Karaoke Forums

Mr. Staley, in my quote above, did you see the words "Each of the hosts my firm has sued"?

The cases APS investigated were all handled by other lawyers, entirely outside my supervision. I had nothing to do with the investigation or prosecution of any of those cases, except as follows:

1. I met with Rodney Burge to verify his claim to be an original disc user and to make recommendations to Kurt about how to handle the situation. I had no direct contact with APS.

2. I took over a case in Arizona after the lawyer who was handling it decided to drop SC as a client, and I conducted an audit of the defendant. I had no direct contact with APS about that case.

3. I took over a lawsuit in Las Vegas that APS had arranged to be filed the night before their termination became effective. Again, I had no contact with APS about the case.

4. I would occasionally get calls from defendants in APS cases who were looking to get a better deal from me than they were being offered. In all of those cases, I told them I had no authority, took down their information, and forwarded the information to Kurt to handle.

You've made a lot of accusations against me here, and I assume elsewhere since you were on hiatus from here for a long time, that have been based on faulty assumptions about me. I simply was not involved in what APS was doing. I did not tell them how to do what they were doing, nor advise them on how to proceed, nor supervise their work. My work for SC during that period was completely separate.

My statements on that question have been completely consistent from day one and have not changed. So, if the question is, am I telling the truth today? Yes, same as every other day.

Regular questions get turned into crazy arguments on this board way to fast.You know, you two should just take it out back.... Or at least get your own thread. Might be quicker that way.

Getting back on thread, what time should the new songs be posted tomorrow? How big of a list should we expect to see (with the understanding that they are in the running, and not going to show on the disk for certain)? Have you had any sign ups this week past the 105 number.

I'm prepping for compliance, trying to even deal with 4 MediacloQ CDs (horrible things those are, I'm tempted just to smash them into little pieces and buy the songs from someone else), but what I really am going to do depends on your 1st release.

I'm really hoping for a strong outing, because a weak release, with too many songs already out there by other publishers, will make me balk.

TM

Paragraph #4 of the agreement:
"The currently engaged firms of Harrington, Cipriani and Porter at Law will not engage, hire or employ any third parties or companies, providing APS all exclusivity as it relates to all services outlined in said agreement."

But according to you, you've "trained" investigators and just about everything else... Looks like a breach of that exclusivity clause to me.

You can "assume" whatever you like, and you've made a truckload of not-so-veiled-accusations about me based on nothing but faulty conjecture and zero proof of anything. But you don't hear me whining about it do you?


Right. And the entire point is that you weren't supposed to be doing anything, or have you misplaced the definition of "exclusive?" Sure, your client signs an exclusive contract -- that even specifically names you -- to bar you from handling cases... but you did anyway... Your words counselor - and the words of the exhibit YOU filed in the court - and the signature of your client on that exhibit all contradict what you're saying today and dancing around. I'm simply asking which version is the truth, you can't "train investigators" you have working on cases if you're specifically barred from doing so.


The consistency of your "statements" has nothing to do with whether or not you were contractually allowed to do what you are now saying you did. The contract says you were not allowed to... but your statements claim you did.

This means only one of two options:
#1. You followed the agreement signed by your client and did not "train investigators" or anything else which means there are questions as to the consistency of your own statements or,
#2. Your actions during these times -- training investigators, including talking to Rodney -- was a material breach of that exclusive contract. And since I know for a fact you did talk to Rodney, this is by default, the only logical conclusion.

But I'm not bringing any of this up to brow-beat you over the APS fiasco other than to point out that your statements and your own actions are not "consistent" and just because you say they are, doesn't make it appear to be the truth. I can only glean the truth from those facts I have firsthand knowledge of.

So I have to take this into consideration when you make the statements you do. (Which means a boxcar of salt.)

We now return to our regularly-scheduled thread and the question at hand....

I'm just giddy about the upcoming announcement of the list of songs! How about you?

Why are you beating yourself up so badly over these 4 mediacloq discs? There are plenty of other KJ's that have already cleanly ripped those tracks - get the rips from one of them.
There is really no difference whether you rip them or someone else does is there? Tracks are tracks. Work smarter, not harder.... I would think that after your audit, even Harrington would be happy to give you the rips -- after all, they used to replace those discs free because of the headaches.

Here is my advice in responding to Chip......just don't.

His MO is to engage you in mindless, one-sided, debate in an attempt to get you to write up as much defensive information as possible. He then picks it apart, cherry picking phrases, twisting context and then regurgitates your own information in a form he has morphed to suit his agenda.

If you do have to respond to him, keep it as short and sweet as possible. The fewer letters he has to chew on then regurgitate, the less word vomit you will have on your shoes.

It is rumored that Chip is in league with a mythical creature called - The Schlap Yeti - Which leverages similar tactics. Some have even suggested they are one and the same.

Read more about the Schlap Yeti here and decide for yourself..... - http://1drv.ms/1N1F17N

_________________
-Chris

Imagine if Kurt sold Soundchoice branded toilet paper. They would be able to finance future discs from Chip alone.

