Discussion:
What is the name of your state? Nevada
Some may be aware of the current activities of the ESPC (Embroidery Software Protection Coalition).
To break it down:
The ESPC represents several well known commercial and home sewing/embroidering entities. It has come to the attention of the members of the ESPC that many illegal designs are being sold on Ebay . . . and Ebay has since subsequently settled out of court with the ESPC . . . if one wanted to know the specifics of this settlement, is such available as "pubic record"? and if so, where can it be viewed?
The attorney of record is C. Faulker in TX (but there may be a presence of the ESPC in PA too . . . not positive though).
The ESPC members state that they are following the music industries lead on handling this case, but what isn't being considered is that the customer base for this situation has some notable differences, one being the age difference (most machine embroiderers are older, who may only have a computer to purchase designs and send said designs to their embroidery machine, which is often hooked directly to the computer) often, they rarely use their computers for anything else, other examples are to follow ~ so they are hardly mass downloaders or mass sharers of such (redistribution).
Next, as a result of this settlement with Ebay, the ESPC apparently has gone after a few sellers, part of the sellers settlement is to turn over all information they have regarding their auctions, this means buyers and their information (which I'm sure Ebay can provide as well).
From this, the ESPC sends non-certified/registered mail to the buyer (not sure if it needs to be certified or registered) that basically informs the buyer that the ESPC is aware of their activity of buying illegal designs, but apparently never cites the actual auction or other specific information . . . this is a source of confusion for many buyers, since oftentimes, they can'not tell the difference between legal and illegal designs, to elaborate on this concept . . . embroidery industry giants state something akin to, "if you see a set of 10,000 designs for $5, you know it has to be illegal", but this kind of auction does not make up the majority of embroidery design auctions on Ebay, to cite one example . . . and another reason why this does not coincide with the music industries dilemma completely, is that an independant embroidery digitizer, whether they sell on Ebay or privately via their own site, is QUITE capable of creating a machine embroidery design that is equal to, or can even EXCEED anything on a mass produced/sold embroidery design card, many design sets from this type of independant are around $10 (some more, some less) so this oftentimes becomes what the buyer expects to see, price-wise, for about 20 designs (most mass produced cards have 10 to 20 designs on them) one sees much more of these kinds of design sets in auctions then the "thousands for a few bucks" scenario; it should also be noted, that the vast majority of the time, said designs are NOT sent on CD (although for an extra few dollars, this option is usually offered) sets and designs are usually sent as email attachments FROM LEGITIMATE DIGITIZERS. I should note too, that at least one other manufacturer (not a member of the ESPC currently, but still representative of their industry) includes a design CD of around 3,900 designs, FREE with the purchase of their machine . . . To move on regarding the letter to buyers, buyers are then informed, in this same letter, that if they do not cooperate, legal proceedings may/will be pursued . . . C. Faulkner is the attorney of record, and is quoted here:
"There is going to be a class action lawsuit filed against the purchasers in federal court by the ESPC," says Faulkner.
Buyers have been told that approximately 170,000 letters went out . . . is it possible to have a class action against so many individuals? Buyers are also being told that if they don't cooperate, they could be charged as little as $30,000 per design, but also up to $150,000 per design . . . in accordance with current copyright law (it's per design, NOT per CD, since each design on the CD is a work in and of itself) in order to avoid this, they are required to sign a statement that they purchased illegal designs, turn over all the seller information to include any "other" information pertaining to any other illegal designs they are in possession of, promising to never transgress in this area again, return all the designs to the original copyright owner, delete any of said designs on their assorted equipment as well as paying $300 (this is the amount I heard was demanded) and by doing so, would not be prosecuted further.
To further confuse the issue, the ESPC has a website, with a link to their "Amnesty" program. A person is ONLY eligible if they haven't yet received their letter from the ESPC, the conditions are the same as the settlement letters I've read (only with less "legaleze") same admittions of guilt, same promises not to transgress again, hand over the others and pay the fee of $300 *for* a release that promises not to prosecute in the future (providing no other transgressions are performed on the part of the buyer from theron in).
Many of the buyers are little old ladies who are now no longer eating or sleeping, being scared to death, I am NOT trying to gain sympathy for them here, it's simply the real truth for the vast majority . . . they've only been quoted worst case scenarios and are sure they will lose everything they have . . . granted ignorance is no excuse or defense, and while the "worst case" scenarios they're being quoted COULD indeed happen, what is the more likely scenario?
Do they have rights? and if so, what are they? can they be viewed somewhere? Oftentimes they will not be able to provide "the burdon of proof" that they had no malice in purchasing said designs (most have done so one time, not consistently).
And there are variants in the "illegal" activity . . . for example, some of them have husbands who, wishing to surprise them with all those lovely designs, purchased CD's they hoped their wives would like, having no clue on earth what they were doing . . . these are the kinds of buyers who aren't making a cent off of the designs they purchased, it's just something they want to put on their kids or grandkids clothes. Heck, this is one of those situations where even the sellers of the designs don't have the same MO as most illegal practitioners (i.e. they stay in one place) so the sellers ARE NOT hard to track down, most scam artists put down temporary roots, then pull up stakes as soon as things get too hot . . . not so with these people.
I am not making excuses for anyone, copyright as long as it's the law, should be respected and obeyed, period . . . but some (if not MOST) of these buyers granted, made a foolish buying decision, for whatever reason (rarely based on malice) where no commercial gains were made on their parts ~ this should leave the burden of commercial gain mostly on the sellers shoulders, yet more letters have gone out to buyers, the thinking being . . . destroy the market, destroy the livelihood of the pirates, I still think a simple "cease and desist" would have more then sufficed considering who most of the customers are, but that's just MHO.
So can anyone enlighten me as to what will "more likely" happen to the lessor trangressors? and considering the simularities of the amnesty program to the settlement letters that are apparently going out, what's the difference? Is the "amnesty" program just a phishing attempt to flush out other buyers?
Most people are aware that it is illegal to sell or redistribute copyrighted material, but there seems to be a lot of confusion as to whether it's illegal to purchace it or download it (WITHOUT ANY form of redistribution) so I would appreciate knowing more about that . . .
I have heard that the statute of limitations for copyright infringement is 3 years from the last activity . . . but that even these "waters can be muddy" in the judicial system; but is this the basic time frame?
Lastly, it is oftentimes a common practice to upgrade to a bigger and better embroidery machine . . . oftentimes an embroiderer wants to sell their old machine and all it's accompanying gear (which might indeed include some design cards) to help finance or recoup the purchase of said new machine, they often do this privately, because they can recoup more this way . . . rather then a "trade in" deal . . . like a car, you could trade it in, or sell it privately, is this not the case with embroidery machines? some are concerned now because they may be found to be infringing in this manner too . . . can anyone clarify any rules/regs on this? and if it's true it's not acceptable, how far can this be taken? These laws are getting out of hand if a person can't sell their own machine.
This is long, but it's a complicated issue, and I thank all who take the time to read it and respond.
While all responses are welcomed, responses from those who are truly experienced in such things would be best appreciated (the law is confusing enough, much less copyright and intellectual property law) without more heresay.
Thank you and Kindest Regards,
Shamrockz2Me
Answer:
The ESPC represents several well known commercial and home sewing/embroidering entities. It has come to the attention of the members of the ESPC that many illegal designs are being sold on Ebay . . . and Ebay has since subsequently settled out of court with the ESPC . . . if one wanted to know the specifics of this settlement, is such available as "pubic record"? and if so, where can it be viewed? Out-of-court settlements are not public records in most cases. If you knew a specific case number or specific court, you might be able to see if a case has been filed, and what it's disposition was, but the settlement itself would not be on record unless it was negotiated with the help of the court.
Further, what would they sue eBay for? eBay is essentially shielded from liability for vicarious and contributory copyright infringement by the DMCA; see, e.g., Robert Hendrickson v. Ebay, Inc., et al., 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14420 (C.D. Cal. 2001).
The ESPC members state that they are following the music industries lead on handling this case, but what isn't being considered is that the customer base for this situation has some notable differences, one being the age difference (most machine embroiderers are older, who may only have a computer to purchase designs and send said designs to their embroidery machine, which is often hooked directly to the computer) often, they rarely use their computers for anything else, other examples are to follow ~ so they are hardly mass downloaders or mass sharers of such (redistribution). Completely irrelevant from a liability standpoint.
"There is going to be a class action lawsuit filed against the purchasers in federal court by the ESPC," says Faulkner. Class action lawsuits are certified when many parties have similar claims against a single (or a few) entities, not when a single entity has similar claims against many entities.
Buyers are also being told that if they don't cooperate, they could be charged as little as $30,000 per design, but also up to $150,000 per design . . . in accordance with current copyright law (it's per design, NOT per CD, since each design on the CD is a work in and of itself) Just FYI, the actual copyright law provides for statutory damages ranging from $750 to $30,000 per item infringed; the $100,000 figure is only for times when a court finds "willful" infringement, which is a pretty high bar. Plus, one can only request that the court award statutory damages if the copyrights were regsitered prior to the infringing activity taking place -- its not automatic. Finally, these are amounts awarded by a court after a trial for copyright infringement -- they don't just get to charge that amount. They can ask for it, but they cannot compel you to pay it -- only a judge can do that. You can read up more on statutory damages here:
Do they have rights? and if so, what are they? can they be viewed somewhere? Oftentimes they will not be able to provide "the burdon of proof" that they had no malice in purchasing said designs (most have done so one time, not consistently). The key point here that everyone seems to be missing is that it is NOT infringement to BUY an infringing product. Copyright infringement is the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, public performance or display, or creation of a derivative work. See 17 USC 106: It is NOT illegal to purchase an infringing product, it is not illegal to use an infringing product that you have purchased. If you try and import infringing products, they could be siezed at the border, but buying a CD off of eBay does not make the BUYER liable for copyright infringement. The SELLER, of course, is liable for infringement, but the BUYER is NOT.
The only caveat here is that "downloading" an infringing work is probably infringing activity under the AMG v. Napster decision.
"Malice" or, more correctly, "intent," isn't even an issue here, because the act of buying a product does NOT consitute copyright infringement. However, if the people were downloading, and that was found to be an infringing activity under the Napster decision, then intent still would NOT matter, because copyright infringement is essentially "strict liability" -- in other words, it doesn't matter if you knew that you were infringing, or intending to infringe -- liability exists IF you infringe, and your intent or knowledge is largely irrelevant.
I have heard that the statute of limitations for copyright infringement is 3 years from the last activity . . . but that even these "waters can be muddy" in the judicial system; but is this the basic time frame? That is correct -- see here: . The tricky part is determining "when the claim accrued," because the time the "claim accrued" may not be the same time that the infringing activity occured -- for example, if the copyright owner had no way of knowing that infringement was taking place, then the claim accrues from when the copyright owner finds out about the infringement, not when the infringement occurs.
Lastly, it is oftentimes a common practice to upgrade to a bigger and better embroidery machine . . . oftentimes an embroiderer wants to sell their old machine and all it's accompanying gear (which might indeed include some design cards) to help finance or recoup the purchase of said new machine, they often do this privately, because they can recoup more this way . . . rather then a "trade in" deal . . . like a car, you could trade it in, or sell it privately, is this not the case with embroidery machines? some are concerned now because they may be found to be infringing in this manner too . . . can anyone clarify any rules/regs on this? and if it's true it's not acceptable, how far can this be taken? These laws are getting out of hand if a person can't sell their own machine. Under copyright law, you are free to sell, trade, give away, rent, or destroy any copyrighted materials that you purchase. This is protected under what is known as the "first sale" doctrine. As long as you don't reproduce the copyrighted materials and sell those, no infringement occurs if you sell something that you pruchased. This is the same situation if you bought a DVD at Best But -- you could resell that CD, or give it away as a gift, or even open your own DVD rental place -- as long as you don't reproduce the DVD and sell the reproductions, you are not infringing anyone's copyright.
That said, the purchasers of these embordiery machines MAY have some CONTRACTUAL obligations with the manufacturer to not resell or give away the machines -- whether or not that is true will depend on contracts signed at the time of pruchase. But this is a question of contract law, not copyright law.
This is long That's an understatement.
but it's a complicated issue, and I thank all who take the time to read it and respond. These questions get asked pretty often on this board -- hopefully by answering your relatively comprehensive post, this will be the last time, and people can continue to refer to this post for answers, instead of asking the same questions over and over.
To summarize:
1. Has anyone ever confirmed that the ESPC has "standing" to even enforce these copyrights? Wihtout proof that the ESPC has been authorized to pursue infringers on behalf of the copyright owners, the ESPC has no more right to enforce the copyrights than you or I do. Further, what proof do they have that the designs that YOU (or any other particular person) purchased are copyrighted by people who have given the ESPC authority?
2. Are the copyrights registered? Without registration, the ESPC (if authorized) or the copyright holder can't take you to court anyway. Although they can register their works at any time, if the registration didn't take place prior to the infringing activity occuring, they can't seek statutory damages.
