Karaoke Forums

What rights did he sign away? None that I can see and no more than than McDonald's has when they buy their pop (or soda in the US) from Coca Cola. You understand they cannot buy or use product from any other soft drink company, than Coca Cola and if they do, they are subject to a lawsuit. The same goes for KFC and Pepsi Cola. I don't see anywhere where PEP/SC says you cannot use another brand in your shows.

As for signing rights away, people do it everyday, especially if they work for a place that has trade secrets and other secrets. That in just one instance and there are many others.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Really? You have to ask this? Don't you read anything? Perhaps your own attorney can clear it up for you, so get a copy of the contracts and take them to your very own Canadian attorney and ask if he'd sign it.
Thank goodness that all of Canada isn't as schooled as you apparently are. Look up the legal phrase "range and scope" and you'll find that any of these companies can "buy or use product from any other soft drink company" once the contract they are under has been satisfied or terminated. Their exclusive contracts cover certain pricing, performance and other conditions for a specified amount of time only.
No one has stated that either. And now you're making up stuff to complain about... Not unusual.. for you.
And the ones that do are usually being compensated to do so. With PEP, you get to sign away your rights AND pay them for doing so.

You are exactly the kind of customer PEP is looking for. Lucky you.

The "Speak ill" of PEP stuff is nonsense. If someone who isn't happy about my gig sits around drinking beer all night taking trash about me, it doesn't bother me one bit. They are supporting me by staying and drinking... bonus if they DON'T sing. I lose zero sleep over that.

I am sure so long as a licensee doesn't go out of their way to offend PEP (Like in a public space such as this one) , they are going to be OK so long as the check clears.

For what its worth, Even though I have a nice sized set of original disc SC for myself, I still bounce the idea of a GEM program back and forth at times if I want to put a new rig together. Am I crazy about PEP? Not even a little. Then why would I do that? Because bottom line is business. Happy customers getting what they want to sing trumps any feeling I have for PEP if they are what is required.

The music might not be new, but I am sure we are not ONLY playing music from the just the last 6 years either.

And the same goes for them: Do you think if I laid down $5000 and said I'm interested in a GEM set, they would say "No Muffin, you are way too critical of us?" and not take the money? I don't think so.

As for the OP, I worry about myself or my bars getting sued. If I can do something to prevent it, I will do that to make my VENUES feel better about things. I may not like the policies, but I like getting paid. If my venue feels good about my services, then I'm happy. If it means paying a little go away money, I'm all for it. End of story.

Finally for what its worth, I also believe that PEP/Harrington honestly don't care enough to worry whats said on this forum either way. While this is the most popular forum what I can find, represents a VERY small group of people. It's a couple of thousand people with maybe a hundred active users. Hardly the monstrous voice we need to be in this industry.

I get it, but the point was that as a "technicality" they can and they've built that into their contracts to keep that handy. And "so long as" is exactly the "control" they have.

that's because you're not me.

I have done something to prevent it that costs zero to me or the venues and as an added bonus, I can still use the brand for my patrons to sing from - it may not be as "convenient" as using a laptop, but it's still available no matter what they say and they cannot prevent me from using what I've paid for.
Ah, but that's the rub: it's a more than just "a little go away money."
Harrington does care enough to be upset when PEP is exposed for what it really is. Notice his own denial of the very words he authored in his contract suddenly don't mean... what they really mean? If what he says they mean now is true, then the contract is a lie and he wrote it, but if the contract is true (and you can ask an attorney what it means) then he's not telling the truth now. Either way, there's a marketing untruth in there and no matter where it is, the origin and responsibility points squarely back.. at Harrington and no one else.

Would you want to sign any contract with someone that operates like this? Not me.

And yes, it's an informal "cottage industry" at best.

No. Please read it more carefully.

Our licenses are not free to disparage the Marks. For example, if a licensee said, "SC is the worst brand of karaoke. The music sucks and didn't sound anything like the originals," then they would be breaking that clause. But if you have a low opinion of the brand, why would you use it? That part ONLY applies to the brand, not to our company.

The "disrepute" clause deals with the licensee's own conduct ("undertake any action"). A licensee is associated with us--they are more than just a customer. Their professional conduct reflects on us. This clause is a reminder and a requirement to be a good steward of the licensee's own reputation.

Thank goodness that all of Canada isn't as schooled as you apparently are. Look up the legal phrase "range and scope" and you'll find that any of these companies can "buy or use product from any other soft drink company" once the contract they are under has been satisfied or terminated. Their exclusive contracts cover certain pricing, performance and other conditions for a specified amount of time only.

