An admittedly edited and selective series of Artbeats written statements on this issue made by Phil Bates.
When caught distributing the footage via download beyond the explicit restriction imposed by the term CD-ROM ONLY:
We believe that offering digital downloads is consistent with the spirit of the agreement for special custom orders. For example, the file (QuickTIme) is exactly the same as on a custom CD-ROM: the format exactly the same; the License Agreement exactly the same; the price exactly the same. The only thing changed is the delivery medium - February 3, 2009.
How nice that he judged what the spirit of the Agreement was without checking with me first. But sorry Phil: CD-ROM ONLY means CD-ROM ONLY. You are not, and were not, empowered to fabricate a new "belief" about that very explicit and clear term on your own. Any delivery method other than CD-ROM ONLY required my explicit written permission. Anything else was a breach of the Agreement.
A personal favorite, his integrity claim:
Let me first say that if Artbeats was not run on standards of integrity,
caring for the concerns of both our customers and producers, we would not be in a position of success today. We have excellent reputations of integrity when dealing with both customers and producers. We are not perfect, but we handle mistakes when brought to our attention - February 5, 2009.
When pinned with the clear difference between CD-ROM and downloads and how the market demands downloads, which Artbeats was offering without any right to offer that access:
So Artbeats adapts and changes our delivery media to match industry
evolution to be relevant to the customers needs and to stay competitive in
the industry. The result is that you continue to have sales and receive
royalties for years. How is that a bad thing? Aren't we being good
stewards of our resources and helping keep our producers receiving
royalties? If we didn't adapt, I would consider us responsible, not getting
you the sales due you. Again, how is this a bad thing, I don't understand? - February 5, 2009.
The only problem with his statement is that, of course, he failed to obtain the rights to "adapt," he just went ahead and did it. Oh, and contrary to his claim, I was not paid a penny on thousands of dollars in download sales.
And then he goes litigation:
Since we are at a standstill on this issue, we can only say that we are
willing to defend our position in court, should you want to exercise that
option.
Also, in order to remove any argument for further "breach", we will
immediately stop our website from offering downloads of the PD material - February 6, 2009.
Notice how despite his statements that he is right and I'm completely wrong, he covers himself by shutting down the download sales?
And slamming the door on compromise while failing to ever make any offer of settlement whatsoever:
Since I don't accept the premise or reason for the award, I will move forward with cease and desist.
Enough talk - February 6, 2009.
Odd that he self-imposed, as you see above, a "cease and desist" since I allegedly had no legal leg to stand on. It is helpful to repeat at this point his statements about his and Artbeats' integrity: "We have excellent reputations of integrity when dealing with both customers and producers. We are not perfect, but we handle mistakes when brought to our attention." Yes, this matter was handled in a way that clearly defines their integrity. Not a single penny was ever offered in settlement.
Furthermore, on February 6, 2009, as you can see above, he stated the footage would immediately be removed from download. On February 19, 2009, I pointed out to him it was still online and available for sale via download. His reply came days later:
I would have rather gotten this done quicker, but regardless, this task has now been completed - February 23, 2009.
Later in the year he was sent an Attorney's opinion letter outlining the legal basis for my claim:
To have been damaged as you claim for so long, yet saying nothing, raises serious doubts about the validity of your claim according to legal --and my personal-- opinion - July 21, 2009.
First it is important to note that the breach was only discovered, contrary to his misstatement, very recently, and when it was, it was promptly brought to his attention.
But more important for the reader to note is the assertion here of legal loopholes for escaping liability now that an educated legal opinion on the "breach" had been offered to Artbeats in writing, along with an outline of possible damages.
Would not integrity dictate offering fair compensation to the injured rather than a claim that, in so many words, is, I did it but I can get away with it?
More to come. Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment