJ that makes $100 working in club... with no insurance and you agreed to increase his percentage.
Hooey. I find it hard to believe that she had absolutely no assets, especially considering that you assert that she withheld MORE than $100,000 from your client and still runs a law firm in Beverly Hills, CA. So there must be a different reason that you are not pursuing this. ..... hmmmm?
Doesn't bode too well for your understanding or effectiveness of the process does it? Or were you just pulling our legs... again?
I just checked the state bar records again.
Nope. I don't see any investigations or anything else. Not a sign from you and she still runs a law firm in Beverly Hills, CA... Not exactly the low-rent district so your stories aren't jiving very well... "... exits the profession." yeah, right. You also claimed that she withheld more than $100,000 in your complaint right?... Post of copy of that for all of us to see because you don't have a confidentiality agreement or gag order on your complaint.


No and that's wrong too. I never said that I don't have any answers, YOU did. So here's a perfect example of you first asking the question then answering it for me and in your self-righteous indignation, berating me for the answer you provided. Inventing a situation to serve your agenda and accusing me for it.

Not all of us are as stupid as you expect us to be.

I snipped a bunch of bull from the beginning of your post because, well, it was just crap anyway...
Gee, I wonder who the "investor" is.... But I'm sure they didn't want the liability associated with the ongoing copyright infringement suit at the time. Interesting timing wouldn't you say?


Not quite. KJ's are well aware of the similarities between the timing of your "asset reallocation" and the trial date with EMI and the "magic asset switcheroo" at Chartbuster.

Unfortunately, you weren't able to shield Phoenix from being added as a defendant... specifically because Kurt structured it as a successor in interest to himself instead of just an asset transfer to someone else.

Phoenix (and the new investor) got stuck paying the settlement anyway..... didn't they?

Just like working for a bunch of computer types at MicroSoft doesn't make you an expert programmer right?

And that one has a vested financial interest and bias against every single person on this forum. The same one that you've signed multiple contracts with, so you cheerleading for him is not surprising.

Hey....YOU said YOU were a programmer, not me. I know I am not a programmer. I write some code here and there, but I stop well short of lumping myself in with people that make a living writing code (you certainly don't). You aren't as skilled a programmer as you claim to be (lied about).




This is where it becomes perfectly clear that YOU have the problem, not me.

YOU are the one that has maintained the high profile bashing of PEP.
YOU are the one that turns any mention of SC/PEP into a mudslinging match.
YOU have serious (unreasonable) problems with SC/PEP/Kurt/Harrington, not me.

*I* am perfectly happy with the arrangement I have with SC/PEP.

I don't have an issue here. You do. Whatever the REAL reasons are for the stick you have up your (@$%&#!) about SC/PEP, it involves you......not me.

Quit being a (@$%&#!), and own your own (@$%&#!) instead of flinging it around like a pissed off little monkey. Your problems are not our problems.

_________________
-Chris