Karaoke Forums

That would be the same attorney Kevin Cable used, and whom he just named as Jonathon Phillips in another thread here.

mwanteddj, you definitely need legal advice on how you want to handle your endgame in an open District 7 case. The choices are between getting a dismissal, and fighting to the end and getting what would probably be a judgement against PEP. The latter depends on how similar your case is to the Basket Case suit. If all the terms were identical, I don't see how you could lose now in this District.

At stake are your legal fees and who pays them. If the case is dismissed, you have to pay your own fees. If the case is instead concluded in your favor, then PEP has to pay your legal fees. If the process goes on through other hearings and then PEP drops the case, you'll be paying larger legal fees than you've already accrued.

I'm in District 7 myself, and hope you might let me know later how it turns out for you. Good luck!

PS - My good luck wish is slightly conditional, depending on whether you actually own your own discs of course

Elementary, only the judge decides if the losing party pays legal fees or not. It is not automatic.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Well then, that's an important consideration too. The whole thing is a gamble!

Wrong again. Please read up, study and /or ask someone before you start spouting crap you don't know about in the United States like it's fact.

If it is written in the law that one party must pay the legal fees of the other side, they must first file a motion to request that along with every expense (itemized) that they are demanding payment for. A judge doesn't "decide if the losing side pays legal fees" but the judge does decide if the itemized statement of expenses are "reasonable" and may make adjustments. These are called "Taxable Costs." Far more often than not, a losing party may strike a deal with the prevailing party to waive their right to appeal, if the prevailing party waives their right to costs in exchange.

Look up rule 54 of the FRCP . Here's part of it, you do the rest genius:

This would also be good advice for you to follow.



"Legal fees" generally refers to attorney fees, not costs. Costs are the following items:
(1) Clerk's fees (such as filing fees);
(2) Service of process fees;
(3) Transcript charges;
(4) Necessary printing/copying costs;
(5) Witness fees (witnesses are provided $40 per day and mileage, and sometimes more);
(6) Costs on appeal (which are mostly just printing costs);
(7) Court-appointed experts' fees;
(8) Interpreters' fees; and
(9) Other costs that were necessary to the litigation but not listed above.

"Costs" do not include attorney fees or "legal fees" to use the term you used.

In a long case, these costs may be very substantial, but they are usually very small in comparison to attorney fees.

Most of the time, attorney fees are only awarded in "exceptional" cases, which is a complicated question decided by the judge (and almost always denied, because unlike other countries, we have a strong tradition under which each side pays its own attorney fees). There are a few areas of the law that require an award of attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff--such as civil rights cases and constitutional challenges to state actions--but fee awards in those kinds of cases are similarly rare because the defendant wins those cases most of the time.

Very funny, but I did notice that you haven't contradicted anything here, just toss a personal attack... how predictable.



This is Harrington's way of trying to dissuade anyone from thinking that they can't get a judgement that pays costs -- including legal fees.

They can. And more often that he'd lead you to believe.
Let me remind you of the over $18,000.00 check written from Slep/Sound Choice to Taka-O. ( I have a pic of it... )

And let me remind folks that a very cheap and simple certification bypasses all of this.

I am 5.5 years certified
Using SC the whole time
I don't fear a lawsuit
My venues don't fear a lawsuit
Cost me all of $150 (gonna cost you a little more now)
SC/PEP has never asked me for anything

_________________
-Chris

Why should they? You are now a "controlled licensee."

And the subject of this thread is not about you butt-kissing up to SC because your hot air above is really quite meaningless:

"Certified" is just a label... It's not a measure of technical skill, musical knowledge, accomplishment or talent.
I don't need SC to be successful. Though I can still use it whenever I want.
I don't fear a lawsuit... either.
My venues don't fear a lawsuit... either.
Cost me nothing, zero, zip, zilch.
SC/PEP has never asked me for anything... either.
I've never had to sign a single ongoing contract with them, ever.

So, I don't see where you have any advantage here - none.

Nice try, troll-boy.

Just pointing out there is a perfectly reasonable alternative that is cheap, straightforward, painless.

But if we are looking for "advantages", I am able to use the SC material I paid for and possess.

If *you* possess any at all, you can't use it (big difference between "Chip doesn't use SC" and "Chip can't use SC").

_________________
-Chris

And that's just pure bulls**t. I own plenty and can use it whenever I wish.
Ask your buddy Harrington if he would sue me for using what I possess. I understand how pissed you are that I won't sell it to you.... too bad.

So, once again, you're spouting lies. At least you're consistent.

I don't see a lie. I see a statement that indirectly calls into question a claim you have not once proven to anyone. But for (@$%&#!) and giggles, if I were to say "Chip doesn't possess any Sound Choice material at all", is it a lie if you won't prove it to be one?

We can go back and forth all day long about whether you can or can't use SC. But until you do, I am correct.

I don't need what you (claim to) have because I already have it, and then some. I also paid a lot less and got a lot more. I understand how much that pisses you off....too bad.

_________________
-Chris

So exactly how is SC/PEP controlling Chris? Are they dictating what venues he can play, the days and/or times he can play, what he can charge? Other than pay a fee to media shift, how are they controlling him?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

They aren't and never have.

Chip on the other hand .....

(big difference between "Chip doesn't use SC" and "Chip can't use SC")

_________________
-Chris

Why do you insist that I have to prove anything to you of all people? You've offered to purchase my discs more than once and now you're convinced I don't own any?


