Karaoke Forums

You're the one providing the fuel with your non-responsive, non-committal and vague answers.



I'm sure you wouldn't be willing to give a 100% ironclad guarantee on that on behalf of any of your new clients would you?

Chip - I don't understand why you even care. You don't have a CB12000+ Drive or any other CB digital media that you have ever mentioned. If that is true, none of this impacts you. Those of us that do have the drives have been told we will be contacted and we will be able to provide informed answers when we are. We don't need someone that has no vested interest in the matter stirring things up.

Until then, attempting to extract answer from Harrington when he may not even have them, just seems silly. Especially when you start accusing him of fueling the fires. Just because someone asks a question and the answer isn't what that someone wants to hear, doesn't mean there is a conspiracy or that there is even anything worth knowing.

Just a guess on my part - The only reason I can see that you are pressing the issue is just to get people riled up and/or get your daily dose of verbal sparring with Harrington in. There really is no sense at all speculating on what will or won't happen until the new "entity" goes live and gives us information. At the very least try speculating on some positives instead of always focusing on how someone is going to sue. (by the way....the lawsuits don't actually impact you directly either. I would be willing to bet my Sound Choice certification cost less than what you have spent on Pacer reports about legal activities that you neither contribute to, nor gain anything from other than a pile of mud to sling)

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Anyone who earns money from karaoke, or enjoys a night out of karaoke singing has a vested interest in the future of the karaoke industry.

If one were to pay attention to the evolution of the litigation business that is being built on the back of the karaoke industry, they might well be able to see the dangers that the strong arm tactics present to the longevity of the industry itself.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

As for credit card information being sold, given, exchanged, or whatever happens frequently when one business buys, takes over another business. Do you really think if ABC Inc buys, takes over, or whatever XYZ Inc that they don't get everything involved (the assets and debt)? Are you really that naive?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I'm trying to figure out why anyone would think we would need someone's credit card number to verify whether they had purchased a CB12000+ hard drive or not. It doesn't even enter the discussion. So the more obvious conclusion is that you're trying to stir up muddy innuendos, to make people think their credit card information has somehow been compromised. But what purpose would that possibly serve?

The only one I can think of is that you've gotten yourself out onto a limb with your anti-SC position. You figured you would pull SC, wait a year or two until the company died, then put it back on your systems, however many you have, once you knew there was no chance of being sued. The fly in the ointment was that we managed to pull the company back from the brink and into a relatively healthy position, and the tide is starting to turn in our favor. The longer we've lasted, the madder (and I mean that in both the American and British senses) you've gotten. Now we've been asked to do the same thing with the CB brand. It must be infuriating, because now you've either got to pull all your CB and start attacking the new company or reveal yourself as a hypocrite.

Interesting that you would use your own speculation in order to form a baseless judgment. You don't know whether I do or do not use this brand much less in what form - so your tirade and accusatory tone above is absolutely meaningless.


It isn't a matter of "what I want to hear" as much as it's a non-answer left purposely vague to suit whatever agenda they'll be thinking up next. You saw the technical "end run" harrington pulled on Joe C. when it was clear what Joe wanted in the first place. Obviously, this new vendor has already decided a policy to begin suing.... even before the "official switchover" is to occur on the 10th. But there's been no mention of this new vendor's "policies" on anything. Nothing.



There is no speculation that the "new entity" has already begun suing... even before "going live" or offering a single karaoke track for sale - even to you. And by the way, this is not my schedule, it's harrington's.



Your guess is simply incorrect. And you should make sure that you spell my name correctly on the check because I have spent far less on pacer reports over the last 2 years than your certification did for the first year.... You'll be paying that over and over again to remain certified right?

Are you suggesting that digitrax entertainment has assumed the $389,000.00 judgment as one of the "debts?"

Any owing taxes or lawsuits wouldn't be a part of it, no more than they would be part of a bankruptcy. Those would still be part of the original company.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Yes it does leave the concern of the other rigs though. The person I dealt with has a rough idea of what I have besides my main system, and exactly what I do with it. But there was no interest in auditing shown. I just wonder what will happen at renewal under a new company. I think for those buying the drives they sold, the fact that we DID buy it and didn't just download everything for free should be some indication of our "legal" status. However it does seem that KJs (even ones who pass an audit) are largely treated as potential criminals on probation.

Okay, then I will just simply ask....

Chip, do you own any CB 12000+ Drives, 6000+ Drives SD cards or other CB music that was NOT originally shipped on CD or DVD media?

But you knew exactly what I was talking about already anyway. And since you didn't even clearly state whether you use ANY Chartbuster music, who is being vague now? Your non-answer must leave only one answer (which I get to choose just as you do) - That you do not use ANY Chartbuster Music at all. I will admit to not knowing this for sure, but I will also admit to not really caring either.

I don't believe you care either. You just want to stir up trouble.

I am skipping the second quoted reply you made because all you did was send it off into the weeds.

As for the cost of Pacer vs Certification - maybe I am incorrect, but I don't think I am. You have made a big deal a couple of times about how you have used your own money to provide others with information from Pacer. If you have spent significantly less than my certification, than the big deal you made is not so big.

No matter, even if the Pacer reports were free, you still pull them soley for being able to sling mud. I stand by that statement.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Here we go again......


Like you, I'll keep my information private to me.... are you a "freelance investigator" for the chartbust(ed) trademark? Why would you care what I own, use or don't use?


Again, I'm only responsible for what I SAY.... not what YOU understand or in this case "invent."


This is wrong on so many levels, it doesn't deserve a reply. Believe whatever it is you WANT to believe if it makes you feel better.


No doubt where it belongs because even you don't want it back.


You (once again) miss the point entirely. It has nothing to do with the "expense in currency" of the Pacer reports. Many other posters here use free services like Justia or whatever it's called. The point is to expose what's really going on in the court system and the truth behind your "saviors of the karaoke industry." They are not angels and over the last two years, even chartbuster has been defending their sainthood when it fact, they were nailed a couple times for outright piracy to the tune of a few MILLION dollars all the while playing the part of some victim. Even the last action by CAVS was simply the nail in the coffin that even they knew they couldn't run from. It simply amazes me how you cheerleaders defend them to this day and act like they were "murdered by pirates" when in fact the very piracy that took them down was their own -- but it's too easy to just look away right?


What is in ANY Pacer report that can possibly be construed as "mud slinging?" That SC has been sued multiple times for copyright infringment? Not a lie is it? That CB sold unlicensed music that caused CAVS to be sued by publishers? Not a lie is it?

So what's your problem here? Why does the real facts bother you for some reason?

I understand that you'd like to have your entire world sugarcoated -- it's much more palatable that way -- but it's time to look at the facts. And many of the real facts are not as pleasant as you'd like them to be. Truth sometimes stings, sorry.

How ridiculous. I would have expected something a little more substantial from you of all people. However, I did notice that you (once again) completely ignored the question and used the opportunity to attempt to twist your narrative onto me. This really gets old, you need to find a new tactic when avoiding a direct question.


Now who exactly is trying stir up crap with completely bulls**t speculation like this? Why not start a new thread where it's nothing but your conspiracy theories one after another? I love the way you ignore the real questions and gloss over the fact with crap stories like this. Your CSDS (Chip Staley Derangement Syndrome) has reared it's ugly head.....

Besides, by your own admission, even if I use SC discs, I still have a risk of being sued...


I'm not mad at all, you're the one inventing your stories in an attempt to make yourself look better. Didn't we hear that "Sound Choice Studios" has ceased operations?



You'd like that wouldn't you? But you've got your crack investigative squad so let's let them do their stealthy work and not try to do their job for them. They need work too.

Pretty interesting that the "new company" has already started suing.... before the actual "switchover" date that you provided of May 10th and long before they've even offered a single product for sale.

It's simply a trademark trolling operation harringtonlaw, let's just start calling it what it really is because there isn't enough powdered sugar in the world to make it palatable under any other name.

Canadian law may be different, but here in the U.S.
(1) you cannot avoid taxes by declaring bankruptcy and,
(2) you cannot avoid a previous civil judgment against you that involves secured assets that you are holding against a company by declaring bankruptcy. This means you can't form a company, buy a ton of stuff on credit and then simply declare bankruptcy and be able to keep the assets you bought.

Anything else would appear to be a nutshell game.

Actually, Having a Pacer account is about as prestigious as having a Gmail account. Because getting a Pacer account is.....free.

It costs .10 a page to do a search, yes. BUT...if your usage is under $15 a quarter (150 pages), all fees are waived...IE: Free.
I have had an account for years and never been charged a cent.

http://www.pacer.gov/reg_pacer.html

Chip, you really can't read can you. You just said what I already said. Shakes head.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

You are incorrect.

It humors me to watch you dance and write fiction. You are very good at both.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Divert, twist, parre, dodge and deflect.... you'll do anything to avoid the issue and what's really happening. I'd probably do the same if I were in your shoes. Luckily, I'm not.

Please enlighten the less-knowing what it is you determined to be fiction....

Present something substantial instead of baseless and superficial judgments.

Interesting.....when someone else uses the same tactics as you, they are somehow at fault. But you are above reproach.



I would be interested in knowing what shoes you think I am in (size 12 btw) and why you feel lucky you don't have to wear them.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Sorry for the hijack, or drive by tactic that I may be accused of, but I am glad that you put this so eloquently.

I have been trying to word a response that puts this point across to c. staley. It seems that most of his posts tend to take stuff out of context, then using that context to confuse the issue at hand.

I have been watching you post Chris using the same tactics as c. staley and was getting a bit miffed at you as well. Thank you for being honest in admitting that you were using these tactics in your responses. Now I think I know why you were doing this and now see that you have proven a major point in who really twists things around.