Karaoke Forums

I just wish that you would go after the known pirates from the leads that we turn in. It's a shoe-in that those hard drives are going to be full of CB stuff too. I'm sure, between all of the leads we can provide, we can keep you busy for a very long time. Not only will it help you, but it will help us KJ's as well. By putting the pirates out of business, gives us the opportunity to fill those venues with legal hosts, thus leveling the playing field and would prove that you're really willing to work with us.

I feel that's the way to go about this.

_________________
Electro-Voice Evolve 50... Taking Sound To The Next Level.

Actually, you've got that exactly right. When you rip to your computer, you are absolutely creating a new item.

The problem, of course, is that the item you've created carries our trademarks and trade dress on it. The law is that the person who created the item is the "origin" for purposes of trademark law. But our trademarks are supposed to indicate us as the "origin," not you.

Creating goods that bear the trademarks belonging to someone else, without their permission--that's trademark infringement.

Thanks for pointing that out.



You will never be sued by any entity I represent for playing from original discs. Period, full stop.

Is that better?



Okay, here goes:

You have my ironclad guarantee that no person or company will ever be sued by Phoenix Entertainment Partners for playing karaoke tracks, commercially or not, publicly or not, from original discs.



We perform a direct examination of every certified drive to make sure that the tracks contained on that drive meet our quality standards and that the tracks match the original media the operator owns and possesses. You can ask any of our certified operators whether we did that or not. There is a list on the website.



What I've said was that if that was all we had, that would be enough.

That is not ever all that we have.

My suggestion about waving a disc in the air was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. If you are really concerned that we're going to sue because we didn't correctly discern that you were playing from original discs, then, by all means, make it more obvious.


AND???? Is there anything illegal or infringing with that? [/quote]

The circumstances don't rule out the possibility that you were a massive multi-rigger who had to scale your business back to a nub because you were afraid of being sued into oblivion in a case you couldn't possibly win. I'm not saying that's the case, just that it's one explanation. There are others.



I have no idea what SC discs you might have purchased, or not purchased. If you made that purchase, thanks.



I don't think anyone is disputing that you bought some SC materials at one point or another.

I think that if you asked most people on this board to look at your comments and mine, and to describe one of them as a "deranged quest," they would not choose me.



So provide the explanation that fits these facts better.



You didn't ask us nicely for anything. (I doubt very much that you've ever asked anyone for anything "nicely.") The people who asked nicely--or, to use a more accurate term, who cooperated and supported our efforts--got certifications and freedom to operate. Our certified KJs know for certain they won't be sued by us as long as they stick to the terms--1:1 correspondence and notice of changes in holdings.

But now you've got your guarantee: You will never be sued for using original discs, period.



What would have left them in the cross-hairs would have been unaddressed trademark infringement.



There are different kinds of freedom.

I'm pretty sure we've never threatened to sue you. (And why would we? You don't use our product.)

But your position means that you don't get the benefit of using the SC product you paid for. I believe I even offered you a free audit and certification if you wanted it. That offer still stands, and it would let you use your SC product in the way you want to, without having to worry about being sued.

Nope. Your words here are meaningless... you can promise all you want and you know that. Words mean things remember? So "by any entity I represent" wouldn't include local lawyers hired to represent your client.


Bullsh**. You of all people counsel should know that what you've typed here really doesn't hold you to squat... But I'm sure you can trick a lot of others into thinking otherwise.

I knew you wouldn't give us 1 verfiable source... pointing to a "list on the website" doesn't cut it.

Of course it does and you've said so yourself. As a matter of fact, you're the one that suggest I wave a disc in the air an announce to everyone that "this song is being played off original Sound Choice media" if your investigator can't see a disc player....

Tell us again how well that worked out for McLeod's and Rodney didn't it? And your new target are the unknowing venues who don't know better and "technical infringers" who are actually customers that have purchased the product. (like the guy in the quad cities)

You're obviously not proud and will use any means possible to extract a payment --- even from those that bought and paid for their music. Your integrity is shining through.

Nice deflection. The point is that you have ALWAYS been able to check your client's sales records (when they were still in business) to see if I had in fact, purchased any product at all directly from them. You deliberately chose not to and instead, insinuate repeatedly that something nefarious had be going on. And you do so to this day.... 6 YEARS later. I'd call that pretty angry and deranged if you ask me. You can't swing at anything newer than your own 6-year old fairytale. Who's living in your head rent-free?

Been there, done that.


We asked you "nicely" for an ironclad guarantee from your client that we wouldn't be sued if we hauled in a disc player (check this forum: March 2012) so don't act like some beat up victim (again).

Paying for your audit and signing your contract is pure bull*** to use SC product.

Nope. Your words are not a guarantee. You don't own the trademark and even if you did, there's no way that I trust you on a handshake or an internet forum. That's about as worthless as you can get and you know that. Your guarantee here is not a promise of anything: like your promise to update the people that received money for your advance product: You've NOT ONCE fulfilled your promise to "update on the progress" of your subscriber numbers to your own customers Even though you've been prompted several times. If you're so willing to lie to your own customers that hand you money - today - what's my incentive to trust anything that you say - especially with a guarantee? Hate to disappoint you, but I'm not that stupid.

It wouldn't matter, you sue for computer use and if you sue if you don't see a player, period. That's your policy. You make your living on "preponderance" not evidence.

"pretty sure?".... I'm cracking up!....


"Benefit of using the product?" Really? I think the "benefit" is NOT using the product.
(1) I can't get sued,
(2) My venues can't get sued,
(3) I don't pay a fee or sign a contract and
(4) I'm still operating along just fine..... plus
(5) I get the side benefit of knowing that it angers you to no end.

And your trademark is simply becoming less and less relevant.... Even the singers don't care what brand they use anymore... as long as it's good... and there are plenty of other companies that have jumped in graciously, providing just as good a product, without the additional hoops of fire you offer....

You seem to be saying that things people post on website forums aren't legally binding. You sure you want to go down that path?

(By the way, I'm an officer of Phoenix Entertainment Partners. I have the authority to bind the company where needed. So yes, my statement above is intended to be legally binding. No person or company will ever be sued by Phoenix Entertainment Partners for playing karaoke tracks, commercially or not, publicly or not, from original discs.)



The "list on the website" includes contact information, in one form or another, for many of our certified KJs. Pick up the phone, type out an email, whatever you like. If that's not a "verifiable source," what, in your view, would constitute a "verifiable source"?



Neither one of them were sued for playing from discs.



We send notice letters, at least two and usually more, to venues whom we sue on a vicarious infringement theory, before we sue them.

"The guy in the Quad Cities" isn't a "technical infringer." He was offered the opportunity to be audited--no charge, no "contract," just a look at the system and discs on the same terms as we would get in discovery--and he turned it down flat. He had the opportunity to get out of the suit just by showing his discs and his hard drive, at no cost to him, and he declined to do it. He's not a technical infringer; he's just an infringer. The fact that you continue to bring him up, in view of those facts, shows that you are content to lie when it suits you (just like when you said your tracks for Red Peters were individually watermarked).



He didn't have to pay us anything. All he had to do was show us what he had, and if it held up, he'd be done, and certified.



You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/preponderance+of+the+evidence



Well, sort of. On the plus side, you don't need that big truck anymore!



Much to the contrary, if your attitude here is any indication of how you are in real life, I'd really prefer that you not use our product, truth be known. The fact that you don't use our product means we must be doing something right.

Slep-Tone vs Rodney Burges
Case #: 2:2011-cv-08305
Filed in 2011

Let's remember that you can't "get dismissed" from a lawsuit.... if you haven't "been sued" in the first place.

I can only hope you use a judicial application of fire retardant on your underwear because it seems your pants on fire...... yet again.

And "theory" is all it is. Like I said, you'll sue the unknowing.. and even on a "theory." Nice. Keep on pouring the poison in the well...

So what are you whining about? If you can get the same thing in discovery, what's your beef? Oh... that's right... you won't be able to charge him for the audit would you? Discovery is free... for him.

And if it's done through discovery and he has everything... then what? Does he still get certified? What's the diff? You're not vindictive or anything are you?


I know exactly what it means. And aren't you glad it's not "beyond a reasonable doubt?" You'd be up a creek.

Oh yeah, the TOYOTA.... what a mammoth machine that was!... (It used 14 inch tires too) You'll inflate anything to gargantuan size if you think it will lend you some credibility and for someone from "a prestigious law school" to have to scrape so low... that's pretty sad.

Fixed it for you.

To all you guys who are constantly bitter on this board. Sorry, but I for one, just can not imagine
how bitterness does not rub off into other aspects of one's life.

I am not saying your shows reflect such, but it sure could !

Again, I'm just sayin'.

_________________
You can never argue with a crazy mi-mi-mi-mi-mi-mind ----B. Joel
I have great faith in fools; My friends call it self-confidence ---- E.A. Poe
I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity ----E.A. Poe
I don't know, I don't care, and it doesn't make any difference! ----A. Einstein
Double bubble, toil and trouble ----W. Shakespeare & Walt Disney
I hate it when I get on FaceBook ----Me
Karaoke might be Groundhog Day ----?
Of All the Martial Arts, Karaoke Inflicts the Most Pain ----?

Actually, I'm a pretty nice guy in real life...
I think the only person on these boards that has met me in person is Cueball.

Phil cross can reset your password....

Never mind. I read that wrong.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

I could not have said that better, Lon.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

And, Chip's a very talented and funny guy too. I spent spent several days hanging with Chip and "Bird of Song". They are a wonderful couple. We had a great time together. And not only that, we didn't talk about SC, Piracy, or James.

Read the complaint. He wasn't sued for playing from discs.



Chip no read good. I said we offered it to him for free. He turned it down.

I'm done with this silly argument. It's clear that you're just interested in complaining no matter what we do.

Darn it, you got me again on that "words mean things" didn't you?

You're right, he wasn't sued "for playing from discs" at all... Even though the person changing his original karaoke discs in his karaoke player was an off-duty cop, your client sued him for "trademark infringement" when clearly he wasn't, as well as the regular slew of accusations which --when filed with the court -- were all a lie pure and simple.

Perfect example of how any KJ can get sued for using that product in its original media and your willingness to purposefully -- even today -- use stupid word games and "technicalities."

Thanks for the confirmation (and illustration) of how someone from "a prestigious law school" so willingly will use word games to trade ethics for money.



Good for him. There's really no incentive for him to help you in your fishing expedition is there? You've already managed to have him fired from 2 of his 4 jobs by suing the venues first. (A little more poison in the well...) Do you really think his venues would hire him back if he lifted a finger for you?

You of all people should know the procedures in a lawsuit and discovery is part of that process so don't whine because the people you sue expect you to do what you're supposed to do; It's not their job to make yours easier, or even sign your contract... for "free."

I'm just pointing out what you're doing and you're angry because it's just not working out the way you want it to. So now, you're the one playing switcheroo word games and dancing around...

Oh come on now Mr. Harrington!!!! If memory (and past posts from 5 years ago in this Forum) holds true, you (Mr. Harrington) are correct. Rodney wasn't sued for playing from discs. He was sued for the same thing SC was suing everyone else... he was sued for Media Shifting, and as a result, Trademark Infringement. The only problem with that was, Rodney's name was misspelled, AND, he plays original discs, not Media-shifted content.

bull$hit
you get mad that there is no "ironclad guarantee" and pester him for not doing it, now he does EXACTLY WHAT YOU ASKED FOR TO THE LETTER and an "ironclad guarantee" is meaningless? you can't do both. at this point you are again just being a dick.


agreed here, too many quality options that were not available before. not that 99% of singers really care about labels anymore.

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

With all the other brands out there, SC isn't even needed. And as I have mentioned before, KSF has stated that they are looking to record many of the SC only songs. That would REALLY marginalize SC.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

I'm not doing both. He's welcome to put it in writing that I won't be sued by anyone representing PEP and mail it to me. He has my address and there's no way I'm accepting anything he writes in an internet forum.

Especially when he plays word games like "Rodney wasn't sued" and then when caught in this lie; "Rodney wasn't sued for playing discs." So, am I suspicious when he says "any entity I represent?" You bet. Because he hires other attorneys "represent PEP" and I don't have time for his stupid and unethical word games.

You really should work on your reading comprehension.

I never said "Rodney wasn't sued." Go back and read it.

Of course, you won't. You lied, because the lie serves you better, just like when you lied about the individual watermarks on your Red Peters tracks. And now that you've been caught lying, you have to stick to it, no matter how ridiculous the lie has become.

If you are going to accuse me of lying, you had better bring something stronger than that.

It's not the size, it's the cute way you use it..

Apparently attorney Harrington, you skipped your ethics classes a bit too often at your "prestigious law school" because you knew exactly what the subject matter was and what was meant. But you want to keep playing the "slice and dice word game" like a child.

More word games?
(emphasis added)
However, there is no denying that they were "both sued" and while the complaint doesn't state that they were sued "for playing discs," (a technicality) the fact is they were BOTH "playing from discs" and they were BOTH ultimately "sued" for trademark infringement, etc., etc., and the common denominator to both of them being sued is..... wait for it.... wait for it.......... they were both playing SC material and it turned out that it was also from "original discs."

(If they had dropped the brand, neither of them would have "been sued" at all... just sayin')

So my statement is correct: A KJ can be sued EVEN IF "playing from disc" material that contains the "Sound Choice" trademark from the now defunct Slep-Tone. Do you prefer the words "even if" better than "for?" I think technically, it's far more accurate and doesn't lead to confusion.

What you don't want to admit, is that both were sued when they shouldn't have and those lawsuits were based completely on lies.

But you'll simply try to pass that off as just "a mistake" because it's so much more palatable.

More manure, more lies...