Yes, it's a lie. I don't have to prove that I'm in possession of anything... you have to prove that I don't. Whining about it doesn't count and your desire for me to be dishonest won't make your lie the truth. Why can't you prove your lie?

No, you're not. You're a liar, pure and simple. If you're demanding proof, then prove your accusation. You can't, because it's a lie. All you're doing is parroting your hero Harrington, demanding someone to prove that they're innocent because you are unable to prove they are not.

Of course, if you were really so sure of your position, then put your discs where you mouth is: If I can show you any number of SC discs in my garage -- on video, you'll ship all of yours to me unbroken and playable.

Put up or shut up because I'm not about to prove anything to you for free.

For the same reason many people want tangible proof.



Offering is not proof that anything exists.



Again, there is no lie. Just doubt that a claim is true.

Can you prove there has been a lie told?



I don't have any requirement to prove anything. I am free to question it. Just like you do with SC and PEP.

Prove it of your own free will just like you claim you pulled it out of your library of your own free will.

_________________
-Chris

Keep it civil..

Obviously, you're ignoring my question, or it's just waaay to complex for you so I'll "dumb it down" for you:
"What makes you think I have to prove anything TO YOU?" You're not an authority or even "many people" and you don't represent "many people" and you don't speak for "many people."

And I still wouldn't "have to prove" anything even to "many people" just because you want it. Unfortunately for you, I'm not your performing monkey.

Yeah I know that, but you didn't have a problem sending PEP cash on the "offering" that they were "getting the band back together" did you? Did you ask them to "prove" anything before writing the check? No? Hmmm...

It is absolutely a lie when you state it as a fact. So it's up to you to prove it's not a lie. Grow up, or at least man-up for God's sake and take some responsibility for your own words. You wrote them, stand behind them if you've got the balls to write them in the first place.

You're not "questioning" anything - you're making an unfounded accusation as though it is a fact, but I'm not surprised that you'd suddenly act confused. How did I know that when it came down to a choice of running away or to man-up, you'd run away? If you weren't lying, you wouldn't have a problem standing behind your own words and accusations no matter the challenge presented to you.

I'm more than willing to stand behind behind my own words, but you can't and you won't - because you know you're lying. You are displaying as much integrity and ethics as your heroes at PEP.... exactly none.

Why am I not surprised.... again?

WE NOW RETURN TO OUR THREAD ALREADY IN PROGRESS....

Again.....you DON'T have to prove anything. I am just asking you to.



I trust PEP. I don't trust you.




I said *if*. I stand by my hypothetical query.



My words weren't a lie or even a direct accusation (in this case anyway). I said *if*.

I am more than willing to stand by my words. I offered you a sizable amount of money to prove you digitally watermarked the Red Peters tracks with unique identifiers. You balked on that.

There have been several people that question whether you have some or any discs at all. Your actions further call this further into question. Your lack of transparency, masked as taking a stand against the man, just adds to the doubt.

Me on the other hand.....happy to show what I have to just about anyone. There is doubt around your claims, not mine. Neither of us have to prove anything, I am just willing to do so. I have nothing to hide, whereas you absolutely do hide. Intentionally.

It's an interesting dichotomy between what you expect from everyone else and what you feel we should expect from you. You question literally everything that Harrington says. You expect him to answer on your schedule or else there is a cricket reminder. When he does answer, you carve up the post, nit pick it to death with the exact same tired arguments, and reset the response timer.

But if someone presses you......which is really just me any more......I get called a liar (when I didn't even make a direct statement or direct accusation). You dance around with non-answers and then make your own accusations and attacks in an attempt to redirect attention away from you.

Too bad.

As for the topic at hand......

In my experience, SC/PEP don't interfere with hosts and KJ's after they get on board with one or more of their programs unless you give them a reason to. So in general, I thing Safe Harbor is a good program. But I have not gone out of my way to push it to my venues.

_________________
-Chris

WEAK "debate" Avis...let it go.......

Uh, oh.... "Houston, we have a problem!"

Do you not even read what you write?

I find it interesting that when it comes to "interference" you might as well be wearing blinders. I understand that you paid a lot for them, but that's really not an excuse.

Let me spell this out for you because you obviously don't see any kind of connection by first explaining to you how your buddies use their double-standard and you're refusal to see it: (I'll cover the subject of legal fees and costs at the end in order to keep within the current thread subject matter because there is a connection)

FIRST:
Notice that if I were to contact publishers to ask about the help license, Harrington claims that I would be "interfering" with their contractual partners by "inducing them" to breach some top secret and confidential agreement that I would not be otherwise entitled to. He claims that this would be so damaging that he's reached the point of threatening "legal consequences" for this so-called "interference."

SECOND:
Under the rules of the safe harbor agreement, Harrington claims (and it is in the contract) that it is a requirement for the venue to not only gather and relay confidential information on their "contracted KJ" but to go a step further and "induce" (or for all intents and purposes, "force") the KJ to provide more private and confidential information to PEP. And all this is done under the implied or stated threat of litigation of the venue for vicarious infringement.

I believe that this is far more than just "interference." But that would be up to a judge to decide whether it is a criminal or civil action and whether or not legal costs and attorney fees should be awarded to a venue or KJ that either sued or countersued.