Karaoke Forums

i have to agree with Chip here.
SC has gotten sued by pretty much all of the big publishers for not paying royalties when making karaoke tracks.
Chip contacted EMI when SC forced him into court.
Athena TOLD EVERY HOST TO CONTACT PUBLISHERS ABOUT TRACKS THEY WERE BUYING.
so yeah, she is the bad guy her with SC. Chip is right this time.

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

Thanks Paradigm.

However, let me clear up what appears to be some confusion; SC has never forced me into court. Ever.

What they attempted to do was vindictively punish me for having the balls to tell the truth:

As you know, I read everything.... everywhere... all the time. As the EMI lawsuit progressed along, Kurt Slep had stated either in a deposition or sworn statement, (I don't remember which) that he had "nothing to do with FSC Mediaplas" that he had no ownership, no control, no nothing. However, in March of 2012 in their own "Sound Choice Soundboard Forum" one employee quoted him in an answer to Brian A. that "our U.K. branch makes custom discs in limited quantities"

Brian A. Re-posted that very answer on this board:

I had already saved a screen-shot of their answer, from their own board and forwarded that to EMI. SC knew that was a damaging statement and for a few months (before taking the entire board down) had surgically snipped out just that post. It was quite comical to watch them attempt to cover their tracks.

Turns out that when FSC Mediaplas applied for the licenses to MCPRS, they were initially rejected because the application wasn't signed by an officer of the company.... it was signed by none other than "Kurt Slep - Consultant." For someone who had "nothing to do with FSC Mediaplas" it's quite interesting that his name shows up on the rejected licensing application....

As a form of punishment for daring to expose this conflicting story for what it was, I was sent a subpeona for a video deposition in the case.... that was demanding every communication, with every person, about anything relating to SC... for the last 5 years, as well as anything and everything "in my possession that bears the SC trademark" and a whole ridiculous slew of other crappy accusations.

I was what is known as a "third-party witness." Which means I'm not a party to the case -- much like the innocent bystander that happened to videotape a car accident on their cellphone.. and the person at fault tries to punish them and intimidate them.... but can never claim that the videotape is a fake... because it's the truth.

I'd be happy to give you a copy of the subpoena and you can marvel at the amount of unrelated garbage that SC's attorneys were trying to dig up. Impeachment of a witness is one thing, but they hadn't even the source or the truthfulness or even the accuracy of the screenshots. Even EMI wrote to the judge that this wasn't right. Ultimately, the deposition never happened and I even returned the $65 witness fee.

So yes, SC/PEP is vindictive. And I say SC and PEP because Harrington can't have it both ways; he can't say that "PEP has never done anything to you" but then claim that PEP is "the same reliable source for SC products you've come to know and love for years.... please send us money."

That's not accurate.

First of all, he contacted EMI, as well as several other publishers, before the EMI lawsuit was even filed. He admitted that much on this very board.

Second, we didn't "force him to court." His name appeared in communications with EMI's attorney in a manner that indicated he was the source of the "information"--false information, as it turned out--that EMI was relying on in connection with their case.

The reason why he was subpoenaed was because we were considering a possible Rule 11 motion against EMI's attorney for failing to investigate the facts before bringing the suit. Since Mr. Staley was at least an instigator of the suit, if not the principal instigator, his documents and testimony were important to that motion.

The EMI suit took so long to resolve not because we lacked defenses or because we didn't have a license--the products we were distributing and continue to distribute were confirmed as having been properly licensed--but because EMI took a year and a half to produce evidence that they actually owned or controlled the copyright in the songs they were suing over. That, by the way, is something any copyright owner has to prove as part of their case.

I'm not surprised that you're confused, because Mr. Staley has been less than forthcoming about his actual role in that litigation, preferring instead to pretend to be the aggrieved party because we subpoenaed him out of some kind of spite, when in fact that subpoena was based solely on his own conduct. He chose to inject himself into the dispute, yet he complains that we sought discovery from him. He's a hypocrite, and you're wrong to take his side.

Bull$hit... I contacted EMI's attorneys well AFTER the suit had been in progress about information relating to this suit, not EMI. Had I contacted EMI or other publishers about unrelated matters before this? Yep. I even got a couple of SC licenses as souvenirs.

