Karaoke Forums

I must be slipping up in my old age.....

It seems as though another lawsuit was filed against Tennessee Production Center back in June of this year from Universal Music Group (publisher) for breach of contract...

It seems as though Universal was not paid a cent from their $1,000,000.00 PLUS judgments against TPC. So much for the story we were told about everything being "retroactively licensed" from waaay back in 2005.... No payments were made on the payment plan from what I can decipher.

In the exhibits are a couple of Guarantys.... which the Stovall's separately signed that basically would have transferred all the assets to Universal in the event of a default including money from sales, computers, programs, licenses to use those programs... etc.

Now, here's the question for HarringtonLaw:

If the assets were assigned as collateral to Universal, pray tell how can the "investors" (which could be construed as "owners") be able to "foreclose" on something that had been already signed away?

AND, if it turns out that these assets rightfully should have been transferred to Universal because of the default, isn't kind of strange to be wooing publishers for streaming and download licenses for assets that should've already been theirs?

I'm going to speculate that Harrington's response will be the ye' ole' nutshell game of "who's on first?".... Something like; "TPC didn't own the song files... (first base) that was owned by Big Mama Entertainment (second base) so they weren't part of the assets and the investors foreclosed on those assets and transferred them to Digitrax Entertainment.... ---->> third base!

So the song files and/or trademark vaporized from one place to another place and now Digitrax is courting the empty-handed publishers for licenses of song files they were NEVER paid for.... not licensed to start with and not even a portion paid for when they were caught...

Talk about monumental scale!... I can't think of a single KJ that has pirated over a million dollars worth of karaoke music.... can you?

Make sure that you examine all the exhibits relating to this lawsuit as well as the complaint and read the guarantys.

Here's your reference:

3:12-cv-00300 Universal Music Corp. et al v. Tennessee Production Center, Inc. et al

I have no idea why this is being directed to me, but: The statute of limitations for breach of contract in Tennessee is 6 years, and I note that the lawsuit in question was filed more than 6 years after the breach of the contract in which the assets were pledged (not "assigned") as collateral. That would ordinarily free those assets of the lien created by the pledge.



I have no idea what this means, but just because Universal (or anyone) says it in a lawsuit doesn't mean that it's true.



I don't represent any of those entities, so I'm not sure why you think I would give an obfuscatory response.

Okay, "pledged." So are you now saying that TPC didn't own the assets it pledged when the guarantys were executed 10-27-2005? Or are you saying that it's too late to collect on the pledges and the assets were (righfully) whisked away to Digitrax?

Either way, it doesn't look pretty. Because it then appears that EITHER;
TPC pledged something it didn't have a right to pledge in the first place OR,
now Digitrax is asking publishers for licenses on the very same music that was pirated from the publishers in the first place.


(You mean like actually investigating when they didn't?...)

Doesn't mean it's UNtrue either.



It's been known to happen:


If that's not obfuscatory, I don't know what is. I did notice how you managed to leave TPC and Big Mama out of the above description since it's unclear which of those entities owned the song files.

I wouldn't be expecting any clarity anytime soon either.

I'm not sure why the second thing "doesn't look pretty."



Then it appears that you don't know what "obfuscatory" is.



It's not unclear which of those entities owned the song files. It is, however, irrelevant to any of the work I do for them.

Which are you agreeing to:

#1. TPC pledged something that wasn't theirs to pledge in the first place - which is in bad faith and dishonest at the least.

#2. Digitrax is now requesting publishers to grant permission for the very same song files that were pirated from them in the first place (to the tune of a couple MILLION dollars in judgments and agreements to pay restitution for the copyright infringement.)



Now who exactly is being "thick?" (and obfuscatory?)



Then what's preventing you from simply telling everyone here who owned them? Remember "obfuscatory?"

What are you hiding?


Notice: HarringtonLaw has gone into "Mexican Hat Dance Mode."

I'm not agreeing to either of them.

I would agree that #1 "doesn't look pretty," but I have no better knowledge than you as to whether it is accurate.

As for #2, I think "pirated" is the wrong term, because there are lots of ways they could have gotten into the hands that hold them without it being illegal or illicit. I also think that those song files have close to zero value in the hands of the music publishers (who could easily duplicate them in form and content from their own masters), EXCEPT that there is value in keeping them out of the hands of people who--according to the lawsuit--used them without paying royalties. They are out of those people's hands in either case, and they can't be used without the publishers' permission. To me, that looks just fine insofar as it appears to be an attempt at a business solution to a legal problem.



