|
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
| Author |
Message |
|
c. staley
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:14 pm |
|
 |
| Extreme Poster |
 |
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
MrBoo wrote: Maybe Chip could provide the publisher and songs in question to SC for them to do their own due diligence on. At that point, he would be "upfront" with the info without making it public. I would think the name and the songs in question would be enough. At that point, SC would probably already know the rest of the story. There is no "due diligence" required. These are statements from publishers.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Lonman
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:15 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22978
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2126 times
|
c. staley wrote: MrBoo wrote: Maybe Chip could provide the publisher and songs in question to SC for them to do their own due diligence on. At that point, he would be "upfront" with the info without making it public. I would think the name and the songs in question would be enough. At that point, SC would probably already know the rest of the story. There is no "due diligence" required. These are statements from publishers. Okay doke!  We can't even check for ourselves on the song in question since even it wasn't named, so it really means nothing. _________________ LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:23 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
Lonman wrote: Okay doke! We can't even check for ourselves on the song in question, so it really means nothing. That's fine. But I don't believe you can check for yourself that Harrington actually does all the investigations they claim right? Also means nothing.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
timberlea
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:23 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 4094
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
Been Liked: 309 times
|
|
"There is no "due diligence" required. These are statements from publishers."
So you say.
_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:27 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
timberlea wrote: "There is no "due diligence" required. These are statements from publishers."
So you say. I do.
Last edited by c. staley on Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lonman
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:27 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22978
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2126 times
|
c. staley wrote: Lonman wrote: Okay doke! We can't even check for ourselves on the song in question, so it really means nothing. That's fine. But I don't believe you can check for yourself that Harrington actually does all the investigations they claim right? Also means nothing. Whatever. _________________ LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:19 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
Lonman wrote: c. staley wrote: Lonman wrote: Okay doke! We can't even check for ourselves on the song in question, so it really means nothing. That's fine. But I don't believe you can check for yourself that Harrington actually does all the investigations they claim right? Also means nothing. Whatever. Seriously Lonnie, what is there "to check?" Where is there to "check" anything? You want to contact a publisher to just ask; "Did you really say that?" Do you want them to send you some sort of affidavit? What will satisfy your curiosity? Do you "check" with KJ's that get investigated to see if it really happened? There's nothing to check.... is there?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lonman
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:01 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22978
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2126 times
|
|
Whatever you say there chief. Kind of a double standard, you want everyone to show facts but you just show hidden names and your word only that it was stated by a publisher. Don't care about anyone else or any other incidents, we are talking your OP only.
_________________ LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
birdofsong
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:04 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:25 am
Posts: 965
Been Liked: 118 times
|
Lone Wolf wrote: timberlea wrote: Exactly what facts. It would be like me saying I have the private phone number to a world leader and he or she consults with me before he makes a decision.
One can make any statement they want but it doesn't mean it is a fact. So to use your words "back it up". You brought it up, it is yours to prove.
If your response is going to be you won't or don't or research it yourself, then I will quote Penn & Teller "BULLS#!T". Wow you don't give up do you!!!! I'm sure that Chip has the emails to back up what he has posted or it could be construed as Libelous as it was directed right at SC. I'm sure that he is not looking for a law suit. OH yea if you have those private phone numbers of that world leader please call them an tell them to....Oh never mind I know you don't have them, unlike Chip who DOES have the information he posted! Yes, he does. And they say what he says they do. I've seen them.
_________________
Birdofsong
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
timberlea
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:38 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 4094
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
Been Liked: 309 times
|
|
And right on schedule, wifey to the rescue.
_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lonman
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:41 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22978
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2126 times
|
birdofsong wrote: Lone Wolf wrote: timberlea wrote: Exactly what facts. It would be like me saying I have the private phone number to a world leader and he or she consults with me before he makes a decision.
One can make any statement they want but it doesn't mean it is a fact. So to use your words "back it up". You brought it up, it is yours to prove.
If your response is going to be you won't or don't or research it yourself, then I will quote Penn & Teller "BULLS#!T". Wow you don't give up do you!!!! I'm sure that Chip has the emails to back up what he has posted or it could be construed as Libelous as it was directed right at SC. I'm sure that he is not looking for a law suit. OH yea if you have those private phone numbers of that world leader please call them an tell them to....Oh never mind I know you don't have them, unlike Chip who DOES have the information he posted! Yes, he does. And they say what he says they do. I've seen them. Okay doke! Would be nice not to hide the info (again talking the OP and nothing and no one else). _________________ LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
MrBoo
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:08 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:35 am
Posts: 1945
Been Liked: 427 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: One thing that is virtually guaranteed is that Chip isn't posting the whole truth.
If Chip were genuinely concerned about this issue, instead of just interested in creating negative feelings toward SC, he would contact me or Kurt about these things. By hiding the name of the publisher from us, he guarantees that we can't provide a substantive response. That tells me that he doesn't want a substantive response...and feel free to speculate about why that is. And what makes all this counter productive is not getting a substantive response from SC, There are a lot of people out there that would like to see the entire picture and I feel strongly that we haven't. They may already know the story without having to know the pub or the songs but all this does is provide an out because they can say, "we don't know which pub or songs you are talking about" This is almost on par with the republicans Democratsrats with the pointing fingers and the he said she said. Meanwhile we are screwed either way and have zero explaination why.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
earthling12357
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:37 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 11:21 pm
Posts: 1609
Location: Earth
Been Liked: 307 times
|
Some things are nice to know, but it has already been established that we don't need to know everything.... viewtopic.php?f=26&t=22072&p=309452&hilit=attorney+privilege#p309452HarringtonLaw wrote: cueball wrote: Could you elaborate on how you or your investigators obtain that kind of information? Unfortunately, no. That would get into investigative methods, and we don't talk about that because (a) it's subject to attorney work-product immunity (similar to the attorney-client privilege) and (b) it would undermine the effectiveness of the methods. The information is obtained through fully legal means. TriceraSoft1 wrote: As much as you want that, it is confidential - viewtopic.php?f=26&t=21782&p=303135&hilit=confidential#p303135Wall Of Sound wrote: Paradigm Karaoke wrote: W.O.S., how much was the fee you paid to SC for permission? No disrespect intended Paradigm, but that info I am going to consider confidential considering it was on the paperwork and not listed publicly like CB has on their website. However, I will tell you that a dollar amount is required to do an audit. A flat rate for the first 3 hours then an hourly rate after that. I would think that anyone who contacts SC for an audit, or even just asks the question, can get SC's audit fee structure directly from them. HarringtonLaw wrote: Second City Song wrote: With all this talk about suing KJ's, I found this thread interesting.
Is there any more news on what has gone on with this case and what the protective order means? Slep-Tone filed a motion to dismiss based upon a lack of personal jurisdiction, since the suit was filed in California and all of Slep-Tone's operations are based in North Carolina. CAVS is being given the opportunity to conduct limited discovery on the subject of personal jurisdiction. Because that discovery involves examining highly confidential business records, the parties agreed to a protective order that prevents those records from being publicly disclosed. CAVS has not yet responded to the motion but will do so soon. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the substantive aspects of the suit, but you are welcome to obtain copies of the pleadings to see precisely what our position is regarding personal jurisdiction. Sound Choice wrote: JoeChartreuse wrote: Even I have no problems with this one. A distributor gets nailed? Hell, I'll even do Athena's Happy Dance...
Unfortunately, unless jail is an option, she WILL be back, and others like her. The threat of jail is one reason why she agreed to certain terms (they are confidential). Yes, she is the FIRST of such characters to fall. And yes we are beginning to comb through her records now. For obvious reasons we are being very secretive about our actions and won't make any comments about any "victories" (even when they become public, like this one) since some potential defendants may be tied together. As far as "being back", since there is a permanent injunction against her, any violation against a court order would be in contempt of court and we would ask the judge to be harsh with her - which could include jail time if the judge wanted to rule that way. Stealing from another citizen or company is one thing, but pissing off the judge and not respecting the Court is much worse in the eyes of most judges. HarringtonLaw wrote: earthling12357 wrote: While nothing can be done about past agreements, Soundchoice has the ability to unilaterally change the way the agreements are made in the future so that the names of those who take the exit agreement can be published. It makes sense to do this so that other KJs can help police their own areas. While your position on this will be taken into consideration for future agreements, I am not prepared at this point to commit to a "non-confidential" requirement for those settlement agreements. Are you questioning the integrity of the information in the original post simply because Chip is the one who posted it? Sure, I would like to know the names of the artist and the publisher, and if I were curious enough I would write to the publishers to find out for myself (after all, there are only a few to write to). Minus the names, I don't find the rest of the information unbelievable. What concerns me about what I read there is not the names, or the legal exposure that may exist for soundchoice, it's the legal exposure that might exist for me and you based on the second quote from the publisher. That's the part I would be most interested in knowing more about.
_________________
KNOW THYSELF
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lonman
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:42 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22978
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2126 times
|
|
Again, could care less about anything else, talking this OP only. If I was interested in any of the others, I would ask them as well and have when I was interested.
But again, without any names, it really doesn't matter.
_________________ LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
earthling12357
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:01 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 11:21 pm
Posts: 1609
Location: Earth
Been Liked: 307 times
|
Again, you are focusing on the part about the songs, which really has no effect on us. That's something for soundchoice to worry about, but I doubt that they are losing any sleep over it. What about the part that says music publishers have not licensed their music for exploitation by KJs? That is something that could have an effect on us, and is not soundchoice specific. LARGE publishing house wrote: As far as Karaoke Jockeys, that’s a subject for debate. When we license our content to companies like Sound Choice its for those companies to sell their products directly to consumer with the understanding that the consumer uses for personal and private use only (Translation: not to be used in public settings). The music publishing companies have not provided rights to karaoke manufacturers for sales to KJs who then operate a business by exploiting those recordings.
_________________
KNOW THYSELF
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
birdofsong
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:36 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:25 am
Posts: 965
Been Liked: 118 times
|
timberlea wrote: And right on schedule, wifey to the rescue. Do you honestly think Chip needs rescuing? What I find predictable is that you discount everything he says because he's Chip, and everything I say because I'm his wife. It's a good thing neither of us could care less what you think. I am simply stating that I, in fact, personally read the e-mails (kind of a perk of being able to sit next to the guy). Believe it if you want. Don't if you don't. He's simply putting it out there, and I guarantee what he says is true. Do you think I'd let him say it if it weren't? I've been working in the legal field for over 18 years. I understand the concept of libel, and so does Chip. Both of us have entirely more integrity than that. Chip has proven, time after time, that he doesn't pull this stuff out of his rear. There is always real documentation. Anyway, the names of the publishers and even the songs are irrelevant to this conversation. What is relevant is the fact that not one, but two of them verified that something is rotten a lot closer than Denmark. You say you won't believe it unless he gives you names? I'd bet your right nut that you wouldn't believe it even if he gave you names, addresses and phone numbers. Why? Because he's Chip. It's not like it isn't a fact unless he proves it to you personally. As Lonnie said -- whatever.
_________________
Birdofsong
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
BruceFan4Life
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:20 pm |
|
|
| Super Duper Poster |
 |
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 10:03 pm
Posts: 2674
Location: Jersey
Been Liked: 160 times
|
|
I believe Chip and I'm not even a friend of his. I just believe that Sound Choice is a company that turned it's back on it's loyal customers and decided to look for every loop hole to continue selling things that they don't have all of the licenses to sell while complaining about indiviuals who do the same thing to them. Their attitude of "DO AS I SAY AND NOT AS I DO" is revolting to me.
It would be like Barry Bonds reporting someone for taking steroids. Geez!!!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
timberlea
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:20 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 4094
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
Been Liked: 309 times
|
|
And yet no criticism from you or hubby about PHM who has done the same thing, putting out product without proper licencing because they thought they would get it. That is the point. You try at every turn to crucify SC but give a pass to everyone else. It is this vehemence that both you and Chip (and others) show towards SC that negates most of what you say.
_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
BruceFan4Life
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:22 pm |
|
|
| Super Duper Poster |
|
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 10:03 pm
Posts: 2674
Location: Jersey
Been Liked: 160 times
|
|
But PHM isn't trying to bite the hands that fed it for years and years. It's Sound Choice's hypocrisy that gets people up in arms.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
birdofsong
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:50 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:25 am
Posts: 965
Been Liked: 118 times
|
timberlea wrote: And yet no criticism from you or hubby about PHM who has done the same thing, putting out product without proper licencing because they thought they would get it. That is the point. You try at every turn to crucify SC but give a pass to everyone else. It is this vehemence that both you and Chip (and others) show towards SC that negates most of what you say. Timberlea, The subject of the e-mails was specifically Sound Choice tracks. If Chip had brought PHM into this thread, he would have been making a statement without documentation, since the publishers' particular statements were with regard to Sound Choice specifically. It doesn't mean there aren't other manufacturers that have also fit into the same category -- but for the purposes of this particular thread, they are irrelevant. If he receives additional e-mails regarding other manufacturers, I'm sure he will post about those, as well.
_________________
Birdofsong
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 133 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