Gee whiz Mr. Harrington, I don't happen to see a single document from your attorneys in the case that anything I submitted as well as the source was "false information." Please detail exactly where that was filed with the court... I'll wait. Including the photographs of the first gem set from Bazza... were those false too?

More "jaw-flapping?" Would you care to substantiate your accusation that I instigated anything?

Keep dancing.. this is quite amusing...

Say what? It took "so long to resolve" because you wanted everything split down to the small fractional cent and on paper. Yes, it took a long time... because there were so MANY songs that had been infringed and it takes a while to gather all the paperwork and ownership percentages... Care to tell the kind readers here how many songs were at stake or would you just like to let that slide by too?


Yeah, SC was caught in a lie... a helluva whopper... and I'm not the least bit ashamed of being the whistle-blower either. I have never stated that you "sought discovery" but that's exactly what it was, wasn't it counsel? And you're now trying to portray your client as not being vindictive? Really? Tell me how bringing everything I have with an SC trademark on it has anything to do with the copyright lawsuit between EMI and Slep-Tone. Bit of stretch there ain't it?

Harrington continues to this day to claim that the gem series was properly licensed... but refuses to comment that with the resolution of the suit, Slep-Tone was out of business, assets transferred to PEP, and a settlement was paid.

And he accused me of being "less than forthcoming?"

You have no idea how much I'm laughing....

Here's a good example of how Mr. Staley argues his point in a way that's completely fallacious.

He takes a statement that's similar to something Kurt said, but not exactly, then points out a supposed contradiction between what Kurt didn't say and something else.

Kurt never said he was uninvolved with FSC. He said he didn't own it and didn't run it, which is 100% true. He also said that he consulted for them on licensing matters which is 100% true. Mr. Staley takes that first statement for more than what it is, omits the second, then claims that Kurt claimed not to have anything to do with FSC, which he did not say.

He then takes an unrelated statement in which an SC employee used shorthand that wasn't really accurate on a technical level, "our UK Branch," to answer a question about whether certain discs were real or fake, and creates the impression of a contradiction in terms with his conception of the first statement.

Notice that he casually throws in an accusation that we somehow tampered with evidence, which is utterly false.

He does this again and again and again. He did it again in this very thread:



I think we can all see that "I am not a part of 'a joint venture with PEP'" and "I am not a part of PEP" are two different statements that mean two very different things. Most importantly, one is what I said, and the other is not. Yet Mr. Staley uses the one I didn't say to "contradict" something I said later.

This is a long term pattern with him.

If it was "well AFTER the suit had been in progress," why did your name show up in documents EMI's attorney shared with me in early March 2013, dated from before the suit was filed (February 2013)? Those documents had nothing to do with any comments on our message board, by the way.

Was it some other Chip Staley with an axe to grind against SC?

You have some set, Pal!! Who are you to tell ANYONE here that they are wrong for taking a side?? No matter what ANYONE here says, you have your head planted SQUARELY up Kurt's backside!! You never even stop to think that people have found out about the crap you spew!! The MIGHTY and SPOTLESS SC. Do you NOT see that EVERYONE has got your number??

Between the lies you have told everyone on this board, about how CLEAN SC is, and your RIDICULOUS business practices, and your trade mark trolling, you have lost all credibility here. The company you work for is in the toilet. You can't even get enough customers to give you money to make it worth producing a new CD.

Jim, Jim, Jim, it's time to walk away from Kurt. Save yourself while you still have some dignity. SC is a lost cause. And by the way, you may as well tell the band not to BOTHER recording Cut The Cord. Party Tyme already beat you to it.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Now, now... let's not get your blood pressure up.....

Your obvious intent was to imply that you were completely disconnected from PEP and what we really see is that -no matter how much you try to deny it now - there is a connection there. You are "an officer" and that's a connection... much more than that of a third party attorney working on behalf of your client or even an employee.

You can mince words all you like, it's still you... and you are the "officer" right? But that's not what you said right?...

I did notice that you seemed to ignore the "I do not own any part of PEP" section.... So, how much do you own directly..... or should I say, indirectly?

Dizzying to say the least...

Post 'em here... go ahead...make me a liar if you think you can, we'll wait... Otherwise, it's seems like a severe case of flatulence.... or you're just flat-out lying.....

Post the EXACT DATE on the FIRST COMMUNICATION with EMI's attorneys regarding this case that dated BEFORE Feb. 1, 2013 when it was filed.

