Karaoke Forums

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

_________________
Still love to sing!

We routinely sue bar owners who knowingly hire (or retain) pirate operators.

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.

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?

_________________
Still love to sing!

Why thank you. But he's not out anything, unless he keeps doing it, but the pirate is already on the hook. Why not some kinda fine for him?

_________________
Still love to sing!

The venues that I have spoken with, including the 2 I now work for have just said "tens of thousands of dollars PLUS legal fees to double it or more" I have never pushed for an exact amount. I think Harrington stated venues that "knowingly hire or retain" pirate hosts are sued. That is why educating the venues is am important part of the equation. We have seen pirate hosts "disappear" and then "pop back up" when they think the coast is clear only to have a copy of the judgement delivered to the new venues they are working at.

But they DID get a pass as long as they hire a legal host. Right?
Yeah I understand. The bar owner has been hiring pirates for 20 of his 40 years in biz and gets a pass. No fine, no nothing unless he keeps doing it and gets caught. Got ya! Understand! Thank you!

_________________
Still love to sing!

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.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

That is great. Love it when people are legal.

_________________
Still love to sing!

Glad I am moving. These bar owners here just haven't got it yet.

_________________
Still love to sing!

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

I hear ya... Good luck at poker!!!!

_________________
Still love to sing!

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.

Thank you HL. Boils down bar owner gets a pass if he hires legal host after notice of pirate host infringement. And SC monitors bar owners for awhile after notice served. Pirate is toast. Thank you again HL.

_________________
Still love to sing!

Routinely here in Oregon, bar owners that have pirate KJ's get sued for vicariously allowing a Pirate KJ to work in their establishment. on average I have chatted with bar owners that have paid anywhere from $10,000 to as much as $25,000. I talked to one that got busted twice. They got busted and paid once then thought that sound choice would not bother them again and hired another pirate, which got them busted/sued a second time.

_________________
Sal "Kjmann" Esquivel
Karaoke With Sal - Website

Also, we will sometimes sue a venue without a warning letter if there is evidence that they knew of the infringement and did not stop it.

deleted by me, and moved to a different topic (so as not to hijack this topic). If a Moderator could delete this post completely for me, I'd appreciate it.

....And you do so without any actual proof. Therein lay the rub.

Here in NJ, at least, that letter to the venue would be grounds for a huge Restraint Of Trade suit if that host is dismissed because of it.

Would also wonder about the parameters for proof that a venue "knowingly" used a KJ that doesn't comply to SC's wishes.

Is the venue simply supposed to take your notice that the operator is being sued by SC as evidence of wrongdoing, and ignoring it ( again, sincethere is actually still no proof of wrongdoing presented to the venue) grounds for SC to sue the venue?

The question above is just that- a question, not sarcasm. It would seem to be the only grounds available for the suit. Any correction appreciated.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

outlawxsound, the pass for the bar is similar to a pass for the host who passes an audit. In other words both have the chance to get it right.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

How could it be the venues would be getting a free ride? With Oregon suits we have seen a shift in SC's approach and they are going after the deep pockets. They have come to the realization that the small fry host is to hard to identify and serve. Even if they do haul them in they have no assets and it's a waste of SC's limited resources. In my area only one host has been approached by SC and when it was found out he had nothing they dropped their suit. The venues are the logical target since they are easy to serve and have more assets,than the employees they hire for their karaoke needs. The problem with this approach is that there is an increased chance the venues might choose to contest the suit, rather than pay off SC. Like they say no guts no glory. Have a nice day.