Documents To Allow The Public Playing Of C/ds

[LivinLOS]

My thoughts clear enough ??

Not quite. Getting there though.

You failed miserably with this challenge the last time I put it to you, so have another go.

One word answer, Yes or No.

Do you think 'Blakegeees' account of what happened in his bar is fabricated. Or to put it even more simply. Do you think it's possible, that what 'Blakegeee' said happened, actually happened??

I think what happened to him is possible.. That he told someone who wasnt a policeman with no authority to leave..

I maintain that telling the police (as he initially posted), to get out your bar and without a warrant they cant touch anything is a total joke.. Try it and see how it goes.. The police here dont react well to being told what to do by farangs.

[LivinLOS]

As far as playing radio, tv, internet radio etc. it is no different. The radio station has paid for the rights to play this material to you. If you want to play it commercially in a non-domestic environment, than you have to pay for the rights too. As I have said before, it is illegal to play any of these mediums

Here it seems they operated that differently.. Leaving UBC on the music channels, or playing the radio, or playing sat radio.. all did not make a problem. For a start they need the CD's or MP3s as evidence of what you were playing.

Here they only made problems for people who had a music system with local storage and no license for the music on that storage..

[blakegeee]

From http://www.1stopmusic.com/faq.html;

"Do I need a JV licence if I am using radio/TV ?

A JV licence is needed if you play sound recordings in public - whether through a background music system, on CD, via radio/ television broadcasts or otherwise. However, in certain circumstances, a concessionary licence fee may be available for radio/TV use only. If you are in any doubt as to whether you require a JV licence, please contact us."

If this company who actually does own the rights is involved (which I don't believe it is) I find your last post hard to believe.

[LivinLOS]

Yes you did get scammed, as many many due in this scam, including your neighbors no doubt. You have also broken the law by not having this license though. The people who took your money also have no right to do so as they do not own the rights either.

These extortionists prey on uneducated people. In the future, you need to explain to your staff what a search warrant is, and if they don't have a proper one with the name of establishment, and id to prove that they are the ones allowed to search, than they cannot. (BTW; they never actually have a "real" search warrant in the many bars I have talked to that have experienced this). They also cannot take things from your establishment despite who they work for. That is called "stealing" which is illegal even in Thailand. Next time, don't allow them to search, don't allow them to take anything, and don't go anywhere with them. Take their photos and if they steal something, don't go with them and just call the police to report the theft. The police will only back them up if they can get someone to the station "voluntarily"?!

This is what I claim to be totally incorrect information.. 1 stop reps DO have the right to most popular western music from big name labels.

The poster had no license.. He is breaking the law.. And this posters advice is to tell them to get out without a warrant even when they come with police ?? That you must tell your staff that they should know their rights and tell Thai police to leave if they dont have a search warrant !!

So now the police dont have the authority to arrest law breakers based on what a poster on TV says ?? Should we advice resisting arrest ??

Sorry.. The above is a crock.. If the police come to your bar, and you dont have a license and you do have music.. Then dont start quoting some argument about warrants.. Negotiate the fine and buy one !!

[LivinLOS]

From <a href="http://www.1stopmusic.com/faq.html" target="_blank">http://www.1stopmusic.com/faq.html</a>;

"Do I need a JV licence if I am using radio/TV ?

A JV licence is needed if you play sound recordings in public - whether through a background music system, on CD, via radio/ television broadcasts or otherwise. However, in certain circumstances, a concessionary licence fee may be available for radio/TV use only. If you are in any doubt as to whether you require a JV licence, please contact us."

If this company who actually does own the rights is involved (which I don't believe it is) I find your last post hard to believe.

Well that was how hey did it locally.. No music system to confiscate, no evidence of music to show I guess ??

They didnt make any problem for bars that had only TV and or radio.. DVD's they did make a problem and Kamala bar owner (Thai) had a much bigger fine as he had some porn DVD's mixed n the DVD's on site.. Seem to remember he paid about 40 - 60k down from a 100 but thats a rough memory.

[WOOHOO]

I would love to see you tell an armed Thai cop he cant do anything.. hel_l they shoot people and nothing happens..

So if you want to tell the police to produce a search warrant when they come into your bar (or home) please video it, then we can all have a laugh..

And quite frankly telling a policemen (in patong) to get a warrant while hes arresting you is comedy gold.

