Same company players ..just a different name....wouldn't a judge see through the smoke and mirrors and see this a just a ploy to dodge there legal problems?
Crap business model.... Sleppy sounds like a con man from day one.
Has SC Finally Gone The Way of CB?
-
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:19 am
- Location: CALIFORNIA
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/97cbd/97cbd920bd509145b7a74b01f6671eaf53f35511" alt="Cool 8)"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f1356/f13565ccdd63acba05be777b8f924118e83eec30" alt="Wink :wink:"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f1356/f13565ccdd63acba05be777b8f924118e83eec30" alt="Wink :wink:"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f1356/f13565ccdd63acba05be777b8f924118e83eec30" alt="Wink :wink:"
-
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:19 am
- Location: CALIFORNIA
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/97cbd/97cbd920bd509145b7a74b01f6671eaf53f35511" alt="Cool 8)"
The way they are interpreting the law means to provide a service. When before what is was really supposed cover is someone, making actual discs and passing them off as the real thing. Thus causing confusion in the market place. That was the way the law originally was supposed to be. What host is making exact copies of discs and passing them off as SC or CB?
-
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:19 am
- Location: CALIFORNIA
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/97cbd/97cbd920bd509145b7a74b01f6671eaf53f35511" alt="Cool 8)"
It would seem to me that SC is pretty much finished as far as the company is concerned. That Phoenix has taken over all that remained of the company. I just wonder if this was brought about by the pending legal issues surrounding the EMI suit? That the suit will bankrupt SC and this was a way to save whatever assets of the old company are left? I just wonder how the suit when it is settled will effect the GEM license holders? Will they be forced to turn in their licensed product and have to take the cost as a loss? If they have already earned more than the cost of GEM then I guess that would just be a moot point? One thing is for sure as far as commercial use of karaoke material is concerned no host can really state that they own their product, simply by the fact they purchased it, even if they do have all the paper work.
-
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:19 am
- Location: CALIFORNIA
Re: Has SC Finally Gone The Way of CB?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/97cbd/97cbd920bd509145b7a74b01f6671eaf53f35511" alt="Cool 8)"
EMI Feist Catalog Inc. et al V Slep-Tone
Sorry on this one can't get the link to come up. You will have to look under the above series of names to come to the legal filing page. This suit lists a dozen or so EMI companies suing the defendants, SC, the Slep Brothers and Phoenix LLC. I guess forming the new LLC won't save them from getting sued after all. Jim SC's attorney says the only reason EMI is suing is for the insurance carried by the defendants. EMI is seeking 25 million dollars. That should sound the death knell for SC and Phoenix. They are also demanding the GEM series which were licensed to be turned in, since they were illegally produced in the first place. I guess what come around goes around. This suit was filed back on March the 19th.