Karaoke Forums

Other than derailing threads, which we have all done, what other rules are they breaking? And now that this thread is for their sparing, and you've contributed to derailing that, are you not just as bad? As long as they are not calling each other names or making personal attacks (as you have done many times), how is this a management bend?

Please name a few that you think I have "driven away" because I believe you're absolutely wrong.



Contrary to your belief, "management" hasn't changed a single rule: NOT ONE.

You simply want me banned and you're throwing a temper tantrum to get your way, while threatening to leave and attempting to enlist as many others to follow you. (and to where, exactly?)

Why? Because you want management to "bend the rules" the way you want them bent?

And WTF do you come off claiming that this is "an official area in which to sling mud?" This is exactly like every other thread on the forum --- it is a thread, period. Like it or lump it, or just put on your big-boy pants and deal with it and if you don't like it, don't read it.

Fortunately NO ONE here will go WITH YOU to other forums because YOU aren't getting the attention you need to be the center of attention.

Not good to because Chip and Jim like to have real grown-up debates and you you don't have much to contribute.

The rest of us sit back and shut up most of the time and enjoy the debates and learn many things about how this industry works and laws we don't understand fully. I suggest you do the same.

it's sad to see someone who has some credibility act like a child and throw a tantrum when they don't get any attention anymore....even my 12 year old daughter rolled her eyes when she read what you wrote....

INFINITE Likes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First of all, "...all Chip does is contradict everything Jim says" is absolutely incorrect. Just like your buddy Jim, I correct the misinformation he spews out just as often as he thinks he corrects mine. The objective is not to "confuse" anyone but exactly the opposite: present what's not being shown or discussed. If you think that he's being completely, 100% honest with you in every post and that there are no (marketing or legal) motives behind his being here, you're wrong. When available, I back up what I'm saying with documentation which is something I don't believe Harrington has ever done even though it's publicly available on pacer.gov and justia.com. Ever wonder why that is?

Try reading some of other threads here, You'll find that I contribute more "positive input or any input" than you'd expect

Would you prefer that there NOT be a "sandbox" at all?

And when they change their terms, are you the one ready to lead the class-action suit? I doubt it. And I'll bet that they're counting on the fact that there won't be anyone to challenge them.

You bought the audit and paid your "lawsuit insurance policy" and signed their contract to do so. You're happy, they're happy and that's fine.

You make everything out that Jim says as wrong. You simply contradict what he says with, "Oh yeah?" You've no proof that they're going to change their terms down the road. Zero... proof. It's annoying at best.

I'll bow out of the sandbox now and leave you two lovebirds alone.

_________________
DJ Don

So, you're asking for "proof for future events?" And to think, here I am with no time machine! If I could do that, I would have been Bill Gates' best buddy in college....

So this was nothing more than a "drive by?" Why am I not surprised?

Just a couple of quick points, and that will probably end my participation in this thread.



You don't "correct the misinformation I spew out" because (a) I don't spew out misinformation, and (b) 98% of what you post on the subject comprises ill-informed speculation, not facts.

You are free to believe, or not to believe, what I say. I really have no control over that; I simply tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may (no pun intended). The fact that you believe something to be true does not make it true. This is especially the case when you're talking about something on which you have no firsthand knowledge and no way of obtaining it.

There are many things that look a certain way based on incomplete or incorrect knowledge. That does not make them true.



I have no real idea what your "objective" might be, other than that your demonstrated hatred for me and the company I work for appear to drive a lot of your comments--and not just the comments you make, but also the matters on which you choose to comment. I do not think your purpose is to confuse people. It looks to me like part of your purpose is to convince people that things you believe to be true are true, regardless of whether they are actually true or even reasonable. (Don't misunderstand me; I'm not saying you're actively trying to deceive people into believing things you don't believe are true. You were your own first target, and a successful one.)

That essentially puts you on par with conspiracy theorists--such as people who believe the moon landings were faked. Those people have no firsthand knowledge, but for whatever reason they find the idea attractive, that rather than accomplishing the enormously difficult task of landing humans on the moon and bringing them back safely, it was easier just to fake it. Armed with that conclusion, they go in search of facts to support it, ignoring those facts that don't meet their pre-determined conclusion.

You're the same way; to you, we're a bunch of lying, cheating scumbags who probably go around killing people's dogs, so you look for "evidence" that supports your conclusion. Your most recent attempt was producing a heavily redacted mechanical license, the existence of which has a perfectly reasonable explanation--and the absence of a synch license also has a perfectly reasonable explanation--to try to assert that SC never obtained synch licenses for some number of tracks. To you, the existence of that license supports your theory because the paucity of facts around it makes it extremely malleable to your purposes. The truth is that your document proves nothing; it simply supplies a data point that is ambiguous on its best day. That attempt is one in a very long line of similar attempts, all of them failed, and they fail because you haven't got the slightest clue what it means to prove anything. You are too handicapped by your own prejudices to see how they create deficiencies in your arguments. You build your house upon the sand, ignorant of the way the lapping waves will force it to collapse.



I believe I've made it clear from the beginning that my motive for being here is to ensure that our side of the story gets told. Because you and people like you are content to tell stories about us without any real knowledge, my presence here, as one who knows the true facts, is necessary. Is that a marketing purpose? Of course it is. I am here to protect our brand. But the fact that my being here has a marketing purpose does not prevent me from being completely, 100% honest in every post.

(I am not sure what "legal" motive I might have. I suppose I'm motivated for people to understand how the law really works, but if you're talking about gaining some legal advantage by being here...I'm puzzled as to how that would work, but I'm open to being educated.)

And I am. (Completely, 100% honest in every post, that is.) I don't see anything to gain by being dishonest, because the truth always comes out eventually. You can choose to believe that, or not to believe it; I can't control what you do, so I'll just keep telling the truth and, as I said before, let the chips fall where they may. When I say something like this:



I don't have to check. And someone who's properly motivated to prove me wrong can give it a shot, and kinda-sorta-if-you-squint-just-the-right-way that person might come up with something, and it turns out that even if you disagree with how I handled myself in the thread they came up with, I was not the person who turned the discussion to SC--even if Mr. Staley can't seem to read well enough to pick that up.



My role here is not to prove a case. I get enough of that in court. If you want proof of something, go find it. My role is to make statements--to illuminate, to analyze, to answer questions. If you believe me, great. If not, that's your choice. Proving myself is not a goal of mine. This is not a forensics class. It's a discussion forum.

On the other hand, you have a tendency to offer "proof" that's anything but. You provide heavily redacted documents. You provide snippets that divorce facts from their context. You fill the interstices with your own speculation, your gut feeling, your uneducated views of the law, or whatever else serves your purpose. What you do is the moral equivalent of clipping a paragraph out of the newspaper, but leaving out the headline, the byline, the date, and the name of the newspaper, then offering the paragraph as "proof" of some position the newspaper supposedly took. In doing so, you deprive the reader of the opportunity to verify your interpretation, to see the full context for themselves, to evaluate your credibility.

To be sure, I'm not suggesting that I am giving full context or the opportunity to verify my interperetation; I'm just saying that you're really not, even though you appear to want everyone to think you are, and that you somehow have more credibility than I do for that reason.

The truth is that people who agree with you already will mostly find you credible; people who disagree with you will mostly find you not credible, especially when you say something they disagree with. You can exchange "me" for "you" in that sentence, and it will be equally valid.



I don't think anyone questions your bona fides on matters that have nothing to do with SC (with one exception that is a dead horse I'm no longer interested in beating). You've been in this business a long time. You're an expert on a lot of the aspects of this business. You simply have a blind spot. That's OK; we all have them. The thing is, the fact that you're an expert, and a positive contributor on some things, doesn't make you any more of an authority on any subject that doesn't relate to those things--including SC.

But I will also point out that I have never been shy about saying positive things about you when they were appropriate. I don't need to tear you down to build myself up. For example, it has been my consistent message that there are three ways to approach the use of SC products:

1) Use your original SC discs
2) Get permission to use SC material on something other than original discs
3) Don't use SC

You seem to be under the impression that I am desperate for people not to choose option 3. But we've said from the beginning that any of these options are fine with us. Our music is not hurting for market share. The fact that you chose option 3, and the fact that you encourage other people to choose option 3 (at least when you do so with reasons that are based on sound business practices), is perfectly fine with us. Even the quote in your current signature is 100% accurate. You aren't breaking the law, so in that sense, you're a good guy. For whatever reason, you decided it was better not to use the material than to follow our rules for using the material. Good on you! That makes us happy, and if you succeed despite the lack of SC material in your lineup, that says a lot about your abilities.

I would much rather have 75% of the people who use our material in the wrong way do what you did, than have the huge market share our product currently "enjoys," if it meant that the other 25% switched to using it in the right way.

Of course, none of that means anything when you derail a thread and spread misinformation and SC. Even good guys do bad things sometimes, and they don't get a pass.



I would much prefer that no one believe that a "sandbox" is needed.



If you want to extend the insurance metaphor just a little bit, what he did, when faced with the idea that he might crash even though he was following what he thought the rules ought to be, was to buy some insurance that allowed him to deal with the consequences if he did crash. When faced with that question, you chose to stop driving. Both are valid decisions, but one is definitely more extreme than the other. Is it so important that you maintain control over your own domain that you take extreme steps to do so?

Well, that last question sort of answers itself.

Turns out my "quick points" weren't so quick, I guess, but it happens.

And I guess it's too bad you don't appear to read the rest of the Forum, instead of choosing to be so judgmental against Chip.


All within the last 30 days.....
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=33501
WOW!!! 3 posts by Chip and not a single SC-Bash.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33491&p=410937#p410937
Another 3 posts by Chip, and I still don’t see any SC-Bashing. And lookie-lookie… He even got some LIKES!!!

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33488
Looks like another drive-by by Chip… 1 post and no SC-Bashing.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29366
OMG!!!! 6 posts by Chip and no SC-Bashing. What’s this world coming to???!!!!!

Be careful, Cueball. I made a post earlier today supporting Chip and it was very quickly deleted. "They" don't seem to like it when people stick up for him. I'm sure that if my post had been supportive of Mister Harrington, it would still be there.

It actually amazes me that you can write this stuff with a straight face, but then again, you might not have.
You sure do "spew misinformation" and you do it often, you just refuse to acknowledge the documentation that proves it. You rely on your moniker of "attorney" as though it's some sort of "cape of justice and purity" and think that just because you said something, it must be true. Using absolutely bullsh*t percentages like "98% of what you post" is a perfect example. Just as your "90% of all KJ's are pirates" is made up as well. It's nothing but fiction you can't substantiate at all, but you want to give it some credibility because you put it in a legal complaint? I'm not buying it, but you have lots of fans that don't know any better.

I certainly am "free to believe" that you don't "simply tell the truth." You "omit and bend the truth" quite often. And you stating something is "not true" doesn't make it inaccurate or a lie either just because you have a law license. If it were so, you wouldn't have such a spittingly vile contempt for publisher's lawyers (who would obviously be shielded by the same cape of "truth and justice" that you have convinced others you're wearing. ) But you'd have us all believe that you (and only you) are the guardian of truth and that opposing attorneys are money-grubbing liars, judges can't read or interpret the law correctly, investigators withhold reports, other attorneys and investigative firms "go rouge" and so on.... But YOU'RE the one that "simply tells the truth?" Yeah, right...

I thought you just said that you "simply tell the truth?" Was that a lie, because I've told you before that the repeated "you hate us" whining rhetoric that you continually regurgitate it is a flat-out lie.

But I will correct your misplaced speculation of my purpose: I'm not out to "convince" anyone of anything. I can believe what I want and they can believe what they want. I post documentation of what I believe and explain why I believe it. I really don't care if everyone is "convinced" or not -- it's up to them to decide. But I also believe that if it didn't strike on target, you wouldn't bother to respond because it would be obvious to anyone with an IQ larger than your shoe size.

How does that sound familiar? Are you still mad that you were pinched on the whole investigation baloney? Pretty interesting that the one case your "rogue attorney" filed against Rodney (a disc user) just happened to have no investigator report either? Must be a conspiracy alright, but it's certainly not on this end. Let's just call that "circumstantial evidence."

No, it hasn't failed at all. As a matter of fact, I think it succeeded quiet nicely. "Heavily redacted" is exactly right. I'm the one that went through the "enormously difficult" task of tracking down publisher after publisher and continually running into the same story that tracks were not in fact, licensed for karaoke use. And you get upset that I took you up on your own suggestion to check with publishers -- and all you could do is whine that I shouldn't have because I no longer use the product? So no, it was a very long line alright but none of them "failed." You'd like other to believe that's true so you'll keep pounding the table until they do. I caught another lie (actually a LOT more than a few) and I understand how it angers you.

I would characterize you as being first, "condescending" and then "misleading" which is completely different than "honest" and "truthful." A perfect example is your recent claim that SC had "a contractual relationship with every publisher. Every. Single. One." was not only misleading, but not entirely true either and you know that. Although I know of a few, one can only wonder how many other artists like Red Peters had "a contractual relationship" with SC that began 3 years late and only after their attorney contacted SC. And in my opinion, that means that SC recorded the song, put it out with NO licensing whatsoever, so please stop telling people that you "simply tell the truth" because that's (ironically) also not true.

It's a monetary advantage, don't be obtuse.

You really can't resist name-calling personal insults can you? And just because you SAY you tell the truth, doesn't mean you actually do. Most people that are not telling the truth will take an inordinate amount of time repeating and pounding louder and louder that they are telling the truth. So where exactly does that leave you? I don't repeatedly tell anyone that I'm telling the truth, I repeatedly tell them to check for themselves, because they'll find out on their own who is telling the truth - I'm not afraid of them checking.

I find proof quite often because you can't dimiss the proof and for some reason, you ignore it or attempt to dismiss it anyway and that's okay. It's not a reflection on me. You're the one that refuses even the proof to back up your vitriolic claims.

