Karaoke Forums

There goes Chip trying to twist things around. Liquor inspectors have no problem shutting bars down for violations. Around here I've seen them shut down on average, for underaged patrons, an average a week for the first offence and a fine to boot. Underaged around here is the exception. Those found with fake IDs are charged and fined. They also enforce the anti-smoking laws, and check ALL licences. To check the legality of a host wouldn't be difficult and done maybe once a year or if they get information about illegal activities. But nice try.[/quote


Other infractions are easier to prove than karaoke piracy. Underage drinking, gambling, prostitution, and firearms violations don't require a audit to prove. Usually police observation and sting operations are all that are required. Determining if karaoke is pirated would take a longer investigation, and allocation of resources that most law enforcement agencies are not willing to expend, especially in tight budget times like now.

[

Please take my name off that quote. That was not me. Thanks.

Well let's see an inspector goes in and sees a host using original discs, no problems. They go in and see a computer and and issues an order to produce the originals, if 1:1 is accepted. Now that's not so difficult now is it. It's similar to being stopped and you left your licence at home. You're issued a summons but if you bring in your licence, the summons is cancelled.

Lone Ranger:
Please work on getting a handle on how the quoting works here. You are constantly erasing a single bracket character --> ] in one place or another and your quoted material either does not readily appear as a quote or is simply attributed to the wrong person.

In the post above, you've erased the closing bracket --> ]

You CAN edit your post and put the bracket back in so your quotes will look correct. (the brackets are located on your keyboard (hopefully) next to the "P" )

Well let's see an inspector goes in and sees a host using original discs, no problems. They go in and see a computer and and issues an order to produce the originals, if 1:1 is accepted. Now that's not so difficult now is it. It's similar to being stopped and you left your licence at home. You're issued a summons but if you bring in your licence, the summons is cancelled.

From what I've seen in local permit/violation situations, inspectors issue a violation based on their observation, the bar owner has to prove it's not a violation.
If the bar owner does prove compliance, the permit is reinstated.
This could devastate pirates because they would have to prove not only to the inspectors, but their bar owner, that they are legal. (This is opposite of other legal allegations, where inspectors would have to prove the pirate is illegal.)
Not a problem for KJ's in 1:1, just show the discs or receipts and you'd be clear with everyone.
Again, the inspectors don't have to prove jack-squat or know anything about piracy or copyright law or anything else; they'd only need about 15 minutes of training to know what to look for and ask for to determine if they should write up a violation.

If it is so easy why have not any of the manus managed to carry any of the filed suits, to jury trial and final verdict? Establishing some kind of legal history we can all refer to.

Well let's see an inspector goes in and sees a host using original discs, no problems. They go in and see a computer and and issues an order to produce the originals, if 1:1 is accepted. Now that's not so difficult now is it. It's similar to being stopped and you left your licence at home. You're issued a summons but if you bring in your licence, the summons is cancelled.

hiteck wrote:

If you were a manu and was uncertain of what precedent might be set by the final verdict, and it possibly not be in your favor, would you be in such a hurry to go to trial?

If you are a manufacturer and afraid you might lose (which I believe you are saying above) and have a verdict go against you, then obviously there is some question in your own mind of the validity or merit of the very cases you would be bringing against others and you know you're skating on very thin ice to start with.

Otherwise, there would be no reason to delay any action. A solid precedent in your favor would make any future suits a virtual shoe-in and very good "cash machine" for your future...

Would you be willing to "roll the dice" if your options were that it could be "winner take all, loser go broke?" Instead, it appears as though this is nothing more than a gentle "milking" for as long as they can get away with it.... in my opinion.

Officer Timberlea;

I is NOT "similar to being stopped and you left your licence at home." Because in order to be stopped in the first place, there has to be a reasonable cause. (Nice try though) However in Canada, they (the police) might be allowed to stop anyone for no reason at all.... like an MP can do that on a base or post... I just don't know, nor do I presume to know and/or apply U.S. law to Canada.

Simply "seeing a computer" is NOT reasonable cause that anything illegal regarding the ownership of originals has been committed. It's simply an EXCUSE to search for evidence they don't have in the first place.

A more realistic scenario would be a police "checkpoint" where ALL drivers are stopped -simply because they are driving- and asking for a driver's license and/or questioned about drinking. Which in the state of Michigan.... in the United States.... has been done and promptly deemed unconstitutional as not reasonable.

So as you mentioned earlier, let's keep the scenario's within the confines of reality.

If you were a manu and was uncertain of what precedent might be set by the final verdict, and it possibly not be in your favor, would you be in such a hurry to go to trial?

If it is so easy why have not any of the manus managed to carry any of the filed suits, to jury trial and final verdict? Establishing some kind of legal history we can all refer to.

Well Diafel, you are wrong. In Canada, and supported by numerous Supreme Court of Canada decisions, police officers may conduct random, routine spot checks for vehicle documentations (licence, registration, and insurance). In other words, you can be driving and a police officer driving behind may stop you, even if you are doing nothing wrong and ask you for those three documents. Now unless they see a further violation (say you're impaired, possession of a prohibited weapon, or whatever) they cannot search your vehicle, Now if they do see a violation they may be able to search without warrant or seize and obtain a warrant.

Ranger, you wouldn't need special people to enforce computer hosts, it could easily be added of to the duties of current inspectors.