I'm not hiding anything. I'm just not sharing it with you, kind of like when you claimed to have contacted all those publishers. If you want to find out who owned the song files, you'll have to do your own spade work on that. If there were a way I could post it but keep it out of your hands, I would. Alas, there is not.

How do you figure that?.... You claim that the "investors" for CB took them to "protect their investments"... and now their "investment" is parked at digitrax... The common denominator is "their" which is the same "people who--according to the lawsuit--used them without paying royalties." If Digitrax screws up... they'll just take them again to "protect their investments." But it's still the same "they" isn't it?

And your hat dance continues....





You might not like what I dig up..... but that's nothing new. And as far as any "claims of contacting publishers," that's good that you are trying your hardest to plant doubt in others while you attack my credibility, but I don't think your cavalier attitude toward it is really fooling anyone. You're not happy about it and you're itching to know who I've contacted and there's no doubt in your mind that I have.

Just knowing that someone is looking over your shoulder bothers you....

Now you know how many of us KJ's feel.... and that's good for karaoke.

You clearly have no understanding of how the law of corporations works.

Investors in a company who do not materially participate in the bad acts of those running the company are shielded from liability by the corporate veil. In this case, the investors who own Digitrax are not the people who were running TPC or BME. They invested in one or the other of those companies, but they did not run them. So try as you might to tar them with the same brush, they are simply not the same people, nor are they responsible for what the former owners did.



If I were bothered by someone looking over my shoulder, I would have to find another line of work. Since I'm not doing anything illicit, and since I am rightfully proud of the work I do most of the time, I actually like it when people look over my shoulder.

I am in the problem solving business. When I hear somebody say that one of my clients has done something wrong, my inclination is to (a) assess whether that is accurate, and (b) if it is, fix it, and (c) if it isn't, correct the record. But when some crackpot tosses out an unsupported allegation that sounds fishy to begin with, and refuses to provide further information, I'm going to put that in the "crackpot" column unless and until more information becomes available. I don't waste any mental energy on it. But I don't believe in asymmetrical tactics, either, so if you think it's a good idea to withhold information, you shouldn't expect me to be forthcoming with information you'd like to have.

I must admit that it's a lot of fun to get under your skin, but if you think you're "bothering" me...well, you just go on thinking that, sweetheart.

He doesn't have to plant anything to have people doubt you. You state things and "back it up" but will not provide where you get it from, ie the so-called publishers you supposedly contacted, the misrepresenting or taking out of context laws or things people say, etc. In a lot of ways you are your own worst enemy. You try to be contraian no matter what is said, you try to twist things for your own purposes, and the list goes on.

Unfortunately you have some bee in your bonnet and some of the good technical info you have may be missed by some because of your rantings. Remember presentation counts for a whole bunch in this world and you turn off a lot of people with the way you present things.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

You clearly are trying to buffalo everyone who reads this smoke and mirror story of yours.

"Investors" invest MONEY.... Not assets. Their MONEY is used to purchase or create assets for the "corporation." A Corporation is an "entity" remember basic business 101? When "investors" start moving around "assets" they are no longer just "investors."

If you "invest" in General Motors and you don't like the way it's being run, you have no right -- even though you have purchased stock and are an owner -- to walk in and shove a giant milling machine out the back door and onto a truck to take home in the interest of "protecting YOUR investment."

I would imagine snatching the assets the way they were would in fact, constitute "materially participating." Especially with the knowledge there were judgments against the corporation that were not being fulfilled, another lawsuit for fraud and a ticker counting down. I think you'd have a hard time convincing a judge or jury that this was all just "a coincidence" that it worked out this way."




So far, so good. (except I'm proud of the work I do all the time... or I don't do it.)


Still pushing? C'mon really.... "some crackpot?"... Like the crackpot that challenged your storybook tale in the Rodney case and claimed that the investigator had no report to give because there was no investigation and you.... "fixed it" by claiming "the investigator refused to turn over his report." Really? And we're all supposed to believe that? Oh, and it was fixed quickly alright.... 108 days after being wrongly sued in federal court... and that was because NOW the "attorney didn't follow instructions."

You keep trying to shove that hook, line and sinker down the throat but it just won't go there..... And you want to call me the crackpot?



I'm not your "sweetheart." Your client might be however.... maybe you could learn something from Allen Jacobi. After all, you two have the same client(s).

How many times over the last few years timberlea have I posted .pdf files (that I paid for) for everyone's benefit?

Have you posted even one?...
Has HarringtonLaw posted a single one?

