Karaoke Forums

What you have forgot is that Jim, Jimmy, or good old Jimbo is a lawyer! He has one goal just like a shark to go after the meat. He smells blood in the water, and he starts to circle. He has become a partner in the SC aka PEP orgy of feeding. He knows that pirate karaoke hosts have no assets, so he zeroes in on the venues. If he attacks the venues then guess what no host has a place to play. Which is probably what he wants because he hates 95% of the hosts anyway.

and....the pirate hosts who never paid for their music....still does not pay for their music.
the legit host who paid for all their music, loses another option in town when the venue no longer wants karaoke.

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

that is exactly correct!

What they're looking for is a monthly payment from venues. They're certainly not concerned about some mobile KJ that works for $100 a night two days a week. besides, tracking them down and getting up payment out of them is too much work, and venues don't go anywhere.

Harrington is constantly harping that people must be "pro-pirate" if they don't simply agree with every word that drips out of his mouth. And it's getting to the point where it seems not being concerned about pirates – especially where this particular brand is concerned – doesn't really seem to make a difference anyway.

#1 this brand has not produced a single song for six years. They are effectively, out of business.

#2 despite promises – repeated promises – over the last six years, there has been nothing but excuse after excuse why this company has not produced a single product. (it comes to the point after six years where excuses are really lies.)

#3 after a thousand lawsuits, their legal standing on trademark has collapsed out from underneath them in two federal districts.. (I hope the chartbuster Trademark was expensive)

#4 I have not seen a single successful lawsuit regarding the removal of the logo and/or trade dress. As a matter of fact, the only one that I've seen ended up with them having their rear ends handed to them by the court so it's not looking like trade dress is a very reliable strategy. It doesn't appear that claiming that the colors, typeface, or anything else really matters very much. (by the way my definition of "successful lawsuit" consists of one that results in a judgment in court. Not a settlement.)

It doesn't matter whether you are pro-pirate or not. More and more libraries will pop up with no logos/service marks attached to them and by Harrington's own admission, it's a pretty easy thing to do. I would think that removing the logo/service mark off of a counterfeit item would make him happy.

As far as I'm concerned, I'll continue purchasing what I need for my business. But since I don't use that brand anymore, and not using it hasn't affected me at all, I really don't care what their squabbles are with pirates. And as their just reward for their underhanded and unethical business practices over the years, it should be that Pirates put them out of business– permanently. They are two peas in a pod and they deserve each other.

This is not even remotely true.

In nearly 8 years, the number of operators we've sued who actually had 1:1 correspondence to within 2% of holdings, which is our standard for "passing," can be counted on two hands.

It's time for you to stop repeating the lie that we target people with discs. We do everything we can to avoid it, and we are very successful at avoiding it.

Every one of the discs they purchased said "don't copy this without our permission." Did you think we were kidding about that?

We collect a small fee for certification that is designed to cover most of the cost of our review of compliance with our policies. We have never allowed the fee to interfere with a person's ability to get certified. We've done dozens of free audits and dozens more at reduced prices. On the rare occasion when we sue someone who has 1:1 correspondence, we don't charge for the audit at all, and if they pass, they get an immediate dismissal.

Mr. Staley doesn't use whatever SC he might own because he found out that we had started suing people for multi-rigging from one set of discs. When that happened, he greatly reduced the number of systems he was operating. He was so angry about that, he posted signs at his shows about how terrible we are, set himself up as the anti-SC guru (posting a bunch of false information about how to defeat one of our suits), and painted himself into a corner so that he couldn't use our products now if he wanted to--he'd have to swallow his pride and admit that he, not we, are the reason he quit using SC. We've literally done nothing to him at all, ever. He fell on his own sword, for nothing but defiance.

Well screen cap this one folks - This is Chip's most blatant pro-piracy post yet!

(And watch where you step. I smell poop.)

_________________
-Chris

Some choice being either being called pro-pirate or pro-PEP. I find little to support on either side. If I were still working in the business I would view both as dangers. The pirates due to unfair competition, and PEP because as Jim has stated, they are going after the deep pockets the venues, which will dry up potential places to book a gig.

This is a crime to defy you Jim? You are not the law, you are not some hosts father, it is not a crime to defy someone or something you don't agree with. This country was founded on a Revolution if you remember. It is a basic right in this country to protest authority if that authority is miss used. Many hosts think that your collection methods leave a lot to be desired. Just because hosts have a difference of opinion with you doesn't mean they are supporting piracy. You are not a King Jim and we are not your subjects.

One can absolutely be anti-PEP without being pro-Piracy.

I have always been critical of HOW SC/PEP has managed the lawsuits. But I don't take it to the point of branding them as the scourge of the industry as you and others have.

One has to take into account the entire picture when labeling and not just isolated incidents. A certain Yeti's actions, and statements - when looked at in their totality - make it easy to come to the conclusion that said Yeti is a friend of pirates and piracy.

_________________
-Chris

You wanna post some factual information here, or do you just want to continue to make your own baseless speculation, lies and fairy tales look like some kind of fact? You've done nothing by lie about me for the last 6 years apparently because I don't put up with your crap but that's okay. I'm not the one that's been making promise after promise for 6 years to my customers, that's all you buddy!

As you've said in the past; "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts" and like usual, you're full of opinion and devoid of facts. But you'll keep spewing them as long as someone is afraid of you. You've accused me outright of piracy, assisting defendants/pirates and even instigating the last copyright lawsuit (EMI) against you. What an overreaching crock-o-crap that assumption was, including your childish vindictive attempt at a video deposition.

And that's quite interesting: You want KJ's to rat-out pirates for YOU to sue.. but it doesn't feel so good (and it's rather expensive) when the shoe is on the other foot right? I'm still laughing... and so are the attorneys in Montana, Washington, California and Illinois....

You've "literally done nothing to him at all"... because that would require you to produce facts -- and you're devoid of facts, proof or evidence. I've made sure that you can't interfere with my business or my customers. Take your trademark and your service mark and all your contracts... and stuff 'em because they are all meaningless.

And for all of you reading these posts, here's a couple of excerpts (with my added emphasis) from the latest decision against pep-tone:

and

Of course you haven't... because you can't. You are contractually (several times) barred against doing so:
You must say only nice things..... You are a "controlled licensee" and this is just part of that "control." (How does it feel?)

Oh, good grief. Did you get that out of your system?

Most of the hosts we deal with fall into one of three categories:

(1) They cooperate with us to get or stay legal, or to confirm that they are operating legally.
(2) They ignore us, which usually results in litigation if our investigation reveals probable misconduct.
(3) They act with defiance, vowing never to cooperate with us, even if it results in scorched earth.

Mr. Staley fell into the third category. (And still does.) If he truly owns (owned) as much SC product as he claims, then it seems to me that the smart thing to do would have been to talk to us and work with us. After all, the people who talk with us and work with us find us flexible and accommodating. We work hard to consider everyone's circumstances and to design a solution that meets everyone's needs. But when someone responds to us with defiance, there's no way to work with them. It's not a question of someone paying us some sort of fealty. It's simply a question of being willing to work with us or not.

Some see it as having to go along to get along Jim. It is the choice of the individual business owner whether they are going to play your game, or opt out of using your product at all. It is their choice. Many have decided just to boycott your product rather than put up with all the baggage that goes along with using it. If there is a market for your product you are killing it yourself. No one is doing more harm to your so called good name than you are.

That is not what that clause means. The "disrepute" clause is a standard clause in trademark licenses that makes it a breach of contract if the licensee does something like commits a crime during the course of using our products.