By the way, I love the legal disclaimer as a signature.... It's cute...

What's dizzying is the amount of fluff you add, Chip. I know your MO is to splatter as much word vomit as possible to try to impress and give yourself wiggle room when confronted, so I will counter with simple and straight to the point.

Chip lied about the serialized water marking on the Red Peters tracks.

If people want to believe anything else he has to say, that's on them.

_________________
-Chris

In other words, he's House Council?? Didn't that get Bruce Cutler in trouble because he was House Council for John Gotti?? Ohhhh, be careful Jim. If PEP steps out of line, you may be called to testify AGAINST them!!!

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

I don't have the "EXACT DATE on [your] FIRST COMMUNICATION with EMI's attorneys," nor did I claim to.

The document in question was sent to me by EMI's attorney on 3/12/2013. The document was generated in 2010, and it bears your name. EMI's attorney told me by telephone that he had received this document and other communications from "sources" before the suit was filed. I can't attach a PDF to this post, so I've attached a screen shot of the first page.

So, I guess we can chalk this up to yet another thing you lied about.

That's funny! Talk about a "logical leap" that's a doozy!

You take a pdf file that I created in 2010 -- when your prospective customers were wondering what songs were on the gem series -- and now claim what?

Psst: look here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19704&p=276272&hilit=pdf+file#p276272

That file was publicly available in 2010. Are you now claiming that the attorney "told you" that he had received this document from "sources" before the suit was filed? Frankly, I would have expected something better from you because my name is not "Chip Sources Staley."

The document was created in 2010, that's true. (and you've never even thanked me for it, btw) but it wasn't given to EMI attorneys (by me) before the suit was filed... because I didn't have any contact with the attorneys until after the suit was filed. Did I send the file to them? I'm not sure, but most likely I did well after that date. Besides, it's just a comprehensive listing of the songs you offer with the gem series.... What's so wrong with that?... Unless you were trying to hide its contents from publishers for some reason... could that be it?


Guess not... But keep trying... it's rather amusing to see how much crap you can throw at the wall in hopes that something, somewhere, somehow will stick. You take a publicly available file and now claim you "were told" something? Really? Nothing better than that to substantiate anything about it?


I'll make some more popcorn...

So you say, but the EMI attorney says otherwise. Given your history, I'm inclined to believe him.



Considering that we posted our own list when the GEM series was released, no, we weren't trying to hide anything from anybody. The content isn't the point. The point is that you had extensive contact with EMI and its attorney before and after the suit was filed. Did you think that contact would go undiscovered, or that you would somehow not be subject to subpoena based on that contact?

Or, more importantly, why would you say that we subpoenaed you only to punish you for providing a screenshot from a website?

Here's what you said:



In actuality, you were deeply involved in communications with EMI's attorney about that case, feeding him many more documents than the one in question. And given your history on this board of telling "almost-truths" and filling in gaps with your suppositions, I think we know what accompanied those documents.

That's entirely up to you to believe. Have at it.


It would be difficult in this case, for a third-party witness to not have contact with a lawyer after a suit was filed. You keep asserting that it was before the suit was filed and I'm simply asking you to pony-up some fact of that... and so far, you haven't... and you won't... because you can't. But you don't have a problem whining about it either. Just put up or shut up if you're so confident about it.. it's really that simple.



"I think we know?..." Are you speaking for everyone here, or do you just want to? But please tell us what "accompanied those documents" because "we all want to know."

Once again, it's more of your manure... piled higher.. without an ounce of truth. If I'm wrong, then please, expose me for the charlatan that I am... cough up something objective counselor that the readers here can use to make their own judgment and not just your subjective whining like someone caught crossing their fingers behind their back.

And you still haven't answered why your subpoena wanted every item with an SC trademark on it... and how that was relevant at all in your copyright suit... That's a toughy I know, because it points squarely at how vindictive some people can be.

Nice double standard.....



The same applies to you proving your claim of serialized watermarking on the Red Peters tracks. I asked for proof and even offered you cold hard cash for it. The only reason I can fathom to turn down what should be an easy $1000 is because you can't provide the proof.



Back at ya.....



Done and Done.....