And I don't see you filling in any of these supposed blanks to "further the truth" do I? Again, you can scream all you want that something isn't true, but in my opinion, until you actually prove it isn't it's nothing but flatulence. And you might not like what I put up but the difference is that I actually put something up. You, do nothing... claiming you don't "have to" is fine, but you can't really complain because I do.

I really don't give a diddly-squat about credibility and I've always suggested that people NOT believe me but look up the facts themselves. The very same facts you claim don't exist. Funny how when I took your suggestion to check with publishers, your complaint wasn't that they were lying, instead it was that I actually did what you suggested and that was the only problem.

I don't believe it's a "blind spot" at all. Quite the contrary. You, more than anyone here I'm sure, have scratched your head more than once wondering how I know what goes on in this business. You've gone as far as taking wild shots in the dark at me and accused me of contacting defendants and giving them legal advice, or contacting publishers attorneys and instigating them to sue you. But I'm the "nobody" and the one with the blind spot? Really?

I decided not to use the product to avoid myself and my clients from being sued by you... after your client(s) had already given permission multiple times. You always seem to forget that or want to twist the statement into something it's not. But that isn't as much of the problem. You've for years insinuated to the readers here and other places that because I was a multi-rigger and then I wasn't that somehow, something was not on the up-and-up. That's you, Steve Miller, WallofSound, Sandman, InsaneKJ, Athena, Hal Kinney, and a host of others. (which have all become strangely silent I might add)

So when I say, you created the monster and you keep feeding the monster, hopefully you'll figure out why.

And that's pure bullsh*t because we all know that anyone you "like" or uses your butt as a hat, gets a pass. As a matter of fact you "sell passes" don't you? And how many of your "certified KJ's" or Gem leasers are still 1:1? Do you check? Chris Avis has admitted that every one of his laptops (that contain your trademarks) at 7 gigs have encrypted files and blocked USB ports to keep hosts from stealing his library... and he has now enlightened the world that there are 2 laptops at every gig and few more at home for backup. That means he's no longer 1:1... Do you sue him for not "following the rules" or does he get "a pass?"
No, I don't want to "extend the insurance metaphor" because insurance companies don't charge me to protect me.... from themselves. I was being kind and not using the term "protection money" which, in my opinion, is far more accurate.

Ford Motor company doesn't charge me more money just for owning my car, after I've already paid for it once.

Anyone else reminded of "The Zax"?

Sure, but who's north and who's south?

I really don't want to be here, but lies must be addressed.....



First..... I operate in the open (unlike you, Chip) and PEP is welcome to verify my systems any time they like.

Second.....



It's "rigs" not "gigs", btw....

I don't mind "admitting" that I have taken steps to protect ALL of my karaoke music (not just SC) from being copied from my systems. In fact, I could teach you a few things about protecting your own karaoke music, including how to actually digitally watermark karaoke files instead of just claiming to do so.

Third.....



[Side note - THAT, my friends, is one of several Chip related reasons why you won't be seeing much of me any longer. Chip wants everyone here to believe that SC/PEP is the one people should be wary of, yet it is Chip that is recording and screenshoting public conversations then later twisting them to serve his own agenda. SC/PEP has never done that to any KJ on this forum that I am aware of. Food for thought.]

I have posted on several forums why we have two laptops at every show. Of course, Chip ignores that information because it won't let him make his case (Or maybe he isn't as smart as we give him credit for?).

For the interested.....I have a Karaoke laptop and a Filler music laptop at every show. I use laptops with 2 hard drive bays. The 2nd drive in the karaoke laptop contains only the karaoke files. If the primary laptop croaks, we can remove the karaoke drive and put it into the Filler music laptop and the show goes on. I also keep spare laptops at home on the ready.

But I am sure most of you knew this. Why Chip didn't is puzzling. I am 100% sure he intentionally ignored the information to suit his argument. But then again, he didn't know about karaoke.net downloads either......or cheap Windows tablets that can be used for his kiosk software.....or......a lot of other things for those that have been paying attention.

I didn't ask Chip any questions, so there really isn't anything for him to respond to. I am sure he will though. Unlike Chip, I am very open with how I operate, what I have and where I work. I am happy to share my experiences - good and bad - in public. I just don't care to do it here any longer because it is tiresome correcting his mis-information and lies. I truly have better things to do than read Chip's fiction (I can save you some time...read one of his anti-SC rants and you have read them all).

If he makes any further claims about me or my operations and you feel you need clarification or just want to shoot the breeze, feel free to shoot me an email or even just give me a call.

chris@feelgoodpros.com
Cell - (425) 647-3440

_________________
-Chris

I posted a video of my software being run on a $59 windows tablet MONTHS AGO. or have your forgotten so soon?

I understand how irritating it is that "the Yeti" pointed out a few things that are distasteful for you....

Stings a little don't it?