Karaoke Forums

Deflection, which is what you do best.

Based on the number of tracks ever produced, the number of times SC has ever been sued, and the number of times those suits have resulted in a judgment, I'd say it's considerably more true than most of what you post on here.

I'd take that pile of sympathetic crocodile tears with a boxcar of salt....

It's appears that PEP is really less interested in "stopping piracy to help you" and more interested in "licensing pirates" on a $200 monthly basis to continue competing with you.

And why should they help any KJ?

They if did, they'd still have no product to sell you and they'd make no money. Sorry, but I've heard it too many times; "We're a business..."

They're in the "permission business" and that's all they do.... now.

Smoke and mirrors counsel? Really?
Hmmm... Let's do some math....

You've stated that SC has over 18,000 "red logo" tracks right? I believe it's one of your selling points for the "help license."

The "number of times SC has ever been sued" might appear to be low, but in reality, the numbers are not low. If I remember correctly, one suit alone that SC settled on [wrote a check] was for at least 255 tracks.
Not 1 or 2, or even 7.... but TWO HUNDRED FIFTY FIVE.

The most recent suit that dragged on for over 2 years was also for a NUMBER of GEM series tracks wasn't it? If it was so legally licensed to start with, it would have been cleared up and dismissed in a week. (You know, that "human error" stuff) But that was another expensive "resolution" wasn't it? No wonder SC needs attorneys on consignment, investigators taking off with SC's money... rogue attorneys not sending in SC's fair share and all, resolving this stuff is really expensive.

How many small publishers/artists don't know that SC used their tracks? Shall we compare the date that SC first put out 8117 with the Red Peters tracks and compare it to the date it was licensed about three years later?

So when you say; "We'd like to help you" you're not saying it to the honest KJ's like Alan B. but more to the prospective licensee...

I'll let the readers here decide for themselves what is "true" and verifiable but you have a vested interest in how you present your employer since that is your income.

I do not make a dime from Kurt Slep.

More deflection.

You posted a long-winded and logically erroneous attempt at dissecting my analogy, which failed because you forget that the rules have only ever been changed to the KJ's benefit.

From the beginning, the rule was "don't copy without our permission." That rule was stated on every disc. That rule, as stated, completely invalidates your argument that we have somehow changed the rules by imposing new requirements for copying. We haven't.

When we established a mechanism for KJs to get permission to copy, we set some rules. We have, from time to time, charged a fee for the services that lead to that permission, to cover a portion of our costs. But if you don't like that process, you can always fall back to the original rule, which is "don't copy." We haven't withdrawn any permissions or changed fees for anyone after a commitment was made.

What you don't like is that you assumed, when you purchased, that you could copy the disc freely. That was an improper assumption, and when you were disabused of that notion, it was costly to you. But that's not our problem.

So, bearing all of that in mind, when my facts invalidated your argument, you deflected. "But, but, but, Sound Choice didn't get all their licensing." Whether that statement is true or not--and I believe it's not--it's irrelevant to the issue at hand. You are only raising it to deflect from the embarrassment of having your argument exposed as a fraud.

Now, since you brought it up, let's look at your statement, "I do not make a dime from Kurt Slep." I don't doubt that's true...today. But let's go back a few years, to when you were running so many systems you needed a large truck to haul around the equipment. Were you 1:1 at that point? Or is the root of your anger toward SC and to Kurt derived from your having to scale back your operations because SC started suing multi-riggers who only had one set of discs?

A complete fabrication Mr. Harrington and you (of all people) know that. I'm really surprised that you'd try such a transparent tactic since you know that when I started buying discs inthe early 90's, there wasn't a publicly-available method to even make CD+G copies.

You are well aware of the "permissions granted for copying" by BOTH Kurt Slep and Derek Slep in 1998. You've seen the snippet from the JOLT forum and I'm sure you can recite it by memory so I don't need to repost it here. Based on their written, publicly-posted permission - not some contrived assumption, is when we used "archive copies" to run shows. NO DISTINCTION was made by either Slep brother that computers could not be used and from 2000 to 2007 -- a period of seven (7) years-- Sound Choice did nothing to protect it's precious trademark, nor did they rescind the permission they granted in 1998.

Then, in 2007, poof! SC started with lawsuits falsely claiming they had never granted said permission. You even tried to say that "the permission" meant disc-to-disc, not "disc-to-(hard)disk" (which is your admission that the permission was granted, but now you wanted to argue about "forms" of those copies.)

So, you knew that there was permission but you tried your darndest to obfuscate the truth with as much legalese as you could throw at the unknowing, hoping most of it would stick.

Slep gave permission, lots of KJ's relied on that and built their business models around it. When you decided to "change the rules" we asked for a guarantee that we wouldn't be sued if we played off discs, YOU refused. Citing the "human element" that you are entirely in control of, no excuses on that one. You wouldn't refund my purchase of SC brand discs either.



I don't believe so. You and Slep have been demanding "proof of honesty" to every KJ you come across, but when the honesty of SC (regarding licensing) is challenged and proven that it is in fact, NOT "legal", you simply deflect by saying; "It's none of your business. Just don't use the discs then." So there are plenty of tracks that were produced, pressed, packaged, distributed and money collected that probably should have never been produced. Wouldn't you agree?

You want to discuss "fraud?" Remember the discussion we just had on ethics? Kind of exposes a few truths doesn't it?

And, after 2 years, your client "Re$olved" the lawsuit with EMI... on tracks it claims were made and "legally licensed for worldwide distribution" out of the U.K. remember? Yeah, right.... They weren't, and your end-around license play came crashing down.

Kurt Slep claimed in his OWN FORUM that FSC Media Plas was "our UK branch" and then in the lawsuit with EMI, Slep claimed he had nothing to do with them.... and it turns out that PRS rejected the first application -- signed by none other than a certain "Kurt Slep, Consultant."

So yes, I brought up the subject of licensing. Why? Because it shows that the company doesn't have much in the way of ethics or integrity and that it wants to hold KJ's that work for peanuts to a higher degree of honesty than it's willing to hold itself. Pretty slimy way of conducting business if you ask me.




A "large truck?" You mean the TOYOTA? Yep, the darn thing wasn't too heavy, wasn't too long, didn't have any advertising on it, was the same length as a Ford Econoline van but it was 10 inches too tall for the local ordinance. And there is no secret that I was a multi-rigger. I'm not going to recite you that again. Suffice it to say that I had purchased a number of SC "custom cdg compilation" discs at $50 each. (did you pay the royalties on those custom discs?)



You're funny. But at least you're consistent. You've been trying for years to put a dent in my credibility even if it's an unsupported insinuation of something nefarious.

But it is an old story. You're repeating it over and over isn't ever going to change the outcome. You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

i have seen nothing to back this up

completely understood, i believe this whole heartedly

you have already done some down here. you know my feelings on them, but they are here in AZ.

done enough suits here to know that you have those in AZ

done that too.

if your resources are that limited, why not put them to use against verified pirates reported by certified hosts instead of paying investigators to check Podunk, Iowa and taking chances. why spend those precious resources to sue pirates stealing from other pirates or "techincal infringers" instead of supporting your certified hosts who did what you wanted?
i believe you would get a lot more support (not everyone obviously) if people saw that by signing up for an audit to support SC/PEP got them the support OF SC/PEP in return by allocating resources to support those hosts by suing verified pirates (who would you trust more than your own supporters) that these certified hosts reported to you.
at the moment what is seen is that by signing up and getting an audit to support SC/PEP, then SC/PEP can go investigate and sue someone else we have never heard of in a town we have never heard of and does not affect us in any way.


we have all reported pirate hosts to SC/PEP and to date not a single one of those pirates reported has ever had anything happen to them. ask around, i have said it before and been backed up by anybody here that has reported a pirate. we got certified and SC left us out to swing in the wind alone while hunting everywhere else.

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

Slep and Harrington don't give a rat's anal orifice about YOU, or ANY other KJ. Anyone who believes they do is completely foolish. Slep cares about Slep and his wallet. Harrington is Slep's little mouthpiece, protecting Slep's wallet. Piracy will never end. Those you report will be in business until they retire.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

If you look very carefully at the "permission" that was granted, I think you'll see that it did not amount to what you believe it did--and it specifically did not authorize you to use "archive copies" to run shows. By definition, an "archive copy" is not one that's used.



