c. staley wrote:
Wrong. An iron-clad guarantee is exactly what we've asked for as customers of thousands of dollars of your client's product. You (as spokesperson for your client) have refused to do so.... citing that the the "human element" of perhaps incompetent investigators or other renegade attorneys that make "mistakes" your client isn't willing oversee or correct before they sign on the line to sue.
No, you have absolutely no intention of using SC material at your shows, regardless of any "guarantees." You've made it abundantly clear that you don't need the product to operate. So there really is only one other option: You're looking for lawsuit fodder.
c. staley wrote:
Speculation, assumptions and character defamation counsel? I would expect you to be better at avoiding this type of behavior.
I am exceptionally good at avoiding speculation, assumptions, and character defamation. I'll put it to you point-blank, however: Would you rather SC stayed in business or went out of business? Be honest.
c. staley wrote:
HarringtonLaw wrote:
There is a long history there, and there are many facts known to both sides that don't get discussed here because the pro-SC people on this board choose not to bring them up. For someone who hasn't been here through a lot of that history, it's sometimes hard to discern when people are making fun of other people.
Now that you mention it.. the "pro-SC people" have been mysteriously quiet haven't they? Perhaps there are fewer of them than even you realize.
It is mysterious, why it is that you reduced the number of operating systems you had shortly after we started filing lawsuits. The reason that no one talks about it is not a mystery, though.
c. staley wrote:
HarringtonLaw wrote:
Now, two things: First, you're in an area that is my primary responsibility. My investigators are well trained and follow my protocols exactly. They know what to look for; when you get a show, if they visit it, you will never be able to tell that they were there to investigate. That's not because they are being sneaky in some way. It's because they know karaoke and they know how to act at a karaoke show. But if you are using original discs, they'll be able to tell. (You might even get a letter from us later, informing you that we were at your show and letting you know we appreciate your using original discs.)
Word salad.
I don't think you know what the term "word salad" means. But in case you do, I'll make it clear to you:
Smoothedge69 operates in Florida. Florida is under my purview. My investigators follow my instructions. They are well trained and familiar with karaoke. If he starts having shows, he won't be able to tell when he is investigated. But if he is using original discs, they will be able to tell.
c. staley wrote:
HarringtonLaw wrote:
Second, the reason why they'll be able to tell is that one thing they look for is whether a host is playing from discs of any type. If you're playing from burns, you'll be subject to the same suit as playing from a hard drive. That's something they look at very carefully.
"...they look at carefully?"
Yes, one of the things they are instructed to look for is whether the KJ is playing from burned discs.
c. staley wrote:
And that's questionable at best because remember: there is NO iron-clad guarantee that you won't be sued when you use original discs.... not even when "his team" is investigating you in "his area of responsibility."
To the contrary, if you were in my area of responsibility, Chip, I would give you an iron-clad guarantee. Sadly, you're hanging out in the Motor City, and that's out of my area. Maybe someday...
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
