|
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
| Author |
Message |
|
JimHarrington
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:21 pm |
|
 |
| Extreme Poster |
 |
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
|
Alan B wrote: I don't understand. I thought the Gem Series was supposed to be licensed and fully legal.
It is. Unfortunately, when a plaintiff is unburdened by the need to adhere to facts and sees a pot of insurance money that's far bigger than what it could make through licensing, this is what you get.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Brian A
|
Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:07 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:43 pm
Posts: 3912
Images: 13
Been Liked: 1672 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: Alan B wrote: I don't understand. I thought the Gem Series was supposed to be licensed and fully legal.
It is. Unfortunately, when a plaintiff is unburdened by the need to adhere to facts and sees a pot of insurance money that's far bigger than what it could make through licensing, this is what you get. No disrespect, but why is this statement sounds so familiar? 
_________________
To be fortunate enough to derive an income from a source as fulfilling as karaoke music has got to be as close to heaven as we can get here on earth!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:13 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
|
Brian A wrote: HarringtonLaw wrote: Alan B wrote: I don't understand. I thought the Gem Series was supposed to be licensed and fully legal.
It is. Unfortunately, when a plaintiff is unburdened by the need to adhere to facts and sees a pot of insurance money that's far bigger than what it could make through licensing, this is what you get. No disrespect, but why is this statement sounds so familiar? I honestly have no idea. If you're somehow trying to imply that we do something similar, I'll respond by saying that we have always kept our settlement demands at around the retail cost of doing the right thing plus the cost of forcing us to go through the courts, and not more. And the people we seek these sorts of settlements from are actually using the music without paying for it. You don't see us going after insured parties and demanding seven-figure policy-limit settlements from defendants who actually did pay for the music.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
birdofsong
|
Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 2:01 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:25 am
Posts: 965
Been Liked: 118 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: It is. Unfortunately, when a plaintiff is unburdened by the need to adhere to facts and sees a pot of insurance money that's far bigger than what it could make through licensing, this is what you get. If it truly is licensed, then perhaps you can tell us why is it that SC hasn't obtained a routine dismissal in the 2+ years the case has been pending?
_________________
Birdofsong
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Paradigm Karaoke
|
Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:40 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm
Posts: 5107
Location: Phoenix Az
Been Liked: 1279 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: Paradigm Karaoke wrote: if anything, i do feel bad for Jim, i'm giving benefit of the doubt that he did not see everything before walking into a joint venture in PEP and in the end he will have to pay his share of the settlement. I do not own any part of PEP, nor am I part of a "joint venture in PEP." i thought filing a CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT was only for those owning 10% or more stock in the company. http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/pdf/forms/interested_cert.pdfdid i misunderstand?
_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:01 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
|
|
That's the general federal rule, but the Northern District of Texas requires a more much expansive disclosure.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:06 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
|
birdofsong wrote: HarringtonLaw wrote: It is. Unfortunately, when a plaintiff is unburdened by the need to adhere to facts and sees a pot of insurance money that's far bigger than what it could make through licensing, this is what you get. If it truly is licensed, then perhaps you can tell us why is it that SC hasn't obtained a routine dismissal in the 2+ years the case has been pending? Because a motion to dismiss assumes the truth of the allegations in the complaint, regardless of whether there is evidentiary support.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Paradigm Karaoke
|
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 3:14 am |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm
Posts: 5107
Location: Phoenix Az
Been Liked: 1279 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: That's the general federal rule, but the Northern District of Texas requires a more much expansive disclosure. what did i miss? the link i posted was specifically from Texas.
_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 3:38 am |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
|
Paradigm Karaoke wrote: HarringtonLaw wrote: That's the general federal rule, but the Northern District of Texas requires a more much expansive disclosure. what did i miss? the link i posted was specifically from Texas. "A complete list of all persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, guarantors, insurers, affiliates, parent or subsidiary corporations, or other legal entities that are financially interested in the outcome of the case:" That list is clearly not limited to owners.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Smoothedge69
|
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 12:28 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am
Posts: 3885
Images: 0
Been Liked: 397 times
|
|
They are out for blood!! So, that tells me that SOMETHING your client did REALLY pissed these people off!!
_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:19 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
|
Smoothedge69 wrote: They are out for blood!! So, that tells me that SOMETHING your client did REALLY pissed these people off!! Apparently what we did was buy an insurance policy.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Smoothedge69
|
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:51 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am
Posts: 3885
Images: 0
Been Liked: 397 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: Smoothedge69 wrote: They are out for blood!! So, that tells me that SOMETHING your client did REALLY pissed these people off!! Apparently what we did was buy an insurance policy. The mighty Sound Choice, who never does anything wrong. It's funny that all of a sudden you are in trouble with everyone!!
_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 218 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
