Is SC going after the bar owners for hiring these pirates or is it just the pirate KJs they are after?

locally venues are being sued for contributory infringement. If a KJ defaults or losses a court case the venues where they work are informed of the judgement, if they choose to keep using the KJ with an injunction then a lawsuit progresses. A number of local bar owners have spoken with me personally about this issue. That is why locally the venues realize it is better to pay more and use a legal KJ than to have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in a court case and legal fees that can more than double that amount. We have 2 venues that we work now that were named in lawsuits and found us after reaching settlement with SC. The bars are not getting a pass.

But they DID get a pass as long as they hire a legal host. Right?

Around here, we had a couple bars that owned their own equipment. One used to claim they could download anything on the spot, they no longer make that claim and listed as GEM owners now. The other I don't know what became of them, but my cousin used to waitress there, i'll ask her. I know they are now listed as GEM owners as well on SC site.

It took over 2 years of repeated lawsuits before the venues here started to "get it" and the process was far from easy but the venues are NOW starting to understand. The pirates did not lower the prices overnight and the rates will not move back up overnight. Venues will need to be re-educated so they expect to pay a fair wage for the rates to stabilize.

OK off to poker night now

Could you give an example. Like what kind of damages could the bar owner incur as he states that he didn't know the KJ was a pirate? Even though ya know he knew and keeps doing it. I mean how could you tell?

Actually, our process is as follows:

1) We investigate an operator and make a determination that he is committing infringement.
2) We sue that operator and serve the lawsuit on him. We also provide a letter that outlines settlement options and provides the operator with the opportunity to prove 1:1 correspondence and be certified and dropped from the suit.
3) If the operator does not do so, we write letters to the venues that operator is servicing, informing them of the lawsuit and telling them of our intention to hold them accountable if they continue to allow the operator to infringe on their premises.
4) If the venue drops the operator, that ends the question as far as the venue is concerned--for the time being.
5) If the venue continues to use the operator, we will sue them or add them to the operator's suit.
6) If a venue drops the operator but adds another pirate, they would probably draw a lawsuit without further warning.

Because we document the process of informing venues of their obligations and of infringement occurring on their property, they aren't helped by saying "I didn't know"--it's called willful blindness, and it is the same as knowledge.

Actually, our process is as follows:

1) We investigate an operator and make a determination that he is committing infringement.
2) We sue that operator and serve the lawsuit on him. We also provide a letter that outlines settlement options and provides the operator with the opportunity to prove 1:1 correspondence and be certified and dropped from the suit.
3) If the operator does not do so, we write letters to the venues that operator is servicing, informing them of the lawsuit and telling them of our intention to hold them accountable if they continue to allow the operator to infringe on their premises.
4) If the venue drops the operator, that ends the question as far as the venue is concerned--for the time being.