|
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
| Author |
Message |
|
Cueball
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:24 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:55 pm
Posts: 4433
Location: New York City
Been Liked: 757 times
|
Brewtus wrote: ... I am named (KJ) as a defendant, and the venue I played at is named as a defendant. The venue got served today and according to the owner of the venue I'm on the list to be served asap.
...i am listed on the lawsuit as working at a venue in town I've never stepped foot in..that venue is NOT listed as a defendant.
The song in question on the lawsuit is a CB song on the 1st essentials set that I bought from Big Mamas Karaoke Cafe store (CB) back in 2003..in fact most CB OMD I have were bought full retail from their store over many years. I have a question for you. In the above quote, you have mentioned that you are named as a defendant in 2 different venues: 1.) one where you do host a show, and 2.) one where you have " never stepped foot in" the door. With regard to the 1st venue, are there any other KJs that host there on different nights of the week?
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Insane KJ
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:34 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:24 pm
Posts: 317
Been Liked: 18 times
|
cueball wrote: Brewtus wrote: ... I am named (KJ) as a defendant, and the venue I played at is named as a defendant.
...i am listed on the lawsuit as working at a venue in town I've never stepped foot in..that venue is NOT listed as a defendant. I have a question for you. In the above quote, you have mentioned that you are named as a defendant in 2 different venues: 1.) one where you do host a show, and 2.) one where you have " never stepped foot in" the door. With regard to the 1st venue, are there any other KJs that host there on different nights of the week? So that I don't post personal info, you can deduct who Brewtus works for on page 20 Exhibit A of the lawsuit I linked to in this thread then look at the first CB Lawsuit linked below to find who was sued in 2011. Brewtus has stated that he now works for the venue that were sued in 2009 but that would have been the SC suit, not the CB suit. I see the same address for the venue being sued again as the one listed for the KJ. Here is the old 2011 CB Lawsuit info: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/tennes ... 036/59665/
_________________
-- Mark
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Cueball
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:42 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:55 pm
Posts: 4433
Location: New York City
Been Liked: 757 times
|
Insane KJ wrote: So that I don't post personal info, you can deduct who Brewtus works for on page 20 Exhibit A of the lawsuit... I have no interest is seeking out who Brewtus works for, nor do I wish to seek out his true identity. I also don't have the time or patience to read any of these lawsuits, and try to interpret all the legal mumbo jumbo they toss in there (that can be interpreted two different ways (depending on whether you are for the defense or the plaintiff)). Since Brewtus has posted that he is an ODB KJ, and that he was named in a lawsuit for infringement, all I am curious about is whether or not he is/was the only KJ working at the venue where he was named in that lawsuit. Warning... SPECULATION ALERT!!! It could be possible that the venue has (or had) more than one KJ working there. When the PI's came in to observe, they may have observed a different KJ at that time. When following up on getting names, they may have gotten Brewtus's name as the current KJ there instead of the KJ who may have been there when they were making their rounds.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Brewtus
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 10:18 pm |
|
 |
| newbie |
 |
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:03 am
Posts: 4
Been Liked: 0 time
|
|
Cueball..good questions and good point. Who I am is irrelevant. Answer to your questions. I am the only KJ and we only did one night a week. Now i did take a few nights off over the years I was there but the person who filled in for me was a friend and he also used OMDs. I did check and make sure I was there on the night in question.
Your other question: Im a defendant as a KJ and the Venue I worked is a defendant..just the one.
I understand mistakes happen..the Venue and I are seeking a sit down with PR attornys to show them exactly what I have..my collection of CB OMDs. They will see ive spent a lot of money to be legal..i did it the right way and hopefully they will do the right thing and take us off the lawsuit. Their time, money and resources can be better spent.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
The Lone Ranger
|
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:39 am |
|
|
| Extreme Plus Poster |
 |
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: The Lone Ranger wrote: 8) That has always been a question not fully answered Lonnie, in all of this legal process business, just how and how through are these investigations? Also if any reports are generated during the investigation process. It would seem that it is very difficult any time there has been an actual trial to produce the investigator or even the reports, for the plaintiffs. Making it very difficult for the plaintiffs to prove their case. The question has been fully answered. You just don't like the answer. I can't speak for PR in this specific case, but your question seems directed otherwise anyway. The investigations are thorough enough to produce a good-faith belief that infringement has occurred. That is all that is required. Plaintiffs are not required to rely solely on their pre-suit investigation to prove their cases. Discovery is the process by which almost all trial evidence is developed--not just in karaoke cases, but in all civil cases. That is the purpose of discovery, and it is not improper in the slightest for a plaintiff to rely on the discovery process to identify and collect all of the evidence to be used at trial. Investigative reports serve ONE purpose and ONE purpose only: to establish a good-faith belief that infringement has occurred. Contrary to the popular belief among certain non-lawyers, liability and damages are not limited to the specific songs for which infringement was directly observed. Defendants are answerable for ALL of the infringement they have committed within the applicable statute of limitations, whether they were observed or not. A plaintiff need not call the investigator to testify to prove a specific instance of infringement. As for Brewtus, if what he says is true (and it may be, or may not), I am absolutely certain that the matter can be straightened out with a phone call to PR's attorneys. There will almost certainly be some verification required, but I know that PR is not interested in maintaining a suit against a person who operates using original discs.  James if the reports are of such little value then why was SC willing to pay APS 30% of the recovered money from the California suit, for simply supplying the investigation files? Why was the reason over half the defendants walked cited as being Donna Boris did not have the files, that APS was supposed to hand over? In the case of Bob in Panama City isn't part of the reason he walked because the investigator who observed the specific instance of infringement died before the trial? I think it is very important if you are going to pursue this legal process of yours and you want it to work, you are going to have to give the impression that the investigations are done in a competent manner. Otherwise I feel you can expect more of these lawsuits are gong down in flames. At least the ones where the hosts and venues decide to fight back, and you are unable to sweat a settlement out of them. Have a legal day.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lone Wolf
|
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:30 am |
|
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 10:11 am
Posts: 1832
Location: TX
Been Liked: 59 times
|
|
So from the sounds of things ALL KJ's who have shifted their CB to computer are in jeopardy as any of CB's authorization to shift has expired and no way to renew it, as far as I can see.
