As I have made clear, I do not post here, or anywhere, "on behalf of PEP." My comments here are my own. And I'm here primarily to offer insight into various issues, on my own.

I am not actively engaged in PEP's day-to-day business. I still have outstanding cases in which I represent PEP, and I consult for PEP from time to time.

PEP can just add that every lessee must contact PEP whether through email, letter, or phone call annually to update their status and to confirm they are abiding by the agreement.

We did add that requirement.

It seems like these people provided PEP the opportunity to make "more" money off their Gem sets. The statement goes on to say:

"This solves the problem of accidental loss, theft, damage, or unauthorized sale or transfer, and it relieves our licensees of the need to store and protect our property".

If this solves the problem, why doesn't PEP leave the length of the lease to five years because PEP is holding the physical discs?

It solves one of the problems. It did not solve the problem of not having close enough contact with our licensees. And, as I noted above, the cost of a GEM series license actually went down.

I'm sure the people who violated the lease agreement had to pay for the discs whether it was destroyed, lost, or stolen.

Actually, no. We canceled their licenses, but the expense of going after the licensees was deemed, at the time, to be a waste of money.

Some things PEP does just rattles my mind. I'm not a PEP basher, nor do I condone how PEP is going about its business "fighting" piracy. But when I think about it, PEP is only in it for the money. Sorry Jim, but I have to believe it's all about the money and not because PEP wants to protect the lessee since they claim that the amount of Gems available are dwindling.

PEP is not a charity. It's a for-profit business. I'm not sure why that's confusing to people. PEP opposes piracy because it's in its business interest to do so, not because it feels a moral imperative to stamp out piracy.

It turns out that piracy is also bad for the industry as a whole. It deprives songwriters and publishers of their royalties. It inhibits the creation of new karaoke music. It drives down the rates that karaoke professionals can charge. It leads to oversaturation of the marketplace, so that karaoke is less effective as a tool for increasing patronage. But PEP can only use the tools that are available to it.

Given that well in excess of 90% of the people we've ever sued for infringement never bought even one karaoke disc before being sued, and given that in excess of 99% were pirates to at least some degree (fewer than 10 defendants were actually able to demonstrate full 1:1 correspondence for their systems), I'm curious as to what method of "fighting" piracy you would have preferred that we use.

Really then explain the use of “We”, “Our” below. (highlighted in red)

All of those instances referred to a time when I was actively involved in PEP's business, and in those cases, I was referring to decisions or actions in which I had a role, thus making "we" or "our" the appropriate pronoun.

This is an excellent example, by the way, of how the pro-piracy crowd is ready to jump on any perceived misstep as evidence of hypocrisy. You need us to be imperfect because it makes you feel better about supporting piracy. "They're not REALLY anti-piracy," you say, "so it's OK for me to be pro-piracy." Or "He said 'we' so he must really have lied when he said he was quitting!" It's just childish.

All of those instances referred to a time when I was actively involved in PEP's business, and in those cases, I was referring to decisions or actions in which I had a role, thus making "we" or "our" the appropriate pronoun.

This is an excellent example, by the way, of how the pro-piracy crowd is ready to jump on any perceived misstep as evidence of hypocrisy. You need us to be imperfect because it makes you feel better about supporting piracy. "They're not REALLY anti-piracy," you say, "so it's OK for me to be pro-piracy." Or "He said 'we' so he must really have lied when he said he was quitting!" It's just childish.

It seems that you want to call everyone that doesn't agree with PEP/Sound Choices business ethics, a pirate. Now who is being childish?

I didn't call you a pirate. I said you were pro-pirate. When you engage in nitpicking attacks based on your own failure to understand context, in an attempt to attack me and my former employer by falsely undermining our credibility, that's a "pro-pirate" activity. My assessment of your status as "pro-pirate" is based solely on your comments on here. I have no information about whether you're a pirate or not.

PEP is a FOR-profit entity....they have no desire to stamp out piracy or even curb it because they PROFIT from it. It seems they are the pro-piracy ones you speak of. Don't confuse the two..... -john

This is an excellent example, by the way, of how the pro-piracy crowd is ready to jump on any perceived misstep as evidence of hypocrisy. You need us to be imperfect because it makes you feel better about supporting piracy. "They're not REALLY anti-piracy," you say, "so it's OK for me to be pro-piracy." Or "He said 'we' so he must really have lied when he said he was quitting!" It's just childish.

I didn't call you a pirate. I said you were pro-pirate. When you engage in nitpicking attacks based on your own failure to understand context, in an attempt to attack me and my former employer by falsely undermining our credibility, that's a "pro-pirate" activity. My assessment of your status as "pro-pirate" is based solely on your comments on here. I have no information about whether you're a pirate or not.

I didn't call you a pirate. I said you were pro-pirate. When you engage in nitpicking attacks based on your own failure to understand context, in an attempt to attack me and my former employer by falsely undermining our credibility, that's a "pro-pirate" activity. My assessment of your status as "pro-pirate" is based solely on your comments on here. I have no information about whether you're a pirate or not.

All of those instances referred to a time when I was actively involved in PEP's business, and in those cases, I was referring to decisions or actions in which I had a role, thus making "we" or "our" the appropriate pronoun.

This is an excellent example, by the way, of how the pro-piracy crowd is ready to jump on any perceived misstep as evidence of hypocrisy. You need us to be imperfect because it makes you feel better about supporting piracy. "They're not REALLY anti-piracy," you say, "so it's OK for me to be pro-piracy." Or "He said 'we' so he must really have lied when he said he was quitting!" It's just childish.

Phoenix has now put out a statement on this issue.

https://pep.rocks/discs

The following is a statement from Kurt Slep, the President of Phoenix Entertainment Partners, LLC, issued on April 5, 2018.

8) It's official you have your papers, today you are a pro.


P.S. Gee I did it the hard way OJT, and never got my papers. I wonder if I should give back all the money I made? No I'll just keep it like SC/PEP did. After all possession is nine points of the law, right Jim?

no, look at the date....

PEP will offer the GEMs again at another 'bargain basement' price. The last offer was a test.
Since they apparently are now losing out in the Courts the lower offer allows them to get more KJs, who think it is bargain, on a contract. That contract WILL hold up in a court.

At least this is what I think. How about you Chip?