Karaoke Forums

He'll just go bancrupt, like CB, though they were only fined half that much, for doing a similar crime.....

He may well declare bankruptcy, but copyright infringement damages are often held not to be dischargeable in bankruptcy, particularly where there was a finding of willfulness.

The CAVS judgment against Tennessee Production Center was not even a factor in, much less the cause of, CB's exit from the business.

So it's a student loan? ...... judges rule such large awards, knowing the defendent can't pay it, and it will be dis-charged in bankruptcy......it's symbolic/warning/determent.....(CB) maybe the timing of the award, seems to make what you say true.....the fact that the litigation was on-going(costing money), and a large award was possible could have been a factor......just a factor, not a game changer. ....nice to see you popping in Mr. H......please don't leave us.....because it's no fun for you anymore......

Johnny,
My understanding in the CB situation is the investors behind the company had not made anything back on their substansial investment and the closing of CB and the switch to Digitrax had been in the works for some time. Looking at date on articles of incorporation and such seem to confirm this. The CAVS decision may have been the precipitous for the switch, or final straw if you will. But the switch had been in the works for a couple years, it seems.

I agree.......
as far as that guy having to pay 675K, like Mr. H saying it may be non-dischargable in a bankcruptcy......I'll make it simple......I'll let Phill hold $1000 & Mr. H can let Phill hold $1000, and if the said defendent has to pay the 675K, Phill wil hand over the $2000 to Mr. H, but if we give it a few years, and he still hasn't paid the 675K......I get the money....

"Having to pay" and "not being discharged in bankruptcy" are two different things. But here is the relevant section of the bankruptcy code:

11 U.S.C. § 523(a). A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228 (a), 1228 (b), or 1328 (b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt—

[...]

(6) for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity;

Willfull, malicious?.....I don't think it falls into either catagory.....then you have section 000....."you can't get blood out of a turnip"....

I can't be much of an adversary for you on here.....I type about 10 words a minute. I tried one of those Dragon speech recognition programs.......turned out I talk kinda slow too....

Considering the maximum damage award was $4.5 million for 30 songs, or $150,000 per song, the judge must have found that the infringement was willful. (Without a finding of willfulness, the maximum is $30,000 per song.) The term "malicious" usually means "with intent to cause injury."

There is nothing that would evidence that the defendant is the proverbial turnip. Presumably his wages can be garnished, and judgments last for a long time.

if that is the math, $930,000 would be the max for non malicious. so maybe it was not amlicious......or this is where you say it was but the judge was being nice.

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

Ah he will just move to Singapore with the guy from Facebook and renounce his citizenship.

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

First and foremost, welcome back, Jim. Hope all is well.

Of lesser importance in the real world:

The statement above is food for thought. I would imagine that it would not only apply to a KJ, but to a manufacturer/producer of karaoke tracks, were they to find themselves in a similar predicament.

I would wonder if the principals of a bankrupt corporation of that type would be protected by the corporate entity.

In other words, if the bankruptcy as corporate rather than personal, and the suit was against the corporation, not the principals, could not the principals simple walk away unscathed ( other than the loss of the corporate assets, of course)?

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Assuming that the principals were not personally liable for the obligation that led to the suit, I believe that yes, that is the nature of limited liability associated with incorporation.