3. The statutory damages they list are maximums, courts rarely find "willful" infringement without serious intentional behavior, and the stauttory awards won't even be awarded by a judge without the copyrights being registered prior to the infringement occuring. They cannot "charge" you for damages -- only a judge can do that.
4. Purchasing an infringing work is NOT copyright infringement. Using an infringing work is NOT copyright infringment. Downloading an infringing work probably is infringement under AMG v. Napster.
5. Class action lawsuits are "certified" when a large number of plaintiffs have similar claims against a single (or few) defendants. Class Action lawsuits are not certified when a single (or a few) plaintiffs have claims against numerous defendants.
Before anyone pays any money, they should demand proof that the ESPC has the authority (the "standing") to enforce the copyrights to the works that they purchased. They should demand proof that the copyrights are registered, and that the copyright owners have given the ESPC authority to pursue action on behalf of the copyright owners. They should demand proof that they have actually infringed someone's copyright, including the laws covering their alleged infringement.
Until the ESPC provides this basic evidence, nobody should send them money or sign anything.
Answer:
IN.
Thank you for the answers to all those questions. As a recepient of one of the "letters" I can tell you it is very confusing. I have been to see a copyright attorney and he had told me pretty much the same thing. Thanks again.
Answer:
(Nevada)
Hello divgradcurl,
I have been out of town, thus my late reply.
Thankyou for your very informative response, and your patience with my long post (had to be done, LOL).
When I first got interested in this subject, no one was posting all the information, thus they weren't getting a lot of information, it's hard to respond to a paragraph, and then I hadn't seen the settlement letters, etc. (which took some digging to find on the net, someone on this site posted them though).
Also, a lot of fear/frustration is being propogated here:
It's a very long thread, one has to go to "Category Specific Discussion boards", then down to "Needle Arts & Vintage Textiles" and then the thread "Embroidery Software Protection Coalition", it's pages and pages long with lots of fear and frustration posted (even by the *pros*, which isn't helping any) and while I'm sure there must be some good information there . . . I see some discrepancies in what I've read there as compared elsewhere (thank you for the URL's, I'm sure they will help many and I have begun directing those troubled by this situation to this thread).
There is a post that is contributing to more fear (heck many of the posts are) but in a nutshell . . . on page 9, post #334.
Basically where one party posts a news quote provided by another individual there:
"A Notre Dame law professor tells Contact 16 copyright laws make it illegal to distribute copies, not buy them."
To which the retired copyright attorney says basically that this is an example of another law professor who needs to learn the law before he instructs in it (in so many words) it's all there in the post and throughout the entire thread.
As far as "does the ESPC have the standing to do what they're doing?", yes . . . at least for those whom they represent (several, around six I think, of the embroidery industries giants are members) they have the authority to *try* what they're doing at least.
Other problems, which may be irrelevant, are that since many embroiderer's apparently felt something wasn't completely kosher about the designs they ordered *once they got them*, and this could be like, a year or more ago, many either deleted their files or destroyed the disks they recieved (this craft community is fairly respectful that way) some even tried to turn in the sellers, but got no where and forgot about it, now though for those who have stepped forward (or been "called out" by the letters they've received) I would imagine they're having a hard time meeting the obligation that is part of either the voluntary amnesty program or the demand/settlement letters, they can't turn over designs they don't have and all have reported that they aren't even informed of what auctions are in question (some could be legitimate, some pirated).
Re: are the designs registered . . . almost certainly, this is a very competative industry . . . but there are 1000's and 1000's of designs available, some quite generic, many independants are very good at what they do, so "quality" isn't going to help a buyer determine what they're really getting, and the sheer volumn of designs available make it impossible for anyone to even hope to know all of what is legitimate or not.
Re: The download comparison. It is commonly accepted (for quite some time) for deliverly to be via individual email attachment in the format selected by the purchaser (each machine make/model is different) so I suppose for those who took delivery via email attachment will have to hope that a comparsion to "downloading such as with the Napster case" would not be associated with one on one email attachment per order, as compared to the enmass downloading (on a peer to peer basis with many users sharing at one time) as was common in the Napster case and as is common with other such programs such as Limewire and Kazaa.
Thank you again, VERY much for your time, it's greatly appreciated, it is my hope that folks will garner some peace from more level headed information (yeah, I know, I 'm way to empathetic).
