So, who does the burden of proof fall on in this particular case, the musicians who insist (and maybe with corroboration) that they don't even play the songs that were mentioned, or the investigator who claims he heard those songs being performed? Unless he secretly recorded the performances, where's the case, the evidence? Would this just be another example of a big corporation (ASCAP) with money to work with running roughshod over someone with little or no resources?

Being a writer, I totally agree that a venue that allows PRO-protected music to be performed without proper licensing should be held accountable, but what if there is no case at all? What if ASCAP's facts are all wrong, or fabricated? Seems to me the business owner AND music lovers still lose out simply because of bad publicity.

Or am I still missing something?

Greg

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding.