Karaoke Forums

Not only completely false ( What would he be spreading fear OF? He did offer documentation of his statements, though...) but completely unneccesary to state here in the first place, especially since he isn't here to defend himself.

Kind of disappointing Chris- I've always held you to a higher standard than that....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

I understand your position. I don't make a habit of invoking his name. In fact I would rather not. But as it pertained to the conversation I felt it was an appropriate example. Chip brings me up in the Old Jolters FB forum on occasion. In the last couple of weeks even. I don't have access to respond there either. Difference being I left the Old Jolters voluntarily and on my terms. He can't say the same for here.

I didn't say anything I have not said before directly to him in one of his posts or said anything that isn't true. If you want the truth, go back and read his posts. The uninformed reader would come to believe that anyone that even considers playing a Sound Choice track in public will be slapped with a lawsuit.

I promise, I will not be bring him up with any regularity.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Link please.

_________________
-- Mark

While I know you were up front, the question remains:

"Not only completely false ( What would he be spreading fear OF?" Yes, he gave the impression that anyone playing SC in public could be sued- for good reason. OMD hosts were sued- so he was accurate. Not spreading fear-stating facts. The fear-spreading ( to the point- in my area, at least, was done by SC, making- in many cases- their label unuseable by order of several venues).

Insane: No need for ME to link- he did that himself in his posts, with links to legal documentation.

Gotta tell you, Insane- after observing over the last several years, it is my considered opinion that SC's.......um,....-legal department?- could screw up an ice cream cone.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Excuse me isn't Chip or me for that matter Chris just reacting to SC's legal process image? Hasn't SC worked hard to create the illusion that their investigators are nation wide, and that if you as a host are using the product, say on a PC without permission you run the risk of a lawsuit? If there is any fear out here hasn't it been SC that has promoted the idea? It SC that is creating the idea of emergency and that the host must act today to avert a legal lawsuit. If prudent hosts react to this by boycotting the SC product whose fault it that? It is SC's because of their suits drive sales business model. While it is true even a host that considers playing SC track will probably not be slapped with a lawsuit, as a business owner why run the risk? There is plenty or other material just as good or better than can be used and no risk attaches. Some hosts just have a risk aversion, like some people don't gamble. I once told you any business decision was alright it was up to you as the owner/operator to make those choices. Please allow others to make their decisions as well, without trying to read too much into them. It is a no win situation with you Chris, if we don't take SC seriously we a trivializing their efforts. If we take them seriously and take proactive measures to protect ourselves and our business's from the possibility of a suit we are over reacting. I take the old saying serious "An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure".


P.S. I just read that Jimbo says more lawyers will be coming online to handle more suits. See who is beating the drum of fear now Chris. If hosts react you can't blame them SC is driving this fear in order to sell their product. Just like "The Music Man" Jimbo aka Professor Harold Hill, telling everybody there is big trouble in River City. The way you can fix it is to buy what is being sold and join the band, in the SC parade.

It is exactly his positioning of how OMD hosts were sued that ties to the FUD statement. The informed people know that of several hundred lawsuits files, only a 1/2 dozen were against OMD hosts and they were all dropped and resolved quickly with ZERO impact on the hosts. Yet those hosts were continuously held up as an example of how inept Sound Choice was. That is FUD.

The reality of it is you will probably not get sued unless you meet EVERY ONE of the following conditions -

Work in a major city and it's greater metro area with.....
A high population density and thus higher density of hosts and.....
Run from a computer

Even then, the odds are still relatively low.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

I don't know about ZERO IMPACT. Does anyone know if Rodney B. ever got reimbursed the legal fees he had to pay for a Lawyer when he was sued (before the case was dropped by SC)? I never asked him, and I don't recall Rodney ever posting anything about the after-math, except that SC dropped the case. I do recall Rodney posting how much he had to spend in Legal Fees tho. Either way, it is NOT ZERO IMPACT, when you have to take the time to consult with a Lawyer, and pay for his/her legal advise and representation.

The only problem I have with this statement is that it wasn't a half-dozen. It was one.

And one is TOO MANY!!!

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

My apologies. I was under the impression there were a handful of disc based hosts that were named. Chalk that up to me actually accepting what the anti-SC folks have to say. FUD.

If it is only 1 (and apparently that would be Rodney) then we are up to speed and here are the corrections.....



I stand corrected here. I do recall now that Rodney had legal fees. So there was a financial impact there. My zero impact statement has more to do with loss of business or losing gigs as a result of being incorrectly named. It does suck that he had out-of-pocket expenses, but with all due respect to Rodney, it is still one case out of hundreds.

Also.....

_________________
-Chris

With all due respect, ANY well-educated business person knows that minimizing risk is an integral part of doing business. In other words, ANY good business person will have a "risk aversion" if they have any idea how a business is supposed to be run. It's a matter of HOW they do it.....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Disagree. First and foremost, ANY case where SC could not produce evidence of wrongdoing, or cases dismissed could be included- and there are LOTS of those. As a matter of fact, unless evidence could be produced ( and it couldn't) ALL such hosts were not only innocent of wrongdoing, but could have been OMD- since no one ever witnessed differently. If they had, evidence would have been forthcoming. How many cases involved plaintiffs where they offered to be audited and SC refused- like Taka- O?

Sorry, but I don't think one is the total count. As a matter of fact I KNOW that at LEAST one of the NJ hosts named- in the suit that also got screwed up by SC through APS- was original disc based- with no PC anywhere ( hence, no one ever investigated) as he's a friend of mine. Don't get me wrong, I also know at least one true pirate (track thief) named, but she's still in business thanks to SC's managerial skills- or lack thereof- having faced no penalties at all. Since SC never investigated my OMD buddy's show, they probably wouldn't have had any evidence against the real pirate either....

...And before someone once again heaps all the blame on APS' shoulders, please keep in mind that they were subcontracted by SC. If SC either mis-managed or didn't manage them at all, they are equally responsible. They were also on these forums and made aware of APS' actions a LONG time before they separated ways- not that it this forum should have made the difference- any decent manager would have been constantly aware of all actions from day one.. Ignorance of actions won't cover it either.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Is Taka-O running from discs at their show? I am pretty sure that is the common understanding of what an OMD host is.

You also used my original quote, not my updated quote which is the accurate one.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

As far as Taka-O, they had the discs- which is what SC wants- but SC refused to view them.

Sorry if I was under some misunderstanding regarding your quote.

Still hope all is well with you...

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Citation please.

_________________
-- Mark

Don't need one- SC lost the case, proving the statement that they had the discs. Sc produced no evidence in court to the contrary. Good enough for the courts, good enough for you and me.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Back up your statement that "SC refused to view them" with a citation please. Where is the proof that they refused to view them?

_________________
-- Mark

Contained within the statements made by Taka-O, to which the judge did not disagree, hence, the SC loss.

You KNOW where it is- go get it yourself.


BTW- feel free to post a citation containing any proof or indication that Steve Brophy- who seems to be at his offices and can be reached by phone- is hiding, as you constantly infer...

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

His "office" is a mailbox in a UPS Store.

Joe, posting citations are for the readership, not for me. If you can not back up your blather, I would say it is best for you to keep quiet. I have seen many on this forum comment, and prove, that most of the time you make stuff up. I want the readership to understand that what you have to say on these forums are pretty useless.

For your education, this is how to make a post with citations to back up claims.

You will notice on APS's website, that they have removed the Carefree Hwy address:

http://apsprotection.com/

The address of APS and Associates 3120 W Carefree Highway, Suite 1-301 Phoenix, AZ 85086 appears on the letter they sent to KJ's regarding piracy on behalf of Slep Tone here:

http://www.pdf-archive.com/2013/09/18/t ... stigation/

You will find Brophy's company advertises as Associated Protective Services as well at the link below with the same address without the Suite #:

http://companies.findthecompany.com/l/1 ... Phoenix-AZ

Next, the link below is the UPS Store 3120 W Carefree Highway, Suite 1, Phoenix, AZ 85086 - (NOTE: At a UPS Store the -301 after the Suite# is the Mail Box inside the store)

http://www.theupsstorelocal.com/4120/



Also APS lists the company here with Brophy's home address. (If you GoogleMap this address, you will find it in a residential area - I have a screencap of the GoogleMap image but that may be against forum rules for me to post the image of his house - the addresses I have provided have come from public advertisement, which of course, I have given citations.)

Associated Protective Service 35413 N 30th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85086-2120 - Steve Brophy, Owner

http://www.manta.com/c/mt5vrqc/associat ... ve-service

And then again here with a P.O. Box:

Associated Protective Service PO Box 1126 Phoenix, AZ 85086

http://www.scottsdalebizlist.com/business/34908.htm



As I have pointed out to you Joe, to be served you can not do it over the phone, one must physically deliver the summons or get a court order to "Serve By Publication" as has been rendered on September 12th 2013 as cited here: (This link needs to be cut and pasted. For some reason it will not work if you click on it.)

http://www.publicnoticeads.com/AZ/search/view.asp?T=PN&id=29\9122013_20594421.HTM

I do not know if Slep-Tone has tried serving Brophy at the residential address but it looks to me that Brophy is avoiding this lawsuit like a plague considering a court order for "service by publication" had to be issued. Just like you avoiding backing up your claims with citations, avoiding service of this lawsuit really shows Mr. Brophy's true character in my opinion and it sounds like you both have something in common, a lack of credibility.

_________________
-- Mark