Karaoke Forums

Unfortunately, I have no choice but to "stunt this growth" because the terms of the settlement of the dispute are confidential. I don't particularly appreciate having to respond to uninformed speculation, but the only response I can give is to say that you don't know anything about the settlement other than what I've told you (which is all that I can tell you). When you continue to engage in speculation after you've been told this, it suggests that the purpose isn't to "seek education," but to create a particular narrative that fits a certain agenda, apart from whatever the truth might be.

Not everything is for you to know, and the fact that some facts are off-limits doesn't make them "against the spirit of a free internet," entirely or otherwise.

The only thing that can disrupt the terms of any settlement between two parties is if one or both of those parties releases that information, not the speculation and observation of outside parties. Also, a lot of folks will make it a point to get more interested in a particular subject when met with a certain level of resistance...

Still waiting to hear what the publisher deal is and exactly what it entails. We were told that the HELP agreement was being revised, but I have yet to see it. It will be particularly interesting to see which publishers are participating.

Why is it everyone that questions you has to have an agenda?

Unwarranted assumption? I disagree. You do not get sued by Paul Stacy on behalf of the publishers and not settle for real money. Ask any of those had similar dealings with him in the past. They don't have to tell you the number...but there is ALWAYS a number paid in settlement. Based on his history and the nature of this type of litigation, one does not need to know the specifics of the settlement. The fact that there was one at all means you paid or are paying over time. The suit you settled has been ongoing for years. During this time you created HELP. The license fees from HELP and GEM are designed to pay for your settlement and costs of litigation for the suits you are "just getting started" to file against others. As one of the primary means you have of generating revenue, there is a correlation between the two.

True. Especially when they are debating someone who takes such an accusatory and belittling posture.

KI what business is it of yours what their contract is. Does any company you do not own tell you the details of their contracts with other companies? Does McDonald's tell you what their deal with Coca-Cola is? I highly doubt it and if you asked, they would probably tel you to pound sand. As for as non-disclosure in a civil suit, once again not yours or anybody's elses business. I noticed no one has gone to Sony or EMI to ask them about details and if you did, they would also tell you to pound sand.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Where did I say that it was my business? I have not asked for the details. I don't care. I do care about having specifics about the program that Jim has used this forum to promote. It seems that as soon as anyone asks questions about the program and the fine print, you get labelled as having an agenda. I am interested in the publisher agreement that we were told was coming some time ago.

Inapplicable analogy aside...

A highly litigious environment has been developed. When that is the case, and when it involves materials used for commercial gain, desiring a high level of information regarding the use of said products is not out of line. This is a "live by the sword, die by the sword" scenario. Once a company decides to use the court system to generate revenue, the information used in these cases becomes public record. Often times, once certain facts need to be proven in court, information that otherwise might not be readily available is now accessible.

No one has, to the best of my interpretation, specifically asked for details of anyone's non-disclosure agreement. However, in this case, there very well could be information that a potential commercial customer would need to know in order to protect their business that might correspond with information contained in a settlement agreement. Giving necessary information does not necessarily mean you are going against a non-disclosure, unless one reveals to another that said information IS a part of that non-disclosure.

There is a reason why there is a snafu in this instance with being able to use the HELP program in New York: the franchise laws in place there are applicable because this transaction very closely resembles a franchise agreement. Franchisees, by definition, have access to a considerable amount of proprietary information that they would not otherwise. The parent company has a distinct level of disclosure to adhere to in order for the franchisee to operate securely and confidently. For a parent company to operate under of shroud of secrecy does not bode well for the success of such agreements...

"Confidential Settlements" is just the way it works..

General Motors agrees to pay XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX dollars to compensate dead and dieing owners of faulty ignition switches. Not admitting guilt of course, and oh ya, secret filing.

I'm not saying it's right, it just is..

Back to you regular scheduled ranting..

Providing that GM has corrected the issue and is committed to fixing existing issues, I don't understand why anyone but the voyeuristic or those with litigious desires would want to know the details anyway.

So long as my car is not affected or can be fixed, the rest of the details are unimportant.

I feel the same way about the EMI case. They have resolved their difficulties, my GEM is not being recalled, and PEP continues down the track of providing licensing services with plans to go back into production. The details of the settlement are unimportant and have no impact on any KJ anywhere.

This is not to say that karaoke related legal matters aren't important to me, but this particular case is no longer of any importance.

_________________
-Chris

It really is the attitude that "If you won't tell us, and we can't find out... we'll just make stuff up."

When someone without information makes accusatory, negative, fault-finding statements with obvious bias, it only increases the proportion of BS that we have to sift through when processing the relevant, fact based information that is actually available.

"We're gonna ask questions that you aren't allowed (by court order) to answer and then accuse you of hiding something."

Now that all the dire predictions of doom and gloom for GEM licensees have come to naught, I think there are a few individuals out there that are face-palming themselves while realizing the lost opportunity for $Profit$. This is a business after all.

Prepare for another onslaught from the Soldiers of FUD.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

I think we are done here..