Karaoke Forums

Very interesting Insane the hunter has become the hunted. I wonder if he gave away his business like CB did in order not to have to pay any settlements. I love the way all of these companies are preaching morality to the hosts and venues and are totally corrupt themselves. Just like the banks want to blame the borrower's for the foreclosure problems, when they were funding loans they knew were bad. Then wanting the taxpayers to bail them out. SC made a lot of errors in business, including who they hired to represent them exclusively in this legal process. It is time now for SC to man up and maybe have to pay off counter suits that will be coming. I wonder if SC to avoid paying settlements will go the way of CB, only time will tell. Have an insane day.

A polite response to my rather harsh statements ( for those I apologize to the forum in general- not a positive addition to the debate), and I DO appreciate it.


However, rather than do another round of point for point debates, I'm willing to wait and see what stands up in court, including the alleged "investigative" reports.

If, after that, I need to retract and personally apologize, I will- but not before.

As for Steve Brophy "disappearing", I'm pretty certain that anyone with decent counsel who sues APS ( except SC) will include SC in the suit as well, despite any claims of dis-association by SC.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Excerpt from Slep-tone's complaint against APS and Brophy:
“By engaging services from APS, [Slep-Tone] agrees that unless agreed to in writing by all parties, [Slep-Tone] is agreeing to an unlimited non-competitive time frame, with regards to personnel, contractors, sub-contractors, agencies, and equipment providers provided that [APS] files against at least 200 defendants within three months, 700 within 8 months and 2000 within 18 months. The currently engaged firms of Harrington Cipriani and Porter at Law will not engage hire or employ any third parties or companies, providing APS all exclusivity as it relates to the services outlined in said agreement."

And it continues:
“In reference to the Obligation and Authority of APS…and Non-Competition…in this Agreement, the three month period between the Effective Date and before the first 200 defendants have been filed against will be referred to as the “Transition Period”. During the Transition Period, [Slep-Tone] will continue to work with its existing network of investigators and law firms in effecting a smooth transition to APS in order that there is no loss of momentum and cash flow to [Slep-Tone]. [Slep-Tone] and APS will conduct training sessions between appropriate personnel as to [Slep-Tone’s] methodologies and appropriate negotiating guidelines. Whenever possible, APS will work to integrate [Slep-Tone’s] existing network into APS’s services."

And more:
“APS’s basic duties under the Contract were to conduct investigations of potential pirates of Slep-Tone’s karaoke tracks, undertake efforts to contact and negotiate pre-suit settlements with those found to be pirates, collect funds from settlements, and–where settlement was not possible–to arrange and pay for an appropriate attorney to commence and prosecute a lawsuit in the name of Slep-Tone."

This appears to be about $$. Good lord, just how did Slep-tone oversee this? Did any Slep-tone attorney approve the inclusion of all those defendants in those cases Brophy handled? Did Slep-tone's attorney actually ask to see the evidence of infringement BEFORE the suits were filed against Slep-tone's customers? What did Slep-tone do to insure there was an absence of 1:1 correspondence? And why did it not terminate Boris after all those missed deadlines in April 2012 in the Vegas case that happened so many months before the LA case was dismissed in November 2012? Because she kept raking in settlements from defendants, no? In fact, she is still an attorney of record in the LA case. Is the answer, we're just not responsible for these suits?

Instead of reading excerpts that RaokeBoy posted out of context, here you can read the entire complaint Slep-Tone v Brophy.

http://www.pdf-archive.com/2013/01/10/c ... one-v-abs/

_________________
-- Mark

You're (supposedly) new here, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, that this is somehow some big revelation to you.

When have we ever given the impression that this was about something other than money?

And why is it a problem that it is about money?

SC is a commercial business that made (and makes) money selling music. When a retail store has a problem with shoplifters, are their efforts to stop the shoplifting because of the societal impact of theft? About reforming shoplifters so they don't descend into a life of serious crime? No. It's about money. This is no different.

We have acknowledged that entering into the business deal with APS was a poor choice. If SC had it to do over again, it would run the other direction. We can't rewrite the past, but we can change the way things are done. And we have.

If a customer does not thereafter sign Slep-tone's ridiculous and overreaching audit form so they can prove 1:1 correspondence to the satisfaction of Slep-tone, they are simply sued, right? That's a heap of thanks for purchasing Sound Choice products and something they never bargained for. What great customer relations. Is that disclosed when they purchase the product? Thanks Mr. Harrington for confirming to Slep-tone's customer base that it is all about money. And just what is it that prompts the request for an audit? The observation of mere play back from a PC? Any observation at all? But PC playback is OK according to Slep-tone if its a 1:1 correspondence, right? Exactly what additional facts are uncovered before filing suit to suggest infringement? Oh, I know, it's secret isn't it? Or are you claiming privilege again? Or is refusal to allow an audit all Slep-tone needs? We wouldn't want to see another client of yours facing an order for fees for your filing of another baseless suit. Why that might lead to an assertion of being a vexatious litigant. Oh I forgot, Judge Wright already said that Slep-tone was vexatious. Hmm.

RaokeBoy,

Sounds like you know a bit about I.P. Law. If so, wouldn't making copies of any karaoke disc warrant it a counterfeit?

Also is there NO fair use if said copy is used for monetary gain?

_________________
-- Mark

Good golly, I think you've got it!

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Until you posted this, I wasn't really sure who you were, but this clinches it.

From my very first post here, I've been open and honest about who I was and what my purpose was for being here. I wouldn't participate in a forum like this without full disclosure, because it is dishonest to do so, and lawyers are not supposed to engage in conduct involving dishonesty.

Your questions betray a complete lack of understanding of what these cases are about and what our process is. Since your only experience is in dealing with Donna Boris, I'm not surprised that you have the wrong idea. As has been made clear to you, we are taking steps to ensure that Ms. Boris exits the profession for her misconduct.

Since SC began selling CD+G discs in around 1994, and before that when SC sold audiotapes, SC has warned its customers that unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws. The warning is printed on the face of every CD, and it also appears in the accompanying packaging. Since 2007, a separate insert, on brightly colored paper, has provided a separate warning.

There is simply no excuse for any operator who has even one SC disc not to know that the general, default policy is that unauthorized duplication is prohibited.

In 2007, SC established a policy whereby the authorizations it could give for a media-shift could be obtained. That policy requires notice to SC, 1:1 correspondence, placing the original media "on the shelf" (i.e., not using them for any purpose), and submission to and successful completion of an audit. An operator who does not want to complete those requirements is free to use the original media under the default policy, which is best summarized as "no duplication." The actual process for the audit is not onerous, and it is not expensive to the operator. SC does not earn a profit on its audits; it usually charges less than the actual cost of the audit, and it routinely reduces or waives the audit fee under given circumstances.

PC playback based solely on 1:1 correspondence is most certainly NOT okay. The failure to adhere to the complete policy takes the operator outside the media-shifting policy and back to the default policy, which is "no duplication."

Our process requires an on-site investigation. In order to qualify to be sued, the operator must be using media-shifted copies of identifiable SC tracks to put on a commercial karaoke show. That's it. We collect a lot of other information, mostly aimed at preventing, or at least curbing the impact of, spoliation of evidence, but that is all that we need. Since SC distributes its products only on CDs, we know that an operator using a hard drive isn't using our product, and we know whether he has our permission for the media shift or not.

This is not rocket science. We're not treading new ground.

Now, an operator who gets investigated and sued and says, "Hey, I've got all the discs"--that guy has the opportunity, quite quickly, to show that he meets the 1:1 correspondence requirement. We refer to that person as a "technical infringer" because what he's done is an infringement, but it is one that we are willing to overlook if he undertakes to demonstrate that he genuinely does have 1:1 correspondence by submitting to the audit. We are not interested in pursuing litigation against such a person because he at least complied with 1:1 correspondence, which shows that he's fully an actual customer of SC. We get that person fully legitimized with an audit and certification and drop the suit and issue a covenant not to sue. A post-suit audit is necessarily more involved than a pre-suit audit (i.e., one where the operator approaches us before any investigation or suit) because we must guard against spoliation. But it is not onerous in any real sense, regardless of your bombastic language to the contrary. The current audit acknowledgement does not contain a forum selection clause, and we have never enforced one when it did.

What? An alleged lawyer, who possibly may be involved with some of these trademark suits, is posting here and we didn't know?

It wouldn't be Saul Goodman, would it?




A disbarment request for Ms. Boris in the works? Excellent!

_________________
-- Mark

Great James even if you disbar her SC is still responsible for all the damages she and APS inflicted upon the hosts that were misused by them. Since they had the exclusive right to represent SC legally, that makes SC responsible legally and financially. It was poor supervision of these employees that caused most of the problems, right? If you knew what they were doing and did nothing about it, that makes SC an active partner. Either way you can't duck your responsibilities, isn't that what you are always telling the hosts and venues? Have a legal day.

This forum is not the only source of information available to learn about Slep-tone's tactics. Robert Kossack does a pretty nice job on his blog don't you think? In fact, I found his post about forthcoming sanctions in the LA case to be quite illuminating, especially information in the motion for fees that he provides a link to here:
http://soundchoicelasvegaslawsuit.com/s ... alifornia/

I read the motion Mr. Harrington, did you? Footnote No. 2, for example, is quite interesting about Slep-tone's tactics to dodge filing fees (even in its own backyard) and how long Slep-tone knew of Boris' problems, which is quoted below verbatim:

"The Complaint was filed one day after U.S. District Court Judge Graham Mullin ordered Slep-tone, on its home turf in North Carolina, to file separate cases against each of the disparate defendants. Slep-tone Entertainment Corp. v. Robert Manville, et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-00122 (W.D. N.Car., Oct. 5, 2011). [McLaughlin Decl., Ex. 2.] Slep-tone’s practice of filing improperly joined defendants continued despite order to sever from the same court in Slep-tone Entertainment Corp. v. Nebraska 41 Group LLC, et al., Case No. 8:12-cv-157-T-30MAP (M.D. Fl., April 30, 2012). [McLaughlin Decl., Ex. 3.] Slep-tone’s practice also includes exercising the court for three extensions of time, then not responding. Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp., v. Ellis Island Casino & Brewery, et al., Case No. 2:12-CV-00239-KJD-RJJ, Doc. No. 73 (D. Nev., May 21, 2012) (order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss (motion to sever mooted) for failure to respond after three extensions of time granted to Slep-tone, represented pro hac vice by Donna Boris, Esq.). [McLaughlin Decl., Ex. 4.]"

As for blaming Boris for everything wrong in the LA case, Slep-tone and Mr. Harrington knew full well of her conduct in the Vegas case long before the LA case was dismissed in November 2012. They did nothing. In fact, here is an excerpt from a motion in the Vegas case signed by Mr. Harrington on June 26, 2012 where he threw Ms. Boris under the bus. "As a result of what can only be described as gross neglect by Slep-Tone’s attorney, several defendants have been released from this litigation." She "was apparently constitutionally incapable of filing timely responses." "When it became clear that the matter was not being handled correctly, Slep-Tone took prompt action to remove her as counsel and to hire other counsel."

But there is more. See Footnote No. 3 of the motion, quoted below.

"The imposition of improper conditions and impediments is a favored tactic by Slep-tone. Indeed, on June 22, 2012, Slep-tone’s frequent counsel, James M. Harrington, was found in contempt of court for such tactics. In Re Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation, Consolidated Cases, Case No. 5:11cv32/RS/CJK (N.D. Fl.). [McLaughlin Decl., Ex. 6.] Mr. Harrington is also no stranger to filing baseless lawsuits. Precision Links Inc. v. USA Products Group, Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:08-cv-00576-MR, Doc. 113 (W.D. N.Car., April 4, 2012) (order granting defendants’ fee petition in the amount of $250,395 plus interest for filing and maintaining baseless patent infringement lawsuit)."

In fact in the Florida case, didn't U.S. Magistrate Judge Charles J. Khan, Jr. of the Northern District of Florida state about Mr. Harrington “that the actions taken by plaintiff’s counsel, following the issuance of the fee order, are unreasonable, and contemptuous of the court’s authority”?

I note that in my short time on this forum, at least to my knowledge, Mr. Harrington has not mentioned these ditties. Is any of it untrue Mr. Harrington? If so, please indicate precisely what is not true. Now is your chance.

Robert Kossack is a civil rights attorney who doesn't specialize in I.P. Law.

I'm still awaiting your answer RaokeBoy to my question.

_________________
-- Mark

Insane - Maybe you should actually hire an IP lawyer for the answer.

Why can't you answer it? You seem to know a lot about I.P. Law with the posts you make.

Your response really isn't going to help your credibility around here.

_________________
-- Mark

As if anyone who dared say anything against Slep-tone has credibility with you anyhow. ROTFLOL. Go ask your employer.

My employer? And who may that be? A karaoke company in the central valley of California perhaps?

You failing to answer the question gives you as much credibility as me I guess.

Also remaining anonymous, like me, gives you just about as much credibility as me as well!

Thanks for pointing that out for all to see!

_________________
-- Mark

Kind of dishonest for you to say only that you "read the motion," isn't it?

Here are some other common Karaoke Scene responses you could use in the future....

• Go back and re-read.
• I have proof, but cannot show you as I promised my source I wouldn't disclose it.
• Go look it up yourself.
• I talk to very important (yet secret) people all the time offline, and they told me XXX.
• A poster on "The other Board" has posted many quotes to the contrary.
• Go buy a Pacer account, I'm not doing your work for you.

I didn't say "only" that I read the motion. I also quoted from it, which I indicated, facts which clearly you have not denied - not even a single one.

And you are still blaming Boris? Let's be honest, even Judge Wright didn't fall for that ruse. Reporting her to the State Bar? That's really big of you, yes.

Are you blaming her too for your filing and maintaining the baseless lawsuit in the Precision Links case that she had nothing to do with? Or will you actually take responsibility for the $250,000 you cost your client there. Did you pay it or did you push it off on your client? Did you convince your client to file that case? So which was it, either you didn't do an investigation before filing the that case or, if you did, it was inadequate. Did your client report you to the state bar for that? Or throw you under the bus like you did to Boris? For Insane's benefit, I wouldn't want to quote out of context. On the Vegas blog, there is a link to Court's entire opinion.
http://soundchoicelasvegaslawsuit.com/d ... itigation/

Can there be more? Well, according to the very same Vegas blog page, the answer is yes. Yet another case where Harrington was sanctioned. "Diane Alsop v. Resources for Senior Living, LLC, filed in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Case Number 09 CVS 6667 in the State of North Carolina, Mecklenburg County. In that case, Harrington and his client, Diane Alsop, were ordered to pay a sanction of $17,824.50." There is even a link to Mr. Harrington's own declaration where he admits it, but claims that he is too impoverished to pay. Because Harrington claimed he couldn't pay, guess who was on the hook? Congratulations, Mr. Harrington, you are building quite a record for yourself, especially in your neighborhood courts. Let us know if any of this is incorrect.