Getty images unauthorised use letter

[Bill Ryan]

OK my response to the earlier questions:

1. explain the meaning of 'debt'
Money owed or money due

2. Can a debt be unilaterally created
If you should have paid a licence fee and did not you stand to pay a notional licence fee. It is arguable that you owe money to the licensor the moment you use an unlicenced inmage.

3. Can such a unilaterally created debt be enforced?
It is clear that this type of licence infringement creates a liability that can be enforced.

I can see the argument you are making OWG and I don't dismiss it out of hand either but the system seems content to accept this type of money 'owed' as a debt for all related purposes and looking to debt collection specifically I do not see any concern from the regulatory authorities about the nature of the 'debt' be it contractual or just money owed. Not the best example but unpaid council tax is hardly a contract it is just monies due.

 

[bdw]

It is clear that this type of licence infringement creates a liability that can be enforced.

So I ask again, what possible reasons do Getty have for not enforcing it in all cases?

.

 

[Bill Ryan]

Cant answer that. It is a matter for the decision makers involved.

 

[bdw]

An opinion based on the context of this thread would do.

.

 

[Bill Ryan]

OK just guessing here and far from exhaustive:

• can't be bothered to get all the necessary info together to pursue each case
• can't get all the necessary info together to pursue each case
• policy decision to only pursue some
• content with the ROI of this modus operandi...........

 

[bdw]

• can't be bothered to get all the necessary info together to pursue each case - They already have this. It's all in the case presented by their lawyers to the "offenders".
• can't get all the necessary info together to pursue each case - as above.
• policy decision to only pursue some - perhaps but if their case is as solid as they suggest it would seem unlikely. Why not maximise income from this?
• content with the ROI of this modus operandi........... as above.

I add another suggestion ...

• They have known that their case was shaky from the outset and that a high profile defeat would stop the gravy train.

Personally I think this is the most likely explanation and the ACS case has probably confirmed this to them.

.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

I add another suggestion ...

• They have known that their case was shaky from the outset and that a high profile defeat would stop the gravy train.

Personally I think this is the most likely explanation and the ACS case has probably confirmed this to them.

.

Or...........

They can't find anyone so stupid as to go to court against them.

 

[bdw]

That is in their hands not the "offenders". It is up to them to take this action.

 

[VeryMark]

• can't be bothered to get all the necessary info together to pursue each case - They already have this. It's all in the case presented by their lawyers to the "offenders".
• can't get all the necessary info together to pursue each case - as above.
• policy decision to only pursue some - perhaps but if their case is as solid as they suggest it would seem unlikely. Why not maximise income from this?
• content with the ROI of this modus operandi........... as above.

I add another suggestion ...

• They have known that their case was shaky from the outset and that a high profile defeat would stop the gravy train.

Personally I think this is the most likely explanation and the ACS case has probably confirmed this to them.

.

I can see no evidence for regarding this as the likely explanation, and nor do I believe that the ACS/MediaCat case is relevant.

 

[Bill Ryan]

I can see no evidence for regarding this as the likely explanation, and nor do I believe that the ACS/MediaCat case is relevant.

I am with you on this Very MarK. The ACS/MediaCat case is a long way from being 'on all fours' with the Getty cases and I am struggling to see any pertinence.

 

[bdw]

I can see no evidence for regarding this as the likely explanation,

That is because there is no evidence. I specifically asked for opinions. There is no need to have evidence to express an opinion but having said that, there is no evidence to support your stance on this either.

nor do I believe that the ACS/MediaCat case is relevant.

I suppose it's all about where you are coming from but I cannot understand how anyone could NOT see similarities with Getty and ACS speculative invoicing. No need to fret over it however. We may hear more of this in the next few months.

.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I am with you on this Very MarK. The ACS/MediaCat case is a long way from being 'on all fours' with the Getty cases and I am struggling to see any pertinence.

The relevance is simple. The judge went nuts over the practice of specualtive invoicing, and it is this which is at the heart of the getty saga.

Bill I disagree 100% (so does an IP lawyer & so does a district judge) who both stated that the 'debt' does not exist until a court rules. They both agreeed there is LIABILITY once IP has been breached, but the amount of that liability and to whom can ONLY be decided by agreement between the parties involved, or by judgement of the court.

The District judge was the one who says the debt collectors are acting illegally, he also stated that if it came before him he would wipe the floor with the solicitors involved (his actual words to me were that people who have been harassed by solictitors should report them to their governing body as their actions were outside the guidelines) something that was stated about ACS law by the high court judge.