The post which I was responding too said that you could tell the cops they were not allowed to enter your bar or touch anything without a warrant. That was the amusing bit.

As wonderfull as Thai visa is, it only allows a limited amount of quotes, so I will have to continue in a seperate post.

[WOOHOO]

This idea you can tell Thai cops to get out your bar because they dont have a warrant, or they cant confiscate the items concerned.. Is a total joke..

And the suggestion of telling them to get out without a warrant, would be pure comedy.

I maintain that telling the police (as he initially posted), to get out your bar and without a warrant they cant touch anything is a total joke..

you must tell your staff that they should know their rights and tell Thai police to leave if they dont have a search warrant !!

There's eight quotes there from eight different posts, (seven of them by the wonderful 'LivinLOS') all in reference to 'blakegeees' first post. If anybody can show me where exactly in that post, 'Blakegeee' said anything that resembles any of those quotes, I would be very grateful, because although admittedly half cut, I can't see it any where.

[ScubaBuddha]

There's eight quotes there from eight different posts, (seven of them by the wonderful 'LivinLOS') all in reference to 'blakegeees' first post. If anybody can show me where exactly in that post, 'Blakegeee' said anything that resembles any of those quotes, I would be very grateful, because although admittedly half cut, I can't see it any where.

Sure, can do:

In the future, you need to explain to your staff what a search warrant is, and if they don't have a proper one with the name of establishment, and id to prove that they are the ones allowed to search, than they cannot. (BTW; they never actually have a "real" search warrant in the many bars I have talked to that have experienced this). They also cannot take things from your establishment despite who they work for. That is called "stealing" which is illegal even in Thailand. Next time, don't allow them to search, don't allow them to take anything, and don't go anywhere with them.

and

When the police came back we told them that they cannot touch anything without a warrant. Guess what, I am sure you will find this hilarious, they didn't touch anything. They only argued the fact but didn't actually break the law.

I didn't find that hilarious, but I did find it mildly amusing when he later said this:

I do admit however that I did make a mistake in my one post saying that "When the police came back we told them that they cannot touch anything ..." I meant to just say "extortionists", not "police"...

So your right, he wasn't lying, just made a "mistake"

And anyway, I still don't get how you are saying we think blakegee is a lier. I don't see anywhere Lilos or I called him that. You started using that word in post #11 at which point Lilos and I had only made the comment that telling Thai cops to not enter your establishment without a warrant during a permit check was ridiculous. I'll let Lilos speak for himself but I myself believe blakegee's story too, especially after the correction of the above mentioned error.

[WOOHOO]

therefore a reasonable person would assume that each instance in which "them" or "they" is used along with "needing a search warrant" he is talking about the police.

I think you'll find anybody who is a native English speaker will know full well that he was not referring to the police at all.

The use of the word 'warrant' I took to mean the fake paper work that these scammers use to bluff their way past unknowing victims.

You've been reading to many 'LLOS' posts you're picking up his traits of going around in circles avoiding facts.

'Blakegeees' first post (post 5) made no reference to turning police away without warrants what so ever. 'LLOS' jumped in feet first as he always does (post 6) and wrongly assumed that he was referring to the police, when he in fact was referring to the blaggers, then you jumped on his coat tails. (post 7) Yes 'Blakegeee' did make reference to turning the police away later (post 10) but unless 'LLOS' has a time machine he didn't know that when he first piped up. 'LLOS' information, nearly all second hand as always, was probably referring to legitimate agents being escorted by police, as mentioned in the post by 'Ping'. He then continued to go around in circles, confusing legitimate agents being escorted by police, and the out and out grifters, also sometimes being escorted by police in 'Blakegeees' post.

None of which changes the fact, that when this thread reached post number 7, you and 'LLOS' had both got your wires crossed and were insinuating that someone, in your own words, was talking nonsense, who had in fact said nothing wrong.

The truth of the matter is, this thread would have died ages ago if 'LivinLOS' hadn't made post number 6. Jumping all over someone without reading the post properly, drawing on his umpteen experiences (3 of which turned out to be other peoples experiences) when in fact what he was talking about, was completely different to what the other poster was talking about anyway.

[cdnvic]

Deleted several posts and replies as a member's posts had been edited during quoting. Do not rewrite another person's quotes or modify them in any way except to shorten it.

[LivinLOS]

I think you'll find anybody who is a native English speaker will know full well that he was not referring to the police at all.

The use of the word 'warrant' I took to mean the fake paper work that these scammers use to bluff their way past unknowing victims.

Why ?? he clearly said police.. He also has stated the police 'come but hang back'.. And I and others (Ping) having seen this, and had friends experience the issue first hand, have told you the police are the ones that make this scam work here.. His advise to the OP is totally wrong in the local context if the police are there, not a caveat he added.

His advice to turn 'them' away.. Equals turning the police away.. Thats what I am saying is poor advice.

If you think the OP, with no music license, should tell the police to get out of his bar, when hes breaking the law and doesnt have licenses and this that will work ?? Then I think thats also awful advice that must be corrected before it gets some noob with a western sense of police rules in trouble.

When the police tell you, comply !! Negotiate by all means, but comply !!

You've been reading to many 'LLOS' posts you're picking up his traits of going around in circles avoiding facts.

'Blakegeees' first post (post 5) made no reference to turning police away without warrants what so ever. 'LLOS' jumped in feet first as he always does (post 6) and wrongly assumed that he was referring to the police, when he in fact was referring to the blaggers, then you jumped on his coat tails. (post 7) Yes 'Blakegeee' did make reference to turning the police away later (post 10) but unless 'LLOS' has a time machine he didn't know that when he first piped up. 'LLOS' information, nearly all second hand as always, was probably referring to legitimate agents being escorted by police, as mentioned in the post by 'Ping'. He then continued to go around in circles, confusing legitimate agents being escorted by police, and the out and out grifters, also sometimes being escorted by police in 'Blakegeees' post.

Look, any time the police are there.. Your wise to do as the police say..

Quoting laws back at them will get you nowhere..

[LivinLOS]

The truth of the matter is, this thread would have died ages ago if 'LivinLOS' hadn't made post number 6. Jumping all over someone without reading the post properly, drawing on his umpteen experiences (3 of which turned out to be other peoples experiences) when in fact what he was talking about, was completely different to what the other poster was talking about anyway.

Knowing (and most bar owners do) this scam is assisted by the police (as Ping corroborated).

Knowing the police are there to back up the agent and make the physical arrests.

Knowing the OP had no license.

Do you (yes or no) agree that telling a policeman, to leave your bar if he doesnt have a warrant, and to not touch your stuff is a bad idea ??

Thats all I said !! That its ridiculous to think we can impose western standards of procedure and demand warrants and the like from the police here.

You can try and twist it any which way you like.. But Blakegee's advice is flat out dangerous.

[LivinLOS]

Last one for now

Blakegeees' first post (post 5) made no reference to turning police away without warrants what so ever. 'LLOS' jumped in feet first as he always does (post 6) and wrongly assumed that he was referring to the police, when he in fact was referring to the blaggers, then you jumped on his coat tails. (post 7) Yes 'Blakegeee' did make reference to turning the police away later (post 10) but unless 'LLOS' has a time machine he didn't know that when he first piped up.

Erm.. So hang on.. I 'wrongly assumed' (not assumed because I have physically seen it here.. How it happens in CM is not relevant to how it happens on Phuket in the Phuket forum) something that later turns out to be right.. And your making a big deal about time machines and sarcasm ??

Why is it wrongly assumed when it turns out to be the correct assumption ??

[ScubaBuddha]

therefore a reasonable person would assume that each instance in which "them" or "they" is used along with "needing a search warrant" he is talking about the police.

I think you'll find anybody who is a native English speaker will know full well that he was not referring to the police at all.

Well then that is where you and reality part ways.

If he wasn't talking about the police (which he later confirmed he was, then changed it back to "the extortionists") then he should have made it clearer. I had the exact same concern Lilos did when I read blakegees first post before I had even read what Lilos said, so don't say I was jumping on his coat tails. Taking blakegees actions towards the police is going to get you in trouble. If you want to take that somewhat aggressive action towards the non-uniformed non-police escorted ambiguously credentialed inspectors, then that is more reasonable, but that was not made clear initially, (probably out of a little inflated pride) and it needed to be.

And I will also add, reading blakegees original post again, the ridiculous advice to specifically "advise your (Thai) staff what a search warrant is." A Thai is NEVER going to challenge a Thai police officers authority, (and probably not the ambiguously credentialed inspectors for that matter) especially to try to save some money for their farang bar owner boss. They will be far too busy wai'ing the officers. (And yes I am still using the police officer tak here, as that is how people are going to interpret blakegees words even if he didn't mean it.)

