HarringtonLaw wrote:
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.)
Are you Kurt Slep? How do I know (a) who you are and, (b) that you even have the authority to say diddly-squat on Slep's behalf?
HarringtonLaw wrote:
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.
Oh, Geez! Get a kleenex for Christ's sake!
Quite the sympathy-plea, temper-tantrum counsel. Feel better now?
While Mr. Harrington has made a laundry list above eliciting some kind of childlike, innocent "
what did we ever do to him?" look on his face, they are hardly the trodden-upon, innocent target he's attempting to portray.
Rather than be distracted (as a magician would use slight-of-hand) by what he claims they
didn't do above, let's combine them all and
say what they did do:(1) Sell me product (the most expensive, but also quite good)
(2) Grant permission to use the "backup copy and archive the original" (I took them at their word and built my business around what appeared to be a great vendor.)
(3) Eleven years later, threaten me with possible litigation if I actually used it anymore... in ANY form
unless I pay them again and sign a terrible contract.
(4) Refuse to purchase back the now unusuable product.
Read on....
HarringtonLaw wrote:
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.
Still playing the victim and speculating at the same time?
So my "name came up
in a bunch of documents." A bunch? Care to elaborate on exactly what this "bunch" is? Because I can only think of ONE... (as in "uno").
---- What document was it???? ----
It was a declaration from what is called a "non-party witness" or sometimes a "3rd party witness." A non-party witness doesn't have any claim in a lawsuit. They are not the plaintiff or the defendant or a party in the suit. They simply either witnessed something or has evidence of some sort.
That would be me.
In this case, it was a screenshot from the SC forum where Kurt Slep had answered a KJ (Brian A. as a matter of fact) who had asked why their disc said; "FSC Media Plas" on it. The answer (which was passed along and quoted by his customer service guy) basically said; “Hi Brian - Yes, it’s a legitimate disc. In an effort to bring back more “out of print” Sound Choice titles that had been discontinued due to expired licenses or low sales,
our UK branch is licensing the songs through MCPS (which is easier and less expensive than US publishers and allows for world-wide distribution). We import and distribute limited quantities of these discs. Thank you for your diligence in being certain you are getting genuine Sound Choice products”.
"our UK branch?"As you folks know, I read EVERYTHING..... everywhere.... and I save lots of stuff too... (obviously). Like the screenshot of the above quote from SC's own forum. Something rang a bell in the EMI lawsuit that I had read and when I checked it out, sure enough, Kurt Slep had claimed that he had NOTHING to do with FSC Media Plas, that it was a separate company, he had no control over it or it's operations, etc.,
I thought: "how can he have no control and call it his UK branch at the same time?" He had to be either
(1) fibbing to Brian A to look more important, (lots of people in business fib to make themselves look bigger for example and that's no big deal at all), or
(2) he really did have something to do with it and he was lying to EMI.
EMI asked me to simply sign a declaration stating WHERE AND WHEN the screenshot was made.
That was it. ONE document. And Slep's attorneys (eh, hem) didn't even contest that what was in the document was untrue, or anything else. And never did contest it, because it IS the truth... (as painful as that might be to some)
Their vindictive retribution for me daring to speak up at all was to be served with a federal subpoena demand for a video deposition with an unbelievable amount of documentation that was not relevant and had nothing to do with the case at hand. Here is just a partial list of what they wanted:
Harrington SUBPOENA wrote:
All DOCUMENTS dating between January 1, 2005 and the date of this subpoena, in your possession custody or control (including both physical documents and electronically-stored documents, such as email, as defined above) that refer or relate to Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation.
All DOCUMENTS dating between January 1, 2010 and the date of this subpoena, in your possession custody or control (including both physical documents and electronically-stored documents, such as email, as defined above) that constitute, refer or relate to COMMUNICATIONS (be they written or oral) between YOU and Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation.
All DOCUMENTS dating between January 1, 2010 and the date of this subpoena, in your possession custody or control (including both physical documents and electronically-stored documents, such as email, as defined above) that constitute, refer or relate to
COMMUNICATIONS (be they written or oral) between YOU and third parties, referring or
relating to Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation.
Any and all items in your possession, custody, or control that bear the "Sound Choice" name, logo, or trademark.
Any and all items in your possession, custody, or control that were produced by Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation.
Check out the last 2 items above.... did they want every disc, sleeve, baseball hat, koozie cup holder and the kitchen sink? Yep.
But they hadn't even objected to or denied the truthfulness of the material in the declaration. So, this subpoena makes no sense. Even for impeachment purposes.
It was nothing more than an attempt at vindictive punishment
for speaking the truth. So, is SC/PEP vindictive? Without question.
HarringtonLaw wrote:
Everything that's happened to him as a result of his interactions with SC has been his own doing, not ours.
Must be...
I'm the one who bought the SC discs for thousands of dollars....
I'm the one who said it was "
okay to archive the originals and use the backup copy."I'm the one who said that even if I used the discs -- I bought for thousands of dollars -- in a disc player, that
I still might be sued for it. Yeah, that was ALL me.... (well, except for #2 and #3... that would be Slep and Harrington respectively)
HarringtonLaw wrote:
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).
Your (crocodile) tearful offer to "make everything better anyway..... if you just sign here..." is not worth the paper it's written on and just another sign that it's business as usual for you.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
but you can bet I was. 
