Karaoke Forums

ok, i read it...
first I pay $30 to SC for a product (that we do not know what that product is)
second I get to vote on the songs (that I do not know the names of before paying, dangling the carrot of possibilities)
third, those songs may not be able to be put into production because of licensing (take the carrot away)
songs will cost anywhere from $2.50 to $3.75 per track depending on how many people buy (sight unseen)
if i don't have use for those songs i am just out $30
am i reading that correctly?
usually a grab bag of tracks is buying them at the lowest price, not the highest. i'm not following this logic.

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

I am listed in your website as a Certified KJ (and thank you for assisting with the problem I had with the listing), so I would definitely be eligible to participate in the Advanced Sales mentioned. As you are aware, I am an ODB KJ. I looked over the Advanced Sales agreement, and came across item Number 3 and 4: So, IF your upstream licensing agreement does NOT permit delivery on a disc in a CDG format, what permissions would I need from SC/PEP to convert them to BIN files and then burn them to discs for public/commercial use at a show?

How about you start telling the truth Mr. Harrington? C'mon, give it a shot, it's fun!

(1) SC/PEP paid EMI. Period. You paid them. You can call it "resolved" or "settled" all you want to sanitize the picture because all this time, you were honking how legal the gem series was? If you weren't lying then, why would you settle now? Either you're so broke now, you're begging for KJ's to fund your operation in advance... or you're just betting that there are plenty that... stupid.

Why should anyone believe you now?

(2) "publisher participation and endorsement?" Says only you. I've not seen any announcement from any publisher on the topic and if I remember correctly, "only you" were the ones honking about how legal the gems were... With motion after motion to make the publisher jump through every hoop you could toss in their path including proving how many songs they had rights to and protective orders as your standard "stalling technique."

Why should anyone suddenly believe you now?

In one post, YOU claimed you had enough gem sets "for several years" and then after the EMI suit was filed, you claimed you were almost out and to "pull the trigger soon" and "when they're gone, they're gone." Then, SC dumped the inventory of remaining discs and then magically "pulled a Chartbuster" an sold the assets.... (because EMI was closing in) and that didn't work because PEP was simply added as a defendant... you were out of options -- you had to "resolve the issue" or "settle the case" or really "just pay them."

So why again should anyone believe your promises now?


I don't think I've been wrong at all:
(1) I claimed the gem wasn't legal a loong time ago. It wasn't and you paid cold, hard cash to end the suit to prevent it's recall.
(2) I've claimed that SC has used unlicensed material and proved it... (don't open that can of worms again)
(3) I claimed that your investigators weren't conducting investigations and Rodney proved that for me. Your own agreement with the investigation company APS (in the lawsuit) to "up their percentage" at the threat that they would spill and confirm those beans is pretty telling.
(4) I claimed that at least one "certified" KJ has sold, and re-sold counterfeit discs.... and that was confirmed by others... (Chew on that for a while.) And, I'm sorry, you're not "eligible" for that information from me, you'll have to find out on your own.

So, I've not been as wrong as you'd like to paint it.

And you must have a very looooong "pipeline" since you've been making "pipeline promises" for years that your client has never lived up to. How many times have you said that you'd be "back into production soon?" You just figure that KJ's have short memories...


Why should anyone suddenly believe you now?




Perhaps you should get off your duff and at the bare minimum tell them that. It's their money you've been holding on to and doing absolutely nothing. It's very easy to say in this forum they have been "at least provisionally certified" when you've been caught (again) with your pants down and hands holding someone else's wallet.


I did read that and it's nothing more than word salad and means nothing - about as effective as telling me how legal the gem set was...etc. Tell me that when you actually do refund someone because I can make all kinds of promises and then change and modify them later as long as I'm holding your money.... (just like your "rules" remember?)
For some reason, "Sound Choice" and "refund" have never been in the same sentence... for years...



Pardon me whilst I get my really tall waders on because it isn't just "popular in this day and age," it's what the market demands. And I know that "it's popular" for you and Kurt to believe that you can control this business, but it's still the market - not the marketers - that control the market.

You sound like you're insincerely promising a fine, superbly-aged wine with unmatched color and bouquet.... and with financial help from your "eligible licensees" you'll plant the seeds... next month.

You'll find a few... Barnum says they're born every minute.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone so angry as you get at our refusal to die on your command.