Guess it's time to dig out the discs guys as I don't see anyway around this one.
_________________
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
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Cueball
|
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:14 am |
|
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:55 pm
Posts: 4433
Location: New York City
Been Liked: 757 times
|
Lone Wolf wrote: So from the sounds of things ALL KJ's who have shifted their CB to computer are in jeopardy as any of CB's authorization to shift has expired and no way to renew it, as far as I can see.
Guess it's time to dig out the discs guys as I don't see anyway around this one.
Warning... MORE SPECULATION... Unless they are going to do an Audit at the time of Discovery, and then drop those who prove to be legit from the lawsuit.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
timberlea
|
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:25 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 4094
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
Been Liked: 309 times
|
|
And I have read and heard many things that just aren't true. So unless you have some sort of documentation to back what you are saying then I'll subscribe it to one of Cue's favourite words - Speculation.
_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
djjeffross
|
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:34 pm |
|
|
| Novice Poster |
 |
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:33 pm
Posts: 43
Been Liked: 12 times
|
Quote: At least that is the way I understand they will be conducting business. It will be a no nonsense type of approach. At least that is what I took away from the summit. Doesn't appear from actually reading the above comment that it references any documentation. Sounds like ones opinion to me. I would surmise 90% of what is written on this forum is speculation by definition: ( a guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence). The other 5% can be backed up with some sort of fact or point of reference and the final 5% is just people with nothing to add to the conversation but "drive-by" jabbing of the jaws. As to whether CB/WWD/PR plans to conduct business the way The Lone Ranger stated, one will just have to wait and see. If just a few legitimate host would stand up when falsely accused and not rush to prove their innocence they would come out with much bigger pockets in the long run. Lawsuits do smoke out the real pirates but reckless lawsuits cause undo stress on law abiding citizens and the trolls should have to PAY. It's the American way !!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 11:59 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm
Posts: 5046
Been Liked: 334 times
|
|
Well, here we go again. If Brewtus is- like me- an Original Manufacturers' dis based host, then PR seems to have copied SC's "investigational" techniques- that is to say, NONE AT ALL. Picked a name off the net without ever checking. No PC means no media shift. These clowns, like SC, never bothered to visit the show. Throw enough on the wall and hope it sticks, right?
_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
The Lone Ranger
|
Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:18 am |
|
|
| Extreme Plus Poster |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
|
timberlea wrote: And I have read and heard many things that just aren't true. So unless you have some sort of documentation to back what you are saying then I'll subscribe it to one of Cue's favourite words - Speculation. You did watch the summit didn't you tim? The part about if hosts come in they will be treated well and welcomed back all they have to do is subscribe to the Cloud service, and all will be ok. The service is in essence an insurance policy for all those who wish to avoid the possibility of a suit, from WWD/PR. It is a fact that as of right now there is currently no auditing system in place for CB material, and there hasn't been since the collapse of CB. All of the CB certifications have a one year time limit on them and have expired, there is no way currently to renew those expired certificates. You respect Chris don't you, his certification has expired, and he isn't able to get it renewed, ask him? It would seem logical if WWD/PR were going to continue with the legal process, they would set up some kind of auditing system, they haven't. If they intended to resume auditing they would have done so by now, and let hosts know where to go to get their libraries checked out and approved. That is because the options have narrowed down to two either subscribe or face a possible legal suit, there is no other choice, at least currently.
Last edited by The Lone Ranger on Fri Jul 05, 2013 6:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 5:44 am |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
 |
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
|
JoeChartreuse wrote: Well, here we go again. If Brewtus is- like me- an Original Manufacturers' dis based host, then PR seems to have copied SC's "investigational" techniques- that is to say, NONE AT ALL. Picked a name off the net without ever checking. No PC means no media shift. These clowns, like SC, never bothered to visit the show. Throw enough on the wall and hope it sticks, right? The statements about SC quoted above are objectively false, and Joe has been shown that they are false. Moreover, this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with SC.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:28 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm
Posts: 5046
Been Liked: 334 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: JoeChartreuse wrote: Well, here we go again. If Brewtus is- like me- an Original Manufacturers' dis based host, then PR seems to have copied SC's "investigational" techniques- that is to say, NONE AT ALL. Picked a name off the net without ever checking. No PC means no media shift. These clowns, like SC, never bothered to visit the show. Throw enough on the wall and hope it sticks, right? The statements about SC quoted above are objectively false, and Joe has been shown that they are false. Moreover, this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with SC. While in actuality my statements have been proven absolutely true on several occasions, Jim is correct in pointing out that this thread is not about SC, and I apologize for bringing them into it. It only happened due to the similarities in methodology. Sorry.... 
_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
timberlea
|
Posted: Fri Jul 05, 2013 2:26 am |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 4094
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
Been Liked: 309 times
|
|
Lone Ranger, reports are just that - reports, they are not evidence. Evidence is given in a courtroom, through physical evidence and/or testimony. Reports are done to have a record and to assist an attorney on how they will proceed with a matter. I have written thousands of police and investigation reports and none were used as evidence. Any evidence from the reports came out through my testimony on the stand.
_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 186 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
