Karaoke Forums

This is quite a bit more than "not liking what Joe has to say to me." There are plenty of people who say things I don't like. I respond. This, by contrast, is Joe going out of his way to make something up that's not true, and in the process accusing me of lying on this forum and in court, when I have not done so. Even that might be excused or written off, except that Joe has made a point of lecturing me, and others, on ethics.

For the record, I haven't put Joe on ignore yet, because I hoped he would take the opportunity to realize how badly he mangled this and apologize. We'll see.

First, be reminded that Jim has called me a liar afew times on this thread alone.

Second, I never said that he lied in court, but rather that he was unable to supply evidence to support SC's allegations.

Third, he HAS been called out and caught on the forum, - Especially in regard to so-called "investigations".

Sorry about Jim's glass house in regard to his calling me a liar. His was a personalized insult with no basis, my statements were simply a reminder of what has occurred.

He will get an apology when I receive mine, and he posts in a less personalized and civil manner in his replies. Debating the issues is important, but distracting from a weak position with these tactics is not.

Until then I suggest he may as well hit that button. At least it will minimize conflict here on tbe forum.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Let's go to the videotape.



Now, let's be clear: There is an important difference between "proven false...in court" and "unable to supply evidence to support SC's allegations." One of them has never happened--the one you actually said, not the one you claimed to have said. I think you're smart enough to understand the difference, so either (a) you were having a bad day and misspoke, in which case an apology is in order, or (b) you're lying intentionally, which says something else.

As for "called out and caught on the forum": "Caught" doing what? Obviously, you think the answer is "posting false statements." If you think that's the case, I invite you to point out the "false statements" I posted that have been "proven false." I think you'll have a long and fruitless search, or you'll simply post that you don't have time (to back up what you say).



You get the civility from me that you deserve. When you make intentionally false, disparaging statements about me, you're going to get called a liar. Sorry if that bothers you, but I'm not here to coddle your feelings.

I hope we are not here to coddle yours and Kurt's feelings as well Jim.

I hope Jim files a libel suit.

_________________
-- Mark

I have no idea why Jim doesn't comprehend my posts. For instance, "especially in regard to professional investigations" would indicate that he has claimed that SC made a point of doing them - while it has been shown that they made no such point. APS had a contract goal and were willing to meet it n any way possible. Also, disc based hosts were named. Compliant hosts were named. Suit was brought against a host that wasn't even working in the referenced venue. Whether those suits were dropped AFTER the fact is unimportant. Lack of ptofessional investigation has been proven.

That's just one point, but I tire of the constant repetition that Jim seems to require to understand the simplest of points. Therefore, I actually - and respectfully - request that he put me on ignore as HE first mentioned.

I think that this would reduce the - in my case unwanted - friction between us, and keep these debates on a less personalized and civil level.

A point of interest for anyone who cares. I do not now, nor have I ever had, any personal animus toward Jim, who has never been anything but perfectly civil as well as helpful in private communication.

I find it unfortunate that folks who would normally get along have been placed in a mutually antagonistic situation such as this. I would hope that people don't base their personal opinions of each other strictly on what they read here.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

It's not a question of comprehension on my part. I comprehend your posts perfectly well. The problem is that you have a history of making assertions that are based not on actual facts, but upon your incorrect assumptions.



Shown by whom? This is the thing I'm talking about. It hasn't been *shown* by anybody. There have been some unproven assertions, and that's it. You are treating something as an established fact, when it is not, then using that to accuse me of lying to this forum and in court.



Says who?



*One* disc-based host was named as the result of a confusing set of circumstances. We promptly corrected the problem and resolved it to the satisfaction of the host in question.



Even by your own definition, no *compliant* host has ever been named in a suit (except for the disc-based host identified above), because *compliance* requires adherence to *all* parts of the policy, not just 1:1 correspondence.



I'm still waiting to hear where I made a false statement that was proven false in court or on this forum.



No, it hasn't. When you say "lack of professional investigation has been proven," what you mean is that because some investigators got some details wrong, and because professional investigators never make mistakes, the investigations were unprofessional. Your logic is sound; it's the assumption that's flawed. Even the best investigators, professional to the core, occasionally make mistakes. That does not make their investigations unprofessional; it does make them human. I have never, not once, said that all of our investigations were perfectly executed.



I understand your point perfectly. It's just not valid, and you carefully omit the information that would reveal it as invalid: that it depends on strained definitions and unproven allegations. For someone who apparently believes he is an expert on business and legal ethics, that's a pretty big omission.



The thing that would reduce the friction between us would be for you (a) to apologize for falsely accusing me of making false statements here and in court, and (b) stop making those false statements about me in the future.

