Karaoke Forums

That looks like permission was given to someone named Lonnie back in 1998. Of course, we don't know precisely what Lonnie was asking for; looks like Kurt was responding to an inquiry from a specific poster. Also, if permission can be given, it can certainly be taken away, particularly if there isn't consideration to support a contract on the point. Or did you think that those words were effective to be a permanent, irrevocable grant to every person, everywhere, in every medium?

Over the last few years, it has been made very clear that whatever permission might have been given in the past has been revoked, and that new permission is subject to some very specific conditions.



My answer of "maybe" is not evasive in the slightest. It is possible that the answer is yes, and it is possible that the answer is no. It depends on additional information not present in the hypothetical. Of course, you've decided that it's about money, when in fact you have absolutely no idea what additional information or factors would go into answering his question. I recognize that you have never let ignorance stop you from having an opinion or a comment, but your credibility would improve if you would make your uninformed contempt for my client a little less obvious.

I think I was pretty clear in my original question. I stated what I would like to do and why. For the record, I do not have an answer to yet in my personal mail.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Nope. I have the printout of the entire thread and from the same permissions granted by Derek Slep... Nice try at deflection though.



I believe that this is the sort of permission that you can certainly refuse to grant to new purchasers of SC's product. However, this permission was granted --universally-- and not "taken away" for ELEVEN YEARS. YOU can speculate all you want about this but I was there, you were not.




It is exactly about money and the only "additional information" you or your client will require is if it will be by check, credit card or paypal.



Why don't you just man-up and call me stupid instead of playing these childish "thunder-word-games?" You've already called me a liar and now this? You're a piece of work.

You really mean "uninformed contempt for your former copyright infringer client" is that the one? The same one with many lawsuits against them for copyright infringement (pirating) the intellectual property of others? The same one who is now trying to position themselves as some lowly victim-turned-superhero in the "fight against piracy?" Gimme a break... a duck is a duck not a swan.

And you've never let integrity or truth get in the way of what you can perceive as a successful marketing campaign. The only reason you post here is damage control.

You're lack of any real knowledge of the actual facts regarding the permission granted at the time to all customers hasn't prevented you from having your own (uninformed) opinion or comment either.

Update - Just received an email from HarringtonLaw.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

I was under the impression that the consideration was paid with the original good faith purchase of the discs. If that permission has since been revoked in bad faith, wouldn't that be actionable for those who have purchased discs?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

The consideration has always been the purchase of discs and it is now. i.e. "If you have the discs, you can purchase protection. You can get it free only if we have to sue you first."

Why don't you post the whole thing instead of an excerpt?



I'm sure that Chris can confirm for you whether our discussion mentioned anything at all about money.



Why would I call you stupid? Ignorance and stupidity are not the same.



Every dispute involving an allegation against SC of copyright infringement has been resolved. Of course, not every allegation of copyright infringement involves piracy.



What I do is only "damage control" in the sense that somebody has to defend against the disinformation campaigns that you and others put on. I'm here to provide accurate information so that the inaccurate psuedo-information you spread here doesn't get accepted as fact by default.

What I've never been able to figure out is why you care so much. You've made it clear that you don't use the product, and that you think it is worth nothing to anyone's shows. Why do you spend so much time on a company that means so little to you? Don't you have better things to spend your energy on? Where you spend your time is not up to me, but you seem to get worked up over something in which your rational interest should be approaching zero.



I can only read what you put up here. The screen cap you posted does not--in my professional opinion--constitute binding, irrevocable permission to anyone. If there is more to it, I'll review it and reconsider my position.

I could write a book, or at least several chapters of a book, on the issue of quantum meruit, contracts of adhesion, implied-in-fact contracts, integration, parol evidence, notice, and so forth, and there would still be plenty of learned people with opinions that differed from mine.

What I am saying, primarily, however, is that an off-hand comment in response to a specific poster's question 13 years ago, referring to different technology, cannot reasonably be used to defeat the right of a trademark owner to police the use of its trademarks by setting up reasonable rules for their use by third parties. If you can show that you were aware of this "permission," that you did not own the discs at the time, that you bought the discs after hearing of the "permission," and that you have scrupulously avoided straying outside the terms of the "permission," then I suppose you could assert that as a defense if you were sued for infringement on the basis of using burned copies of your discs. But the reality is that if all you are doing is what is "permitted" by that statement, and you get sued anyway, you will be released from the suit as soon as you show your originals, whether that constitutes "permission" or not. And if you're stepping outside that statement, you can't assert it as a defense anyway. You do not have the right not to be sued. No one has that right.

I don't need to.


And why can't you do this yourself?


Nice... just like before: question it while you simply do it again.


You're correct: not "every" allegation of copyright infringement involves piracy.... but many of the suits against your client by publishers HAVE been for infringement which can be classified as "piracy." And they've made MILLIONS on the tracks that were sold before they were caught by the publishers.


Inaccurate? I post the documents the COURT reports and what you and your opponents file with the court. At my own expense I might add. Your flip-flopping between "fighting piracy" and "asset recovery" then "helping existing KJ's" and "making new customers out of pirates" is nothing more than contradictory.


You go right ahead and keep wondering. I wonder why you're here when you have how many active lawsuits in different states?


No big surprise. I wouldn't expect anything -in your professional opinion - to constitute anything binding if it can be found to be damaging to your case at all.

There's plenty more to it, but there is no point in providing to you.

And that is your mistake: speculating that it was a single, off-hand comment 13 years ago to a specific poster's question.

That's all you've posted, so that's all I have to work with. It is precisely because I refuse to speculate that I made the comment I made. (And that's why you need to post the whole thing, if you want me to comment on the whole thing.)

Your previous comments were based on nothing but speculation.

However, I'm not asking for your commentary.

Because if I post it, you won't believe me.



You're not stupid, Mr. Staley. You are ignorant of many facts that are important to the things you're commenting on.



Here's an idea: why don't you take one of those lawsuits, give us a case number, summarize the facts, and explain why SC's conduct with regard to that subject matter constituted "piracy," as opposed to garden-variety copyright infringement. Be sure to identify the appropriate legal standards, and of course don't forget to tell us the outcome. If what you say is true, that should be fairly easy for you to do. I conclude that an honorable person would be able to back up what he says publicly with actual verifiable facts, so if you decline, I'll assume that it's because you can't.



Well, to give a recent example, you assumed that when I asked Chris to take his question off-line, it was because I was planning to shake him down for money. In fact, you posted as much as fact, without knowing anything about what was going on. But because it fit your narrative about SC, you were more than happy to do so. Similar to the documents you post from cases. You pick and choose the ones that you think support your narrative. I notice that you haven't posted copies of the default judgments we recently got in the Northern District of Florida--you know, the ones that resulted in injunctions against the use of unauthorized media-shifted copies of tracks from [u]all[/i] manus, not just SC.



I do it because my presence here ensures that accurate information about my client gets the light of day.



Right, because I will provide an informed, logical analysis of what you put up here, and you can't risk being outed in your positions.

Query: You're pretty famously not a user of SC, but that wasn't always the case, was it? Back before you got religion and started hanging signs protesting SC, were you 1:1 on all of your systems? I mean, if you're going to call out SC for supposed hypocrisy, shouldn't we find out if your slate is clean?

Now, that's not precisely true, is it? Weren't my comments based on reading the text in that screen cap you posted? What else do you think I was looking at (or not looking at) when commenting?



You're welcome to it nonetheless. I do understand why you wouldn't want others to read it, though.

That's probably enough fun for tonight. I've got to fit five days of work into a short week next week with the holiday. See you around.

Why is it that to you, trademark infringement constitutes "piracy" but "garden-variety copyright infringement" doesn't?



"Got religion?" Hardly. More like "protecting my business and clients from trademark trolls."

And my "slate" is far cleaner than the SC discs (gathering dust) in my garage. The money I used to purchase them with was perfectly clean to your client.

I don't appreciate what sounds like a threat.

Not all trademark infringement constitutes piracy. To me, "piracy" connotes intentionally making an unauthorized copy of the source material and trying to pass it off as the genuine article. All of the disputes you are referring to can be fairly characterized as SC and the publisher having a difference of opinion as to where the line between what the law and agreements permit and what they do not.



Should be fairly easy for you to say whether you were 1:1. If you were, that's easy. If you weren't, if you're so confident in your position as to what the law is, why not come clean, and we can let the courts decide who's right? Just kidding, of course. I know you wouldn't make that mistake.



Aw, Mr. Staley, I don't mean you any harm. Chalk it up to idle curiosity on a Sunday evening. Besides, Michigan is outside my area of responsibility anyway. In fact, I've never been there except to change planes at DTW, which is a very nice airport, or at least was the last time I was there.

For the record - Mr. Harrington did not shake me down.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

And the same "disputes" are simply a KJ and SC "having a difference of opinion" as well. Especially since SC has already granted said permission. (more than once)

There NO difference here - you know it... A duck is a duck.



It is easy and it's always been easy because I have always been 1:1. (happy now?)

AND I'd appreciate it if you'd stop with the negative characterizations with no basis in fact and insinuations that I am somehow "dirty" by suggesting I "come clean." It's simply your method of name-calling that's not permitted on these forums so please for the umpteenth time, stop it.

You simply take one cheap shot after another don't you?

And no, you are not "kidding." You are simply using that as an excuse to sling as much mud as you feel you can get away with.



You absolutely mean as much harm as you can muster, you're not "kidding" anyone nor is your "curiosity" in the least bit idle.

To Super Duper Poster

Can you email a copy of the thread from 1998? It may be of great help to the legal KJ's of Ohio.

Thanks,

Darby

To Super Duper Poster,

PS my email is darbykproductions@yahoo.com.

Thanks again,

Darby