Karaoke Forums

No.

The key point is that the discs--the physical thing Clark sells--are actually authorized by the publishers in Australia. The first-sale doctrine prevents the publishers from prohibiting the importation of authorized discs into the U.S. under copyright laws. (The key case is Quality King Distributors Inc. v. L'anza Research International Inc., 523 U.S. 135 (1998).)

Downloads, on the other hand, require the making of a new copy as the delivery mechanism, and the first-sale doctrine does not apply.

Of course, if the UK downloads were actually licensed by the publishers, they would be fine to use. I don't know whether they are or not.

I'm actually quite happy, because what you've posted here is a non-denial, which is nearly as good as an admission.

I asked you a direct question, and instead of answering it, you're given a non-answer.



I agree that the answer was in front of everyone, but not in the same way you think.



1. There is no reason to explain why SC would allow Clark "to 'not legally' sell SC branded music back here to the U.S." because SC does not "allow" any such thing.

2. I have explained on numerous occasions that the GEM series discs can be legally distributed in the U.S. because they were purchased and imported at a time when the MCPS licensing regime allowed for worldwide distribution. SC has ample stock available to last for a long time, fully licensed and ready to go. The fact that the license changed later does not have any impact on the past licensing.

I have answered your question and you of all people understand that a "non-denial" is not an admission as evidenced by your own words of; "nearly as good." Just as "nearly as stupid as a rock" doesn't mean anyone (eh-hem) is as stupid as a rock, "nearly killed" is still alive, "nearly hit the target" is still a miss and "nearly failed the bar" will still get you a law license - right? You're simply trying desperately to make something out of nothing.

Sorry, but this is not the "harrington court of law" where your objective is purely to discredit me at every turn. Your desperation to twist the obvious truth here is showing counsel, you need to get a grip.

You have a direct answer.... I would implore you to put on your glasses once again and read it S-L-O-W-L-Y.

Why are you so hellbent on pointing a finger at something that is purely some deranged speculation on your part, you have no direct knowledge of, and even you can't reliably prove?

Nothing better to do?

No, you haven't.



It's not "deranged" speculation--it's educated speculation, and I have given you the basis of my education on that point.

I do think that whether you have provided consulting services to defendants (or attorneys) in SC cases does go to your credibility. I disclosed from the very beginning of my time here that I work for SC and that I am paid to present SC's case in court and elsewhere. I fully expect people to discount my opinions as being colored by my obligations to my client--although happily I don't have even to stretch the truth to get my point across--and I think it is appropriate to do so. If you have a financial or other interest in the litigation, I think people would find that very interesting at a minimum and that they might use that fact, if it is true, to evaluate your credibility as well, on the same terms as my credibility is evaluated.

Obviously you disagree, because it would be easy enough for you to say that no, you haven't provided direct consulting services to defendants in SC litigation. You haven't said that; instead, you've attacked the question as somehow inappropriate. I can't for the life of me figure out why you would want to hide it if defendants were consulting you, unless you were practicing law without a license (something I know you wouldn't do) or (more likely) you understand that public knowledge that you were making money from the litigation would tarnish your credentials as an anti-SC crusader. All good crusaders are true believers and wouldn't dream of taking money for their advocacy.

As you pointed out, I think, merely telling someone to consult with a lawyer or consider a countersuit--those things don't really count. (By the way, I think it's cute that you seem to think I don't want defendants to hire a lawyer; I recommend that every defendant consult with a lawyer, and one with IP experience if possible. I prefer that defendants get a lawyer because I believe that they will benefit from the professional judgment and independence that a lawyer will provide.)

So? That's still YOUR "speculation" whether or not you wish to color it as "educated." If you believe I have any "financial or other interest" in any litigation of yours, then you also have the tools to confirm or not confirm it. I'll leave it to your devices to prove or disprove what you are speculating because no answer I give you (or have already given you) will be sufficient.