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31941&hilit=watermarking&start=60#p402782

_________________
-Chris

Your offer was pure bull and you know it. It wouldn't matter if you offered $10,000 or $100,000 it's still bull. What you're missing apparently, is that I'm under no obligation to "prove or disprove" anything for you. I'm not trying to sell you anything, you're not an authority or anything else.

If I remember correctly, you were the one that claimed "they were all out there" on the pirate channels but then won't prove that either... so, yeah, "Back at 'ya!" (see how that works now?)

And no, not "done and done."
Leave it to you to equate some schiznit whining of yours to an entirely separate discussion of a copyright lawsuit that doesn't involve you or your desires at all. Your link... to your own post is silly and meaningless. You have an autographed picture and that all you're going to get.

But I'm sure that Harrington appreciates all the FUD you can throw up to divert and defend him. He certainly needs it.

That's not tough at all.

The credibility of a witness is always relevant to a case.

I didn't write the subpoena, so I can't speak directly to the motivations of the attorneys handling the case at that point, but one purpose of discovery is to uncover the biases of witnesses who appear to be independent third parties, when they are in fact not. The requested materials, coupled with your public statements about the company and the people who run it, your self-imposed inability to use content from discs that you own, and your acts undertaken with respect to the SC materials during the period between 2008 and 2013, all go to your own bias, and in the context of a trial, they would certainly be relevant.

Moreover, your role in consulting with the EMI attorney prior to the beginning of the suit--or in fomenting him to continue a baseless suit, since you claim not to have contacted him before the suit was filed--is important information in determining whether the attorney carried out his Rule 11 duties before bringing the suit.

This is all fun, and I have a big tub of popcorn, but regardless of the epic battle between Harrington & Staley, I have something for Jim Harrington...

I am curious to why when someone shows one of your lawyers a few hundred Sound Choice CDs, and also state that that is maybe 1/3 of their collection, they would respond with something akin to they might have thousands more SC tracks on top of those that are illegal? I thought you tried to help people who have doing "the right thing".

I know you don't believe them because hey.. they media shifted, they are 1000% in the wrong. Awesome!

I'm sure you'll come up with other things to say as well, because your crack research team was so good they some items wrong in the papers... impressive!

But as I don't want to talk about details of the case, but me tell you what you have done to the PERSON:

1) They are lifeless shell of the person they were, seeing them host the show was like watching a ghost.
2) The partner told me that they have a group of friends looking after them because they are too afraid to leave them alone. Its not officially called a suicide watch, because no one wants to think that.
3) They aren't eating, or sleeping. The partner is trying to get them to go get medication to stabilize them to the point where they can function normally.
4) The partner also said that they are concerned about spoilage, because the "guilty" might have messed up the drive during a nervous breakdown. The partner now takes the computer away unless they are working. The partner now thinks that they will lose any case they had.

What did they have to hide? Nothing. I will swear on my own children this person was 100% legal, I went shopping with them at the stores. Why would they want to steal from you? They had plenty of non SC product that worked just fine. They didn't NEED your version if they couldn't get it legally.

Good job wrecking a person who was ON YOUR SIDE! Who was right along side you in terms of being faithful to your company and others, buying YOUR product, supporting YOUR company.

Sadly, as if that isn't enough: The "guilty" believes it is THEIR OWN fault! That they (like me before all this) sided WITH YOU in your efforts to catch people who DESERVED IT. And had they of KNOWN you existed (like so many people who don't read chat boards do), they would have GLADLY paid for an audit! Wow, they are definitely making it easier for YOU to nail them to the wall.

So my Sound Choice CDs are officially out of my collection as of today, as I now have a personal interest in how the case proceeds, and seeing how bad you screw them over when you most likely win for some reason or another.

For the record, they own CB product too, I told the partner about your new "acquisition" of CB trademarks and they let out a slight groan. I told them I will make sure they will know when the legal crap comes down, and even offered to pay for it when it does.

So smile and celebrate! You did some fine work here, ruining a fan of yours and a supporter of you. If anything happens to them, don't worry, I'll send you a copy so maybe you can pin it on the wall or something.

It's only bull to you because you have no way to get the money.



If you are smart enough to create a digital watermarking scheme that can't be detected by experts in the field, you should be smart enough to find the tracks. Of course the first part isn't true. So......




Again......only to you because it shines a spotlight on your lie when you are calling someone else out for not being forthright.

_________________
-Chris