Just so I make myself clear.
1. liability and monetary value are different things. And until an actual amount has been agreed by the above methods, attempting to collect a unilaterally declared amount is unnacceptable.

 

[Bill Ryan]

The District Judge may be right he may be wrong. However, the decision/opinion of a District Judge is at the bottom of the ladder when it comes to legal authority. In fact it is of no real authority except when a case is in front of him or her.

In legal parlance it is not persuasive and it is not binding.

Historically decisions of the lower courts are not to be relied on. They are often seen a personal jollies and the intemperate language used that you quoted would be suggestive of that (to me).

Again the people who govern the debt collectors - the OFT etc have not outlawed this practice that you characterise as illegal.

Until and unless it is declared illegal effectively is not.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

The District Judge may be right he may be wrong. However, the decision/opinion of a District Judge is at the bottom of the ladder when it comes to legal authority. In fact it is of no real authority except when a case is in front of him or her.

In legal parlance it is not persuasive and it is not binding.

Historically decisions of the lower courts are not to be relied on. They are often seen a personal jollies and the intemperate language used that you quoted would be suggestive of that (to me).

Again the people who govern the debt collectors - the OFT etc have not outlawed this practice that you characterise as illegal.

Until and unless it is declared illegal effectively is not.

You are kidding now right? earlier today you asked for citations, I provided citations one of which was an OFT guidelines which confirmed it is unnacceptable to attempt to collect a disputed debt.

Your attitude towards a district judge and an IP lawyer who spend mountains of time in the house of Lords has sadly resulted in my opinion of you going down the pan.

Sadly I am now coming around to thinking that there is a distinct possibility you could be at worse a getty plant, at best someone with a vested interest in this matter, who is posting on forums to rubbish all and any opposition or opinion that in any way questions the case of the image houses.


I take it you are aware of the proposed legislative changes going through at the moment? because they fly in the face of pretty much everything you have stated in this thread.

 

[Bill Ryan]

Up and down the land lawyers and judges have different views and opinions - it is normal.

A High Court judge may decide one way, the Court of Appeal overturn that view only for the House of Lords/Supreme Court to decide differently 3 judges to 2.

So we dont agree and now I am a Getty plant or have a vested interest.

Do behave.

 

[Phantom015]

That is because there is no evidence. I specifically asked for opinions. There is no need to have evidence to express an opinion but having said that, there is no evidence to support your stance on this either.

I suppose it's all about where you are coming from but I cannot understand how anyone could NOT see similarities with Getty and ACS speculative invoicing. No need to fret over it however. We may hear more of this in the next few months.

.

Well, being a solicitor he probably can't give specific legal advice here on this forum, but I suspect he's more versed in the relevance of the ACS case than any of us are.

 

[bdw]

Actually I did not ask for advice.

.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Bill I disagree 100% (so does an IP lawyer & so does a district judge) who both stated that the 'debt' does not exist until a court rules. They both agreeed there is LIABILITY once IP has been breached, but the amount of that liability and to whom can ONLY be decided by agreement between the parties involved, or by judgement of the court.

The District judge was the one who says the debt collectors are acting illegally, he also stated that if it came before him he would wipe the floor with the solicitors involved

Dear OWG

Can you please point to the case where the judge said this?

Or, is it, as I suspect that you have related the story with your own spin on the facts?

Any similarity between the Getty letters, which are backed up by screen grabs of the offending images, and the ACS cases which are not, is hard to find.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Up and down the land lawyers and judges have different views and opinions - it is normal.

A High Court judge may decide one way, the Court of Appeal overturn that view only for the House of Lords/Supreme Court to decide differently 3 judges to 2.

So we dont agree and now I am a Getty plant or have a vested interest.

Do behave.

Having read back my post, it doesn't come across as i meant it to so apologies for that. My disappointment is that we are not talking about a judgement but a simple case of attempting to collect on an amount that has not been confirmed in law.

I fail to see how anyone involved in the law can't see that you can't collect a debt until the exact amount is known. and the only people who can confirm the exact amount is through a contract being formed between both parties, or a judgement by the courts. Until that point debt collection is not an option.

 

[VeryMark]

To clarify, speculative invoicing does not create a legal debt and cannot as such be pursued in law.