Personally, I find it extremely offensive that you'd even suggest the possibility that I have "consulted" with any litigants at all and especially for monetary gain. So I'll put the same challenge on you to prove your ridiculous accusations. This is not one of your court cases, the burden is on you to provide evidence here, not mine to defend against your deranged invention.



I have absolutely attacked the question because it IS not only offensive in it's nature, it is "inappropriate." And here you go again --- using words/phrases like; "why would you want to hide.." when the truth is that you have no knowledge of anything here. NONE. It's all a guess and designed again, to discredit me. Why don't you cough up something substantial if you're so sure that I'm a consultant for gain? Anything? Bueller? Anyone?...

It's simple: you cannot because there is no basis in truth here at all, no matter how "educated" your speculation is.

The gauntlet is in your court to prove any such consultation for gain... a cancelled check perhaps from ANY litigant OR law firm on their behalf in the Panama City filings -- or ANY filings for that matter -- would work just fine I'm sure.

Put up... or kindly shut up. You cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Good job hijacking the thread away from the licensing and distribution rights that you claim are controlled by publishers... unless it's Sound Choice for some reason...

Once again, a non-answer.



Actually, a simple "yes" or "no" would be sufficient.

Did your crack investigative squad call in sick today?

You've already received an answer, you just refuse to believe it (no surprise here).

Neither answer would ever be sufficient for you. You've already decided that I've consulted (and for gain) with litigants by your "educated speculation" somewhere or you wouldn't keep bringing it up.

So I'll challenge you again to either put up, or ultimately shut up. You want to spend the time to discredit me here, do it with something more than just your weak, but inflammatory insinuations. Others on this forum have questioned whether or not I'm actually a working KJ or not. I'm still waiting for that answer too -- maybe you could help them out.

The burden is on you.... I'll wait with the rest of the readership here for your final determination and unchallengeable proof. If you have the cajones to make the accusation(s) in the first place, at least have the cajones to back it up with something other than whining that someone isn't handing you what you want like a waitress.

(I realize that "proof" may be something foreign that you are probably unfamiliar with when it relates to your cases, but give it your best shot.)

I haven't received an answer. I don't blame you for not wanting to answer, but you can't pretend that you've answered the question, because you haven't.



I haven't decided anything. I have noted some facts that point to the possibility. I've asked you to confirm or deny it, and you refuse to do so, answering only that the question is worthy of a tabloid newspaper. The harder you fight to avoid answering the question, the more it makes me want to insist on an answer.



I've already "put up." And I'm not trying to establish, or disestablish, your credibility. I am simply trying to ascertain the answer to a simple question that I think bears on your credibility, and once that question is answered, the chips will fall where they may (if you'll excuse the pun).



It's cute that you think the burden is on me to show anything. It's a simple question covering a matter that ought to be a routine disclosure. If I had come onto this forum and not disclosed my identity, and you had information that suggested I might be representing SC, how long would you wait before bringing it up? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Harrington
He answered it. You don't want to see how he did cause you refuse to believe him. I understand him and I don't have your "edumacation lvel". If you want to badger him do it on your own time and in an email format and not on this public forum. I am tired of reading your fallacies.

He didn't answer the question. In fact, in this very thread, he posted a couple of times about how he wasn't going to answer because it was a "National Inquirer"-type question.

It's fine if he wants to avoid the question. I think his non-answer says a lot, in fact. But he has not answered the question.

"routine disclosure?" Since when do I need to feel obligated to disclose anything to you for any reason? Remember, you're the one that brought this pipe dream of yours up – not me. I'm simply asking you to provide something more substantial than what you have so far – which is more along the lines of UFO sighting than anything else – you saw something, but you're not quite sure what it is.

Your speculation is based on the fact that you believe that certain documents or arguments that appeared in your litigation were downloaded "from a site that you control that is not generally accessible from Google."

I got some news for you buddy: all of the links that I have posted on this forum – for years – come from folders and directories on a website that I control and are not readily accessible by Google.

That includes all of the PDF files of the litigation from publishers against sound choice regarding willful copyright infringement, unlicensed tracks etc..

