Karaoke Forums

I'm not baiting/deflecting/extrapolating anything.

You stated you "help pirates" right?

You also stated you also make some money off of them, right?

Do you report them first?

Have you ever stated that YOU report ANY pirates?

Not that I can see -- but you certainly demand for everyone ELSE to report them.

Shall we move on now?

I can't answer the first one, but as to the second one, yes, I am absolutely saying that. I put it in a court filling, too. We don't have anything to hide regarding our licenses. They were produced, and CAVS's counsel lied to the court and said they weren't. And you, suffering as you do from SC Derangement Syndrome, bought their lie and repeated it.

Chip - The burden of proof is on you. Prove that I said what you claim.

.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Then that's good. Nothing ticks me off more than an untruth filed in any court, especially a Federal Court.



The personal name-calling is beneath you Counselor. You don't know me nor do you know if I "suffer" from anything. I'm sure if I did that to you, I'd be reprimanded by administration.

And it appears as though you're simply projecting what you'd LIKE to see: I haven't "bought their lie" or anything else, I simply reported what was filed and I've not seen any documentation to the contrary.

If you'd like to point me to the document where you refute the accusation, I'd be happy to report that as well. However to date, I've not come across it. (searching for me is not free)

I have discs for all my tracks.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Chip - I am still waiting.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

I'm going to assume that you did not mean that federal courts are more deserving of truth than are state courts. We agree on the larger point, in any event, and I will even extend it beyond court. I happen to think that honesty is the best policy, that sunlight is the best disinfectant for bad ideas, and that nothing is gained by hiding the truth.



Sure. My statement was in document 23, in footnote 2 (which I think is on page 2, but I don't have the as-filed copy in front of me). The text from the footnote was:



Apparently CAVS's attorney took great umbrage at being called a liar, so in Document 24, he responded with an (against-the-rules) declaration, together with copies of our email traffic that precisely proved my point, which was that we had produced the documents. ("Production" simply requires making the documents available for inspection and copying as they are kept--see Rule 34--and does NOT require us to make copies or engage in a hunt for documents.) The language indicating production of the documents is on page 13 of Document 24: "You are welcome to inspect and copy (at your expense) the contract files in question on an 'outside attorneys' eyes only' basis, consistent with the protective order. They are located at the offices of Slep-Tone ... ." That email was sent on 10/27, well in advance of CAVS's response deadline (11/11).

As for "name-calling," I hasten to point out that I have not called you a name; rather, I have given a name to the affliction you suffer from. (I use the term "suffer" in the sense of being afflicted, not necessarily that you're under any particular paid.) Of course, I'm not a medical professional, but to a layperson, the description seems apt, and here's why:

You claim that you haven't "bought the lie," but that's not precisely true. You didn't merely ask whether we had--as they contended--refused to produce the documents in question. You instructed Chris to ask, and I quote:



A question of that type assumes the premise--that we refused to produce the licenses--to be true, meaning that you have accepted CAVS's premise (or, as I put it, "bought the lie").

That by itself might not be enough to convince an objective reader that you "bought the lie." Fortunately for my position, you continued:



There you've dropped the pretense of "report and ask." You've stated outright that we "won't prove that the very product [we've] been selling...was even legal to start with." You're reporting CAVS's contention as fact.

And even that wouldn't be enough to conclude that you're deranged about SC, except that you've made a point of running with that supposed fact to draw larger conclusions that are just utterly false and completely unfounded. You've decided that because we "refused to produce" the licenses (even though we actually did produce them), we couldn't possibly have a good reason for doing so (such as that those licenses are highly sensitive business information, or that the licenses require confidentiality, or that they simply aren't relevant to whether SC is subject to personal jurisdiction in California), and that the licenses must not exist at all (even though we provided a list of the California-based licensors to CAVS in discovery, and they discussed that list in their briefing). Simply put, there were several points at which a reasonable person might have turned back and said, hey, maybe I shouldn't throw around a highly inflammatory accusation without having evidence (as opposed to the absence of evidence) to back it up. At every one of those points, you broke against SC.