I have seen no evidence, however, that Getty are trying to pursue speculative invoices through the courts, and there is nothing to stop them issuing an invoice for an amount equal to a fair assessment of the damage caused by the infringement, equivalent to a reasonable assessment of the loss of profit involved.

If you do not agree to pay that invoice, you may then be faced with an action for copyright infringement for an injunction, an order for damages/loss of profits for the same amount as in the invoice, and an award of costs.

And of course, an award of costs is likely to substantially outweigh the amount of damages in a case like this, as are your own legal costs in defending the action.

You may thus be well advised to pay the invoice since the alternative could be a lot worse, as J.A.Coles discovered.

 

[Esk247]

You may thus be well advised to pay the invoice since the alternative could be a lot worse, as J.A.Coles discovered.

even if the invoice is for thousands of pounds and the image was a thumbnail on page 28 of your website? even if that page has only been viewed twice in its existence?

Surely it should be contested first before rolling over and handing over your earnings to a multinational/multimillion pound organisation?

 

[OldWelshGuy]

To clarify, speculative invoicing does not create a legal debt and cannot as such be pursued in law.

I have seen no evidence, however, that Getty are trying to pursue speculative invoices through the courts, and there is nothing to stop them issuing an invoice for an amount equal to a fair assessment of the damage caused by the infringement, equivalent to a reasonable assessment of the loss of profit involved.

If you do not agree to pay that invoice, you may then be faced with an action for copyright infringement for an injunction, an order for damages/loss of profits for the same amount as in the invoice, and an award of costs.

And of course, an award of costs is likely to substantially outweigh the amount of damages in a case like this, as are your own legal costs in defending the action.

You may thus be well advised to pay the invoice since the alternative could be a lot worse, as J.A.Coles discovered.

I agree with that, other than the 'be well advised to pay it' If the image was provided by a third party web designer for example, it is he who should be ultimately liable for paying the cost, and to this end his professional indemnity insurance should be the ones settling. Now I fully understand that the user is the one breaching IP. but they should give the design company the opportunity to rectify their mistake.

I have said this so many times, but will say it again. I have no problem with image houses etc claiming damages for loss against IP misuse. What I do have and always will have is the way these people have handled the claims.

Mark, the process you state above is clear, it is the process that should be followed. However they have not. What they have done is issue offers to settle, then passed to debt collectors, who have hassled people. Letters have been sent from solicitors stating their clients have no wish to settle, and that all contact should be made through the solicitors. Nothing is heard for 2 years, then they start telephoning the alleged infringer again.

It is this practice of illegal harrassment that has wound me up, it is the way they have rode roughshod over so many laws. Hopefully when it hits the house, a few companies will be punished for this.

People must pay a fair price for their infringement if proven. What isn't acceptable however is the harrassment of people in their homes for a non existent debt, or an unproven (in court) IP infringement. THAT is worse than the IP breach ityself, and it is the arrogance of many photographers that has made me dig my heels in and actually get involved and speak to people who I know will take this matter up (and they have).

 

[OldWelshGuy]

even if the invoice is for thousands of pounds and the image was a thumbnail on page 28 of your website? even if that page has only been viewed twice in its existence?

Surely it should be contested first before rolling over and handing over your earnings to a multinational/multimillion pound organisation?

Absolutely, and again THAt is your option. As long as you go in eyes wide open knowing that if you go to court to fight this, and you lose (which if the image is on your site, and the paperwork of the claiment is in order you WILL lose), as long as you realise that you can be landed with costs of £10,000 -£20,000 then fine.

Alternatively you could make a without prejudice offer to accept liability on a payment plan of £x per month. If they take you to court after that then the whole landscape has changed as they will have turned down an offer to settle, and you might not have to pay the legal costs.

As has been said many times, you absolutely must get GOOD legal advice, but the quality of advice you need to take will cost you £500 an hour. Town solicitors don't know IP laws at all well, and the amount of bad advice we have seen over the years is amazing.

You have a choice
1. settle
2. don't settle

really is as simple as that. HOW you settle is a different matter.

 

[VeryMark]

Absolutely, and again THAt is your option. As long as you go in eyes wide open knowing that if you go to court to fight this, and you lose (which if the image is on your site, and the paperwork of the claimant is in order you WILL lose), as long as you realise that you can be landed with costs of £10,000 -£20,000 then fine.

Alternatively you could make a without prejudice offer to accept liability on a payment plan of £x per month. If they take you to court after that then the whole landscape has changed as they will have turned down an offer to settle, and you might not have to pay the legal costs.