The first lawsuit was filed in 2009, not 2007. And prior to that point, SC had, in fact, never granted permission for any operator to use an "archive copy" on any medium. Permission was given to create an archive copy, yes, and you might even stretch that to authorization to use the archive copy if the original was damaged and rendered unplayable, but not to build a business solely using archive copies.



That describes your own tactics perfectly.



Not at all.



I know you'd like to think you were involved enough in that lawsuit to know what actually happened, but you weren't. The GEM series and all of the other discs SC has distributed based on the UK licensing were, in fact, licensed for worldwide distribution. MCPS confirmed, in writing, that it considered the licenses to have been lawfully and properly issued, and that the entities holding the UK copyright in the tracks were fully compensated under the MCPS schedule.



Yes.



You've already done more damage to your own credibility than I could hope to inflict, even if I were interested.

But I note that you didn't answer the question. When you were running all those systems, were you 1:1 on your SC? (You have no reason to worry about us suing you for infringement, since we've been on notice of the possible claim for many years and elected not to pursue it since you were obviously no longer using the material. Even though the Sixth Circuit doesn't apply the usual rule about state-law statutes of limitations to Lanham Act claims, laches would apply here.)

Can you blame him? For years, people have been steeling from him which in turn has hurt his business. I'm sure Mr. Slep would much rather be producing and selling (the key word is "selling") karaoke music as in the past than having to go after criminals.

You may not like SC's methods but ask yourself...

How would you feel if everyone was stealing your products and profiting by them while you never received a single penny for them.

Think about it, over 90% of KJ's are making money using SC tracks while SC doesn't receive anything. It sure changes your perspective about people and business.

So what should SC do? After all, they've been seriously damaged by piracy. Yes, retaliate and try to recoup what was wrongfully taken away from them. Unfortunately, a good guy or two might get hurt in the process but if they truly are doing everything legally, they have nothing to worry about.

Piracy has killed SC and is killing the industry. We are a part of the industry.

I understand SC's position. If it was my company and everyone was stealing from me, literally forcing me out of business, I'd retaliate too.

Your option for using SC tracks is use the discs or get permission to shift. It can't get any easier than that.

Before condemning SC, put yourself in their shoes.

_________________
Electro-Voice Evolve 50... Taking Sound To The Next Level.

I'm not sure anyone has ever called me "little" anything.

Well Chippie, even if he did say that 20 years ago or so, so what. Companies change policies just as governments add, change, and repeal laws. If you don' like it, that's just too bad.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Really?
Here, let me quote it for you word-for-word... including Kurt's original capitalization since you have apparently forgotten:
---------------------------------------------------
--- Kurt from Sound Choice - 10:17pm Sept. 23, 1998---
"Anyway, regarding the use of the backup copy WHILE KEEPING THE ORIGINAL IN ARCHIVE, that's OK."
---------------------------------------------------

What part of "USE of the BACKUP COPY while KEEPING he ORIGINAL in ARCHIVE" did you not understand? Is it really that difficult?

Looks to me that he said you can USE the [backup] COPY...

Here is the PIC: http://dkusa.com/images/kslep.jpg

So the rest of your pontification and false facts are just "temperature-elevated atmosphere" counsel.


Thankfully, I was NOT "involved enough in that lawsuit" although your vindictive deposition subpoena was a nice touch and an attempt to drag me in (for God knows what.) You'll notice I was kind enough to insure that your witness fee was returned.

How much conflicting information to your version do you really want me to post from PACER? And are you willing to pay the copy bill?


Like I said, I'm not about to go through the whole story again for your benefit. Suffice it to say that my first "disc purchase" was very substantial.

You should know by now that I have a very extensive archive.



No worries here.

(nice to see your minion timberlea in his usual "drive by fashion" though)

Your name is Lonnie?



The materials you are referring to are not on PACER, so stop pretending that you're talking with authority.