And how is that different than PEP/SC? You can terminate your licence and return the items you have licenced. At least with PEP you can use other brands. And while under contract McDonald's cannot use another brand. A contract or a lease agreement does not make something evil as you are trying to make it Chippie. Once again how is PEP/SC controlling Chris and others? Are they dictating what price they charge for shows, what venues they can play at, taking a percentage from their earnings (other than the licencing fee), again, exactly how are PEP/SC controlling them? You will try to twist anything to make them look bad and you look good and I and many other aren't buying your garbage. Now I will await your insults.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Even if it is true. And we all know that there are SC tracks that are "the worst brand" and "didn't sound like the originals." But your contract requires that your licensees lie -- even about those tracks.

Explain this to the ones you sued and forced a gem set as a settlement.

Except that is NOT what it says. "Words mean things" remember? You're not free to change the meaning to suit your agenda. Your contract does not say "licensees own conduct." But you now say you want to "control their conduct" as well?

My "malarkey meter" is pegged again...

The truth is that you DO comply with PEP policy Chip, you have just chose to 'opt out' of using your SC collection for whatever reason you have done so. The quote you use from Harrington as a signature states that you "Follow the law and [PEPs] policies". So, instead of paying to use your CDs or to media shift, you don't use the product at all. That is your right to do so, and certainly PEP won't sue you because you DON'T use the product in any form.

If you are like me, you probably have thousands of dollars invested in SC product, product you are NOT using. You aren't baiting PEP with "I am using stolen SC product, come find me!!". You aren't selling stolen copies of the GEM set, or anything that PEP would want to sue you FOR. You just aren't using the product, and that to PEP is fine with them, because they respect your right to have opted out.

I have chose to keep my product, and abide by PEP rules. I might be vocal about not liking it, but I understand it. What I paid for shut up money is, to me, the cost of doing business. I pay taxes, I pay insurance, I pay my guys. It's is just another bill to pay to do what I do. I'm OK with that.

As for YOU personally buying anything from PEP, yes I think you might be the only person in the world they might outright refuse. But then again, maybe not IF you follow their policy just like you are now. They also might have to have a drink if you ever went that route.

If PEP wanted to sue you for any bad talk/slander about them, I think they would have done so by now. You have mixed it up with them far worse then anyone else here, and they have a whole forum of things you've said to pick from if they wanted to waste time on that endeavor. Being you are the MOST vocal anti PEP person here, I am sure if anyone else grumbled about stuff being a PEP licensee, there would be more concern as to why then a lawsuit or revoking their licence status. After all, losing a source of revenue is bad for PEP too.

Is there a Canadian spelling for "duh?" Sure you can, and you may have to pay a penalty for terminating earlier than the agreed to term.

Timmy, obviously you don't "get it." Even PEP can't prevent a licensee from using something they themselves don't supply. McDonald's can certainly sell milkshakes, WATER, or any other drink product that their supplier (coca cola) doesn't sell or have specifically included in the contract.

It's all about how much you want to sign away. Coca cola needs McDonald's, not the other way around.

How many more examples would you care to ignore?
I don't need to insult you to make it apparent that you have no idea what you're talking about, you do that just fine on your own.

If our licensees "grumble about stuff," we listen to them and try to accommodate them. If we can't, we at least try to make things easier on them some other way. Many of our best ideas have come from licensees who thought we could do things differently.

Also: We have never "forced" anyone to buy a GEM series license, even to resolve a lawsuit. Pirates have always had the option to stop using the brand.

Point being that while PEP has written some language into a contract, there are far worse things a licensee can do then to just talk bad about the product. Maybe if it was very VERY over the top, but for the most part its not worth the headache for PEP.

I also agree that if you speak bad about the product often, then why use it? I don't care much for Apple at all, but I use iTunes and an iPad because it works well with my DJ software and hardware.

I would agree except that I can, at any time, use the product I purchased without endangering myself or any of my venues to any legal exposure from them and not engaging in any ongoing contractual arrangement. But, even that would not be true. Harrington himself as never guaranteed that using the original media in a commercial show would prevent a lawsuit (because his crack investigative squads make mistakes) so the only prudent measure is not to use it at all.

My singers know this -- they've seen the paperwork on lawsuits, and SC is the "bad guy."

My venues also know this -- they've also seen the paperwork on lawsuits (especially the latest where they dismissed the KJ and kept the venues on the hook) and PEP is the "bad guy" and I'm "the good guy" not only looking out for my venues, but protecting them 100% from these parasites.

The brand is just poison. If you use it -- in any form -- you can be subjected to a lawsuit. (Except in District 7)

Even Harrington has stated he wouldn't mind suing me on general principle. His attempt to vindictively punish me for telling the truth in the EMI copyright infringement lawsuit is a perfect example. He didn't deny that the truth I provided was the truth nor did he claim that what I provided was not the truth. I should send you the subpoena... it's hilarious how much they demanded I bring to the deposition that had nothing - and I mean nothing - to do with their lawsuit with EMI. Including my discs.

And that's fine. But I prefer not to deal with - nor will I support - any vendor that wants "shut up money" and I'm good with that.
As customers of the product, we first tried the "ask nicely route" and you can find that right here on these forums. There are KJ's that they have granted permission to media shift with no associated audit, contract, payment or anything else. Harrington could have granted us the same permissions and I wouldn't have said a peep from that day forward -- but he didn't. So he created the monster and now whines about it.... like he's a victim.
True. The problem for PEP is that suing me would be a frivolous lawsuit and that could cost them dearly. Telling the truth is not actionable even if it stings.

JimHarrington wrote:
But if you have a low opinion of the brand, why would you use it? That part ONLY applies to the brand, not to our company.

Toastedmuffin
Explain this to the ones you sued and forced a gem set as a settlement.

They aren't forced to get a GEM. They can cease and desist using their illegal SC products. If they are 1:1 they can pay for their media shifting, use the product as originally intended or get a GEM. It's their choice.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

timberlea wrote:
And how is that different than PEP/SC? You can terminate your licence and return the items you have licenced.

Chippie:
Is there a Canadian spelling for "duh?" Sure you can, and you may have to pay a penalty for terminating earlier than the agreed to term.

Oh wow like no other contract or rental agreement in the world or history has ever had an early withdrawal penalty clause. Boy you're really reaching now. Talk about someone who doesn't have a clue. It's strange Chippie that you seem to have all the answers but won't go up against big old bad SC.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Really?

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=27301&p=367597&hilit=gem+set+as+a+settlement#p367597

Is it hot in here, or are your pants on fire?

Please, for your own sake, please slow your roll.

The context of that statement was a discussion of how much it costs a pirate defendant to acquire the GEM series as part of a "standard" agreement. Someone who walked in off the street could, at that time, get the complete GEM series for $5000. A pirate defendant, by contrast, would have to pay a minimum of $9000 to get 3,000 tracks as part of a settlement, or $12,000 to get the complete set. This was a response to a complaint (again, from a non-licensee--once again proving my point) that the pirates we sue can get legit for less than it costs someone who starts out that way (which, as it turns out, is not the case).

Our settlements have always required two components: Compensation for the past infringement, and a plan for use or non-use of the product going forward. Defendants have several options on the going forward question: acquiring the GEM series, purchasing a HELP license, relying solely on their disc holdings, dropping the brand entirely, or getting out of the business entirely. We have NEVER required anyone to license the GEM series as a condition of settlement. We merely require that if you are going to use our products going forward, you MUST do so on the basis of either the purchase of original discs or of a license agreement.

Did I sign the subpoena? No.



I wasn't aware that subpoenaing a witness to testify about what they know constitutes "punishment." You have a strange view of the courts.



Are you now admitting that you did "provide truth" to EMI's attorney? Because you've denied it up to this point.

(By the way, the truth or falsity of your communications with EMI was not at issue.)



The credibility of a witness is ALWAYS relevant to the matters on which the witness testifies.



No, you didn't "ask nicely." You asked as a challenge to us.



False.



. You demand to be treated differently from everybody else, and when we don't agree to it, you act vindictively toward us, and it's our fault?



Nice to see you're admitting you're a monster, though. Admitting you have a problem is the first step toward recovery.



There are lots of things he's said about us that are false, but for it to be libel, it has to be damaging.

Which of these options applied to Kevin Cable?

None of them, because we have not settled with him, nor does he have our permission to do anything.

Wow... now you splitting sentences? You must be getting tired with all this backpaddling.
Did you pay the law firm you hired to sign it and serve it on me? Yes.
A witness who had absolute nothing to offer than what was already stated in a signed and notarized statement that I had already provided. And the ONLY subject matter that could have been questioned was the content of the affidavit. The only reason to serve me was to harass me and you know that. Period.

The only "truth" that I provided to EMI's attorney was the evidence that came directly off Slep Tone's own servers and nothing more.
Baiting again counsel?

Didn't you just say that "By the way, the truth or falsity of your communications with EMI was not at issue?" If that is true, there is no relevant credibility to take into question not to mention, the credibility of my communication with EMI was simply that the source of the content of my affidavit came directly off YOUR servers. Are you now disputing that?

There is an entire thread dedictated exactly to that entitled "Very Important Question for Mr. Harrington" or have your forgotten already? Here it is:


And that's not the truth and you know it. (You really don't want to push this do you?)
(A) Not different. Just equal. Like all customers should be treated.
(B) Have I ever sent you a subpoena for telling the truth? Sauce for the goose.
It's not a problem I assure you. And I'm only your monster.... you're apparently quite happy about that kind of exclusivity even if it's been obviously expensive for you.