Karaoke Forums

Duly noted.

you are right on Cueball. i said that if they put out the old library for individual download at a reasonable price i would buy them. but sight unseen, no way.

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

I don't believe that will ever happen because of the agreement with the karaoke channel. That catalog has been sold off and it's no longer belongs to them to sell except the old remaining inventory of discs only.

Wow....really? I mean, were you looking in a mirror wearing a Harrington mask when you typed that up? You described yourself to a T!

_________________
-Chris

they did license them back once before t make discs (including the GEM) so it would not be out of the question. especially since they are not marketing to U.S. hosts anyway, so no revenue loss.

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

I haven't the slightest idea who you might be talking about. We have no active suits in any of the Four Corners states. Are you referring to some other area? Or is this something you've made up?

Jim,
You have been extremely helpful with my questions, but this line bothers me. Has Sound Choice sued a disk owner who thought he was fine with his media shifted collection? I know too many people like that (You shake the tree here, all the KJs fall out). I have seen them buy CDs and know they play them at shows on their computer, they just don't carry the CDs. Are they thinking in error that their collection safely at home would save them?

What is the general outcome from someone who has the original CDs do when hit with a lawsuit? Do you settle, dismiss, or just press on with the suit? How much would someone who has original CDs on the hook for if they get named?

This is why I kind of figured that you needed a HELP licence with the new stuff... because someone comes in and see the KJ dosen't have disks, but they are playing Sound Choice songs, and then gets reported.

Thanks for your help with this, your straightening out a lot of questions for me.

TM

My mistake.... rather than "four corners" which refers to the 4 states out west, I should have stated "Quad Cities" in the midwest.

1:15-cv-01258-JES-JEH Phoenix Entertainment Partners, LLC vs. Jorgensen et al.

Filed 6-24-2015

You're this out of touch with your own files attorney Harrington?

tsk, tsk....

TM, we do sue KJs who media-shift without permission. Our warnings against unauthorized duplication have appeared on our discs for more than 20 years, and on the tapes before that. Beginning in 2007, we started putting additional notices in the packaging, providing additional warnings.

We would prefer not to sue KJs who have all their discs and can show 1:1 correspondence. We've done a lot to educate people about the need for permission, and we started our certification program to give people an easy mechanism for getting the permission they need. However, in part due to misinformation put out by certain people here and elsewhere, a lot of people believe falsely that they don't need permission for the commercial use of media-shifted tracks, or that permission has already been granted.

If the discs aren't in the venue during our onsite investigation(s), we can't tell the difference between an operator who is 1:1 and one who isn't. In our experience, borne out over hundreds of cases, about 90% of operators aren't 1:1 and will not pass an audit (even though we only officially require 98% compliance to pass). If we send a demand letter in advance, many operators take that chance to destroy evidence. The only way we have legal protection against that is if we sue first.

However, we have no interest in maintaining a suit against someone who does actually have 1:1 correspondence. So we offer every KJ the opportunity, just after they're served with the lawsuit, to show 1:1 correspondence. Defendants rarely take us up on that. When they do, some pass, and when that happens, we dismiss the suit, certify them, and provide them with documentation of their status to share with anyone who's interested.

If you can suggest a way that we can determine with reasonable certainty whether a particular KJ has 1:1 correspondence while protecting the evidence and retaining the ability to pursue that person if they don't, before we file a suit, I'm all ears. But I've been doing this for more than 6 years, and in all that time, not one person has made usable suggestion along those lines.

So, you referred to a completely different geographical area, and because I wasn't able to figure out your mistake, I'm out of touch with my own files? .

I'm not familiar with the specifics of that case, but I'll pull the file and make (more of) a fool out of you later.

A "Harrington mask?"

I appreciate your acknowledgment that this type of activity - misleading readers and omissions of key facts - is immediately recognized as, and associated with, attorney Harrington (something for which he must have an established reputation.)

Thanks.

Thanks for the reply.
I can see some of the logic to that, and I'm sure we all wish there was a better way. Just sucks when someone who thought they were doing OK by you would have to deal with all the headaches of a lawsuit because of what happened to the karaoke industry. I'm glad your company is willing to work out things at any phase, from prior to post when it deals with Original Disk KJs who media shifted. I'll be making a call to my friends and link them this thread. Maybe it might swing more positive vibes your way and possibly some sales.