If you were 1:1, it would be a simple thing to say "yes." No one would be the wiser, even if it wasn't true; it would be between you and whatever god you might believe in, or your conscience if not.

So, I guess the answer is "no." I give you credit for not lying, at least.

The truth is that the last six years have been an exercise in your unilateral disarmament. I can't say we wouldn't have sued you if you'd continued to use copies you made of the product, but if you'd asked instead of becoming radicalized and hystericalized, we'd have probably given you a free audit, considering the amount of material you've claimed to own, and then we could live in peace and you would be clear to use all of that material you'd purchased.

Your words and actions have shown everyone you're the kind of guy who would prefer to be offended, to cut off his own nose just to spite us, than to have a dialogue whereby we would all be able to move forward. We were never as difficult on people as you made us out to be. Just ask the people who decided to cooperate--to operate together with us, instead of being outraged. We get pretty high marks from those folks. Not all, of course, but most.

Despite your best efforts to destroy us, we're still around, and we're even on the upswing.

You're even doing exactly what we asked of you. (Use the originals, get certified, buy a license, or don't use the product--any of those options are fine by us.)

And the best part is that we've been living in your head, rent-free, for six years now.

I guess the joke's on you.

Very funny and in your usual form; out of context only to suit your needs.

The point here is that your so-called "facts" are not facts at all; they appear to be untruths. Your suits assert as a fact that "Sound Choice has never granted permission to make or use copies" and there it is in black and white.

As you are quick to remind others; "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts." Does the court know about this little discrepancy in the claims in your complaint? Do they know it was more than just one time, by both Derek and Kurt Slep? Perhaps - in the interest of justice only of course - they should know this.


What reference to "materials" are you attempting point out counsel? I don't see anything in my response above that "refers" to any materials whatsoever... Is there something bothering your conscience that you'd like to share? Frankly, I'm not in the mood (and I don't have the time) to be your imaginary whipping boy, but there is conflicting information on PACER such as the letter from the PRS attorney. (And it's not helpful to your case. )

In case you've forgotten so quickly, "your side" paid a $ettlement in that case. (If your case was so "legal" to start with, that wouldn't have happened.)



So let's see; you asked the question and then make up some answers, speculate a number of reasons why, then pick out whatever answer (you just made up) that you feel discredits me and suits your agenda best? That is so predictable of you: if you don't have information or evidence, just make something up.... kind of like your crack investigative squads right?




"Hystericalized?" Is that even a word? Careful! Your blood pressure will kill you some day, and frankly your health is very important to me. (I'm not done sparrring with you yet)

Let's take this from the top because obviously, something didn't sink in: Look above at the permission granted by Kurt Slep. As much as you'd like it to look like it's directed only to Lonnie, it's not because you're just playing games. So based on the words of the "President of Sound Choice," NO ONE needed to "ask permission" because he simply and unilaterally handed it out. I understand that reading it the way it was written and intended isn't helping you or your cause and that's not my problem, it's yours. Whining about it won't make it change for you.

So tell me how, after giving this permission in 1998, it didn't seem to be "damaging" anything at all for 11 years until 2009? I didn't see SC go after Compuhost, MTU, RoxBox, Karma, Sax 'n Dotty or any of the software companies that actually make it possible to make copies either. Must not be that damaging...

And I DID ask for an ironclad guarantee from your lawsuits IF we used DISCS that YOU and/or your client/employer/partner REFUSED to grant.... So don't try to paint me as badly as the rogue attorneys you've hired in the past.
(BTW, if Donna Boris failed to turn over your client's portion of settlement payments, why has Kurt never filed a malpractice suit against her to recover those losses? But I digress.)

So, when you wouldn't guarantee that we wouldn't be sued for playing the DISCS in a disc player that we bought from Sound Choice, we had stopped using them and you refused to rescind the sale as well. For some reason you think that the only way we should be able to use the product we've already paid for, is to pay for it again.


Not really. I'm the kind of guy that is very protective of my business and privacy; when and where I work, how often I work etc. is really no more your business than me snooping at your licenses with publishers. Whether you believe that or not, doesn't matter to me.