That, I think, is enough to put a Q.E.D. at the end. But to it I will simply add that when you assume bad faith at every turn, when you draw every inference against your opponent, when you let your imagination run wild, those are signs that your position has slipped the bonds of rationality that confine the arguments of reasonable people and begun to run amok.

For the record, I have given up hope that you will ever see anything relating to SC fairly, but there are a lot of casual readers who have not yet made up their minds.

Or stating an untruth. Just ask Rodney I'm sure it makes him upset too.




The personal name-calling is beneath you Counselor. You don't know me nor do you know if I "suffer" from anything. I'm sure if I did that to you, I'd be reprimanded by administration.





Thank you for pointing that out. And as I read the text, I can't help but wonder why there was a protective order or "eyes only" for a bunch of old licenses? It's not like SC produces music currently and it's of no use to any competitors.



That's right; you are not a "medical professional" so unless your description is part of a medical diagnosis (which it ain't) it's nothing more than name-calling not matter how you want to back-peddle and white-wash it with paragraphs of drivel to cover it up. Why is it that it seems you are the one to stoop to this sort of activity at every opportunity? Can you provide any examples where I've called you names at all? Invented names for imaginary illnesses I believe you to be suffering from? Did they teach you in law school that this type of behavior is acceptable? These are schoolyard ploys to bait only. Please refrain from it in the future.

[/quote]

"Fairly" meaning specifically "Your way."

There are plenty of "casual readers" that have made up their minds. Some for, some against and some on the fence. I don't control them. But if I were to speculate, I'd have to say with the continued actions of your client, that the ranks of cheerleading squad is quietly becoming thinner.

Harrington - 9
Chip - 1

This boxing match should be called as clearly there is a great disparity in weight class.

There you go again. SC does produce music currently.

There was a protective order because we were dealing with a LOT of highly sensitive business information. It was not specifically directed to the licenses, although it did also apply to the licenses. This may be hard for you to understand, but the licenses themselves do have value to competitors because, among other things, they state the terms on which the works are licensed. In the hands of a competitor, they could be used to negotiate pricing for licenses on more favorable terms.



I guess I struck a nerve. (I mean that in the rhetorical sense, not the medical one.) As for SC Derangement Syndrome, it may not be an illness but it is certainly not imaginary, either.

I too have given up hope. I reviewed this thread (as well as some other forums and the Old Jolters FB page) and noted that Chip's M.O. Is to write a massive responses to even short statements in an attempt to bury the original intent alltogether, or, force someone into the weeds with irrelevant ramblings.

Like Athena, I am choosing to stop responding to Chip's rants - with one exception - and I will employ Chip's M.O. for this -

Chip - You still have not proven that I said what you claimed.

Furthermore, it appears that you are simply ignoring my request for you to do so. Or, more likely, you are scouring my posts for some shread of something that you can twist to your advantage. The last scenario is that you realize you can't prove it, but you are not going to admit that because that would also be an admission that you fabricated a statement.



I unfortunately used the word "extrapolation" which means to "to come to a conclusion or opinion using known facts". Since I asked you to prove your point without using extrapolation, I suppose I gave you free reign to use "conjecture" to "form a judment or opinion on the basis of incomplete or inconclusive information" which is EXACTLY what you did.

Regardless, It should have been a simple matter for you to go back through the thread, find the statement you claim I made, and quote it. What you actually did was....



Deflection - Does not deal directly or even indirectly with proving I made the statement you claim.
Conjecture - This is what I have come to recognize as The Chip Staley Qenerated Quote. Something you are quite fond of doing when quoting the OP does not suit your argument. Nowhere have I said "I help pirates" as a blanket statement.

In the whole context of this thread, I have stated that I am helping illegal hosts that have approached me.



Deflection - Does not deal directly or even indirectly with proving I made the statement you claim.