TM

You should know who you've been suing -- instead of relying on me to tell you more about the files YOU have. This KJ has already lost 2 of his 4 gigs thanks to you threatening his venues.... You have not even attempted to contact this defendant - EVER.

Good Job!
And you wonder why I claim you've been "poisoning your own well" all these years? And you're calling me the fool? Really?



In this case, the above statement is a complete fabrication because you've been "maintaining" this suit just fine since you filed it on June 24th.

Quick! Put on your superhero cape and make everything better.... we will all be watching.

I am sure the smart readers here understand exactly what I was implying.

_________________
-Chris

Chip: what happened was you asked about the lawsuit in Washington when you meant Florida. you can't blame Jim for lot looking in the wrong part of the country when you directed him there.
though i am curious about the case now, wouldn't be the first time it has happened by a long shot.

Jim: "However, in part due to misinformation put out by certain people here and elsewhere, a lot of people believe falsely that they don't need permission for the commercial use of media-shifted tracks, or that permission has already been granted."
this is a bit misleading because 100% of the music industry with the exception of Slep-Tone allows one copy to be used. We just followed what was the standard permissions of everyone in the industry. for us to think that one karaoke manufacturer would try to change the music industry standard and sue people for doing what the entire industry has allowed (including SC) for years.

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

I realized that..... and admitted to my mistake. What I find bothersome is that I seem to have a better handle on the people/KJ's/customers/venues he's suing than he does... and they are files in his office.



Thank you.

As I expected, Mr. Staley was speaking whereof he knew not.

The KJ in the case was repeatedly offered the opportunity to be audited and have his system certified and the suit dropped. Regardless of what he might have told Mr. Staley or anyone else, I have a copy of the letter as well as email correspondence between his attorney and ours that document precisely what he was offered and what he rejected. He made the specific choice not to show us that he has 1:1 correspondence. Since doing so requires minimal time and is an automatic ticket out of a lawsuit, you can draw your own conclusions about whether he actually had 1:1 correspondence.

Mr. Staley seems to be under the impression that I have such a commanding, detailed knowledge of our cases that I can instantly know what he's talking about when he directs me to the wrong geographic region and gives "facts" that aren't actually a part of a case that I am not even involved in. Sadly, not even I am that good.

Here you go again, insinuating that just because someone is not jumping at what you purport to be your demands and communication, they must be lying. Nothing more than trademark trolling... And so you've sued the venues.... Not only poisoning your own well, but poisoning the venue against KJ's and karaoke in general. Good move. I'm sure the venue will be grateful for your education and willing to sign up for a help license and an advance disc right away..... (not).

So much for "bending over backwards" for KJ's and venues...


Drivel not deserving of any response.

Now, hang on just a minute.

You said, "You have not even attempted to contact this defendant - EVER."

That was a lie. We have repeatedly attempted--successfully--to contact that defendant. He was offered an audit, several times. He was represented by counsel. He declined to be audited, as is his right.

You can rationalize all you like, but what you committed to writing was a lie, and based on your history, it's not unreasonable to presume that it was malicious. No one should credit anything you say, because you have proven that you'll lie when it serves your interest.

Now that you've been caught in a lie, you complain that the real problem isn't that we never contacted him (we did) but that is somehow our fault that he didn't take us up on our very reasonable method of resolving the suit quickly and with a minimum of upset.

I know you're a lost cause, but I'll be damned if I let you tell malicious lies about us on this public forum unchallenged.

Blah, blah.... more word salad...

And you have not ever "talked to the defendant" at all, but your contingency lawyer has corresponded with his attorney right? (Words mean things, remember? Your rules of the game counsel, not mine. So put on your big boy pants and stop whining.)

Obviously, his attorney would disagree that your "very reasonable method of resolving the suit quickly and with a minimum of upset" is anything but "reasonable."

Looking to me like your terms and your contract are not acceptable....
Why isn't an inspection of his SC discs only good enough for you? Ever think of trying to settle this without some kind of on-going contract? (And don't give me any garbage about how you need the agreement to keep them honest or how wonderful and honest your certified hosts are... some knowingly sell burned discs... more than once.)

What ever happened to "bending over backwards for customers?" Do you want to make a happy customer out of this KJ or just 4 pissed off clubs that don't want to have anything to do with karaoke? Do you even care one way or the other?

I would think you don't because you're still busy poisoning your own well -- and even you don't know it.