C'mon Jim, hit the button. If you can't even admit faulty or no investigations when example after examples have been cited time after time, and with problems presenting any decent documentation in court on several occasions, then you have simply have decided not to do so, and nothing will change that. No offense, but at this point it is simply denial on your end. Let it go, and I will. If not, we are simply wasting time and space.

SC's "investigations" were minimal at best, and in some cases no one ever entered the the premises in question. I save, print, and file any SC based info of importance. These are facts.

Your "says who?" Reply to my stating that APS had a quota as meant to cast doubt, yet you did not post a catagoric denial. I believe the exact numbers are available within documentation that can be found on line. The quotas are fact.

Just let it go, ignore me, and I'll drop it. You are not helping yourself or SC by pursuing this subject.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Continuing to repeat that "example after examples have been cited time after time" doesn't make it true. Give us a few examples.

I note, by the way, that you've gone from "proven false in court" to "problems presenting any decent documentation in court."



I'm not going to "let it go." You've made, and continue to make, false statements about me. Your behavior is dishonorable, and you refuse to apologize and make it right. Why should I let it go?



No, they aren't, and, once again, continuing to repeat these false statements does not make them magically true.



I'm not denying that APS had a contract that contained certain performance goals. What I'm denying is your assertion--which is UTTERLY without evidence--that APS was "willing to meet it in any way possible." You have absolutely no basis for that assertion.



I am defending myself against unwarranted, false, defamatory allegations in the hope that you'll do the honorable thing, admit you erred, and apologize. Even if you don't, it is still worth it to expose you as a liar. It's unfortunate that I have to do that--I don't relish it--but I am not going to just forget about your misconduct.

Joe, if you have this proof, please, by all means, share it. I would LOVE to see James and his Master brought to their knees before the entire forum.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Unfortunately many that make these accusations hardly ever actually do research and put up actual quotes & or links, just a lot of he said she said - or will purposely take a quote & leave out key words or add some to fit their agenda.
I too would like to see everything Joe has claimed to be backed up with actual links to the threads that they originated from.

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

Unfortunately, I think we will have to wait a long time for that.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

In the "Joe vs. The Jim-cano" saga (just making a movie reference for humor, not a character assessment), there is definitely a number of generic accusations that would necessitate detailed evidence in order to be validated. However, the terminology of what is read in this forum setting is, and in reality, should be, only as good as the order of the letters that are strung together to form the words and sentences; in other words, reading into quotes and deriving more than the actual words say is inaccurate and unfair. For example, I have concluded that one of the disgruntled points Jim has tried to make is over this statement from Joe:

"Add to that several statements posted by Jim as SC's rep that have been called out and proven false- sometimes in court - and said company may possibly be described as an unethical parasite."

For Jim to take this statement, and to derive conclusions such as "Joe going out of his way to make something up that's not true, and in the process accusing me of lying on this forum and in court, when I have not done so.", and the like, is, in my opinion, a bit overreaching. There is a very tangible difference in being "proven false" and accusing someone of making statements that were known by the statement maker to be false when they were made.

Obviously, there is necessity on both sides of this "battle" to provide information to collaborate some of the assertions made. Joe made some generic statements that beg for further elaboration; if there is even ONE statement made by SC counsel in any transcript of a court case over this issue that has not been "proven false", it would be surprising, since it is doubtful that this has EVER happened in the history of trial cases. Given that, according to the record of cases in this matter, there is not a 100% victory rate, it further increases the likelihood that this has occurred.

To summarize, in this forum structure, given there is no direct physical interaction, the correct position to take is to base the reaction to a statement on the ACTUAL terminology used, and not a personal interpretation of the statement. I can imagine it might be sometimes difficult to do this, but going beyond the scope of the exact statement is turning the fact of the statement into a debatable interpretation...

Dupe post. Sorry

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Aw c'mon, really? Yes, if I really had to I could copy and paste from saved posts in my computer, is it really neccesary?

Does ANYONE here believe that SC didn't name a whole bunch of folks that were later dropped from suits because there was no evidence of wrongdoing? ANYONE???
Does anyone not agree that this is proof of ineffectual or non-existent investigation? Anyone??

Does anyone here believe that judge Wright did not censure SC and go on record describing them as IP trolls because of not only an inept presentation but an inability to produce evidence in court? That they lost other cases for the same reasons? ANYONE??

Does anyone here not remember Jim attempting to disassociate SC from APS's actions? Anyone??

Unless there has been an outbreak of massive amnesia here on the forum, I can't figure out where the debate lay.

Is there anyone here that doesn't believe that any of the above happened? Anyone??

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

To back up facts, yes! Otherwise it's just here say. If you KNOW of quotes or things said from an individual and are making direct assertions, post the links to back up what you are posting - this will make for better forum banter.

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

There are lots of defendants who have been dropped from suits for reasons that have nothing to do with a lack of evidence of wrongdoing. We've dropped defendants because of settlements and because we couldn't locate them to complete service of process. Defendants have been dropped because it turned out they worked for someone else who accepted responsibility for their activities. Defendants have been dropped from lawsuits because the judge decided that they needed to be individually sued; sometimes it did not make sense for us to spend the money to file new individual lawsuits at that time. We had defendants dropped in one case because the attorney representing SC disappeared. We had defendants dropped in another case because the case manager maliciously instructed the attorney to dismiss all defendants with prejudice.

But I can think of only one instance in which a defendant was dropped because there was no evidence of wrongdoing, and that is the case in which a disc-playing defendant was sued mistakenly.



Considering that you are operating from a flawed assumption, I would expect a lot of people don't agree with your assertion.



As has been explained to you numerous times, the reason why that case was dismissed was because the attorney in question disappeared, failed to inform the court, and failed to file a procedural document to continue the case--NOT because of an inability to produce evidence in court.



After APS went rogue, yes, absolutely. That doesn't mean that their work prior to that was unprofessional or nonexistent.

This is not a question of amnesia. It's a question of you building up an nonfactual scenario in your own mind, based on assumptions, incomplete information, and in some cases disinformation.

Since any "proof" I need to post has already been posted, this means that it won't be believed by those with heads firmly buried in the sand anyway, or will not be retained- again since it's been posted before.....

For instance, from the Las Vegas SC debacle:

.....what US District Court Judge Wright said about Slep-tone's interrogatory responses. "Slep-Tone takes trolling to the next level and essentially ignored all requests for discovery, explanations of exculpability, and requirements to act in good faith. (Mot. 2–6.)" Mr. Harrington, similarly, were you not sanctioned for bad faith conduct in the Panama City case for instructing Kurt Slep not to answer questions at a deposition? According to Magistrate Judge Kahn: "I have previously entered an order requiring payment by plaintiff to Donovan’s Reef, and its attorney, a fee in the amount of $2,026.50 as a sanction for plaintiff’s representative’s failure to provide deposition answers at the express direction of plaintiff’s counsel." . .

Hasn't this been posted ad nauseum ? Why would one go to court and not present evidence of wrongdoing if they had any???

The Panama City case ( also found online, if you bother to look) was won by the defendant without the aid of counsel. How could that have happened if proper evidence of wrongdoing was presented.

Jim claims that he only remembers only defendant dropped due to no wrongdoing ( I'm still laughing and shaking my head.)- that one being disc based. Two questions:

1) WHICH disc based host was that, Jim?
2) A disc based host [could not have been witnessed playing shifted songs. ][/i]. Considering "professional investigation", how could this host have possibly been named?? After the fact a claim was made that there was a PC in the building, which caused confusion. Again- NO ONE saw the host use media shifted product- period.
No investigation.

Please remember that Jim himself has often stated here that any host named who was found to be "1:1" was dropped at no cost to them. Um, that means that "1:1" hosts HAVE been named and dropped. If they were "1:1" there could not have been any evidence of wrongdoing on which to base a suit- considering "professional investigations", why were they sued????

Hence, more hosts than one to whom suit was brought without evidence because there could not have been any.

This is the basis for most of the SC debates. Their dragnet approach of sue now, try to get a "settlement", and maybe drop later. They to not specifically target actual pirates because REAL professional investigations ( you know, actually entering the premises, getting g the host's name, and acquiring actual evidence of wrongdoing would be too costly.

Oh yes, the "APS went rogue" excuse doesn't fly.
1) SC and Jim hired these folks, so it was their job to manage them. If
they were able to "go rogue" then Jim and SC were not overseeing their actions- they are responsible.

HOWEVER:

2) At the very least, Jim has been on these forums quite awhile, and APS' actions had been related to him HERE, if nowhere else, at LEAST a year - maybe more- before the separation of their ways. He knew what they were doing, yet claims otherwise.

A So, either Jim's claim that to his knowledge only 1 host was EVER dropped due to no evidence ( actually I should say no evidence prior to suits being filed ) is either false or the result of an incredibly bad memory.

B I think that the quotes from U.S. District Court Judge Wright and Magistrate Kahn ( and other cases left uncited) are enough proof that SC has gone to court without evidence of wrongdoing.

One other point. These suits are targeting media shifters ( for convenient litigation) not pirates (track thieves). I have no idea why anyone thought that SC would be leading the anti-piracy fight. Even Kurt said that this was not their main intention, but rather to recoup losses. I'm all for recouping losses, I just wish they would recoup them from those who stole from them, not their paying customers.
Even most of their original supporters, both here and at the KIAA ( a mailing address at a prestige office building, but no real headquarters back then ) have jumped ship.

I am not the first to post any of the above by any means.

Jim HAS been caught out here on the forums, especially in regard to his claims of "professional investigations.
SC HAS had problems presenting evidence in court.
Suits HAVE been filed due to lack of professional investigation.


I could do more work if I thought it was necessary. However, I think that anyone who has problems or arguments with the above should do any extra work themselves, using their own sources, so they would KNOW and have no one to argue with but themselves.

The good news is it doesn't look like I have to worry about Jim using the "ignore" button after all....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Before I begin my response, let's don't forget that Joe's actual accusation was that I had made statements on this forum and in court that had been proven false.



First of all, this has nothing to do with my making false statements here or in court.

Second, I directed Kurt not to answer questions about information found in the investigative report because (a) the investigator was working for me, not him, and (b) that made the investigator's report to me attorney work product, which is immune from discovery, and (c) the only information he had about the report was what he had learned as a direct result of communications with me, which makes those communications subject to the attorney-client privilege. I do not regard the piercing of attorney-client privilege as a trifling matter.

Ultimately, the judge ruled that Kurt had to testify about the contents of the report, and he did. Nothing was withheld, and as you may recall, the defendant was found liable--which indicates that we did, in fact, have compelling evidence to support our case.

Still has nothing to do with a supposedly false statement I've made here, or in court, that was proven so.



That other defendant admitted that he destroyed evidence after receiving notice of the lawsuit, which prevented us from discovering what was on his hard drive. Ordinarily, that would result in an "adverse inference"--meaning that there would be a presumption that what was destroyed was unfavorable to his position. However, the judge found that we had not tried hard enough to recover the destroyed evidence and denied our motion for an adverse inference.

We have since had other defendants who destroyed evidence as well, and we have been careful to make extraordinary efforts to recover it where possible.



That was Rodney Burge.



The venue in question had karaoke pretty much every night of the week. They split the nights among three different KJs, all of whom had similar names. (One of the others was named Ron, and I forget the third.) The claim about there being a "PC in the building" misses the boat. That came from Rodney, who thought the investigator might have been confused because he uses a PC to play DJ music during periods of light demand for karaoke.

Again, when we found out about what was going on, I traveled to California to meet with Rodney and examine his system and collection. We talked for about two hours, not just about his operations, but also about our anti-piracy program. It was clear that the investigator had made a mistake, so Kurt instructed the attorney to dismiss him from the suit, and he was dismissed.

Again, nothing here about a false statement by me, here or in court.



This is incorrect. An operator who is 1:1 but who has not completed the other requirements of the media-shifting policy is still committing trademark infringement (and possibly copyright infringement). It is entirely appropriate to sue such an operator. As a courtesy, if the operator promptly makes an effort to complete the other requirements, and is found to be in full compliance, we will drop the suit. That does not mean that the suit was improper.



The only reason why this is the subject of debate is because you simply refuse to see what I've put before you. You may not think much of our investigations, and you're entitled to your opinion, but you cannot will those investigations away simply because you don't like them. We do not sue defendants without actually entering the premises and acquiring actual evidence of apparent wrongdoing.



First, to be clear, *I* was not overseeing APS's activities. That was not within my purview.

Second, the "rogue" activities to which I am referring occurred after the contract with APS was terminated for cause, which was something that occurred because of oversight.



I don't even understand what this means or how it helps you show that I have made false statements on this forum and in court that have been proven false.

The rest of your post is merely a summation founded on the shifting sands of what I have already addressed.

You have not shown what you claimed.

Everybody!!
Sing along with me!!
This is a Karaoke forum after all!!
The wheels on the bus go round and round. Round and round.. Round and round... The wheels on the bus go round and round. All through the town!

You lie
You lie
You bring suits against innocent people
They are not innocent
You do not perform quality investigations
I did not lie
You lie
You lie
You bring suits against innocent people
Only once; we fixed it
Because you do not perform quality investigations
I did not lie

It's all just spokes in the wheel!


The next wheel
I have to say this because he said that
I have to say this because he said that
I have to say this because he said that
I have to say this because he said that
I have to say this because he said that
I have to say this because he said that

Everybody!!
Sing along with me!!
The wheels on the bus go round and round. Round and round.. Round and round... The wheels on the bus go round and round. All through the town!