c. staley wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
How do you know EMI isn't paying us?
(Or, rather, our insurance company?)
Because I'm not stupid. (I'm sure you'll disagree with that, but that's your opinion.)
You "know" that because that's what you want to believe.
c. staley wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
As I've said previously, there was a settlement. It's confidential, so I can't disclose the content of that agreement. And neither can anyone else, so your speculation is about as ill-informed as it could be.
Not quite because there was a settlement.... just weeks before the trial and just a couple months after an unsuccessful attempt to hide assets was made and Phoenix Entertainment Partners was added into the complaint as another defendant since Slep Tone went up in smoke. A childish game and hardly the actions of an "innocent victim" and it looks about the same as a pirate simply changing his company name and claiming you're suing the wrong entity.
This alleged "unsuccessful attempt to hide assets" was announced publicly--on this website, even. There was a media release that described what was occurring. Opposing counsel in the case were notified of the change in corporate structure. The change in ownership of the registered assets (specifically the trademarks) was recorded with the USPTO. When EMI brought Phoenix into the suit, we didn't oppose.
If we were attempting to hide assets, don't you think we would have been a bit more covert about it?
There was a settlement because the judge ordered mediation--which in most cases, as in this one, occurs a few weeks before trial.
c. staley wrote:
You can present it anyway you want, but the logical conclusion to anyone with more than 3 brain cells is that Slep/SC/PEP paid a settlement.... period. If your product was in fact, "fully licensed" and everything was truly on the up-and-up, there would not have been any settlement necessary, much less a lawsuit to begin with. But this one dragged on for almost 3 years and that's not the sign of the "innocent victim" you are attempting to portray.
You have a childlike view of what the litigation process is like.
We and EMI had differing views about the license that was issued--not
whether the license was issued, but whether the license covered all of our activities or not. That required discovery from an entity outside the US, which is notoriously difficult to accomplish. We also required them to prove ownership and control of the copyrights they were suing over, which is a critical element of a claim for copyright infringement.
c. staley wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
But I can tell you that (a) we never stopped licensing the GEM series, (b) we were never asked, much less ordered, to stop licensing the GEM series, and (c) after the lawsuit was settled, the GEM series is still available.
And here's my speculation - and I believe it's right on the money - pun intended.
And had you not paid a settlement, the gem series would have been recalled and that was obviously one of the driving forces that necessitated a settlement (check) so close to the trial. The last thing you wanted was a trial. Why would EMI care how many you "licensed" to start with? You own the discs and it's a "possessory license" right? It's your property and it's a simply matter of a court order recalling them from the licensees that are holding them. I'll bet you were glad that your gem licenses have all those indemnifications in them... but then again, if they truly were legal to start with, you wouldn't have needed those either would you?
Keep dreaming. I know it must be difficult for you to grasp this, and frustrating to no end, but you were wrong about the GEM series ever being in danger of being recalled.
Oh, and there is not a single indemnification in the GEM series license agreement, and there never has been.
c. staley wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
About 90% of the pendency of the lawsuit was taken up with EMI figuring out what songs they actually own, so there's that.
That was your stalling method.. to have them list every single song and the percentages that they controlled... and while you expected it to take longer than it did, they complied and your client had run out of technical roadblocks.... so it was settlement time. I didn't happen to see in the filings anywhere that the defendant disputed any of the final percentages, did you?
The elements of a claim for copyright infringement:
To establish infringement, the plaintiff must prove: “(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.”http://www.americanbar.org/groups/young ... right.htmlProving ownership of copyright is something that every copyright owner must do in order to prove copyright infringement. If they didn't have to prove ownership, anyone could sue for any infringement they spotted. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove ownership, not the defendant to disprove it. And there was a dispute over the final list--just not as big of a dispute, because they dropped over 75% of the songs from the original list.
It takes a warped understanding of the legal process to view our requiring them to prove one of the two elements of infringement as a "stall tactic." I guess the judge was on our side, right? Because he's the one who ordered them to prove ownership, not us. Oh, and they actually took much longer than we wanted.
c. staley wrote:
In the meantime, your client claims that FSC Mediaplas "is our UK branch"... but in the lawsuit, he turns 180 degrees and claims that he had "no influence or control" over this seemingly independent company.... that is until it is found out the the original UK license application was rejected because the signature was a certain "Kurt Slep - consultant." Was that speculation or contradiction?
The line about "our UK branch" was posted by a low-level employee who didn't have the correct understanding of the relationship.
We never disputed that SC and FSC Mediaplas worked together, nor that Kurt consulted for them--after all, he was and is a leading expert on copyright licensing issues. But I'll also point out that the fact that Kurt's signature was rejected by MCPS indicates that, in fact, he did NOT have the authority to sign on behalf of FSC Mediaplas--he had no control over the company. Your quote about "no influence or control" is not something that we ever claimed.
c. staley wrote:
You can attempt to blow smoke and blink lights and justify it all you want... it still doesn't smell like roses and the entire scenario is not the actions of some innocent victim. Not all speculation is wrong and I know how that frustrates you.
Speculation isn't always wrong. Just yours, in this case. Your hatred has colored your ability to look at the facts.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
