Karaoke Forums

MtnKaraoke wrote:

Which leads us to today, as the game has changed.
The game changes, the rules change. That's life. Honestly, if their sales hadn't been decimated by thieves, you'd have never been effected by any of this and you'd still be buying and using their product.

No. It is not a moot point. No. SC has not decided what you are accusing them of.



Again, to assist you in comprehending, if SC's sales hadn't been decimated by thieves, this situation would NOT EXIST. Logically, in a scenario where piracy has not damaged the manufacturers' sales, they'd still be producing and updating their catalogs.



Sure there are suckers on eBay. I've never paid more than $5 on average for a DK disc. I own the original 1-99 and the 115 disc complete Encore/Millenium series. Actually, I own more than one of each of those sets. Truth is, I'm gonna watch for your eBay auctions and see how they do. When comparing the average price of an OOP series of collectible CD+G's to the average price of non-collectible (value) retail discs, you aren't making any sense.

MtnKaraoke wrote:

I also dealt with the "strange" disc that had been produced by Just Tracks, that I did not own, in a manner that would demonstrate by transparency, that I did not COPY their material or the tracks that Dell (the singer) had asked me to play from the disc that he, not I, possessed.

Demonstrate by transparency precludes fear.

MtnKaraoke wrote:

Comprehension, c. staley. Understanding what you are reading is paramount when discussing any subject with intelligence.

I'm nothing less than a man. I don't think you're stupid. I think that your response to my post indicated that you did not comprehend my post.

MtnKaraoke wrote:

Nobody is whining here. You and Birdofsong are attempting to equate business and legal matters with acts of pulling down your pants, bending over, being snookered up the wazoo, and or getting a bug up your rear end. You are both capable of making your point without these blatant, disparaging in their intent, references. If you politely refrain from using these offensive, idiomatic expressions when replying directly to me, I'll not mention your strange pre-occupation again.

When you are replying specifically to me and insinuating that someone is being bent over or snookered or pulling down their pants am I supposed to conclude that you don't mean me? Who do you mean then? Why is it necessary to use buggery based references when you could just as easily say "taking advantage of" or your "illegal search".


Don't concern yourself with my ego. You are irrelevant and have no effect.



I submit for your consideration:

c. staley | Post subject: Re: Gem series, legality of SC lawsuits, and copyright vs trademark Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:56 am

"...Those that lease the Gem series have been snookered up the wazoo..."

Whose terminology?

You can remove your foot from your mouth now. Looks like a nasty case of athlete's-tongue.

I couldn't agree more Sandman. You put it very well. I can not understand why professional KJs could be so indignant, as you put it, against the efforts to try to rid karaoke piracy.

The costs for the amount of time & effort these two put into refuting the efforts of SC & CB in their anti-piracy policies, would probably amount monetarily to much more than audit fees assessed by CB & SC combined.

I submit for your consideration:

Mtn, I wouldn't worry about it. I'm sure that in the past couple of weeks the members of this board are mature enough to see what's what and who's who.

"Much more" is the operative phrase, but I'll permit you - in the interest of "fighting piracy" to pay for it since it is such and insignificant annoyance.

Forward your check anytime...

Tell you what c. staley. I am going to make you a sincere offer right now.

If you will allow me to, I will pay the audit fee in full directly to SC after you allow them and Sound Choice agrees to perform an audit. You must pass the audit with 100% compliance.

What do you say?

XXXXXXXXXX
X LIKE X
XXXXXXXXXX

Sandman good posts I like just remember not to feed the TROLLS

Tell you what c. staley. I am going to make you a sincere offer right now.

If you will allow me to, I will pay the audit fee in full directly to SC after you allow them and Sound Choice agrees to perform an audit. You must pass the audit with 100% compliance.

What do you say?

Now, you couldn't get permission to copy their trademark even if you wanted it. Seems to me that you've cut off your nose to spite your face. I can only assume you are going to do the same when CB and Stellar come calling.

Yeah, that's a shame.

I'll pay for c. staley's CB audit if the SC audit is passed with 100% compliance within 5 business days from today, July 24th 2011 ~

Wall and Sandman,
so guys what excuse did Chip give to refuse you kind offers ? or will I be shocked and find out he accepted ?

Chip's answer is above.

[Tell you what c. staley. I am going to make you a sincere offer right now.

If you will allow me to, I will pay the audit fee in full directly to SC after you allow them and Sound Choice agrees to perform an audit. You must pass the audit with 100% compliance.

What do you say?

Pay SC? The offer should have been to pay C. his minimum fee for an event- to compensate for his time and effort- and SC should get zip. That would be a more sensible offer.

I would "chip" in on this.

I would "chip" in on this.

I couldn't agree more Sandman. You put it very well. I can not understand why professional KJs could be so indignant, as you put it, against the efforts to try to rid karaoke piracy.

The costs for the amount of time & effort these two put into refuting the efforts of SC & CB in their anti-piracy policies, would probably amount monetarily to much more than audit fees assessed by CB & SC combined.