Deflection - Does not deal directly or even indirectly with proving I made the statement you claim.



In this thread I made the following statements -




Also, accounting for the tone I have set in this thread (and others), it is pretty clear that I do report pirates.

For the record - I, Chris Avis, have and do report known and and suspected pirates.



Deflection - See above
Fabrication - I don't demand that everyone else report pirates. I stated that legal hosts are part of the problem if they look the other way. I take issue - strongly - with legal hosts that look the other way. Whether they do or not is their choice.



No, we shall not.

I did an extensive search on your posts looking for a declaration from you to the effect of "I am not a pirate" "I don't pirate" "I have never pirated" "I have no pirated tracks". I could find no such statements (not saying they don't exist, I just could not find them)

So.....



Chip, have you ever stated that YOU are NOT a pirate? You DON'T pirate? Have NEVER pirated? Have NO pirated tracks?

Since I could not find any statement from you declaring that you are not a pirate, don't pirate, have never pirated, have no pirated tracks, I am not sure what to think here.

Using your own logic, since I have no statement I can find to the contrary, I COULD come to the the conclusion that you are a pirate. If I don't use your logic, I MAY come to the conclusion that you are not.

If I also add in your refusal to audit, to get certified, that you don't report pirates, that you allow pirates to knowlingly operate in your area, your blistering disdain for Sound Choice, that you have pulled Sound Choice from your library (something that pirates do), the scales begin to overwhelming tip to one side.

I won't go so far as you did to fabricate anything, nor will I conclude that you must be a pirate simply because I can't find a statement to the contrary, but you could set the record straight very easily with a few words.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

What's another name for an "illegal host?"

Is it "alien?"

Is it "pirate?"

Now, who exactly is deflecting?

How many of these "illegal hosts" -that you are assisting - have you reported?

Because I know that it irks you when hosts "look the other way."



You're certainly not looking the other way... you're "helping"... right.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways Chris...

If you're "helping" someone "become legal" but you are allowing them to continue to operate ILLEGALLY in the process, then YOU are also part of the problem. In this case, you also make a little change off them in the process, right? The only ones getting screwed in your equation is the already legal KJ. People like Rodney....

You're helping pirates to keep their jobs while legal KJ's are getting screwed in the process, and you do it for a profit.

You can quit flag-waving anytime... I AM beyond it.

Really? Do you have a new product number? My understanding was that they were simply selling off old inventory.... I'll have to look now....




More bait counselor?

Harrington Did the Field investigators tell you SC made new Songs for us to use? I looked under new releases took me to the Anti Piracy video. Or do you mean the Useless KC music noone in their right mind would buy due to non commercial use.?

After reading 3 pages of this I'm amazed that:

1. The mods let it go on this long as nothing that has been said in the last 3 pages have anything to do with the original post.

2. That Chip hasn't stated that one of the biggest reasons he doesn't stick his nose into "Pirate" business in his area is that he works in one of the most crime ridden areas of the country and could most likely get shot for doing such a thing. (I don't blame him as people here in TX get shot for even stupider things and is the biggest reason I don't do it either)

3. Harrison Law stated that SC is currently producing music. This may be true as they have studios that produce music for other things than Karaoke.
What should have been stated is that they are not producing any new Karaoke Music under the Sound Choice Name.
Who knows what music they are producing and selling to other manufactures that make Karaoke!

_________________
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

"Oooh! That will leave a mark!"- C. Staley

Surely you aren't going to ignore this, are you Chip?

Chip - Your silence speaks volumes. I have come to my conclusion about what you are.

My apologies to the OP and the rest of the forum for taking the bait and letting it get this far.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Why thank you Chris.... I AM THE OP.....

Your apology is accepted.... (now play nice!)

Why wont you answer his question(s)?

I want to take a screen shot of your response so I can pull it out in 14 years.

I'm not about to take that bait.




"Chip is my hero!" -- Bazza