And I completely disagree that we have argued "in circles" as you put it. Rather clear and concise actually. I think perhaps the issues have gotten a little muddled in your head and thus appears confusing to you.

[stevenl]

Could it be that the major difference is that Blakegeee is talking about a scam, where some con artists are doing their rounds, hoping that somebody will cough up, whereas LivinLOS and SB are talking about the real thing, where a representative of one of the labels is doing his rounds?

Both accompanied by police, where in the former situation the officer will play a passive role, in the latter be more active?

[ScubaBuddha]

Could it be that the major difference is that Blakegeee is talking about a scam, where some con artists are doing their rounds, hoping that somebody will cough up, whereas LivinLOS and SB are talking about the real thing, where a representative of one of the labels is doing his rounds?

Both accompanied by police, where in the former situation the officer will play a passive role, in the latter be more active?

I think that is part of it, but it didn't seem like Blakegee was differentiating between the two, at least not initially.

[WOOHOO]

Could it be that the major difference is that Blakegeee is talking about a scam, where some con artists are doing their rounds, hoping that somebody will cough up, whereas LivinLOS and SB are talking about the real thing, where a representative of one of the labels is doing his rounds?

Both accompanied by police, where in the former situation the officer will play a passive role, in the latter be more active?

Might as well end the thread right there, because yes, that's exactly what happened from post number 6 onward. I wish I was as good at summarising as that.

As I have said before, post number 6 is the reason we are still beating this thread to death.

"LivinLOS', it is 100% clear that you jumped to the wrong conclusion. You introduced your knowledge? of music license raids, where the agent was more than likely legit and legally entitled, with the backing of the police to enter the bar and confiscate property etc.

in to a post where someone was talking about non legit agents with no true authority, being backed in a very lack luster manor by the local plod.

He made it quite clear that the police were present but did nothing . He also made it quite clear, to me and every other English speaker (except 'SB') that it was the bogus agents he refused entry to, and it was the bogus agents he chased away by taking their photos. At no stage (until post 10) did he mention chasing police away, by which time, after having been called a lier, perhaps he felt the need to fabricate slightly, which he later acknowledged. Which is irrelevant to my point because you made your post well before that anyway.

Twice in this thread 'LivinLOS' I have asked you a straight forward question and asked you for a one word, yes or no answer. I even made reference to your failure the first time and wrote in bold letters, asking you to do it the second time. Both times you couldn't manage it. Instead only able to regurgitate the same few lines, with a few of the words swapped around that you had said in every other post before it.

I'm now going for third time lucky. 'LivinLOS', please answer the question I'm about to ask. Not another question, not repeat the same few lines about how funny it is telling a policeman he can't enter without a warrant, (you've said that nine times already) but answer this question as straight forward and simply as you can.

Where in 'Blakegeees' post (number 5) did he say that it was the police he turned away from the door because they had no warrant? Where did he make any reference to legitimate representatives of the music companies, being accompanied by the police, being turned away because they had no warrant?

Why 'SB' has got issues with me using the word lier I can't say. Your very first words were "have you ever been to Thailand" To me that is as good as saying that you have no clue what you are talking about. What you said isn't possible, therefor you must be lieing. 'SB' then added that he was talking 'Nonsense' .

Now please answer that question without your usual, going round the houses, which at the end of the day fools nobody but yourself.

Edit: Forgot to say, I think it's unfair to 'Ping' to keep quoting his post, which you've done about 5 times. 'Pings' post was accurate, clear and concise. He made it quite clear what he was talking about and made it quite clear that he had no knowledge of the scams 'Blakegeee' was referring to. You are flattering yourself by comparing your, round the houses, same words different order, arguing a different point to somebody else, style of posting. If you had made 'Pings' post at post 6 instead of yours, we wouldn't be here now. But then of course, that would have meant you would have had to admitted there was something you knew nothing about, and every member on TV knows that aint' gonna happen any time soon!!

[ScubaBuddha]

Wow. Talk about going round in circles.

WOOHOO I don't see anything new in your last post that hasn't already been covered extensively. Please refer to post 38 and posts 41-44 for your answers.

Let it go.

[LivinginKata]

Wow. Talk about going round in circles.

WOOHOO I don't see anything new in your last post that hasn't already been covered extensively. Please refer to post 38 and posts 41-44 for your answers.

Let it go.

Completely agree. Time to close this topic ....