Karaoke Forums

I always assumed Joe's real last name was Greene & Chartreuse was the stage name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartreuse_%28color%29

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

Just say no to the Groucho Moustache!

Cuey is right. I know him and have met him. Now if I went to his city, the Big Apple, I would be hard pressed to find him by his alias Cueball. Now you could do a surveillance on him to see where his home is but it's not that easy. Unlike TV and the movies, it can take time to successfully follow him home. there are a lot of things involved from the number of people used, to if the person goes straight home, traffic (a biggie as there is no director to ensure you get all the green lights), number of pedestrians (too many you can lose sight, too few and you get spotted). I can be done but it can also be very expensive. It is much easier to use John Doe aka Cueball in care of ABC Bar & Grill. It's the person that's important, not the name.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Yes.

For any given defendant, there is a specific chance (expressed as a percentage) that we will have the legal name of that defendant.

Suppose that for a single-op host, the chance of having the correct legal name is 90%, and for multi-riggers, the chance of having the correct legal name is 95%. (I don't think these figures are correct; this is just a hypothetical.)

I would describe that situation as "We are more likely not to have a name when it is a single-op host," because we will not have the name 10% of the time for single-ops but only 5% for multi-ops. 10% is greater than 5%.

"We are unlikely to have" means that the chances of having a name are less than 50%. Since in my scenario the chances for both are well in excess of 50%, "we are unlikely to have" would not apply.



Others and I have already explained to you that hosts use aliases; they do not necessarily respond to inquiries about their legal names; they may not have a public footprint that allows us to confirm their legal names; and so forth. You also have to understand that there are limits to my ability (and my staff's ability) to use deception to obtain information.

Perhaps you could share with us a technique that you think would be foolproof in obtaining the legal names of operators. I would much rather have every KJ's full legal name before suing, so I'm happy to receive any suggestions you might have.

So just out of curiosity, why don't you list the a/k/a on the complaint?

_________________
Birdofsong

In my office, we do.

Well, you have just proven to the whole forum that SC does not make a complete investigation- thank you.

However because your "investigators" and their "trainers" are too stupid to figure it out, let me help..

Did anyone bother to get a phone number that can be traced on line in seconds? Can you name a KJ that won't give out a phone number?

While you were pulling names out of a hat/ web sites, did you bother to get a traceable IP?

Did anyone bother to check if KJ Pirate was paying taxes on his income, and under what name?

How about a pretty girl to ASK the KJ his name?

How about- not that an SC rep ever actually visits a show, but if they actually did- the rep walking outside and getting a license plate number off of the KJ's transport?

Or is anyone associated with SC more interested in greed than thinking?

I absolutely know for a fact that the above is not news to SC, unless it is the most amazing collection of non-neuron firing morons on the planet.

HarringtonLaw, are you honestly going to post that my sugestions were just too hard for you to think of? REALLY? Hope you make the big bucks. Or might you admit that thorough investigations are simply not an SC priority.

I stand by my opinion that SC is a company, having shot their wad through mismanagement of a karaoke production company-is now attempting to intimidate their way into a settlement derived income with absolutely no regard for the innocence or guilt of a KJ, and with a complete lack of ethics or morality in that pursuit- In my humble opinion, of course.

On the other hand: I'm guessing that SC, who would rather shut me up and flay me alive, has probably checked my show by now and noticed the original mfrs. discs in use. I can't be cetain, but I would guess that my big mouth would be a priority. HarringtonLaw?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I could name two I know of who post on this forum regularly!

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

There. I fixed that for you.
Chip and Bird have my number as does Karen K. No one else has asked for it.
And before you ask for it, I only give it out to people who don't engage in creepy stalker like behaviour.

I wasn't talking about you, but of course it's always all about you anyways, isn't it?

Oh, and BTW, continuing to call me a stalker is against forum rules. I am not a stalker nor am I creepy. I just ask locations etc of folks like you to step up and show credibility. The lack of willingness to be transparent shows a lack of credibility when it comes to the serious nature of karaoke piracy to me & perhaps to many others in my opinion.

I follow the forum rules by not calling you a (adverb) (noun), which is my opinion of you now do I?

So lay off the name calling. Thank you.

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

Of course it's all about me. Who else would it be about?
Let's be clear here. I didn't call you anything. I just said you emulated certain behaviours, which you most certainly do.
As far as "lack of willingness to be transparent", as you put it, I'm sorry you feel left out. Tough beans. I give out my information to those I feel should have it and not to anyone else. If you think it detracts from my credibility (on what subject, who the heck knows or cares?), oh well. There are several here who feel quite differently and dare I say even agree with me about not giving YOU or anyone else here who engages in stalker like behaviour my personal information.

No. It is name calling. Creepy stalker is not accurate & emulates something sinister.

I can easily call you a (adverb) (noun) because you emulate certain behaviors as well, but I don't & trust me, if I did, I would be reprimanded for it.

