Karaoke Forums

I was addressing the OP, not you.

It really isn't all about you, Chip.

_________________
-Chris

I just literally laughed out loud.

Up until this point i never thought Jim needed his cheerleaders...especially for WEAK comebacks. SMH "Logic is fading captain"......

Jim does just fine on his own.

Chip could use some help though....

_________________
-Chris

And Chippie has yet to tell us how PEP is controlling Chris.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Yeah...anymore than our US government, pharma companies, and Monsanto doesn't control us Tim...

ONE step out of line and he'll likely be sued. He singed a binding contract didnt he? Not only could there be a lawsuit but he's given up all of his venue locations...and rights for pep to crawl up every orrifice to inspect his equipment. Proctology 101.

Hmm. it would also make it RIPE pickens for PEP/SC to take all of his shows away and install THEIR OWN, or simply sue the venues (not only the kj) for monetary gain to put out new product. yeah right . .interesting "WHAT IF" scenario chicken little....

I shall now make a prediction and say that Jim will now state that he would never sue Chris ever, but won't say that about anybody else, especially Jedi Hipster. I could be wrong but then the sky might just fall....

You have a bizarre, counterfactual understanding of how we operate.

We make very few demands of any of our licensees. There are some basic quality control provisions in our agreements, and we check up from time to time (whether we announce it to the KJ or not). There are certain things that our contract specifies that they can't do--but those things are things that legitimate KJs usually have no interest in doing. Generally speaking, the kinds of things we require enhance a KJ's operations, rather than hinder them. And if someone steps over the line, it would take some sort of defiance for us to sue them. I won't say it would never happen, but it would have to be pretty bad.



We don't have any interest in taking shows away from Chris or any of our licensees. In fact, our SCE business model envisions sending shows to our licensees, rather than taking them away.

As for Mr. Staley, I have no idea where he plays--if at all--other than that I know generally where he lives. My ominous statement "for now" was intended as a joke. We have no present plans to service his market. Of course, if we decide to, we'll compete with him, and we'll have no reservations about taking shows from him. That's how capitalism works.



I almost never make absolute statements.

I suppose one who has shows at venues could announce that they have an agreement with the venue to do the shows, and then offer to sue anyone who attempts to interfere with the agreement and claim tortious interference...

Contracts are signed all the time and *gasp* in some there are ethical and moral clauses. You are trying to make it sound as if all contracts are evil or nefarious. Once again, how are they controlling Chris' business other than paying a fee for media shifting?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Our control comes in the form of (a) our review of his discs and his hard drive, (b) the specific rules for media-shifting, (c) the restrictions on his use of his GEM series products (which include some performance quality standards), and (d) any spot checks we might make at one of his shows (or otherwise). As Chris has stated, these elements of control are minimal and do not interfere with the running of his business.

I have yet to hear from any of our actual licensees who feel that we are heavy-handed in what we do.

I do, however, hear frequent complaints from people who aren't our licensees, who have never been our licensees, and who have no intention of ever becoming our licensees, but who for some reason think it's important to tell people how horrible we are (even though they have no actual experience in dealing with us).

OH SUCH EVIL JIM!

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Leave something out did you?



Do your licensees get to peek at your accounting records too?

How convenient that you'd omit that...

Hey, thanks for proving my last point above.



I don't think we've ever asked for any GEM series licensee's accounting records, so I just don't even really think about it. That's in there so that if we need to investigate a charge of multi-rigging from a single set of GEM series discs, we can see if the licensee is receiving payments for multiple shows on a day.



Why would a licensee need to look at our accounting records?

I can think of one instance, and that's if there were a dispute about whether a specific payment had been received or not, in which case we would print out our records relating to that licensee's account and share them with the licensee.

You seem to be implying that we're interested in snooping into our licensees' finances. If there is a way we can resolve a dispute without looking at that information, we'll do it.

We currently have more than 500 licensees under our various programs, many of which have more than one license. Insofar as I am aware, not a single one of them has ever been asked to produce accounting records. Since the people who are actually parties to that agreement don't seem to have a problem with it, what exactly is your issue with it?

yeah, sure...because your licensees are so trustworthy right? I'm sure that there are a number of them that have "multiple shows" and some of those are not related to karaoke.

It's again: an underhanded way to do business because if one of your licensees was cheating, you could strip them of the product. End of story. No need to see any accounting records or otherwise peek in anyone's underwear. You wouldn't like it and you don't even like the thought of me "checking up on you" with your help-pirate license. It doesn't take a genius to know why that's got you in such a tizzy...
They would need that in the event you actually did --- by some miracle -- actually put out a disc or songs of new music and they would know if it was properly and fully licensed to limit their legal exposure from any of the "third party rights holders" that are mentioned in so many of your contractual agreements with them. But as long as you have a judicial number of disclaimers and indemnifications with your licensees, screw 'em. They can just "trust you" right? We see how well that's worked out over the years....
ho-hum.... blah, blah, blah.... Word salad...
You are absolutely interested in snooping in my opinion, if there's a way you can make more money by "snooping into licensees' finances" you will. So you're just leaving that option open.

How many of them were licensed by you before you were sued for copyright infringement for the very music they were paying you for?... Like ALL the gem people? I'll bet they felt hoodwinked to find that the "lease" they were paying for was eventually settled by your check for infringement and your attempt at an "end around" proper licensing.


For now.

In the GEM Series license agreement,
Section 5. RESTRICTIONS ON MARK LICENSE
PEP requires that you not disparage the marks in any public place and that you will not undertake any action that brings PEP (us) into disrepute.

Having agreed to this section in order to obtain the GEM set, Chris is being contractually controlled to only say nice things about PEP.

If he were to ever say anything unflattering about Sound Choice, PEP or any of the PEP officers, he would technically be in breach of contract and according to Section 7 part b, PEP could terminate his contract at any time thereafter with only 14 days notice.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

That is not what that means.

Chris is free to criticize us if he chooses, as are all of our licensees. We hope they would come to us first, but we will not take away their licenses for criticism. And in fact Chris has criticized us on occasion.

That clause merely requires our licensees to be good stewards of their own reputations, because their conduct reflects on us.

What a strange way of saying it.
Do you often mean something different than the words you write?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Suppose for some unforeseen reason, sometime in the future PEP saw fit to sell all of it's assets and interests to a lawyer.
Would it be possible for her to use this wording as a loophole or technicality to force certain licensees from their current agreements and then force them to renegotiate and repurchase the license at full price during the time of renewal or any other time?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Where the hell are my waders? You can't be Mr. Gepetto and Pinocchio at the same time.
(a) According to your legally-binding contract, he is not free to criticize you. "Words mean things" remember?
(b) You can choose to overlook it if you like (and you obviously have) .

I wonder how many milliseconds you would take to enforce that if I was one of your sheeple... uh, "licensees?"

That is not what it says or means and you know it.

Here in the United States, no one can take away any of your Constitutional rights. But they are your rights, and you are free to sign them away if you like. So if "licensees" don't mind signing away their First Amendment rights in exchange for literally nothing than a music rental, then who am I to point that out?

So it sounds as if Chris and 499 others "signed away" their U.S. Constitutional Rights to Free Speech to PEP/SC, that is, unless it's positive butt-smooching. Is this correct? LEGAL even??

It might explain Chris' need ( other than control and attention) to continually bash Chip's facts, opinions, and frankly, better fact-gathering, quick wit, and overall intelligence.

It's almost like a PEP ARMY of sales people that are contractually obligated to speak positively about PEP/SC, say nothing at all, or run the risk of losing their livelihood IF they say something negative.

Tim, did you sign away any Canadian Rights?