And frankly, your "contracts" for "permission" are NOT "to the benefit of the KJ" in any sense of the word. They are a joke filled with all kinds of disclaimers and indemnifications for your client's benefit, and zero, zip, zilch for the KJ. If I believed that you actually offered any semblance of an equitable arrangement, I'd most likely accept that. So far, you've never even gotten close.


No, you're not. "Sound Choice" is dead. Kurt Slep destroyed it. It's gone. It doesn't make discs, it doesn't even distribute any discs anymore... As a matter of fact, it doesn't even exist -- there are no assets remember?

What does exist is a trademark trolling litigation company called PEP that is milking the old trademark for as much as can be possibly squeezed out of it.


Using the originals does not guarantee that a KJ and venue will not be sued remember? Those were YOUR words, not mine, so you can take that option right off the list.

But, not using the product is the most proactive choice: It offers absolute and permanent protection from your litigation for my venue(s) and it's free plus, your nose is out of my business.

Remember: YOU are the ones suing venues for patrons singing songs that display your trademark. Do you really think that the venue manager/owner really would have any problem deciding whether or not to ban your product on their property? It's easier to have the venue ban the trademark than it is to go through all the crap you want that includes agreements, audits, licenses, blah, blah, blah, all under the constant threat of "vicarious infringement." It's quite easy to convince a venue to ban the trademark and your litigation history of blindsiding venues makes it even easier and more persuasive. Thanks!

In in the meantime, your collection of songs are becoming less relevant, getting played less and less by KJ's as they play more and more new music.... that they purchase from active karaoke manufacturers (which Sound Choice is not).


Well, that's not exactly accurate. (like most of your offerings)

(1) You haven't been "living in my head" at all. That's just a lie you'd love for others to believe. But I could certainly tell from the subpoena and pages of accompanying interrogatories (that were irrelevant to your case) that I had been residing on your vindictive shoulder for quite a bit of time. Even I was impressed.

(2) But it hasn't been "rent-free" for you or your client... at all.

(3) You guessed wrong... again.

Again Chip, it does not matter what was said in the past. Companies change policies and governments change laws. Permission can be given and permission can be taken away. Just because you don't like it, that's just too bad.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

He doesn't get it.

We didn't take anything away from him.

(Until now, that is, maybe. Mr. Staley, since you've very clearly established that you're not using any SC materials, media-shifted or otherwise, in your shows, please take this as public notice that any permissions you might have been previously granted with regard to the creation or use of media-shifted SOUND CHOICE-branded content are hereby revoked.)

Let's say he did have some sort of legally enforceable permission. (I don't think he did, but let's say for the sake of argument that he did.) What did we do to him?

We didn't sue him.

We didn't contact his venues and demand that they fire him.

We didn't even ask to see if he was complying with the terms of the permission he supposedly had.

We didn't demand that he pay us any money.

We didn't insult his mother or goad his friends into saying bad things about him.

He's apparently mad that he was subpoenaed in the EMI case, but since his name came up in a bunch of documents and he (apparently) had communications with EMI's attorney--maybe even before the case was filed--I'm not sure why our subpoena was unexpected.

Everything that's happened to him as a result of his interactions with SC has been his own doing, not ours.

That being said, despite all the things he's said about us, and despite the effort he's undertaken to try to destroy us, if he came to us today and asked to get certified so he could use his SC materials on a hard drive without worrying about getting sued, we'd audit him just the same as anyone else, and certify him just the same as anyone else. The certification application is on our website and available for anyone to use (except, of course, current defendants in a SC lawsuit).

Speaking of defendants in current lawsuits. Where did the thread go that was started by the KJ that is currently being sued by PEP/SC? I think it disappeared the morning of Aug 9. It was very interesting hearing directly from someone involved in a suit.

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. That should NOT have been taken down, or moved, or whatever.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

According to mod logs it was removed: reason, original posters request to take it down. May have had something to do with legal issues not being able to discuss it since he was in an active litigation? Don't know.

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

The this forum has a bug. I had reopened Google to that post, and it said I was unauthorized to view the forum. Unless the dead posts go to the moderators' forum.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE