Karaoke Forums

Dec 21, 2012 end of the world!

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

It was a great excuse for sex. I told my wife I wanted to go out on top..

That must mean you had sex with your Wife 2 more times... Don't forget May 21, 2011 was the first prediction before Mr. Harold Camping admitted that he made a mistake in his mathematical calculations by 5 months, and the new date was October 21, 2011.

I missed that one. But we make up for it..

Yeah..."sorta like", but in reality, NOWHERE NEAR...

You're right, the headline has more of a chance of being true.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Guess I have to point out that I was referring to the usefulness of the comparisons being NOWHERE NEAR...

Repetition of one-liners doesn't make them factual, nor is it informative. On what do you base your opinion ( I have posted my reasoning), and while you're at it, do you plan on explaining why not waiting to pay for GEMS makes any business sense or not? Been waiting for anything informative....

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

I've already said. But you refuse to listen. Read back.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I did. All I saw was "it'll all be fine- no worries". That is not a reason, or logic- it's merely a prediction based on personal opinion ( Which is also kind of weird, considering that you have agreed that we won't know how it ends until the decision of the court is made- and yet now you predict that SC will win.). It may even be correct in the end, but it not how the running of a business should be based.

Not one tiny bit of any sort of logical business reasoning has been given for not waiting until the resolution of the case to lay out for GEMS has even been attempted.

Wait and lay out the money later, if the set still desired.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Well Joe, go running and yelling the sky is falling. Rule number one in lawsuits, you can't get blood from a stone. Destroying a company will not get the suer the money. Look at companies that have been destroyed, shareholders and lienholders got pennies on the dollar, if that. It's cutting your nose off to spite your face. It is not good business. Better to get an out of court settlement for both sides. All EMI wants is some money out of this.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

JoeChartreuse,
You keep asking for it, so I've decided to give you a few reasons why buying now could be a sound choice.

1. The lawsuit with the amended complaint is still fairly young in court years. Based on previous cases of this nature, it will take at least another year, most likely two years for an eventual decision if this case is not going in favor of Slep-Tone. Afterward, you can count on an appeal that will add another two years.
2. If you are one who believes that Sound Choice tracks are essential in running a karaoke show, you won't find a quicker and easier way to compile a large core set of Sound Choice tracks, and you will have at least four years to figure out which ones are truly essential to your business.
3. If things go bad for Slep-Tone, it's possible that you may be allowed to keep your Gem collection while nobody else will be able to acquire one in the future, leaving you with an exclusive gem of an asset.
4. You figure you can get an extra two years of use from it while they sue you to get it back.
5. You qualify for favorable financing from Slep-Tone that makes having a library now worth the expense even if you have to return it later or have to keep it for the term.
6. You want to make sure that Slep-Tone doesn't use you to pay their legal bills by suing you for displaying their trademark from the CDs you ripped to your computer.
7. You want to make sure that Slep-Tone doesn't use you to pay their legal bills by suing you for displaying their trademark from tracks you pirated off the internet.
8. You want to make sure that Slep-Tone doesn't use you to pay their legal bills by suing you for displaying their trademark from the tracks on your 250,000 song hard drive.
9. You've been saving too much money on Chartbuster discs since they were sued out of existence and you need the expense.
10. You considered the risks and the benefits and decided it was worth it.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I agree!

From what I've heard, the lawyer for EMI has taken this case upon himself. He is not being paid by EMI, he is like one of those class action suit lawyers or ambulance chasers. I think in the long run even if SC loses, you will be able to keep your GEM series. You bought it in good faith. I hardly think they'll go to the trouble to recall the ones that have been sold. Just saying.

_________________
KLAM Entertainment..."Come Out Of Your Shell And Sing"

I am not a Lawyer so the following statement is my opinion for me. If I were looking at the Gem, this EMI stuff wouldn't be a factor at all. But that would be me.

As chrisavis has pointed out a couple times, the only people yelling "Look Out! Beware!" are the people that wouldn't touch GEM with a ten foot pole anyway.

Consider the source.

Well, Earthling was the only one to give his business reasoning for buying GEMS now.

My answer- fair enough. What Earthling's answer boils down to is if one feels they NEED SC for their library, it would better not to wait a few years- IF that's how long it takes. Also, even if a gamble, there will be those years to use the product. While I don't neccesarily agree, I can understand that point of view.

I skipped the part about SC lawsuits because it's moot- they do not have, nor have they ever had a case that an educated person couldn't get tossed.

Anyway, I appreciate Earthling's willingness to answer logically, and feel that I have - if nothing else- gained another point of view than can also be applied. In other words, I don't believe either point of view has been negated, and both could be logically applied.

I still disagree, but if one has what they perceive as a need, and can't wait to fill it, they can't wait. I got it.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

So I guess any lawyer that was hired by a host wasn't educated. Some of your statements amaze me.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

This doesn't make sense to me. I don’t understand how some renegade lawyer is supposed to be able to sue anyone for copyright infringement without the express consent and direction from the owner of the copyright. This is a very strange notion to be promoting.

Looking at the history of this “loose cannon” lawyer, it seems he has a history of prevailing in court and winning the injunctions he seeks:

3:10-cv-01160 Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. et al v. Blue Moon Ventures, Inc. et al
02/03/2012
Paul Harrison Stacey secured a settlement and a permanent injunction against East Coast Karaoke requiring the recall and destruction of discs.

3:09-cv-01098 Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC et al v. D.J. Miller Music Distributors, Inc. et al
01/31/2012
Paul Harrison Stacey secured a settlement and a permanent injunction requiring the recall and destruction of discs.

3:09-cv-00411 Word Music, LLC. et al v. Lynns Corp. of America et al
05/20/2011
Paul Harrison Stacey secured a judgment against Tennessee Production Center (Chartbuster) for $1,200,000.

3:08-cv-00265 Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC et al v. CAVS USA, Inc. et al
01/25/2010
Paul Harrison Stacey secured a judgment against Nutech Digital, Inc. for $500,000. This also led to CAVS later winning a judgment against Tennessee Production Center (Chartbuster) for $470,000.

It seems this crazy, radical, dissident, guerrilla lawyer is pretty good at shutting down karaoke operations. I think writing him off as some sort of kook who will be easily brushed aside by the crack law team at Slep-Tone is a mistake. He seems to know his business and has a history of going the distance.



The legality that distinguishes this from other cases where the final downstream purchasers get to keep the discs they purchased in good faith is the fact that they did indeed purchase. Nobody bought a Gem set in good faith; they were licensed in good faith. They certainly would not be recalled if they had been sold, but they were licensed with no transfer of ownership. An injunction requiring the destruction of Slep-Tone’s copies would necessarily include a recall of those in the field unless special arrangements were made to specifically allow current licensees to retain their copies.
That said, I too, doubt that this will end with a requirement to return any Gem sets.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

It would seem to me that the courts would instead make Slep-Tone liable for each GEM set sold. I guess it would be possible to recall each set but ... BUT .... just for a minute, imagine if they didn't recall them and Slep-Tone was demanded to destroy any remaining inventory. BAM !! The price for a GEM set would be worth a LOT more to the rightful owner, huh?

I thought that the GEM sets were transferable. If you have the GEM series, you are allowed to sell it off to another person (with SC's approval), and then a new contract is drawn up between SC and that newbie.