Questions about the Arizona Suits

[truthteller]

Unbelieveable..........that Kurt Slep would post specific details about litigation that his corporation is involved in, on a public forum. It says a lot about his skills as a CEO.

 

[c. staley]

To save time and space, I'll highlight (in bold) only those points I will comment on:

The only settlement agreements i have access to are the ones for the VA suits and i believe ours were different than the agreements in AZ. The point is , He signed a settlement agreement, did not pay in full. Meaning he has not yet paid for those disks that he WILL BE owed upon paying settlement in full. The Settlement in itself should have nullified the court case which is why Sound Choice didn't respond, they still have quite the case against Ernie so i don't think you've given enough thought to the " SC has blown it " statement. They have the evidence against ernie of his buying history etc....they will always have a case. The only reason this argument is so heated is because there are some here who would see it as some kind of victory if Sound Choice makes a mistake, and there are others who see it as a victory if Ernie is the one making mistakes. Why is this so important? Sound Choice is suing people, it will not stop. Chartbuster is now in the game as well, and soon to be Pop Hits Monthly. This is now the reality of the business we're in. If you're going to be so against these actions that it becomes the focus of your life ( as it is few a few here ) then i don't mean to be harsh but it might be time to get back to working on your own business and spending your time improving it. This is the nature of our businesses now, and as i've stated in the past i still see the positives outweighing the negatives in these suits. The way i see things regarding the suit we've been talking about, as things stand now it appears that it is Ernie that is at fault by not paying his settlement ( and sounds like he stopped paying before he found out about the court thing anyways ). I hate to see how worked up some here get over things that we may never know for sure. How bout a conversation about what you do to keep your weekly gigs " fresh "? Now back to your regularly scheduled arguments..........

The court was never notified of a settlement and even after 4 months and repeated unanswered notices, dismissed the case entirely. Slep wants to contend that there was a "settlement that pre-dated the court ruling" but if you ask the court, there never was a notice of settlement, never was (nor has there EVER been) a motion to enforce a settlement and no matter what has happened OUTSIDE of the courtroom, it's what's on the inside that truly counts. Slep and Harrington have no power to officially close the case without at least notifying the court.

Sound Choice MAY - that is really a big "may" - have a collection case against Ernie at best, even that will be dicey to say the least if they've never delivered any product that Ernie may have made even a partial payment on. At this point, that's all they have and if they've taken his money and not delivered anything, SC will be the ones in the hot seat - not Ernie. They can scream all they want that the "agreement" was tied to to the suit.... oh wait! There is no suit is there? The court dismissed it so that is gone. Their agreement is now really nothing more than a "sales agreement" that apparently they've not delivered any goods but they've taken money.... hmm....

SC will not "always have a case against Ernie" it's dead and gone. They'll have to start something new and that'll be tough in light of the dismissal.

If the "reality of the business" is that vendors are suing customers, it's not an industry that I foresee will last much longer. Especially when you have vendors like Sound Choice who will cheat and sidestep the publishers by "licensing" overseas to sell here and then sue the very customers they sell to. It's ironic that those that have been sued for "infringing unauthorized use" are the very ones that now want to be the "watchdog of the industry" while they blatantly continue to sidestep publishers.

It may appear to you that Ernie is at fault for not paying according to the agreement, however put yourself in Ernie's shoes: If you had NOT received the very product that you had made some payments on, would you continue to pay on it? I doubt it. So yes, right now it's a pissing match between SC and Ernie and frankly if SC is holding a single dime of Ernie's money and not shipped any discs, SC is the one that will get sharp end of the consumer protection law stick.

I believe a LOT of this revolves around the "stipulation to dismiss" which Ernie has NEVER agreed to or signed.... I'd like to see that.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

unless we see the settlement agreement Joe....we do not know if it said they would be sent directly to Ernie. In the settlement agreements I have seen nowhere does it state how/where the discs were to be delivered. It is my suspision(sp?) that this is another of Ernie's mistaken assumptions. But I could be wrong and the newer agreements could have changed since Ernie's. As far as why I felt he had received them it is due to Ernie's own post talking about Kurt's visit to Arizona to deliver them. Maybe Kurt will reply and confirm or deny the delivery after M.B. Or maybe Ernie will clarify the issue

Athena,

You skipped over my question about the receipt of discs. Ernie said he never got them, and Kurt says he never will. What made you think Ernie has them in the first place?