We have never demanded or even asked that our licensees speak only favorably of us. If a licensee has a problem with something we've done or not done, we encourage them to bring their concerns to us so that we can address them directly. But it would be foolish for us to try to make, let alone enforce, some sort of rule that the licensee can't speak his or her mind publicly about us in whatever forum they deem appropriate.

When you say things like what you said above, you're being dishonest--and you're doing it for the express purpose of making prospective licensees think that we will treat them like chattels. That's not how we operate, and if you hadn't been so stubborn from the beginning, you would have seen that. But hey, you've got your pride.

You grant the license Jim you also have the right to take it away. I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't revoke a license if the licensee did or said something you didn't like. So yes you can put pressure on those that have come under your dubious protection.

Of course it is.

I have posted countless times on this very forum that people have three choices, any of which we are perfectly content to let them choose:

(1) Use the original product they purchased (the discs);
(2) Get a license from us to use their non-original product; or
(3) Don't use our product at all.

I am perfectly happy for people to choose option 3. In fact, there are quite a lot of crappy KJs out there whom I would rather didn't come anywhere near our products.



Virtually everyone who has decided to "boycott our product" did so because they can't afford to come into compliance--most of the time because they can't turn a profit as a karaoke operator if they have to pay for their music. Saying "it's too much baggage" is a face-saving out for those who can't admit that it's a financial issue.



If everyone who steals our product stopped using it tomorrow, I would be very happy. After all, that would mean huge opportunities for our more than 500 licensees worldwide. Our services arm, SCE, would be able to command super-premium rates. And we'd be virtually guaranteed to sell enough new tracks to make production very profitable. So, yes, I encourage the pirates to boycott SC. Please cut it out of your shows entirely--don't wait. Do it today.

So, basically, what you're saying is that you don't actually have anything factual to contradict what I've said--it just feels like something we would do.

Do you even read what you write?

Come on Jim we are not children here your licensee or franchiser what ever you want to call them is dependent on your good will to stay in business, because they opt to use your product. I ran a show successfully for years not using your product so life would not be any easier for your 500 or so worldwide hosts. They make up about less than half a percent of the total hosts just in the United States.

I'll go you one better if everyone stopped using your product today, I would be very happy.

You are just selling along with licenses a load to those poor hosts that are paying you every month. When you sell a new series of tracks, what a load. I cut you off years ago and never had a problem, oh by the way I'm going out checking some shows here locally. Most of the hosts are PC one is still disc, I'm still the only hard drive player host in the area, but I don't really count. I will be watching for your agents that you say have infiltrated the inland empire. Watch out Jim the empire might strike back.

Baloney.... That is EXACTLY what that clause means counsel... "words mean things" remember? Just because you don't want it to mean what it really says isn't my problem -- it's yours -- you wrote it.

But if we take you at your word, then every single licensee you have a contract with has violated the law and rights of others. EVERY SINGLE ONE of your licenses has ZERO value unless the person signing them is also willing to commit copyright infringement. If they are not willing to do so, we call them "original disc users." You carefully disclaim "infringement" in your contracts with your sheeple because what you "license" is only for the trademark and not the "third party rights holders." So once again, you vicariously encourage them to infringe on the rights of others while you conveniently shift all the burden of any responsibility with a disclaimer.

Yeah, they're "chattle" alright.

Sure you have, it's right there in your contract(s). I know that you'd love for everyone to only allow you to magically change the definitions and meanings of what you write to suit your (current) agenda, but you don't get that luxury. Sorry.

You do "treat them like chattles." And now you want to use them as the tool for your new "service mark lawsuits" and appear (to them) as though you have donned your superhero suit and are once again, looking out for them. In reality, you're just using them as shields to hide behind while you sue venues to the point they stop using karaoke at all -- killing the opportunities for the very licensees you purport to be protecting. It's just another hoodwinking in my opinion. Were you lying when you said that you increased prices "to be fair" at the risk of losing revenue or when you said you wanted to "maximize revenue from licensing?" They can't possibly both be the truth.

So who here is actually dishonest?