Karaoke Forums

A consent judgment rubber stamped by the judge does not mean the court recognized the validity of anything. If you tell the court you have a settlement, and present them with an stipulated order or consent judgment, they aren't going to say, "No, I won't sign it." They want the case gone as much as everyone else. The stamp is simply affirming your settlement, not giving a ruling on any statement made in the judgment. I believe that saying anything else to these people here who have no experience with the court system is a bit misleading.

_________________
Birdofsong

Maybe not, but the speculation was disparaging and unnecessary.

_________________
Birdofsong

it will be interesting to find out exactly what happened here: did SC offer to agree to declare him 1:1 to go away? Was there ever an audit?

Who exactly wanted this to go away?


Inquiring minds still want to know.

Harringtonlaw, I’m disappointed in you.
Without fail, every time I start to think that maybe there are reasonable people behind soundchoice and their lawsuits, and that perhaps their arguments have some merit, you, or soundchoice, or one of your cheerleaders will make outrageous and/or flat-out untrue statements that undermine your credibility. What is wrong with conducting your campaign with straightforward honesty?



“a court has recognized the validity of Sound Choice's claims”
“it is the judge's signature at the bottom of that document, and that document unquestionably affirms what has been our position in this litigation from day one”

This is a misrepresentation. It is a perversion of the truth in an effort to hoodwink others into thinking the case was actually decided through consideration of facts by a court.



It was a CONSENT DECREE. Basically, it was an out of court settlement with a judge’s stamp of approval.

What the court recognized was that Dan Dan and Soundchoice agreed not to make the court decide anything.

The judge’s signature unquestionably affirms that only Dan Dan and Soundchoice have affirmed Soundchoice’s position. The court itself made no ruling on those positions.

Dan Dan and Soundchoice could have agreed to their positions on global warming in that same document and it would be just as relevant to everyone else.

When you pick and choose the statements you are willing to correct, yet you ignore foolish statements from others without comment about settlements, default judgments, and consent decrees setting court precedence and pretend they are admissible in other cases, then put forth deceptive statements like these, it makes your part in this look like that of the flim-flam man.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

OK I wrote to Dan to get the story and he told me a lot that he does not want put out right now but he did write me the following:

I'm still waiting for my hard copies of everything from Sound Choice, so it would probably be best if you held off on posting that much for now. You should point out that it does say in that document that it's a "joint motion" which means it was submitted by myself and Sound Choice. Also point out that the proposed consent decree is not a money judgment against me, makes clear legal findings that I do own many discs and have maintained 1:1 between my discs and computer, and only prohibits me from displaying their trademark without authorization. In light of all that, obviously I would not be submitting it to the court if I wasn't at the same time being given the authorization from Sound Choice to continue using my discs.

Contrary to the assumptions some closed-minded people made about me, I do have a legitimate karaoke library, and am quite against piracy. That's why I fought this so long and stood my ground, and encouraged others wrongly accused to do the same.


I will post more when he allows me to but he did say:

Mr. Harrington is a very decent guy, and admitted that when the first lawsuits started (I was in the very first) that their investigation methods were not so good. He did assure me that they are much more cautious now before filing lawsuits to try and make sure that they're only going after those who have pirated their karaoke. He was very apologetic that I got caught up in this the way I did, and offered me an opportunity to settle the matter with a court order that could keep the rest of their anti-piracy efforts going and a settlement contract that gave me permission to continue to operate my karaoke the way I always have.

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

I can't tell you how much I appreciate that post, Lone Wolf. Thank you.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

All consent settlements are a "joint motion" submitted to the court.... by the simple fact that it is a notification to the court that the parties have agreed (to anything) and wish to drop the action from the court system.

I will bet you dollars-to-donuts that Dan never had an audit either.

So I'll be happy to "speculate" that SC does not in fact, "treat all customers equally" by any stretch of the imagination.

I do notice an interesting pattern here though....

Hum, Chip your willing to speculate on something that you have no idea of what happened, and call it a pattern?... I really have grown tired of statements like these that are based wholely on speculation, which is a pattern...

Jon

Please read my post and understand it before you decide to make any baseless accusations Jon.... If you don't understand something, ask politely for help or simply ignore it.

Thanks.

I did. You said you would bet dollars to donuts Dan didn't have an audit. Then, that you would be happy to "speculate" that SC in fact does not treat customers equally...It's all speculation your drawing conclusions on. Do you know for sure Dan didn't have an audit? Or that he wasn't treated the same as the others that setteled out of court?... The only pattern I notice is that they settled out of court, and you drawing conclusions from your speculations like you have some special guru knowledge...If you don't see it, oh well...

Jon

I think you're on to something....

So why not find out why and who initiated the settlement? Because if Dan is "waiting for the paperwork" the logical conclusion is that SC's attorney is preparing it and has initiated the offer to settle in the first place. But I'll let HarringtonLaw answer that one and reconfirm it with Dan later.... if that's acceptable with you....

Fair enough?

Now, if SC initiated the settlement, why has every single case in the last three years, that has been challenged (and not defaulted) ended in a settlement and/or "permission" and none (as in "zip, zilch, zero and nada) has ever reached a decision by the very jury demand that SC calls for in their suits?

If that isn't somewhat suspicious to you then I'd have to ask you if the Kool Aid was cherry or grape flavored?

None of this "speculation" is far-fetched or beyond the realm of reality. HarringtonLaw's own attempt at turning a stipulated consent motion into something that never existed in the first place through misinformation and mis-characterization should suffice. As well as somehow (incorrectly) believing that a default judgment sets some kind of precedent.

Or it is as simply as the Defendants came to realize, either by themselves or through an attorney, that they didn't have a leg to stand on.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

And that is also a possibility... (don't fall out of your chair)

My guess is they "all" didn't have a leg to stand on. The key word here is "guess". Dan fought the entire way to court, why stop now? Reality can be a sobering jolt...
Chip it really does kill you not knowing huh...

Jon

Since you're speculating as well; I'd "guess" that perhaps there is the same possibility that Dan may have won his case which would have put a huge spike in the "new business model" of SC. That translates to thousands of dollars and well worth a single "gimme" wouldn't you agree?



No, it doesn't... but as I said, I'll ask. I'm not afraid of any answer and would you like to "speculate" or even "guess" that there will be a confidentiality agreement? Why would that be necessary if there is one?....

Ever bother to ask a music publisher if the very tracks you play are licensed or do you simply believe everything a manufacturer tells you?

The question I asked Chip is; Dan fought all the way to court, every step of the way, why stop now? His past behavior would be to fight to the end if he had even a slim chance of winning...
And yes it does kill you not knowing

Jon

Stop speculating!!!! I know and will let Y'all know when Dan says I can or he comes here himself and tells you.

@Joe....Your quite welcome

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

Ask yourself if SC would continue fighting if they "had even a slim chance of losing?"

Which side has/had more on the line to lose?

And what does "Dan fought all the way to court" supposed to mean? It never saw a courtroom and it never saw a jury and it never got a ruling on a point of law.

If you look at the court records, both sides have spent a lot of time doing exactly nothing.... one delay after another and some were not their fault.

Let's wait for the story to surface..... unless there's some agreement preventing that which would quite interesting in itself.

Chip you kill me, "Let's wait for the story to surface" you say now. That's my point. Your so quick to fire shots at SC on zero facts, and that is a pattern of yours...The only fact is they settled out of court, nothing else needs to be said. However you feel the need to bring up all your suspicious ideas once agian...Please, we've heard them before.

Jon