When it comes to "public information" I don't mind posting the source - it's public anyway and there's nothing anyone can do about the truth.... like the SC lawsuit where there was a show cause hearing about intimidating a witness.... I wouldn't mind posting that source because it comes from the court documents. (ask athena to look it up for you)

But when it comes to my own "private sources" then we're talking a whole new story. Think of it as a journalist protecting his sources. The problem is, you're never satisfied with the just the facts, you want the source even though your buddy HarringtonLaw has not refuted what I posted.... he's just as curious as you where I'm getting my information and he'd love to plug some leaks... that's his incentive. I would've loved to have been a fly on the wall when I posted the SC licensing signatures from their own licenses. (And no, they were not from Red Peters, that would be too easy.)

Oh sure, he'll label me a "crackpot" or "deranged" or even a "lying" but he'll never post opposing facts that can prove I'm wrong... because he can't. But if you'll swallow every word he says as gospel only because "he's a lawyer" then he has half the battle won.

And you'll notice over the last 2 years how much and how often all the "cheerleaders" ran to the aid of Chartbuster like they were some kind of victim when the ENTIRE TIME they were being lied to, "certified" and lead along like kindergarteners on a single string. If you recall, I was the "bad guy." How dare I challenge Debi Stovall about SGB copyrights? And now, she's trying to dump the remaining discs on ebay.

Now, 2 years later, the truth comes out that they not only "pirated" hundreds of songs from publishers that they sold to KJ's but didn't pay a dime on the promises they made to at least one publisher (Universal) for over a MILLION DOLLARS worth of judgments when they claimed the licenses were "retroactive."

But remember, I'M the "bad guy" here..... even though I'm the one that "told you so."

And still -- to this day -- many of you are being lead down another primrose path, refusing to see what's right in front of you. And I'm still the "bad guy."

That's fine.... The difference is something I know... birdofsong knows and perhaps a few others here as well...



Nah, I'm not contrarian but I'm terribly allergic to bullp**p especially when I know it's being served disguised as something "good for you and the industry."

Do I have a bee in my bonnet? You bet. And you'll never guess who put it there... and why it's there. (or maybe you'll will with your first try). I'll always challenge those that post what I know to be baloney because in this business, and what we can honestly charge these days, the last thing we need is an overlord.

So, I apologize if you don't like the style, it must be my allergies....

You can add me to the list of those who know, Chip.

The only disagreement I have is whether folks are being "led" or not. To be a follower down this particular "Primrose Path" might require a voluntary suspension of belief.

No matter which side of these debates one is on, the fact remains that SC is a now a parisitical entity offering no service or product, yet demanding money. How could anyone support such a company unless they just want to do so?

Something else to consider when reading these posts. Kurt may or may not have come up with the bare bones for this business model, but the process would have required legal expertise. IF Jim Harrington was the attorney of record at the inception of this plan, then in all liklihood he was one of it's creators. This may well cause more bias in his posts in addition to the normal amount an attorney would have for his/her client.

I mean no disrespect to Jim with this statement, as this would be a normal occurrence, but I do keep it in mind when I read his posts.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Timberlea just needs to learn HOW to read.....

Notice that Harrington has become very quiet on this subject... hoping the thread will fade from view and your memories quickly....

It's statements like this that undermine your credibility.

It's kind of like the difference between "doesn't pay taxes" and "doesn't pay income taxes."

SC may not be offering new product, but it's just flat-out false to say that it offers no service or product.

Fact? Not a fact at all.

I have received both product & service from SC...ie: My GEM set. No matter ones opinion as to it's price/value/etc, it IS a product they offer.

I stand corrected, Bazza. SC offers a collection of tracks most of which are older than 5 years- and no no products have been available. This "product" is usually "sold" as part of a "settlement".
No host with any business education would buy the set otherwise. No nee. Even worse would be to give back product that a host has paid for previously for some credit toward the set. Older SC discs were well over $20 each, and they were PRESSED digital recordings. Why would anyone return them for LESS credit toward burned MP3s???

What I should have said is that SC hasn't offered a NEW product in several years, and offers no service, but still demands money. Is that better? In my opinion, , still a parasite like a tick or tapeworm- taking sustanance from hosts and giving nothing back.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Oddly enough, most of the requests I get are from these older discs. Not much in the way of newer stuff gets requested nor sung. And these songs ARE being requested and sung from the 20 year olds (and older).
From what I see SC still sells many discs on their site, many of which are still sung and highly sought after today.

I know several hosts in this area that are seeking the GEM set to have a better quality selection - some of these hosts that don't have any SC to begin with, a couple yes are trying to avoid a suit.


New songs aren't whats popular - at least in my experience.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

I think it would be more appropriate to say that the new songs do not have the same staying power.