That includes all of the PDF files for litigation against Tennessee Production Center (Chartbuster Karaoke) regarding willful copyright infringement, unlicensed tracks, fraud etc...

That includes any scans of statements made by Kurt Slep regarding the authorization of archived copies for commercial use.

That includes links to software which I have given to members of this forum - free.

That includes PDF files of marketing posters that I have created and also given to the membership here free as my contribution. (What have you contributed?)

That includes software to produce songbooks from MP3+G files – also free.

So any and all of these documents have been accessible to the general public through the portals of this forum, FOR YEARS. And I'm sure other forums that I have been a member of in the past. Your speculation that because the origin of something used in one of your cases happened to be from the same website/web space that I own, there must be something insidious going on? Wow, that is a stretch and a sign of deranged speculation. The webspace that I own is certainly not private by any means. Just because you can't readily get to it via Google has no bearing on whether or not I have "consulted" with anyone on any case, anywhere.

As a matter of fact, by the simple fact that these documents were downloaded, printed, and (according to you) submitted to the courts as part of their argument, proves that this webspace is by no means private or "not readily accessible."

So I just pointed out to you the fallacy of your "educated speculation" and how your speculation is flawed from the core. If you're still so sure, then once again I challenge you to come up with something more than just the weak-mined theory presented here. In the meantime, your question is accusatory in nature, inappropriate and not worthy of a direct response. However, if the defendants in this case did do some research and it turned out that they downloaded material from my webspace through this forum, or others which effectively reduced your award from $44,000.00 down to 10k then I would have to say good for them. The difference will almost cover the amount in sound choice discs I have sitting in my garage.

It's kind of cute to note that you seem to get all excited and filled with conspiracy theories whenever a link to my name or webspace is brought up. It proves that I have more power over you and your thought processes than even I ever suspected.

"They can go, these are not the droids we're looking for" -- Imperial Storm Trooper

That's a lot of words expended just to avoid saying "yes" or "no."

It's also very entertaining seeing him get all worked up!

I got my popcorn!

Oh Chip isn't getting all worked up. He loves to do this, and it isn't costing him a dime.

However I'm wondering who is footing the bill for HL to spend time here. He sure seems
to have a lot of it to waste if he is as busy as he says he is with SC's lawsuits.

_________________
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

Passing out virtual margaritas

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

Go ahead Chip, c'mon sue James for libel, slander, ruining of a reputation or whatever you want to call it. I know you have more legal experience than he does and can't wait to kick his derriere in a court room.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Once again, and in typical timberlea style, you interject absolutely nothing useful to anyone. Just the typical "drive by pot-stirring" that is your trademark.

At least you're consistent...

This gratuitous accusation has no natural introduction into this thread. It comes out-of-nowhere as if HarringtonLaw has been itching for a moment to bring it up but couldn’t find one, so he created it anyway in a place where it didn’t belong. If this is a public discussion HarringtonLaw wishes to have, creating a thread of his own in which to do it would have been more appropriate (since that’s basically what he has done here), or placed his accusation in the thread devoted to the Panama city lawsuit.




This most certainly is an accusation. Take a look again at the context from which this accusation came – none.
The act of asking for a denial confirms an accusation.



My children act this way when they don’t get the answer they desire.
It’s starting to look like C.Staley is getting under HarringtonLaw’s skin.


Wow. Honestly?







With this level of obsession, it would appear that Chip's "pro bono publico" documents were more helpful to the defense than HarringtonLaw is letting on.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I wonder if this would apply to the audit fees charged to compliant KJs.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

earthling,

Maybe Harrington has some facts he's not telling us? So I will ask.

Does HarringtonLaw have some facts that he is not eluding to?

It seems that Chip has made accusations, on various subjects in the past, regarding information he has in which he turns around and says, "Look it up yourself, I'm not your secretary."

It sounds to me as I read all this is that Harrington has gotten under Chip's skin by using Chip-like posting tactics.