I must have missed it in the fine print, but what happens if I purchased a legit media shifted SC collection and get audited? I have to pay to prove I am legit?

Obviously an April Chip......er Fool's joke on my part. Besides, you took the gloves off long before I did.

Once the pee is in the pool, it stays there unless you drain the pool. So it will always be online and available for everyone's reading pleasure.

_________________
-Chris

I wouldn't use it if they did, and the fine print is on the backside of the toilet paper.... but it will probably leave you with a nagging itch...

this is a good question especially since the discs are now permanently marked. what has to be done for the new owner of the disc to use it in an audit?

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

If you purchased discs and the accompanying hard drive from another KJ, we would transfer the certification from the seller to you at no charge as long as you didn't make any changes to the system and as long as you weren't a defendant in a suit before the purchase. Documentation of the purchase would need to be provided (generally, a written statement from the seller confirming the sale would be sufficient). We would need to find out what serial number was stamped on the discs so we could update our records, and we'd need to remove the seller from the certified list.

You can email customer care (at) phxep (dot) com for assistance, or call us during regular hours.

I can see a whole new can of worms with this. "IF" I were to buy the new stuff coming out from SC and do all the legal proper things needed and then suddenly DIE are you telling me that my heirs could not sell said discs without your permission? How would said heirs even know that they had to do that as all they would find is my discs. I don't think that I am going to leave detailed instructions what to do with all my stuff. I suppose this could apply to the Gems "IF" I were to buy them also. I believe that SC is opening a big can of worms by selling a product that can only be bought by "CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS". I can't think of one other product that is sold that this applies to. If there is please enlighten me.

_________________
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

Not at all. I didn't say or imply anything of the sort. The question was about whether someone who purchased a full rig--HD and discs--from a certified host would have to pay to get re-certified, and the answer is no. You (or your heirs) are free to sell discs that you own to anyone you like. Please stop looking for things to be angry about.



Well, that's on you. It's usually a good idea to plan for that sort of thing.



The GEM series has very specific conditions in it about how they can be transferred, regardless of what prompts the transfer.

You have to remember that you don't own the GEM discs you acquire. The discs aren't sold to you. Your license allows you the right to possess and use them, but you do not own them, so you can't transfer them to someone else except with our permission. There are many items you are prohibited from selling if you don't own them, even if you have the right to have them and use them.

_________________
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

It seems to me that the problem you're having with this scenario doesn't have anything to do with the GEM series or its conditions, but with your (potential) failure to inform your family about things having to do with your business affairs and what you want done in the event that you die unexpectedly.

You can't buy the GEM series. You can buy a license to use a specific set of GEM series discs, but that's it. Legally, it's not the same as renting or leasing--a rental agreement generally can be ended by either party at specific intervals--but this aspect is the same for both. If you lease a car, and you die unexpectedly, can your heirs just sell the car? Of course not.

The new material will consist of digital downloads, not discs (mostly; there is potentially a disc option, but it will be treated the same). Those digital downloads are non-transferable without our permission, just as the GEM series is non-transferable without our permission. I don't think we've yet refused a GEM series transfer--I'm at least not aware of any. In fact, when we've had people who wanted to sell their licenses, we've even helped them find qualified buyers, even though we could easily sell a new license to those buyers.

_________________
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

What I said is what I've said from the beginning.

If a customer wants a disc, we will produce a disc for them for a small charge plus shipping, as long as our licensing allows it.

If our licensing doesn't allow us to produce a disc, or if the user simply prefers to use a disc, we will give our permission, with the usual caveats, for the user to create a CD+G disc from the tracks the user downloads, at no additional charge.

Not quite Lone Wolf. When you are leasing a car, you don't own the car. At the end of the leasing period, the company offering the lease might offer the person leasing that car an OPTION TO BUY that car at a discounted price. If the person doesn't accept that offer, then he/she can either continue leasing that car under a new contractual agreement, or he/she has to return that car. Therefore, you (or any of your heirs (if you die)) can NOT sell that car. If the Car Lease agreement is in your name only, and if you die, the lease is terminated and the car is returned to the owners at no additional costs. If anything, if your heirs were being held liable to the continuing terms of that lease, then they would be able to have that leasing agreement transferred to someone else who is willing to continue paying on it, or they would just have to pay the early termination fees for that lease agreement. You never owned that car, therefore, you have no rights to sell it (and neither do your heirs (in the event of your death)). And, as for the State selling off your Estate (in the even of your death (and no heirs)), I'm sure that once they have the VIN number checked, it would turn up who the Owners of that car are.

_________________
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

Whatever the typical terms of a car lease happen to be, there is a key difference between that and the GEM series, and that is that at the end of the initial term, you have the right to an automatic 3-year renewal (and successive 3-year terms as long after that as you like), and the MAXIMUM price of the renewal is $100. We have started to have some renewals, and I am pretty sure we have waived the fees, but the one thing we can't do is take it away unless you breach the agreement in some material way and fail to cure it.