 

[KJSandman]

"If the "reality of the business" is that vendors are suing customers, it's not an industry that I foresee will last much longer."

Sound Choice and Chartbuster are not "Vendors suing Customers", they are vendors who are suing people who are stealing from them.

If the "reality of the business" is that thieves are destroying the manufacturers' ability to turn a profit and illegal KJ's are continuing to have a negative effect on the KJ market, then I agree in so much as the continued production of new music may come to an end. I can't quite put a time frame on that.

 

[c. staley]

"If the "reality of the business" is that vendors are suing customers, it's not an industry that I foresee will last much longer."

Sound Choice and Chartbuster are not "Vendors suing Customers", they are vendors who are suing people who are stealing from them.

Jennifer Price isn't a customer? (threatened, settled, claimed "mob tactics")
Skid Rowe isn't a customer? (Given a free pass.)
KJAthena isn't a customer? (Named, threatened, forced to skype audit)
Ernies isn't a customer? (remember that SC did not EVER prove that Ernie was doing anything illegal)

And these are just the ones on this board... it doesn't include McLeod's or the guy in FL that was dismissed with prejudice or anyone else.

Of course they are... and they all been named, threatened and/or settled... so yes, it is a "vendor suing their own customers."

If the "reality of the business" is that thieves are destroying the manufacturers' ability to turn a profit and illegal KJ's are continuing to have a negative effect on the KJ market, then I agree in so much as the continued production of new music may come to an end. I can't quite put a time frame on that.

A case of the manufacturer refusing to keep updated with technology when they had LOTS of opportunity and the technology to do so, they simply refused it and it will be their own undoing.

Sad really.

 

[Bazza]

Unbelieveable..........that Kurt Slep would post specific details about litigation that his corporation is involved in, on a public forum. It says a lot about his skills as a CEO.

I agree. I think the man has balls. I wish more CEO's had them.

 

[rumbolt]

it doesn't include McLeod's or the guy in FL that was dismissed with prejudice or anyone else.

Of course they are... and they all been named, threatened and/or settled... so yes, it is a "vendor suing their own customers."

McLeod's case was dropped and didn't have to pay anything or was never threatened (unless you consider the original filing a threat). They proved that they were using music that they actually owned discs for. Case closed, kj still working (legally). Wasn't forced to buy additional discs either. Just dropped.

 

[Sound Choice]

I am sitting at the airport in LasVegas after the Mobile Beat show, where we got a lot of support for our actions and more KJs volunteering to do whatever they can to help in their respective areas. The support that Chartbuster and Sound Choice and Stellar got gives me even more resolve to continue AND expand the fight. We are not in the fight to appease a few whiners who want to find fault at every turn. On the contrary, their words seem to force many others to conclude that they really must be raising a stink in the hopes that their objections alone are enough to make the anti-piracy efforts stop - and why would they want that, unless they have something to lose by the lawsuits?

As for Ernie: 1) I personally delivered his second set of discs to him in Phoenix with two witnesses present, where they had been in the hands of the PI who served him (as he stated), but he was too scared to go and pick them up. Why? He had already settled at that point and shouldn't have had anything else to hide - or maybe he did???
2) The statement about Ernie "not getting two sets of discs for $3000 ", should have more correctly been written as "Ernie will not be getting his two sets of discs for only $3000", which implies he is not going to be allowed to default and walk away for only the $3000 he has paid to date.
3) If you want to worry about who is really in default I could share a bit of our settlement agreement (which is not confidential) which will lead most of you to conclude that we have been extremelt lenient with him in not strictly enforcing the contract, in an effort to actually help him like we have helped other defendants who settled. But he insists on trying to make us look bad in public, even though we WERE (note the past tense here) being very accomodating of him up until this point.



As for Harrington representing us - he just filed a third case in Florida for us yesterday, so you should conclude that he is still representing us.

 

[c. staley]

McLeod's case was dropped and didn't have to pay anything or was never threatened (unless you consider the original filing a threat). They proved that they were using music that they actually owned discs for. Case closed, kj still working (legally). Wasn't forced to buy additional discs either. Just dropped.

You've missed the point: They should have never been bothered at all, much less have a bunch of false accusations broadcast by the media. (no one cares about retractions, they're just not as fun.)

