What's new
By:
Filters

So who DO you report to??

Anyone can call their state ABC office and talk to an agent.

Yes, they want their revenue but they don't like having licensees abuse their privledges either.

Did you call before or after... oh never mind. that would PERCIEVED as baiting!
 
Mantis1 said:
Anyone can call their state ABC office and talk to an agent.

Yes, they want their revenue but they don't like having licensees abuse their privledges either.

Did you call before or after... oh never mind. that would PERCIEVED as baiting!
Click to expand...

Funny... I called on this about 8 years ago and sat down with the liquor commision about it. Because the "karaoke company" was officially giving away the money and not the club they wouldn't touch it. When I pointed out that the rules didn't differentiate who was giving it away but that it was being given away in a licensee's club, the only thing the liquor commission did about it was tell the club to have the karaoke company "officially award the prize (hand over the cash) in the parking lot" to sidestep the rule.

That's when I knew that route was a losing proposition.
 
Wouldn't that help only if they were a business as opposed to bedroom dj?
Could certainly help if they are a biz though.

LM
 
You have to realize that your "reporting" is just hearsay and unreliable on it's face. You are at that point simply a disgruntled competitor calling your rival a cheater. Why would you expect people or agencies to act on something like that?
 
Great song by Ricky Nelson and sometimes the words just fit so well!

 
Proformance said:
You have to realize that your "reporting" is just hearsay and unreliable on it's face. You are at that point simply a disgruntled competitor calling your rival a cheater. Why would you expect people or agencies to act on something like that?
Click to expand...

Let's see...

Why would anyone expect anyone to react to a complaint?

One citizen reports another citizen for what the 1st citizen believes to be a crime or a civil violation.

There are law enforcement entities in place to deal with just this exact situation. There are trade organizations that have the ability to set standards of practice. These groups are in existence for the sole purpose of receiving, investigating and acting upon complaints.

Why would anyone expect them to act? Am I alone here, or is there anyone else who thinks that it is obvious that you would expect a body of legal or civil authority to act upon reports of mis-conduct or crime or other violation? At the very least, to investigate?

IMHO it boils down to fair trade. There is no argument that can support piracy and its effects on the market place, whether you believe them to be minimal or cataclysmic, as fair trade.

That is what I believe to be one of the great things about citizenship, you aren't "just" anything. Your voice has "just" as much weight, as much validity as anyone else's.
 
Sandman,

I don't know about anyone else but when I call the police about an incident they always respond (perhaps not to the way I would like to see but they respond)!

When the county is called for a housing violation they always seem to respond rather quickly.

The Virginia Board of Contractors responds quickly to complaints and hearings are held almost immeadiately. Then they recommend to the authorities what actions should be taken if any.

But the main thing everyone has is the court system aleibt a slow system.
 
KJSandman said:
Let's see...

Why would anyone expect anyone to react to a complaint?

One citizen reports another citizen for what the 1st citizen believes to be a crime or a civil violation.

There are law enforcement entities in place to deal with just this exact situation. There are trade organizations that have the ability to set standards of practice. These groups are in existence for the sole purpose of receiving, investigating and acting upon complaints.

Why would anyone expect them to act? Am I alone here, or is there anyone else who thinks that it is obvious that you would expect a body of legal or civil authority to act upon reports of mis-conduct or crime or other violation? At the very least, to investigate?

IMHO it boils down to fair trade. There is no argument that can support piracy and its effects on the market place, whether you believe them to be minimal or cataclysmic, as fair trade.

That is what I believe to be one of the great things about citizenship, you aren't "just" anything. Your voice has "just" as much weight, as much validity as anyone else's.
Click to expand...

Another great thing about citizenship is that you can vote not to waste millions of dollars serving the interest of insignificant $200 KJs and demand that they build and pursue their own private legal cases.
 
KJSandman said:
There are law enforcement entities in place to deal with just this exact situation. There are trade organizations that have the ability to set standards of practice. These groups are in existence for the sole purpose of receiving, investigating and acting upon complaints.

Why would anyone expect them to act? Am I alone here, or is there anyone else who thinks that it is obvious that you would expect a body of legal or civil authority to act upon reports of mis-conduct or crime or other violation? At the very least, to investigate?
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.... It seems to be the "law enforcement" and "authority" part that's so sorely lacking and have somehow been replaced with "vendor."
 
You are incorrectly placing the vendor in the equation. The vendor is a citizen, just like you or me. Chip, you know what a corporation is.

If I have direct knowledge of any other citizen's commission of a crime and even more urgently, I am a direct witness of the criminal act in progress, I have the authority to perform a citizen's arrest.

In the event of a dispute between civilians (individuals or corporations), the authority to settle the dispute lies with the courts. Otherwise, the same law enforcement agencies are charged with investigation, reporting and if necessary, the apprehension of individuals and the confiscation of evidence.

The question I responded to what "why would anyone expect them to act?" He later referred to the problem as potentially costing millions to deal with, which seems to be a reference to the size of the problem.

Why would anyone expect them to act? We would expect the authorities to act because we are aware of the size of the problem. We are concerned for our livelihood and the industry that supports those of us who are not in it for a hobby or a side-job. We would expect the authorities to act because stealing music is a crime.
 
Proformance said:
Another great thing about citizenship is that you can vote not to waste millions of dollars serving the interest of insignificant $200 KJs and demand that they build and pursue their own private legal cases.
Click to expand...

The insignificance lies within the required mental acuity to offer that statement.

Millions of dollars does not seem insignificant.

You can't vote if the issue is not on the ballot.

How many $200 LEGAL KJ's does it take for someone to admit that ILLEGAL KJ's are wrong? It is not about how much they charge. It is about UNFAIR TRADE practices and CRIME.