As has been said many times, you absolutely must get GOOD legal advice, but the quality of advice you need to take will cost you £500 an hour. Town solicitors don't know IP laws at all well, and the amount of bad advice we have seen over the years is amazing.

You have a choice
1. settle
2. don't settle

really is as simple as that. HOW you settle is a different matter.

Good advice, which I entirely endorse, except that you do not need to pay £500 an hour - it's more likely to be £150 -£250 an hour depending on who it is and where they are, and large City law firms aren't necessarily better.

If you reckon on budgeting £300 - £500 initially, you may not be far wrong.

The main thing is to agree a budget, so that you aren't surprised by a larger than expected bill for legal representation/advice.

 

[bdw]

You may thus be well advised to pay the invoice since the alternative could be a lot worse, as J.A.Coles discovered.

Oh for goodness sake! Not JC Coles again.

Apart from being the one and only example photographers and their messengers are able to quote JC Coles was a long time ago now. All the warnings that were issued at that time as a result of the settlement have so far been proven to be wrong. That case seems to be a very poor example of what is likely to happen to anyone else but then it's all you have isn't it?

Regarding legal advice, I was active on a forum about this two or three years ago and we "polled" those who actually had taken legal advice. If I remember correctly we collected five different types of advice from five different lawyers - not exactly reassuring is it?

Apart from perhaps the most expensive IP law specialists (who will normally charge much more than Getty is claiming) I personally think there is better information available for free on the Internet. Advising someone to see an IP lawyer about contesting a bill for around £800 may not be a good idea. If you are not prepared to wait it out it paying the invoice may be the cheaper option.

IANAL but it may be that the best course of action is to just sit it out and await developments. It is becoming increasingly likely that something will be done about it.

.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Oh for goodness sake! Not JC Coles again.

Apart from perhaps the most expensive IP law specialists (who will normally charge much more than Getty is claiming) I personally think there is better information available for free on the Internet. Advising someone to see an IP lawyer about contesting a bill for around £800 may not be a good idea. If you are not prepared to wait it out it paying the invoice may be the cheaper option.

.

I seem to remember that you were a major contributor to the notorious FSB forum which helped lead Coles into its expensive mistake. You once wrote a sticky there which said that Section 97 of the CDPA was a defence against copyright infringment. You might think there is better information available on the internet but how would anyone know what to believe with all the uninformed cranks out there?

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I am getting dizzy now round and round and round we go

 

[VeryMark]

Oh for goodness sake! Not JC Coles again.

Apart from being the one and only example photographers and their messengers are able to quote JC Coles was a long time ago now. All the warnings that were issued at that time as a result of the settlement have so far been proven to be wrong. That case seems to be a very poor example of what is likely to happen to anyone else but then it's all you have isn't it?

Regarding legal advice, I was active on a forum about this two or three years ago and we "polled" those who actually had taken legal advice. If I remember correctly we collected five different types of advice from five different lawyers - not exactly reassuring is it?

Apart from perhaps the most expensive IP law specialists (who will normally charge much more than Getty is claiming) I personally think there is better information available for free on the Internet. Advising someone to see an IP lawyer about contesting a bill for around £800 may not be a good idea. If you are not prepared to wait it out it paying the invoice may be the cheaper option.

IANAL but it may be that the best course of action is to just sit it out and await developments. It is becoming increasingly likely that something will be done about it.

.

I agree that paying the invoice may be the cheaper option but you are wrong to say that IP law specialists are the most expensive or that they charge more than Getty is claiming - my charging rate is about the same as an experienced commercial solicitor.

If you think there is better information available for free on the internet, that is up to you - I might think there is better information on web design available for free on the internet and, oh, I seem to remember having seen five different pieces of advice from five different web designers, which isn't reassuring - so I must be right mustn't I?

I did not quote J.A.Coles as an example of what must happen but the fact that it is an isolated example does not make it wrong.

You invariably use a lack of evidence and unrelated cases in support of your arguments as if that consitutes evidence in support of your position, and ignore whatever anybody else says which might be contrary, and it seems that your belief in the rightness of your views is unshakeable.

I do not claim to know what must happen - there are two different things, the legal risk, which is what a court may decide if the matter gets before a judge, and the practical risk, which is the risk of being sued and on what basis, which nobody can be sure of without a crystal ball.

However, this does not make me wrong, and nor does it make you right.

