Karaoke Forums

I think I couched my statements with the idea of if the charges are proved Mr. Boo. Another problem with the double standard I have seen going on, is if an individual host is charged by SC or PR he must be guilty. There is no benefit of the doubt extended to hosts by some of their fellow hosts. All to often the mere suggestion that a host is operating illegally is enough to damage his business and reputation. They are in fact guilty until proven innocent, I don't see why the same standard can't be applied to the manus. We know for a fact in the past CB also was guilty of not paying the proper fees. Do we need more information to confirm the fact they were taking music and using it without paying?

Who, exactly, is applying a guilty until proven innocent stigma on those who SC brings suit against?

From what I have read on these forums the pirates are roaches, scum, parasites and to be even accused of being a pirate or a pirate sympathizer is an insult to some hosts. The emotions run so deep that it is almost impossible to make a statement without it being interpreted as pro pirate, if one does not wholly support the position of the manus. To me neither the pirates or the manus are angels or demons, to infer one is more noble than the other is just a fantasy.

Also it would be naive to think that the very suggestion that a host is a pirate would not hurt him professionally and economically. How many venues are going to keep a host that has been charged? They won't because they are in fear they will be sued themselves. Even fellow hosts will shun you since they don't want to be thought of as a pirate sympathizer. Even if the host clears himself he will always carry the stigma that he was suspected. Just like if people said others were Communists or Communist supporters in the 50's. Chris has asked me why I defend pirates, like Joe said I don't I just don't support manus who engage in similar questionable practices.

In civil suits the proof of being "not guilty as charged" falls on the defendant, whereas the burden of proof in a criminal indictment falls on the prosecutor to prove guilt. So in a way when served in a civil lawsuit you are guilty until you prove yourself to be innocent, and everyone that is aware of the suit will still think there was some guilt even if the suit gets dropped. After all why would they file a suit for no reason? Is there an "innocence project" for civil suit injustices?

Not as I know it. A criminal case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. A civil case stops short of having to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither is guilty until proven innocent. That's how I understand it, anyway.

I did say "So in a way when served in a civil lawsuit you are guilty until you prove yourself to be innocent" I did not mean it literally. Or pay the plaintiff to drop the suit..

From what I read here, I see no reason to suspect Chris's buisness practices to be anything but ABOVE BOARD. From what he describes, all his gigs have been as a result of either refererals, word of mouth, other KJ's becoming burned out and leaving, venues making a change on thier own and contacting him, finding him via SC website as a licensed/legal host, putting on a superior show during tryouts and the ability to be more flexible and accomodating with scheduling issues. None of this is underhanded or "POACHING". These are all sound and fair competitive practices. Additionally, his practice of contacting venues, leaving a card and perhaps info flyer and asking them to keep him in mind if they decide to make a change is normal competitive practice. I would venture that he will continue to receive inquirys and new gigs because of those practices and don't foresee any need for him to go out "HUNTING" illegal KJ gigs. I would speculate that those venues would reach thier own conclusions that they would need to make a change and they would go looking for and find Chris's company.

All this carping and grumbling about his recent successes seems to me to be nothing more than jealousy and sour grapes.

_________________
"You know that I sing the Blues and I do not suffer fools. When I'm on that silver mic, it's gonna cut ya, just like a knife"-The SWINGCAT

Swingcat Kurt, for ONCE i agree with you 100%

This is not correct.

In a civil action, the burden of proof (generally) remains on the plaintiff, not the defendant. While the defendant isn't "presumed innocent" in the same sense as in a criminal trial, that's primarily because in a civil action, defendants are not "guilty" or "innocent." They are either "liable" or "not liable," and the presumption is "not liable," at least until the plaintiff proves the elements of the claims by the preponderance of evidence (i.e., more likely than not).

So trying to cloak this question of piracy in criminal terms by either side is just a bunch of baloney. Since this is a civil matter and not criminal, the use of the words theft or stealing have no meaning. This is all about liability and damages, just like a car accident that is handled by your insurance company. Fault is established and payment made. Thanks for clearing that up Jim.

IP Piracy is against the law so it can be decided in either a criminal or civil case as I understand it. Sometimes criminal, and if that fails, civil. It wasn't IP but refer to OJ as an example.

With all due respect Mr.Boo the litigating manus have never sought criminal penalties in their little crusade. They have always opted for the civil road. That being the case the T word or stealing should not be used by either their supporters or their detractors. It should be called what it is a civil suit to establish liability. The only reason the criminal angle is brought up is so both sides can use inflammatory language.

In the Manu's defense, they can not bring criminal charges. They can report it but it is then up to whatever law enforcement agency that covers the report to investigate and provide that information to a prosecution arm. Then it is up to the prosecution to decide if they have a case and if it is worth pursuing. Please refer to the ex baseball player doing time for selling pirated hard drives. And I can't even remember if the charges were piracy. Many times there are other crimes committed which may have more recourse that the piracy charges, like tax evasion.

But a criminal case would not fit with the end result SC (and EMI) would wish for. So the civil route is the best option all the way around. And I think the prosecution arms like it that way as well as they can focus on other things.

If that is the way things stand then neither side should be using words like thief or stealing in the case of host piracy. The loaded HD seller is a different situation, and unless the pirates host is selling loaded HD's criminal charges would not attach. All this talk of thieves and stealing are meaningless by both sides, since this is all about establishing liability and receiving compensation. Nothing more and nothing less. If however we keep up the inflammatory language if one side is called a thief the other side when charged should expect the same treatment.

No law enforcement agency is chasing hard drive sellers that I can see. And I don't see any producers that seemed to be concerned with it either, otherwise SC and PR would be lurking on Craigslist instead of the back of a karaoke bar. Once again, if the real goal was to stop piracy, that would be the way to do it, but no revenue in standing and watching some guy go to jail.

Rick if the supply of illegally loaded HD's were to somehow disappear totally, there would be no pirates, and no one to license or buy the litigating manus product. There would be no one to threaten with a suit in order to convince them fork over the money required to make everything go away.

Again, you want to relate what the manufacturers SUPPOSEDLY have done, to what we KNOW the pirate KJ's actually do.

I don't have any interest in discussing what the manufacturers do because 1) I am not an attorney, 2) manufacturers have licensing issues to deal with that KJ's in general do not, and 3) I am a KJ so I am dealing with other KJ's, not the manufacturers, when it comes to piracy and theft.

Also, at the manufacturer level, there is nothing for me to report or follow-up on. The copyright holders have regularly kept them in check over the years. They are working at a level that I have little impact on.

KJ's are another matter altogether though. I can have an impact there.

So again, when you are willing to discuss only the KJ portion of piracy and theft without attaching it to the manufacturers, I will be happy to participate.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

The whole conspiracy theory that manufactures WANT pirates so they have somebody to sue is about as logical as saying the TSA WANTS terrorists or your local Fire Department WANTS house fires so they have steady income.

I'll never say they WANT the drives. I will say they do make "customers" they normally wouldn't without the drives.

Come on Bazza we have more people in prison than any other country in the world, prisons are big business and they generate millions to the companies that contract out their services. Most of these prisoners are small time drug users and sellers. Treatment would be a cheaper alternative but that would take away from profits earned by corporations that run the prisons. TSA or the local Fire Department don't want to be called on, yet they still want the tax dollars allocated for Security and Fire Protection. Once something is created it has a life of it's own, and requires spending to maintain itself.

P.S. I forgot War is big business to, that is why when we start a War it is hard to stop since that would cut into the profits of the companies that supply everything for War. That is why it was so hard to get out of Iraq and why we will have to stay in Afghanistan for another 10 years.