Karaoke Forums

LR, you must be the presiding judge as it seems you know what the verdict is already.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Except absolutely NONE of us can change how Sound Choice manages themselves. YOU can control yourself though, you simply choose not to.

I answered everything that was relevant. Which means I may have answered nothing.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

KTS's insurance company settled with EMI for an undisclosed amount.

I am curious: if it is undisclosed, as we all know most settlements are (even though some may not stay that way), how do you know it was for an amount? I mean, shouldn't whatever KTS decided to do also be undisclosed, unless they decide to disclose it?

I feel that I have controlled myself that is why I never have been sued. The ones lacking control are the ones that are using material with not paying for it Chris. While we cannot control SC's actions Chris we don't have to support them if they do something unethical. Just like we wouldn't support hosts that are pirating materials. This idea that we have to treat corporate raiders any differently is just not sustainable. As far a relevancy is concerned we will have to see what happens, there is still the CAVS suit that is also pending.

So what is the problem Jim if you just pay off EMI everything would go away. Unless you can't afford to pay them off. This paying someone off you should be an old hand at, isn't that what the hosts that were pirates had to do, license the GEM series to get SC off their backs? Is the reason you don' t pay them off it would mean that there actually was something going on that shouldn't have? That you don't want to risk alienating the few hosts that have stood by you through thick and thin.

You mean the way other host judge fellow hosts that have been accused by the litigating manus tim? Seems to me there has been a lot of judging going on, a great deal of labeling and without as through an investigation as EMI has probably conducted on SC. You can bet on one thing tim if I were the judge, I wouldn't have one set of law for the rich and powerful, and another for the poor and weak. Justice would be blind, like she should be.

I haven't disclosed anything that's not already public information.

KTS did not want to settle, which is why I said that the insurance company settled. Those are the breaks.

LR, your comments have earned you an "ignore." You've decided that when you don't have facts, you'll just make them up. I don't have time to try to keep up with your imagination.

Jim nothing of the settlement or the insurance company paying would have come out except for you telling, it nobody else knew on here did they? You are not ignoring me you are supplying hosts on this forum information to dispute my speculation, this is the only way to get information. The question now is that KTS has settled what are you going to do? Spin the lame story that you wanted to fight the charges but your insurance company forced you to settle, also? There is a lesson here insurance companies are pretty savvy when it comes to the risk involved in having to pay out a claim. Their investigators and adjustors probably concluded that it was too great a risk to take on a court trial, and figured the cheapest way out was to settle. That would indicate to me the case against both defendants is strong not weak. An insurance company only pays when it is in it's best interests.

There are documents in the public court file, which is online, that reflect my statements of fact. You are welcome to inspect them yourself.

You are a lawyer computer literate and know through experience how to access the information. You elect to come on this forum for what ever reasons, if you don't want to answer questions and give out information then why are you really here?


P.S. Why are you responding to me? I thought I had earned a big ignore from you. You know that is what Insane KJ is always saying, are you sure you guys aren't the same person? At least brothers.

I thought I read that the complaint against KTS had been dismissed? Does this mean the complaint against SC has been resolved as well?

Not yet Mr.Boo from what I gather from Jim's response KTS's insurance company decided to settle even though KTS wanted to fight the charges. The case against SC is still in place and has been expanded to include other complaints about their business practices. In hindsight it might have been better for SC to settle before the new complaints were added.

You are not a lawyer, and if you do not know how to use your computer to find information, where are you finding it? You elect to come here for whatever reasons, and if you don't have real answers, you make stuff up. If you have no legitimate, useful and relevant information, then why are you really here?

I will not be ignoring you. I enjoy the daily laughs.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

I'm laughing right along with you Chris, notice I didn't say at you. This concept of a dual track of justice does get my Irish up. I guess Jim could always use the affluenzia defense with EMI. Kurt and company was making so much money for so long, bending the rules and getting away with it, they had no concept of right or wrong. Therefore they should not be held accountable for their actions.

The fact that one party settled with the other party could mean exactly that... the case was dismissed because the parties came to an agreement before waiting for a Judge's decision to be made on the case.

He's finding it from (as he has stated in the past) from that other "Free Forum."

Actually I get most of my material from this forum the post that started this thread cue. After all the Free Forum is now a ghost town, that is why rumbolt has been posting over here. The rest is simple by throwing out things and knowing people like Jim And Chris can't resist the temptation to correct me, and I learn the rest. When gathering information you have to sift through a pile of it to get a few truths or probabilities. That is why most spies aren't the flashy James Bond type, they are the ones that analyze the material gathered. If you throw enough stuff at the wall something will stick, or at least get a response.

So, you are admitting that you purposely post non-factual statements in here, some of which have been fabricated and distorted (from your own personal viewpoints), just to elicit a reaction. Well, all I can say is, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

I am admitting I make statements with an element of truth in them, how other hosts fill in the blanks and drawn conclusions is there own business. If an artist paints a picture it might be the way he sees something, how the art is looked on by others is their own mental process at work. I thought the purpose of this forum was not just about facts but also how we look at the facts and our reactions to them. To exercise the little gray cells. I just don't sit here an accept as gospel everything that comes out of SC or their legal rep Jim. SC is guilty of even a worse offense, they have actually sued others without getting their facts right and straight. At least I haven't caused any real harm to anyone, only bruised a few egos.

For example Chris feels that there should be a two track form of justice one for pirates and one for corporate pirates. He entitled to his take on the situation, I don't think many hosts see it the same way both situations need to be addressed in the same manner. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!

P.S. The time I did go right to the source CAVS and talked with the rep there and gave the phone number to verify nobody bothered. That told me that others who don't feel comfortable with the facts just ignore that which doesn't agree with there own take on the piracy issue. It's easier to get up on the morale high ground and roll boulders down on others. That is why all this inflammatory rhetoric is just so much baloney, these are all civil matters involving the establishment of liability and the payment of damages awarded. Very similar to a simple traffic accident. You notice it was KTS's insurance company that pulled the plug on the civil case, they are the one's having to foot the bill in the event of a court loss.