You know, because I've told you, that I can't talk about the resolution of the EMI litigation, and neither can anyone else who knows anything. What that means is (a) you're making up this supposed payment we allegedly made, or (b) somebody told you something they shouldn't have.

(I know for certain which one it is, but others might not. Luckily, I can clear it up for them with one question.)

Why would anyone with knowledge talk to you? You're nobody.

Sorry if the truth hurts, but folks need to know that you speak from anger, not knowledge.

Cue, you'll be able to upconvert to .bin if you want.

Moving this question further down before it gets buried in all the legal BS going on in this topic thread.

(hmmm, personal attack raises its ugly head)

Remember what I just said about honesty?
(1) You paid a law firm,
(2) You paid a process server and,
(3) You even sent me a check.... willing to pay for knowledge from this "nobody."

Unfortunate as it is for you, it's a little too late to try to deny that.

I'm not asking anyone to believe anything, but it sure is easy to unquestioningly recognize that you're frantically squirming about within your own stories. Hard to keep track huh? Maybe you should start a spreadsheet.


Really? I have to spell this out for you? Okay, fine.

Let's look at history and logically, what is the preponderance of evidence that you made a payment to settle this case? It's apparently good enough for you to use, so we'll use it here:
(1) For the last 6 years, whenever you have received a settlement payment from someone you've sued, you never had a problem calling it a "settlement." You've always said that KJ's need to "settle with you before going to trial" because then the "settlement" would be much higher.
(2) On SC's own website, your terminology for someone who has paid you a settlement fee has always been something like "the Karaoke host has resolved all previous issues with Sound Choice." Bingo.... a payment was made.
(3) Based on your own references to payments, both terms of "settlement and resolved" are used by you to denote payments.

The case was --- in your words --- "resolved" and "settled" and you know, and I know, that means "a settlement fee was paid." I highly doubt it was EMI that paid you.

But let's analyze your statement above a little closer:

What are the real choices here?
"(a) you're making up this supposed payment we allegedly made, or"
You haven't actually denied that you've paid EMI to settle the case either, because confirming it would be "discussing the settlement" from which you are barred from doing. However, there's nothing that bars you from confirming what was not part of the settlement.... Which in this case, you're making a poor attempt to keep the subject of a payment a mystery with words like "supposed" and "allegedly."

"(b) somebody told you something they shouldn't have."
Which means that someone would have had to confirm that you made a payment or promise of future payments... Again, confirming you're paying for it.

And I'll add one of my own:
(c) The press release style announcement of an arrangement with publishers to pay them licensing fees for your "help licenses" as a result of the lawsuit is in fact, you "talking about the [financial terms included in the] resolution of the EMI litigation.."

Just as you like to follow things out to their logical conclusion, the same is true here and the "knowledge" you're talking about came from none other than.... YOU....

Thanks for the confirmation counsel.

(So, why would anyone want to believe you again?)

i do have to admit, if it was just EMI made a mistake (or a few hundred of them in this case) one would think that the result would be SC cleared of wrong doing or was vindicated or charges were dismissed.

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

EXACTLY!

If SC was in the right, it would have been invalidated and dismissed (by the court) almost immediately after it was filed. It wasn't. It dragged on for 2 years, with plenty games from SC -- including an attempt to hide their company assets -- before it was "voluntarily dismissed."

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck.

By Chip's own admission, nothing SC does has any impact on him. So where does the anger and vitriol come from? We may never know (even though we do know....)

No matter what, Chip will be pissed off.

_________________
-Chris

Not a personal attack, just a statement of the truth. Why would anyone at Sony or EMI violate the confidentiality clause of our agreement for you? Answer: They wouldn't, because they don't care enough about informing you anything to do so.



I don't think it's a secret that our litigation costs were paid by our insurance company. So, no, we didn't pay a law firm, a process server, or you. The fee for a subpoena ad testificandum is a legal requirement. As I said earlier, your name came up at several points, and our attorneys were very thorough.



You "know" a lot less than you think.

You are free to believe or doubt what you like. But you are not free to make up stories and try to pass them off as the knowing truth.



The confidentiality clause of the agreement prohibits me from discussing the specifics of that agreement, with certain limited exceptions (none of which apply here), and that would include whether a payment was made or not.



No, I was indulging in your hypothetical. If you had information, then it would be because somebody told you something they shouldn't have. You don't have the information.



