Karaoke Forums

Thank you for your response.
I did read it carefully the first time.
I think your response proves we are in agreement, however I think you should read your contract more carefully and observe the word “us”.

“that you will not undertake any action that brings the Marks or US into disrepute”
The use of the word “US” instead of the word “yourself” means they must be a good steward of your reputation as well.

I also think a good steward of your reputation would not publicly say things unflattering about Sound Choice, PEP or any of PEP’s Officers, and if one did, they would technically be in breach of contract.
The fact that they breached the contract would not obligate you to terminate the contract; that would be at your discretion, which you could choose to exercise at any future time should you desire.

The point I was making was a simple answer to the question Tim posed as to how is PEP controlling Chris (any licensee). He seemed to be trying to make a point that there are no controls over your licensees. My point is that the licensees are in fact controlled (as they should be) and I gave one obvious example.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

What do the last few pages of this thread have to do with Safe Harbor again?

_________________
-Chris

How can you expect any thread to remain on topic when there's SC bashing to be done?

it actually is on topic: The safe harbor discussion is all about the contractual obligations of the program. Which has only morphed into a general discussion about the contractual obligations of "controlled licensees" (thanks to Timmy) and the real meanings of the words (not the desired interpretation) of those contracts.

When it comes to contracts, PEP now claims that what is written in their contract isn't really what it means... because apparently the terms of the contracts they produce are somewhat "fluid" and only mean what they want them to mean at the time they're pressed for a direct answer.

Which reminds me: Harrington, you never responded to Earthling's question about the interpretation of your contract in the event the assets (including the contractual obligations) of PEP were sold to a different entity. Words mean things... remember...

*sigh*

Our contracts mean exactly what they say.

The problem (your problem, specifically) is that they don't say what you seem to think they say. The purpose of the section you are referring to is to ensure that Phoenix retains control of those aspects of the licensee's business that relate to the quality of the licensed goods and services in use. That means no disparagement of the product, no altering the product (except as we specifically permit), ensuring that the services the licensee provides meet our quality standards, and so forth. It also requires good conduct on the part of the licensee, because the performance of services we license reflects on us.

Nowhere in there is there a requirement that a licensee refrain from criticizing us, because criticism of us as a company has nothing to do with the quality of the goods and services in use.

There is no fluidity in that at all--except, of course, that we can elect to enforce against a breach, or not. Our preference is to work with the licensee to correct the problem, and revocation of the license is essentially a nuclear weapon that we would much prefer not to launch unless absolutely, direly necessary.



I believe that my answer stands for any successor in interest. It is exceptionally unlikely that Phoenix's assets would be sold to anyone, but even if they were, the successor would be obligated to follow the contract. A successor could, of course, decide to enforce against breaches more readily than we do, but that's just the way contracts work.

Anyone who frequents any number of discussion forums should be able to conclude that is is common occurrence for any given topic to veer, or derail, or any variance in between. Forums have different sets of rules to govern their usage, with wide ranging repercussions, all the way up to banishment; however, any forum that I have ever been on that stipulates staying on-topic as a punishable offense has done minimal things to enforce that, and would be remiss to do so, in that they would have to delete a large percentage of contributed material to comply with such a stipulation.

This is somewhat consistent with any forums I associate myself, even with those that involve concrete items (car and other hobbyist forums, classified forums, etc.). If a forum is more concerned with abstract areas (rights, politics, legalities, etc.) there has to be room for the conversation to go off-page, because of their main driving force: OPINION.

If a thread is viewed by someone to be taken off course, and they voice a desire to see it go back, it could be perceived to be done because that person didn't like the direction it was going. If they simply want to talk more about the original subject line, there are ways of directing the thread back that way without calling out individuals or making a deal out of the tangent...

And what does THAT have to do with the OP?

I know exactly how this all works. Been working in computer forums since the late 70's.

You are correct though... Chip's incessant rat-holing of every single SC related conversation is tiresome. It bloats this forum with crap, and turns people away.

Every single person I have ever ever pointed here has gotten back to me with negative feedback. Specifically because of the SC BS. So I don't refer anyone here any longer. They want to talk about karaoke, not see a bunch of pseudo-legal bullshit from an opaque, bitter, wannabe lawyer.

_________________
-Chris

I agree that if someone presents an argument for argument's sake, it is usually easily detected; I have made it clear that I attempt to present my replies in a 'food for thought' vein, with a slant, if any, from a position of consumer advocacy. Questioning every move of a company is not a prudent approach; however, holding a company's actions to the fire when it affects the consumer (I have two words for you: Wells Fargo) is acceptable, yea, even mandated...

there is an awful lot about SC contracts on a thread about SC contracts...

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

I think that the reason for this forum turning into as ghost town id that if you don't tow the company line snd praise sound Choice constantly; you get brow beaten and labeled a pirate sympathizer ASAP. Chip i s the perfect example of this treatment. The cheerleaders come out in full force to endorse anything and everything Sound Choice. Meanwhile, Sound Choice hasn't made a new song in over 6 years b ut the cheerleaders don't seem to cacre about all of the broken promises of new material. When Sound Choice loses a major decision in Federal Court; anyone who seems to be happy about it is black balled by the group of cheerleaders. The only person willing to stand up to the man/men behind the curtain is Chip and he is attacked at every chance for trying to let people know the truth about the whole media shifting policy. The cheerleaders do their best to keep the fear alive. They don't want Chip to educate the masses about the legal decisions on the subject because they think that it is a good idea that people cower in fear of the big bad law suit monster who tries to threaten people with ridiculous law suits in order to get them to pay the off with a quick settlement rather than go to court and fight it out and more than likely win, based on what happened in District 7. The cheerleaders try to mamke people think that they would lose every time and they' NEVER get awarded costs and attorney's fees in the process. They try to convince everyone that you can never beat Sound Choice in court and that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

The reason why people who express an anti-SC viewpoint get labeled "pirate sympathizer" is because it's an objectively true assertion.

How many of you cheered on Kevin Cable? How many gave money to him to fight against us? How many came in here and gave us grief for going after him?

The man is a straight-up pirate. Whether he gets called to account for it in court is up in the air, but there really isn't any disputing the fact that he pirated 80% of his SC tracks.

So spare me the "poor me" attitude. Support us, or not--it's up to you--but when you make your choice, don't complain that people call you what you are.

One might be able to conclude that, getting past all the rhetoric and noise, that the crux of it all might be this: The end may not justify the means...

What cheerleaders? They are all gone! I am certainly not one even though you and others will likely disagree.

I don't disagree with 100% of Chip's comments. The ones that are bullshit, I call him on though. Unfortunately, it's a lot.

It amazes me how much this parallels the whole Trump campaign. Chip supporters are like Trump supporters - they blindly believe anything Chip says. When Chip is caught in a blatant lie (which I have done) it gets glossed over. Chip is about as transparent as Trump too. Jim has been pretty forthcoming. Jim doesn't have to be here and I am amazed he has stuck around this long.

But I get where Chip and his cronies are coming from. It's easy to beat up on SC by framing them as he big bad bully. Few like their methodology and most (including myself) would like them to come up with a better way to enforce and monitor their IP. Besides. Jim is a lawyer. No one likes lawyers. Every single one of them has a bulls eye painted on them.

So you really should put Chip on a shorter pedestal because he is taking the easy path here (just like everyone else beating up on SC).

Frankly, I like my position better. I support SC, I use their products, and my success runs counter to all of the gloom and doom Chip has been spouting for the last 5 years. He predicted I would fail (with or without SC). I am still here, doing better than ever. *AND* there is absolutely no question about whether I am operating above board. He cannot say the same.

_________________
-Chris

So.....does that mean Harrington/PEP supporters would be like "Crooked Hillary" supporters??? /jk

You started it by asking
doowhatchulike answered... PERIOD!

Then DON'T point then to the Legal section!!!! PERIOD!!!!!

I've had some private dialogue with Kevin (after posting your comments from earlier (with your permission) in facebook).
Why don't you quote his ENTIRE RESPONSE from Discovery here, and NOT just the snippet of it that makes him sound like a pirate?????

YES HE CAN!!!!! And anything you have to say further on that specific comment could be considered slander.

I believe then, based on your logic above, and the lawsuits against your firm over the years (including EMI) that would make you "copyright infringers" a.k.a. "pirates" as well, right?

yeah, words mean things....

The Hillary supporters are no less determined to see her elected regardless of her less than presidential behavior. She's been in legal scandals her entire career. Deleting thousands of E-Mails is just the latest one but her cheerleaders are out there every day singing her praises. Harrington is a lawyer and Hillary is a lawyer. Hillary is the one who brought up Obama's citizenship in 2008 when she was campaigning against him in the primaries but now she wants to blame Trump for starting it and the press does her fighting for her. Chip is out there pointing out the facts about media shifting and Jim and his PEP SQUAD try to remind people that they think that District 7 judges got it all wrong and that people should still be afraid enough of the big bad wolf that they should just settle up and pay once again to use material that they already paid for. The district court has ruled that using tracks downloaded for free is not even infringement on any of SC/PEP's rights. PEP Boys would love to bury that information in hopes that fewer people will use that data as a defense in the future. PEP is so afraid of that information getting out there that they would rather just drop the case against a guy that they had nailed to the wall already. A sure victory that they just walked away from, for some strange reason. God forbid they let a precedent get set that would let them be shown in a bad light. Just more smoke and mirrors if you ask me. Hide the truth at all costs and disparage the guy who tries to get the truth seen out in the open.

I posted his entire unedited response to our interrogatories that dealt with his holdings of tracks and discs. There is no larger portion of his response that makes him sound less like the pirate he is.

His hard drive contained five times as many SC tracks as he had discs for. What additional facts could exist that would make that not piracy?