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

I beg to differ, so we will have to agree to disagree.

I have to agree with diafel on this one. As I have stated before full disclosure is not a requirement to participate on this site. It is my belief that a host will reveal what he or she wishes to, that is after all their right to privacy. Some hosts think that the right to privacy is diminished once you perform in public. I do not hold with this view. There was a time before SC started it's crusade against piracy, that hosts were more open and friendly. That has changed, now each host has to make a personal decision about the control of information released in public. This is in order to protect their business's and the people they work with. There are only a handful of hosts that really seem interested in obtaining information. One has to wonder what is their motivations, and does this reflect on their own credibility? The purpose of the forum is to exchange ideas, not to provide personal information, that may be misused by other individuals.


Just say no to Grocho!

As I've said before Joe real life and TV are two different things.

Unless a telephone is listed, you won't be able to get information on the user. ie my number is 555-1234 and I have it unlisted, how are you going to get my info? The phone or cell company are not going to release the information to you, even if I plaster my number all over the place. The same goes for IPs.

The IRS isn't going to release ANY information.

A pretty girl may work but that could take time too because when people ask someone for a name in a social setting they usually say I'm John, not John Doe.

Motor Vehicles/Police in most jurisdictions cannot give out information on plates to unauthorized people.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I would have to disagree with you about its accuracy. Your unending desire to continually post personal information under the guise of "it's public information" is simply a method you use to justify the use of such tactics...

Just the same as if were to comment that your city is listed incorrectly in your information means that I would know where you really are..... and that's kind of creepy with a sinister tone -- wouldn't you agree?

That same tactic is employed by youngsters at a private karaoke party who select inappropriate/profane/sexually explicit songs claiming they should be able to sing them only on the basis "because it listed in the book."

Just because information can be classified as "public" doesn't necessarily mean the person wants it to be "public knowledge." An example of this would be your own forum moniker of WallOfSound and not your true name. Kurt Slep's home address is "public information" too, but I don't think he'd appreciate that being spread all over the net just because of that fact either... do you?

We do get phone numbers, but cell phones, which most of the KJs (whom we have trouble identifying) use, are generally not listed.



Where they have a website, sure...but tracing an IP only goes so far--to the ISP, who will at least require a subpoena, which requires a suit first. The DNS record may or may not contain the legal name of the KJ. A lot of KJs use Facebook or Myspace for their website.



Where, pray tell, can we check for that information? "Hello, IRS? I was wondering if you could give me the real name of a guy who goes by the professional name of 'Joe Chartreuse'? No, I don't have his SSN. Listen, all I know is he plays Fridays at the Applebees on Jefferson Street. Can you help me? Hello?"



When one is available, we do. Doesn't always work.



In most states, that information is not available to private individuals. In the states where it is available, we get it. But even then, it's not foolproof, because just because the KJ uses the car doesn't mean it's in his name.

So, after all of those things have been tried and have failed to produce the KJ's legal name, is it then OK with you if we sue under an alias?



I have no idea. But don't you think that if I were interested in shutting you up, I would just ignore your posts?

As I read that line, it dawned on me that Joe C is the perfect set up man for the truth.

Why would SC want to shut him up when contradicting him with facts and the truth is practically effortless?

It is my belief that Joe C never really considered that he'd eventually have to validate his own statements. HarringtonLaw is in possession of the facts. HarringtonLaw has authority and direct knowledge relating to SC's position and actions regarding these lawsuits for trademark infringement. HarringtonLaw has made it clear to me that consideration and forethought have been applied as these investigations have taken place. Joe C.'s tacit admission that these investigations are, in fact, taking place is another indication that the ground is crumbling beneath where he stands.

I am of the opinion that Joe C.'s speculations and predictions and critiques of "SC's methodology" have been revealed for what they are; Joe C.'s imagination.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

As I've said before TV and reality are two different things. Heck even reality and media are two different things. The vast majority crimes are not solved in an hour (other than caught in the act). Surveillance is a long and frustrating operation, as for some strange reason traffic lights do not co-operate like thos in movies and TV. There are no back doors into government computers and if you did find one and use it, say goodbye to your career. Like I said before there are ways but they are not easy and they are not cheap.

I have conducted investigations (both as an MP and a PI) and the things I've seen in the media and the real facts were two different things. To add to that the assumptions that people make about what happened to a particular victim are sometimes out of this world.

The other problem is what is known as the "CSI Effect". People think there should be DNA in every case or other forensic evidence in every case where none is needed.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Okay, I've got one..."Hey, Steve (or Harry, or Rick or KJSleazy or whoever they say they are) -- I'm having a party in September, and I'd love to have you do Karaoke there. Do you happen to have a business card?"

Even if they don't, they're going to give you contact information. I'm with Joe -- I really don't think it would be that difficult to figure this one out if you're actually doing the work.

_________________
Birdofsong