How many before it is on the ballot?

Support for change certainly isn't coming from your direction. It will have to come from somewhere else. I suppose you'll stand idly by as those millions of dollars are "wasted" dealing with the problem.

What problem? Oh yeah, the elephant in the room. How many weekly shows? Can I see your song list? What manufacturers do you carry? When does the show start? Where? What nights? Do you have a web-site? Could you recommend a place to stay nearby so I could attend one of your public shows? I'm thinking of maybe hitting the road this spring (off-season for me) and checking out the state of karaoke around the nation. Whaddya say?
 
KJSandman said:
You are incorrectly placing the vendor in the equation. The vendor is a citizen, just like you or me. Chip, you know what a corporation is.
Click to expand...

Yep... and both citizens and corporations are NOT government -a legal authority.,


KJSandman said:
If I have direct knowledge of any other citizen's commission of a crime and even more urgently, I am a direct witness of the criminal act in progress, I have the authority to perform a citizen's arrest.
Click to expand...

And if you are "a direct witness of a civil infraction in progress, what authority do you have then?

KJSandman said:
In the event of a dispute between civilians (individuals or corporations), the authority to settle the dispute lies with the courts.
Click to expand...

Right.

KJSandman said:
Otherwise, the same law enforcement agencies are charged with investigation, reporting and if necessary, the apprehension of individuals and the confiscation of evidence.
Click to expand...

"Otherwise" meaning "NOT civil" but criminal.... right.

KJSandman said:
The question I responded to what "why would anyone expect them to act?". He later referred to the problem as potentially costing millions to deal with, which seems to be a reference to the size of the problem.
Click to expand...

Perhaps only a monetary potential from the standpoint of the agency. You won't see the F.B.I. in the midst of a patent infringement case although that could also "potentially cost millions" in lost revenue to a patent holder.

KJSandman said:
Why would anyone expect them to act? We would expect the authorities to act because we are aware of the size of the problem. We are concerned for our livelihood and the industry that supports those of us who are not in it for a hobby or a side-job. We would expect the authorities to act because stealing music is a crime.
Click to expand...

Technically, you are correct that stealing is a crime. However these cases are not about "stealing music" are they? They are about Trademark infringement. Once again, you cannot expect the feds to partnership with vendors to "fight piracy by suing for trademark." This isn't prohibition and there are no Al Capone's that are so crafty they can only be busted for tax evasion.

It may be your livelihood, but to the feds it's not even real music, sung by drinking/drunk people in bars for their own amusement. It doesn't have the same importance with them as it does for you. It's just not threatening the national economy nor is it a danger to public safety... It's not on the top of the pile for them and won't be.

(However there were a few last night who's singing was a danger to public safety...)
 
"And if you are "a direct witness of a civil infraction in progress, what authority do you have then?"

You have the authority any citizen does to report the infraction to law enforcement and to file suit in a court of law. I know that you understand this.

You've made my point for me. If you don't have effective authority, you go to the authorities with the expectation that they will act with the authority granted by the law.

"Otherwise" meaning "NOT civil" but criminal.... right."<---- I was trying to point out that the same LEA's are used for both when appropriate. I was trying to say this is the difference, otherwise, they're the same. Both civil and criminal issues rely on LEA's to perform their function during the court process.

No, I don't believe you are correct. The Trademark Infringement is easiest to prove and provides the basis for a lawsuit. The infringement is predicated by the act of stealing or in this case the unauthorized media transfer, which is theft and counterfeiting. You may expect the feds to become much more visible in the IP arena as this country's industrial base erodes, our IP creation increases. The threat to the national economy is developing. We (karaoke) are just a small percentage of the overall IP value in our GNP. Take a look at the thread about the bill going through congress if you don't believe the feds are paying attention.
 
Hmmm i don't know why but Kj's avatar reminds me of a special forces tattoo.
*shrug*

we now return u to ur regularily scheduled stupidity

-James
 
KJSandman said:
"And if you are "a direct witness of a civil infraction in progress, what authority do you have then?"

You have the authority any citizen does to report the infraction to law enforcement and to file suit in a court of law. I know that you understand this.

You've made my point for me. If you don't have effective authority, you go to the authorities with the expectation that they will act with the authority granted by the law.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but I haven't made any points for you.

Why is SC not going after the HD sellers directly with suits and simply waiting for the feds to do something? (easy answer: from a business standpoint, it makes no sense to go after HD sellers, the rate of return isn't there)

KJSandman said:
"Otherwise" meaning "NOT civil" but criminal.... right."<---- I was trying to point out that the same LEA's are used for both when appropriate. I was trying to say this is the difference, otherwise, they're the same. Both civil and criminal issues rely on LEA's to perform their function during the court process.
Click to expand...

Operative words: "when appropriate."

KJSandman said:
No, I don't believe you are correct. The Trademark Infringement is easiest to prove and provides the basis for a lawsuit. The infringement is predicated by the act of stealing or in this case the unauthorized media transfer, which is theft and counterfeiting. You may expect the feds to become much more visible in the IP arena as this country's industrial base erodes, our IP creation increases. The threat to the national economy is developing. We (karaoke) are just a small percentage of the overall IP value in our GNP. Take a look at the thread about the bill going through congress if you don't believe the feds are paying attention.
Click to expand...

Okay... and my answer to that is that you still can't sue for trademark infringement and then claim "fighting piracy" is the reason you need an "audit" of any type. You also wouldn't be able -based on real court attitudes- to demand a "fishing expedition" on trademarks that have NOT "been displayed" in public. You'd be restricted to only those you can prove were displayed AND not owned by a patron since bringing in discs has always been a common occurrence in this "business."

And although this business might be of the utmost importance to you, it isn't a threat to the national economy at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top