 

[c. staley]

I am sitting at the airport in LasVegas after the Mobile Beat show, where we got a lot of support for our actions and more KJs volunteering to do whatever they can to help in their respective areas. The support that Chartbuster and Sound Choice and Stellar got gives me even more resolve to continue AND expand the fight. We are not in the fight to appease a few whiners who want to find fault at every turn. On the contrary, their words seem to force many others to conclude that they really must be raising a stink in the hopes that their objections alone are enough to make the anti-piracy efforts stop - and why would they want that, unless they have something to lose by the lawsuits?

Chest-beating Kurt? Of course you're not in the battle to appease anyone...

As for Ernie: 1) I personally delivered his second set of discs to him in Phoenix with two witnesses present, where they had been in the hands of the PI who served him (as he stated), but he was too scared to go and pick them up. Why? He had already settled at that point and shouldn't have had anything else to hide - or maybe he did???

So equally; Why did you ship the discs to the "PI" instead of the customer? Was the private investigator Eric Godfrey or one of the other two karaoke competitors? You claim "maybe" he had something to hide, what additional strings were you imposing? You had already settled and had nothing to worry about as well right? What were you trying to stick him with at the last minute? You see, this works both ways.

2) The statement about Ernie "not getting two sets of discs for $3000 ", should have more correctly been written as "Ernie will not be getting his two sets of discs for only $3000", which implies he is not going to be allowed to default and walk away for only the $3000 he has paid to date.

Then it looks like you need to imply that you'll file a brand new suit doesn't it?

3) If you want to worry about who is really in default I could share a bit of our settlement agreement (which is not confidential) which will lead most of you to conclude that we have been extremelt lenient with him in not strictly enforcing the contract, in an effort to actually help him like we have helped other defendants who settled. But he insists on trying to make us look bad in public, even though we WERE (note the past tense here) being very accomodating of him up until this point.

I'll certainly accept your offer, so please do share it and while you're at it, how about the stipulated dismissal that Ernie never did sign. I'm sure you had some strings that were so unacceptable, he wouldn't touch that. And no one is "worried" about who is in default and it's in your best interest to be lenient with the defendants that you want to continue paying you. To run them out of money today means you can't get any more later, so please don't act like you're doing any favors here - you're simply hedging your bet.

As for Harrington representing us - he just filed a third case in Florida for us yesterday, so you should conclude that he is still representing us.

And that's fine.... Carry on...

 

[Diafel]

3) If you want to worry about who is really in default I could share a bit of our settlement agreement (which is not confidential) which will lead most of you to conclude that we have been extremelt lenient with him in not strictly enforcing the contract, in an effort to actually help him like we have helped other defendants who settled. But he insists on trying to make us look bad in public, even though we WERE (note the past tense here) being very accomodating of him up until this point.

So you won't post the agreement that supposedly will make YOU look good because Ernie's trying to make you look bad?
You're cutting off your own nose to spite your face, here.
I would think that that should be all to more reason TO post it!
But then again, perhaps Ernie isn't quite the big bad pirate you make him out to be, and perhaps YOU have something damaging to yourself to hide?
Put your money where your mouth is, Kurt. When it comes to Ernie and this settlement, put up or shut up.

 

[Guest]

ROTFLMAO

Which is is Kurt? "I personally delivered the CDs to Ernie" or "He never picked them up." You either delivered them to him or you delivered them to someone else and they are NOT at all equivalent. If you can't even speak the truth about the simple things I see no reason to assume any integrity on the largess of your issues.

The fact is you didn't deliver anything - you placed them in the custody and care of a third party for reasons known only to you.

Combined with your lack of proper court filings the logical conclusion is that you're under the table manipulations are a necessary result of your weak and seriously lacking legal standing.

The failure of you and other manufacturers to properly license your products then turn around and misrepresent that to us at retail sale - is a liability I and other DJ/KJs will not accept from you. As we have already seen with CB the basis for these legal actions is an attempt to make your customers pay for the legal liabilities and damages you've sustained by your own actions.

The publishers are suing you the manufacturers because this is the tree from which the poison fruit originates.

Sorry pal, you folks can eat that $h__+ all by yourself. There are enough of us who refuse to be your scapegoats and know that in the log run the courts make a lousy sales department. I pity the fool KJ who sits down to dine with you.

