Page 3 of 4
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:16 pm
by wiseguy
That's what I was talking about... the "fine print". But you're right. You should consult an attorney before signing any agreement. Only a fool would sign away their rights to seek future legal remedies.
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 6:19 pm
by The Lone Ranger
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 10:30 am
by The Lone Ranger
This link explains what happens during and audit and by the host involved eventually decided not to sign the audit agreement. It would seem any time you sign an agreement with SC there is a clause not to sue them at some future date. This forever keeps you from taking them to court yourself. Something the GEM host that got licensed ought consider if EMI decides to sue them as well as SC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0e-1R6Cwdk
Well I tried to get this link working, funny it worked on the Karaoke Scene but not here I wonder if SC got to the host who put it up? If you want to see the video check out Karaoke Scene Forum, in Piracy section under "Interesting video on the Sound Choice audit etc." For as long as it is still there.
Another way to watch the video is to go to youtube and look under "Legal issues you should consider before your Sound Choice audit". The video is about 7minutes and 15 seconds long.
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 11:56 am
by wiseguy
I was able to locate the video buy searching for the title. Funny that it is at the URL you posted but the link doesn't work. The URL I copied is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0e-1R6Cwdk which seems to work as a link.
That video was made back in 2012, but if the contract hasn't changed, only a fool would sign it.
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 12:19 pm
by The Lone Ranger
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:32 am
by The Lone Ranger
I have been confused by hosts that tell me Kurt is still in charge as far as Phoenix is concerned.
Kurt's lawyer Jim Harrington recently revealed on K/S forum what happened with the establishment of the new PhoenixLLC.
"That being said, Slep-Tone did sell substantially all of its assets for fair value;it was a real sale at arms length to PEP. As the name indicates there are others (besides Kurt) involved in this new venture, and they were uninterested in being invested in a company that has as-yet unresolved litigation, regardless of the likelihood of success in that litigation".
So Kurt did sell all of his assets, and the new partners aren't interested in the old SC unresolved suits. This is sort of confusing since the legal process and the licensing of the GEM product along of course with the Trademark are essentially all that is left of SC. It might be that legally this is a way to sell off assets of SC to this LLC. before the EMI suit is finished and SC is forced to pay up. Much in the same way CB dodged paying CAVS by having the company foreclosed upon.
In some vague way Kurt is still involved since he is listed on the papers as a manger/ organizer of the new LLC. It would seem strange that the new investors would set up an LLC, to carry on basically the legal process started by SC, since they are not interested in any old litigation started by SC.
P.S. Jim further stated:
"In addition to the new programs and new production, we are working presently on some other activities that will broaden PEP well beyond what Slep-Tone was doing, and it made business, legal, and financial sense to create a new vehicle through which to conduct those activities as well."
Is this an admission by SC that they so damaged their name and Trademark that they had to form the LLC. , in order to provide new products? I still think we aren't too far away from seeing the old SC company flounder under the weight of pending legal actions against it.
If EMI wins their case watch SC either go into bankruptcy or foreclosure. If so much of SC is in the hands of others, what good does it do to continue a dialogue with Kurt, since now he is only a minor player?
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2015 12:35 pm
by wiseguy
I kind of feel sorry for those KJs who depend on SC music for a large part of their library. They're stuck between either worrying about being sued or signing a contract that says that if they get screwed over they cannot sue. There is no more stability to the "look the other way" HELP system. Best case scenario is that SC just goes the way of all the others and nobody hears from them again.
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2015 9:34 am
by The Lone Ranger
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 1:46 pm
by wiseguy
It's probably a stretch to think that EMI would go after monetary damages from the KJs who purchased the GEM series. They may however be able to make the songs illegal to use professionally, and without the option to sue SC for damages, the KJs would be left with a wasted investment.
Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:19 am
by The Lone Ranger
I don't know if it is such as stretch when there is talk qf a possible recall of all GEM's licensed as part of a deal to settle the EMI suit. Jim Harrington has said the chance of such a recall would be as likely as getting hit by a bus. People do get hit by buses though. I would wonder what would happen to a host that refused to turn in his GEM licensed material. If it was not returned then I would imagine EMI would sue them for the continued commercial use of the material. This GEM set represents in some cases as much as a $5,000.00 investment by some hosts and it would just go down the crapper.
I think the possibility of such a recall is greater than Jim or Kurt really want to admit. They have felt enough pressure to announce a reimbursement formula on K/S forum. This new program is being offered by Phoenix, see they are already using the new company name. Under this new program any hosts that licensed GEM after February 25, 2015 will get reimbursed. I guess if you licensed your GEM on February 24th you are out of luck.
This seems highly unfair to all of the early bird licensees like Danny 2006 he was the first, wasn't he? It is par for the course for this company, however. to screw all their long term customers, in order to obtain new customers with new money. They really have now shame.
Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:04 pm
by The Lone Ranger
It has just come to my attention that the new Phoenix LLC. lacks a distribution agreement to use the content of the GEM series, from the owners of the SC library Stingray. SC's old distribution agreement expired in December of 2014. So my question is if there is no distribution agreement on using the content of GEM from Stingray, besides the Trademark, what are you really leasing from Phoenix?
Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:19 pm
by The Lone Ranger
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 6:22 am
by The Lone Ranger
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 3:15 pm
by wiseguy
Maybe the suing over creating business is more profitable than we think.
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:15 pm
by The Lone Ranger