In my opinion, doing nothing is not a good idea, as it amounts to a flat rejection that copyright exists and/or has been infringed and/or an unwillingness to accede to any and all demands, and it is much better to attempt negotiation - it appears that it may be much more difficult in future for Getty or anybody else to refuse reasonable attempts to settle.

Well, I guess that is my piece of "far better free advice on the internet", all readers have to decide is whose free advice is best!

 

[VeryMark]

I am getting dizzy now round and round and round we go

Yes, it is past time this thread was put to bed in my opinion.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

My best bit of free advice is " spend a few quid and get yourself professional indemnity insurance"

I bet the designer in the JA Coles case thinks that was the best hundred quid or so he ever spent

 

[Phantom015]

even if the invoice is for thousands of pounds and the image was a thumbnail on page 28 of your website? even if that page has only been viewed twice in its existence?

Surely it should be contested first before rolling over and handing over your earnings to a multinational/multimillion pound organisation?

Defending a copyright case will cost you £20,000 even if you win. If you lose, it will cost you £20,000 to defend and you will have to pay for Getty's costs and lawyers (probably at least another £20,000, probably more), plus you will have to pay whatever the court decides to award Getty for the actual infringement, which will probably be more than Getty invoiced you (in order to deter you from infringing again.)

So yes, it is generally pennies on the pound to settle first.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

All this will become academic when the changes to the law and procedure get rolled out

 

[Esk247]

Defending a copyright case will cost you £20,000 even if you win. If you lose, it will cost you £20,000 to defend and you will have to pay for Getty's costs and lawyers (probably at least another £20,000, probably more), plus you will have to pay whatever the court decides to award Getty for the actual infringement, which will probably be more than Getty invoiced you (in order to deter you from infringing again.)

So yes, it is generally pennies on the pound to settle first.

ah, I didn't say 'defend' i said 'contest'. Opening dialogue with those making the claims instead of just sending them cheques in the post as soon as they send you an invoice.

Especially as there is so much apparent 'grey' area involved with all of this. Not copyright, but this particular process of hounding people for money when they're not even sure they have the right person e.g. it may well be your website designer who foots the bill, so why should you be harassed? you contest it first, ask for evidence and further information before taking it further.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Especially as there is so much apparent 'grey' area involved with all of this. Not copyright, but this particular process of hounding people for money when they're not even sure they have the right person e.g. it may well be your website designer who foots the bill, so why should you be harassed? you contest it first, ask for evidence and further information before taking it further.

I'm sorry you think it is a grey area because the Copyright Act is really very simple. If you are the one who 'uses' an image without a licence then you are liable. When you pay the copyright owner you then have every right to chase your website designer who got you into the mess to compensate you.

As an infringer you have very few rights to ask for 'evidence'. It is you who is being asked for 'evidence' of a legitimate licence. If you cannot produce a licence you are in the wrong. Period. Asking for further information is not going to help you.

You can negotiate but to do that you need to know about image licencing to know what you are talking about and asking for.

 

[Esk247]

I'm sorry you think it is a grey area because the Copyright Act is really very simple.

I'm sorry you didn't understand my post. I didn't mean the Copyright Act...I meant those pursuing persons/companies and not abiding by the law/rules/regulations themselves when they do so.

If they/he/she/it/solicitors/getty/whoever were abiding the law/rules/regulations why would this even be discussed apart from by those whom enjoy using non licensed material for their websites?

As I understand it, they send you a letter demanding payment for an image..end of. I didn't realise you could do that for a laugh and people had to pay up straight away.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I'm sorry you think it is a grey area because the Copyright Act is really very simple. If you are the one who 'uses' an image without a licence then you are liable. When you pay the copyright owner you then have every right to chase your website designer who got you into the mess to compensate you.

As an infringer you have very few rights to ask for 'evidence'. It is you who is being asked for 'evidence' of a legitimate licence. If you cannot produce a licence you are in the wrong. Period. Asking for further information is not going to help you.

You can negotiate but to do that you need to know about image licencing to know what you are talking about and asking for.

Not as black and white as you suggest though.

e.g. What if I am renting a website? The designer built it, he owns it, he rents it to me. I am unable to add or delete content, the designer is 100% responsible for the content, and the ownership, my telephone numbers and contact details appear on the site.

Now is that Black, or White?

 

[bdw]

I seem to remember that you were a major contributor to the notorious FSB forum which helped lead Coles into its expensive mistake. You once wrote a sticky there which said that Section 97 of the CDPA was a defence against copyright infringment. You might think there is better information available on the internet but how would anyone know what to believe with all the uninformed cranks out there?