Many Thanks,
Shamrockz2Me
Answer:
California
FYI - for the attorney's here - ESPC is the Embroidery SOFTWARE Protection Coalition. The industry's position is this product is software with a licensing agreement that does not allow you to transfer the product to another person - ie. the license only allows the original buyer to use the design. I suspect based on the comments from the attorney in the ebay forum that what this whole mess may come down to is someone ending up in court vs the ESPC and a judge deciding if their product is software or simply a product of software (like a letter written in MS Word). But I would be interested on your comments relative to the concept that the product in question is software.
Answer:
The industry's position is this product is software with a licensing agreement that does not allow you to transfer the product to another person - ie. the license only allows the original buyer to use the design. Maybe that is true, but unless the original purchaser agreed to a license -- shrinkwrap or not -- then the fact that it is "software" as opposed to anything else is irrelevant. The courts are not going to find an "implied license" where no actual license exists -- implied licenses are only found in very narrow circumstances.
There is really nothing special about software when it comes to copyright law -- you register computer software using the same form TX as you do for any other written work or artwork. The fact that Microsoft and other software manufacturers have built an industry around shrinkwrap licenses does NOT mean that every piece of software has a license associated with it -- like I said, without a real, honest-to-goodness license, this idea that the software is not transferable just won't hold water.
If there WAS a license originally, then maybe you have a point. But the question remains, even if there is a license, what authority does the ESPC have to enforce the licenses? There has been no evidence shown that the ESPC has any authority to enforce the licenses (if any) or the copyrights -- without that, I personally wouldn't give them the time of day. I would let them sue me, and let them prove that a) they have the authority to sue me in the first place, and b) that the particular product I bought was something they have authority to sue for, and c) that there is some license or copyright that they can sue me under if they have the authority to do so. Do they have the authority to sue for EVERY piece of embordery software out there? Somehow I really doubt it. Even the mighty RIAA doesn't represent EVERY record label.
But I would be interested on your comments relative to the concept that the product in question is software. Like I said, there is really nothing special about software. I could potentially sell a book with a similar license agreement -- but that license would have to be explicit, and the buyer would have to agree to it to be binding. It's not clear whether a "contract of adhesion" (basically a license that is binding just by buying the book) would actually be enforceable. And it is extremely unlikely that any judge would create an implied contract out of whole cloth -- that would completely circumvent the "first sale" doctrine, and that piece of law is unlikely to be going anywhere...
Answer:
I'm intrigued by the term implied license. We are all familiar with the licensing box that comes up when we install software requiring one to click "I accept". Embroidery designs have no such "box" that pops up when you open the design. Copyright and licensing information is often in a separate text file or simply listed in the website. You can visit any embroidery website for an example, though sometimes it's hard to find. Since there is no mechanism for the seller of embroidery designs to confirm the buyer actually read the license, would this fall under the definition of implied?
Answer:
I'm intrigued by the term implied license. We are all familiar with the licensing box that comes up when we install software requiring one to click "I accept". Embroidery designs have no such "box" that pops up when you open the design. Copyright and licensing information is often in a separate text file or simply listed in the website. You can visit any embroidery website for an example, though sometimes it's hard to find. Since there is no mechanism for the seller of embroidery designs to confirm the buyer actually read the license, would this fall under the definition of implied? These licensing issues are going to be so fact-specific and dependent on the controlling law in the jurisdiction where the license (if any) is being enforced that any general observations here are really going to be just guesses.
Answer:
Since copyright notice is no longer required, shouldn't one reasonably assume that any embroidery design for sale on eBay or elsewhere is copyrighted and may be subject to a license agreement until proven otherwise?
Regardless of whether one is the seller or buyer of pirated embroidery designs, isn't the mere unauthorized INSTALLATION and USE of the designs to instruct a computerized embroidery machine to produce the designs on fabric a violation of the designer's copyright and possible violation of the EULA?
In addition, assuming the embroidery designs are pirated, might there not be other issues to consider beyond copyright infringement and possible EULA violations, namely receiving stolen property, mail fraud if the designs are sent to the buyer via USPS, and interstate transport of stolen goods?
Answer:
Since copyright notice is no longer required, shouldn't one reasonably assume that any embroidery design for sale on eBay or elsewhere is copyrighted and may be subject to a license agreement until proven otherwise? It's probably a safe assumption, and probably good advice to follow. But once you've been accused of infringement, it's up to the person doing the accusing to prove both that your are infringing AND that they own the copyright in question or otherwise have the authority to pursue an infringement case.
Regardless of whether one is the seller or buyer of pirated embroidery designs, isn't the mere unauthorized INSTALLATION and USE of the designs to instruct a computerized embroidery machine to produce the designs on fabric a violation of the designer's copyright and possible violation of the EULA? As far the EULA is concerned, well, it will depend on the EULA and the particular state's laws regarding EULAs. As far as copyright is concerned, installation may be infringing, use certainly is not.
In addition, assuming the embroidery designs are pirated, might there not be other issues to consider beyond copyright infringement and possible EULA violations, namely receiving stolen property, mail fraud if the designs are sent to the buyer via USPS, and interstate transport of stolen goods? Well, it's not stolen property -- violations of EULA's and copyrights are not theft, so any theft-related crimes are right out. Mail fraud is a stretch -- I don't know of any cases where such a charge has been brought, but I suppose is is technically possible.
Answer:
Hi, I'm new to this so I hope I'm doing it right. I live in Oregon. I'm one of those little old ladies, well not that old, that got one of those letters from ESPC. It was Saturday so I called and left a message. The hours they are open are the hours I'm at work. This worries me. I've never even gotten a speeding ticket. I don't know what to do. I don't have alot of money for an attorney. Can anyone help?
Answer:
As an artist in several mediums, my concern is the actual changing of original artwork by the artist. Understanding that it must be registered prior to the infringement, at one time a work of art by an individual required that it only be signed and dated. I assume this has changed over the years again?
However, to be more specific, working on the internet with other digitizers and artist has left a hole in a certain area of protection for the original artist. If in fact an artist does a drawing, is having it digitized and during that time, the artwork is shared, stolen, whatever and changed slightly, but not so much that it was not recogniseable, and then posted prior to the original artist publication. Is there a way to safe guard against that possibility, short of not working with any one else on a project? And what would one need to do to prove that it was taken from their original artwork? muddbugz
Answer:
Understanding that it must be registered prior to the infringement That is not really correct. A work must be registered prior to infringement if you want to sue for statutory damages -- that is, damages set by statute. You can always sue for ACTUAL damages, you just have to register your work before you can sue. but you can register your work AFTER infringement starts.
ALL works are automatically covered by copyright as soon as they are "fixed in a tangible format" -- in other words, as soon as they are written down, or entered into a computer, or whatever.
If in fact an artist does a drawing, is having it digitized and during that time, the artwork is shared, stolen, whatever and changed slightly, but not so much that it was not recogniseable, and then posted prior to the original artist publication. Is there a way to safe guard against that possibility, short of not working with any one else on a project? If someone uses a work you created -- registered or not -- to create their own work, that's typically a "derivative work," and the copyright holder (the original artist) has the right to control the creation, reproduction and distribution of any derivative works. See 17 U.S.C. 106. So there is no "hole" in the protection -- if an artist believes someone else is creating an unauthorized derivative work, he or she can sue that person for copyright infringement.
And what would one need to do to prove that it was taken from their original artwork? Well, in ANY copyright infringement suit, whether for direct copying or creation of a derivative work, the copyright holder must prove that they woned the copyright, that they created their work first, and that the other party had seen or had access to their work, and that is was more likey than not (preponderance of the evidence standard) that the accused infringer copied their work or used their work as a basis for creating their own work. The accused infringer has some defenses, like "fair use," but that's the general overview.
Answer:
I wasn't sure anymore. Laws change so rapidly and it is hard for a novice to keep up. You have assured me of what I originally thought to be true for the artists at any rate. And as you say, it is difficult at the very least to prove. We all get our ideas from somewhere, but occasionally it is so obvious. mudd
Answer:
I too, received a letter for designs that I bought on e-bay. I'm a home sewer and sew for myself as well as make gifts for family and friends. I had no clue when I bought those designs that I would be in trouble for making that $10.00 purchase almost three years ago. I'm on my third letter and have ask a friend who is an attorney to call them. He has tried three times to get a response but has had no response.
I live in Tennessee and wonder what the laws are for this sort of thing. I'm on my third letter and hate this. This last letter said that I had 10 days to pay the $300.00 or risk paying even more.
All this for a $10.00 purchase, believe me I've learned a lesson and won't do this again.
Can anyone offer some advise?