 

[Loneavenger]

ROTFLMAO

Which is is Kurt? "I personally delivered the CDs to Ernie" or "He never picked them up." You either delivered them to him or you delivered them to someone else and they are NOT at all equivalent. If you can't even speak the truth about the simple things I see no reason to assume any integrity on the largess of your issues.

The fact is you didn't deliver anything - you placed them in the custody and care of a third party for reasons known only to you.

Combined with your lack of proper court filings the logical conclusion is that you're under the table manipulations are a necessary result of your weak and seriously lacking legal standing.

The failure of you and other manufacturers to properly license your products then turn around and misrepresent that to us at retail sale - is a liability I and other DJ/KJs will not accept from you. As we have already seen with CB the basis for these legal actions is an attempt to make your customers pay for the legal liabilities and damages you've sustained by your own actions.

The publishers are suing you the manufacturers because this is the tree from which the poison fruit originates.

Sorry pal, you folks can eat that $h__+ all by yourself. There are enough of us who refuse to be your scapegoats and know that in the log run the courts make a lousy sales department. I pity the fool KJ who sits down to dine with you.

Really?! :rolleyespill: Kurt explained things VERY clearly, you seemed to have ignored a few things, I'll say them again SLOWLY. Kurt had the disks delivered to a PI initially, and Ernie never picked them up. THEN , I repeat THEN Kurt personally went to AZ and delivered 2 SETS OF DISKS TO ERNIE, so now he has 2 sets of disks. The problem now is Those disks are worth a lot more than $3,000 ( which is the amount Ernie has paid to date before he defaulted on the settlement ). Regardless of anything else, Ernie will need to pay for the disks that he has. Without the Manufacturers we have NO KARAOKE BUSINESSES, i appreciate them coming here to keep us apprised of the things that are happening and i don't think they're lying to us everytime they post which some of you like to imply. I don't care your views on these suits ( companies suing people to reclaim STOLEN property ) but try to read instead of posting out of what appears to be only blind hatred.

 

[Guest]

At the water's edge do you really expect you can get a hole dug in the sand?
That's essentially what you are doing when you describe these actions as a "battle against piracy." It is no such thing.
These suits will have no more affect on piracy than you digging in wet sand.

It's a revenue plan and it is ultimately going to fail. SC doesn't produce anything - what they sell is already saturated in a competitive marketplace. Their prospects for revenue are dismal. Their prospects for realizing payment of settlements and judgements from targets with shallow and often empty pockets is even worse.

These manufacturers are all temporary and replaceable.
My business was fine before they existed and it can be just fine after they are gone.
Unlike your own claim, I am not dependent on them.

 

[rumbolt]

I am sitting at the airport in LasVegas after the Mobile Beat show, where we got a lot of support for our actions and more KJs volunteering to do whatever they can to help in their respective areas. The support that Chartbuster and Sound Choice and Stellar got gives me even more resolve to continue AND expand the fight. We are not in the fight to appease a few whiners who want to find fault at every turn. On the contrary, their words seem to force many others to conclude that they really must be raising a stink in the hopes that their objections alone are enough to make the anti-piracy efforts stop - and why would they want that, unless they have something to lose by the lawsuits?

As for Ernie: 1) I personally delivered his second set of discs to him in Phoenix with two witnesses present, where they had been in the hands of the PI who served him (as he stated), but he was too scared to go and pick them up. Why? He had already settled at that point and shouldn't have had anything else to hide - or maybe he did???
2) The statement about Ernie "not getting two sets of discs for $3000 ", should have more correctly been written as "Ernie will not be getting his two sets of discs for only $3000", which implies he is not going to be allowed to default and walk away for only the $3000 he has paid to date.
3) If you want to worry about who is really in default I could share a bit of our settlement agreement (which is not confidential) which will lead most of you to conclude that we have been extremelt lenient with him in not strictly enforcing the contract, in an effort to actually help him like we have helped other defendants who settled. But he insists on trying to make us look bad in public, even though we WERE (note the past tense here) being very accomodating of him up until this point.



As for Harrington representing us - he just filed a third case in Florida for us yesterday, so you should conclude that he is still representing us.