I'm not asking anyone to believe me or not believe me. I'm merely exposing you as a fraud, for claiming to have knowledge you don't, and for claiming certain things to be true when you have no actual knowledge whether they are true or not.

The lawsuit was dismissed. Feel free to look it up on PACER, or if you ask nicely, I might send you a copy of the dismissal.

You have a highly incorrect understanding of how civil litigation works. 2 years is a relatively short time for complex litigation to be resolved.

You also don't understand how "hiding assets" would work. It would not involve making a public announcement that the assets had been sold, selling them to a company formed in the same jurisdiction where the prior owner was formed, naming the company that owned them, creating a public website that prominently displays those assets, or continuing the business of the prior company--all of which we did.

Well, there IS the old saying, Hiding in plain sight...

Paradigm's use of the word "dismissed" was not regarding a voluntary dismissal by the parties but more a dismissal by the court for no cause.

To even attempt to suggest that the dismissal was anything other than a paid settlement -by stating "it was dismissed, go look it up" is about as underhanded as you can get.

Your sterling character and willingness to misdirect is plainly obvious. These are the kinds of actions that instill a sense of mistrust in the legal profession.

And you did everything in your power to drag it out as long as you could. You didn't have much choice when there were only about 60 days left before the trial, you settled.


Then I definitely want to know who your insurance carrier is.... If they're willing to pay off CAVS and any other suits against SC as well as this one and the legal costs, I want to get some sort of policy from them today! You'll notice that KTS has filed and appeal since you settled, they're trying to get attorney fees....from EMI! (bwahahaha!) They should have just bought the same kind of policy.... from the same company... you use.



I understand exactly how hiding assets works and I understand the use of technicalities to avoid losing assets as well. You were simply betting on technicalities (of Kurt selling his assets..... to Kurt... under a new company organization) to save your buns... Just like Chartbuster did. Except that didn't work for you and PEP was added as a defendant.

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck.

It's really nice on a Friday to get such a hearty belly laugh. You're quite the yarn-spinner.

Restating my question before it gets buried under all of the legal BS talk going on (above).

As much fun as this is to read, can we get a Moderator in here to separate the legal arguments going on in this topic thread (and move them to a newly created topic thread where it belongs... in the Leagl Section of this Forum) from the comments more directly related to the OP?



I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by that... QUOTE: "if you don't like everything in the first album, you could take part of it and defer your choices to the next group of releases." END QUOTE What do you mean by taking part of it and deferring it to the next release/s? Are you saying that we will receive advanced notification as to what will actually be on the upcoming New Release, and if we don't like the songs on that grouping, we would be given the option of either accepting that grouping anyway or request that our prepayment be deferred to the next New Release (or the next one after that)?

With regard to the (possible) upcoming new releases, will SC/PEP be doing any themed sets such as:
Christmas Songs
Mama Series
Specific Artists series
Headbangers series
Country series
50's series
60's series
70's series
etc....

Also, will SC/PEP be producing Multi-Plex tracks (one track with main vocals, and then the same song track with the main vocal removed)?

That's why i tried to start the other thread. i don't know the answers to the majority of your questions, but i think I can answer the one about being disc based. If you go to the FAQ section of the website it states:

"Q: I'm an Original Disc-Based KJ. Can I get a CD+G?

A:If our licensing allows it, we will consider providing a CD+G for an additional charge to cover the cost of producing and shipping physical media. At a minimum, we will provide Original Disc-Based KJs with authorization to write the tracks to a disc for use in their shows. "

I'm sorry, cueball, it did get buried for me, and for that I apologize. Unfortunately, some people have to take every opportunity to bash us, even when it's not germane to the subject, and it's mostly so ridiculous that I can't just let it stand.

Since this is almost certainly going to be downloadable content, we would potentially be able to offer you the chance to defer some of your selections. Let's say the first release comes out, and you can use six of the songs, but the other six don't fit your show at all. We might be able to allow you to take the six you like and allow you to take tracks from later groups. We really do want to accommodate professionals who are doing the right thing by buying the music, but we have to consider the economics of it, too.



Some of these themed series have been our most popular sets in the past, so we would consider doing more of them, yes. For this first release, we're going to focus on tracks that have broad appeal, but we're not averse to doing, say, a Headbangers album at some point in the future if the demand is there.



That's more of a consumer product than a professional product, but if there is demand for it, we might do it. Our plan down the road, at some point, is to do a consumer-oriented product that would include the multiplex tracks, but that's not our present focus.