Yes, that was the thread where those defending the photographers position started publicly insulting me and my family because of my involvement. My house was stalked on Google Earth and then amongst other things I was accused of poisoning someone's drains then reporting him to the council for doing this. And all because I was taking part in a forum discussion where some people disagreed with me (people presented cases that two or three years later have yet to be proved right).

What happens is that the photographers and their supporters start insulting people with implication and innuendo (like yours above) then things turn nasty. Hopefully this thread will not get closed down like the others and the moderators will keep the lid on it, which was more than the FSB managed to do.

.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

I'm sorry you didn't understand my post. I didn't mean the Copyright Act...I meant those pursuing persons/companies and not abiding by the law/rules/regulations themselves when they do so.

Dear Esk

I think it is only OWG who believes that Getty are not abiding by the law. Neither Getty or their lawyers have been found to be breaking any laws.

Pinsent Masons, who represent Getty, are a very large and reputable international law firm with hundreds of staff. Comparisons have been made between them and a one man band called ACS Law. Wikipedia have this to say about ACS Law:= The main partner of the firm, and its only registered solicitor, was Andrew Crossley. Crossley has twice been found guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, in 2002 and again in 2006.In August 2010, the Solicitors Regulation Authority confirmed that Crossley was being summoned to his third disciplinary tribunal, in response to ACS:Law's action against suspected copyright infringers.

Any comparison is frankly ridiculous.

 

[bdw]

You invariably use a lack of evidence and unrelated cases in support of your arguments as if that consitutes evidence in support of your position, and ignore whatever anybody else says which might be contrary, and it seems that your belief in the rightness of your views is unshakeable.

So far my belief is as unshakeable as it can be based on the available evidence. My "position" has yet to be proven wrong in this but I will be first to admit it if and when it is. I will adjust my opinion according to the evidence available. Despite the threats that has not changed in the more than four years of my involvement.

The photographic community and their supporters have been dispensing all sorts of threats and telling people they are going to be ruined by this for five years or more (worldwide) and apart from one or two isolated cases there is no evidence to suggest that they are correct.

Where Getty and the others refuse to carry out their very clear threats to take action if no payment is made by a certain time IMO there is only one conclusion to be drawn from this. I think that if they tell people they will be taken to court if they don't pay they should be taking them to court. If they don't so it they are lying and hence harassing people.

.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Dear Esk

I think it is only OWG who believes that Getty are not abiding by the law. Neither Getty or their lawyers have been found to be breaking any laws.

Pinsent Masons, who represent Getty, are a very large and reputable international law firm with hundreds of staff. Comparisons have been made between them and a one man band called ACS Law. Wikipedia have this to say about ACS Law:= The main partner of the firm, and its only registered solicitor, was Andrew Crossley. Crossley has twice been found guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, in 2002 and again in 2006.In August 2010, the Solicitors Regulation Authority confirmed that Crossley was being summoned to his third disciplinary tribunal, in response to ACS:Law's action against suspected copyright infringers.

Any comparison is frankly ridiculous.

Myself, plus the 250 signatories in a petition presented to an MP who has picked up the gauntlet on this.

please can you provide documentary proof where I have accused Pincent Masons of any illegality? You will find I have not. I have clearly stated that it is the actions of their debt collectors that I have said were considered illegal.

Bob, I have only yesterday cited OFT documents and other official government documents and laws that CLEARLY prove that (if the written afidavits supplied are true) certain parties appointed by Getty and others have broken various laws.

So how about we put the mud slinging from yourself to bed and stick to the facts, because muslinging with such comments just inflames the situation. I know that I am as guilty as anyone on occasion, but it doesn't help anyone.

Getty have not yet won a single case in court, the only cases they have actually taken to court have been ones they knew they would win, such as JA coles where the settlement allegedly came from the designers professional indemnity insurance. Even in the JA Coles case the judge clearly stated that no precedent had been set as the court was merely rubber stamping the agreement between the parties.

The reason so many people are paying up is the threat (which is constantly used by IP holders and their representative) of HUGE legal costs. As soon as this matter comes under the proposed system of being heard at district county court level, this will be an end to these large easy settlements as people will simply go to court and settle.

There is an anomily in these archaic laws, The people involved in law making have already recognised this, and matters are in hand to change it all.

So how about we stop the off topic digs and stick to the matters at hand.