Thank you for the post Kurt! After all, you and Ernie are the only ones that actually know what is really happening with the suit. I hope when that suit is concluded with Ernie and all the matters are actually closed, you will be able to share what has transpired from the beginning regarding the matter with Ernie so the ones that seem to know more about the case than you and Ernie will be enlightened. I have kept pretty quiet on this thread because of all the back and forth useless battle between the SC supporters and the non supporters. Heck, I don't care anymore how the non-supporters feel about SC, Kurt, or any other Karaoke Manu that is taking actions against the people that are stealing products from them. Thank you for what you are attempting to do to help clean up an industry that has been dragged thru the mud by those cannot or willnot show that they actually own the media that the product (Sound Choice, Chartbuster or Stellar) was authorized to be used in a commercial setting. (I am not here to debate the 1:1 since that is common sense, have a song:have a disc). It is real easy for some one to point the finger in someone else's direction and blame them for there own shortcomings. This is the logic I am tired of hearing "It is ok for me to steal from you since You never paid for the music rights anyway".

In conclusion,

I use your products, I like your products and will continue to use your products as long as they are available to me and will continue to educate KJs that seem to not know that their obligations are to conduct business using only music they buy legally and to be a positive role model to anyone considering a career as a KJ.
Have a safe trip back!

 

[KaraokeLoop]

For those that are interested, we (Chartbuster, Sound Choice and Stellar Records) are putting on a seminar that will be videotaped and made available later.

Sound Choice,

When will this be made available? I'd like to watch it.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

McLeod's case was dropped and didn't have to pay anything or was never threatened (unless you consider the original filing a threat). They proved that they were using music that they actually owned discs for. Case closed, kj still working (legally). Wasn't forced to buy additional discs either. Just dropped.

Being named still shows up on the internet, just like it does when you Google Athena- it's never going away. Permanent internet taint. I would sue if I were them.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Really?! :rolleyespill: Kurt explained things VERY clearly,

Kurt explained very clearly that SC never authorized downloads - and then admitted that they did ( and THEN demanded 1:1 for a nice little double-dip).

Kurt explained very clearly that it was OK to use backups in a show ( which is true, BTW), then stated that they weren't ( NOT true, but figured out that it wouldn't be profitable for SC?).

Kurt explained very clearly that SC would be producing NEW TRACKS a year ago, and nothing was ever made ( and that's the funny part- SC has been out of the karaoke production business for a long time now. They are no longer even players).

Kurt explained very clearly that Sound Choice is not interested in anti-piracy, only in recouping losses ( which is true, and fine by me), but is now standing on an anti-piracy public relations platform- thanks to those who put him there. Hey, whatever works, I guess....

Kurt explained very clearly that SC was doing "investigations" of KJs, yet the innocent caught up in the dragnet prove that this is NOT the case.

Kurt explains a lot of things very clearly that don't end up so clear.

I see at this point that those who see SC as a savior to hang on will take anything posted by SC as gospel.

Experience has taught a lot of us that maybe a bit of salt should taken with said posts.

Ernie supplied some legal documentation that proves at least some of what he says, while SC provides nothing similar. Also, Ernie has not been proven to say things "unclearly", where SC has.

I have politely requested some documentation from Kurt- maybe a delivery receipt for the discs, for example? Might be helpful in putting this particular discussion to rest.

 

[c. staley]

Just to clarify Harrington's responsibility in this matter RE: Arizona U.S. District local court rules:

LRCiv 40.2 CONTINUANCES AND NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

(d) Duty to Inform Regarding Settlement or Voluntary Resolution of Other Pending Matters. When a case set for trial is settled out of Court or any motion is pending before a District Judge or Magistrate Judge and is voluntarily resolved by the parties or their counsel, it shall be the duty of counsel to inform the Clerk and the chambers of such District Judge or Magistrate Judge immediately. In cases wherein a District Judge has referred a settlement conference, discovery or other matter to a Magistrate Judge, but not the entire case, counsel shall immediately provide a copy of any filed document relating to the referred matter to the chambers of the referred Magistrate Judge.

 

[rumbolt]

Being named still shows up on the internet, just like it does when you Google Athena- it's never going away. Permanent internet taint. I would sue if I were them.

But they were cleared and to date, hasn't affected the kj, he is still working in same location but under a new venue name and owner. He has moved on. But.... I am still mad at the kid (when I was in the third grade) that turned me in for breaking a window that he actually did and was he punished for it. I was cleared and to date it hasn't affected my life. People move on, and if people are intellegent enough to check the facts about an issue will see that he was cleared and he wasn't in the wrong. His reputation is still intact and I have never heard anything negitive said about him once the case was dropped. Ask Athena if the google search is harming her or her business or does she feel tainted.