• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

dave fm's Steve Barnes sues Toucher, Jimmy, Leslie, and Cumulus for $1,000,000+

Barnes wins this case, easily. The copyright infiringment alone will be enough. Susquahanna will almost certainly settle before this goes too far- anyone with even an ounce of knowledge of copyright law can see that they dropped the ball on this one by letting their morning jocks use the station to defame a former employee, and to promote the illegal public performance of copyrighted materials.

All those of you bashing Barnes on this one, hit pause and actually read the FBI warning at the start of your American Pie Band Camp dvds...
 
ExWKLS said:
Barnes wins this case, easily. The copyright infiringment alone will be enough. Susquahanna will almost certainly settle before this goes too far- anyone with even an ounce of knowledge of copyright law can see that they dropped the ball on this one by letting their morning jocks use the station to defame a former employee, and to promote the illegal public performance of copyrighted materials.

All those of you bashing Barnes on this one, hit pause and actually read the FBI warning at the start of your American Pie Band Camp dvds...
Based on what I've read and have discussed with an attorney friend, you're probably right about Barnes winning the copyright claim (although probably not for nearly as much as he's asking for). He'll probably lose the defamation claim, though, on account of his being a public figure. It doesn't matter how brutal they might have been, it's still protected speech (unless they had said he was an alcoholic, child molester, wife beater, etc). It's not illegal to call someone an effing a-hole.
 
Am I missing something? Barnes would have to prove his reputation was damaged AND that he lost money. Either of those happen?
 
"No Witness" is ranked #33,426 in DVD sales at AMAZON. I can't find a DVD ranked lower.

On a side note, another movie featuring local dj's, "The Greenskeeper", is ranked #19,607 in DVD.
 
Annother approach for the defendants to take, since probably showing the flick is the major action which might cost them money...

Make the claim "This was a private party with only invited guests." If that were to stick, no infringement... assuming they purchased the DVD.

Two points arise from the whole thing:

1. The legal profession stands to turn a modest dollar off this.
2. Barnes needs a gig, he doesn't speak Spanish well enough to do news/talk in the lingo.
 
Still curious why the suit was filed last week when the incident happened a year ago...probably means Barnes was trying to shake the Susquehanna/Cumulus money tree behind the scenes and finally decided it was going nowhere. I wonder if TJl were ever approached to settle privately.
 
RoddyFreeman said:
Is Cumulus really the correct company for him to be suing? Susquehanna still owned the station when all of this happened and would have profited from any additional revenue any of this brought in. I realize Susquehanna no longer exists, but why would Cumulus be held responsible for this?

Fundamental tenet of corporate law: when a corporation (Cumulus) acquires another corporation (Susquehanna), it acquires its liabilities as well as its assets. Until the applicable statutes of limitations expire, actions commited by Susquehanna or its agents will be and should be attributed to Cumulus.

--Brennan Price (admitted to the bar in Connecticut, but not in Georgia)
 
>Fundamental tenet of corporate law: when a corporation (Cumulus) acquires another corporation (Susquehanna), it acquires its liabilities as well as its assets.<

Thank you for the clarification. Of interest, the owner is Cumulus Media Partners, a seperate company in which Cumulus holds only a minority interest (the remainder being owned by three venture capital firms) and manages it for a fee.

What's your Best Unofficial Guess as to how the thing will play out?
 
littlejohn said:
What's your Best Unofficial Guess as to how the thing will play out?

Sorry for the delay in responding. I haven't read the pleadings, but if the reported facts are the whole picture, the copyright claim is likely to succeed, and the defamation claim is unlikely to succeed. Whether the damages in copyright will be enough to overcome the cost of the litigation is doubtful, though.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom