It’s 42 pages total.
So essentially they are re throwing all the “before the first lawsuit stuff” back at the wall now… even though ALL of that has been removed and fixed during the first lawsuit. AND the only additional/new issues they have is they are pissed that MTC has not provided them with their program code!!?? I would not give it to them either!! Then to suggest that when people say “it has been discussed on the forum many times” is that we were discussing how to illegally obtain and give out the plug in?? Ridiculous! The MANY discussions were on how to back up and save your OWN copy and how you can update the program YOU purchased to work on the machine YOU purchased… HATE PC!
Why do they need the program code? My question is what is their plan with it? If it is destroyed, it shouldn’t matter what it is. I wouldn’t give it to them either.
THANKS for posting… VERY much! Eye Opening!
Read through the file. If I understand this right, every time we as members write about the Cricut we are undermining PC and they consider Andy aiding in this by not stopping the conversation hence violating the agreement.
Andy has not been able to pay the money they settled for..for whatever reasons.
He didn’t take down the Cricut thing on his Facebook right away.
I don’t understand the supposed patterns and that they are online and how MTC is responsible for that. You can’t copyright a circle. Oh..i’m sorry that looks like the circle from Cartridge A hence the user or Andy is violation of it. I don’t know what happened in the first settlement so I’m lost.
PC wants Andy to hunt down anyone with the plugin online or gives a link to it on ANY site besides his own and all those of us that have it. Meaning anyone having it on a Cloud or online storage is in violation of PC’s agreement. Which explains why some of the people who had it saved online were hunted down by PC.
They are blaming MTC for their financial losses over the past year because of the existing forum’s remarks on PC and Cricut and that others have moved on when they come in looking for help. IE, “I was going to buy a Cricut until I found this forum and realize there are more choices out there. I’m off to buy a Zing!” Or when any of us talk about how we hate PC’s business practices.
My question is now this: Should we as a forum members help MTC by not saying anything regarding PC? Put up a sticky saying so? PC is really violating our 1st amendment rights to speak out on their business practices but if it’s technically wrong for Andy to have it on his forum, we should agree to it.
This would really stick it to PC. “I’m sorry, we aren’t allowed to mention the Cricut or PC on this forum any longer due to litigation. Any mention of such business means we acknowledge they even exist. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding”
The exhibits are pathetic. I hope the judge laughs in their face.
PC cannot hold Andy liable for offending posts/files unless he refuses to delete them. They are required to go through a process of proving copyright with a letter. PC didn’t. Yet, Andy deleted all the offending images/posts anyway. Apparently Andy tells all of us what to think and write because we are minions who don’t have opinions of our own and we are making a mockery of Provo Craft. (That’s sarcasm….I wish you could hear me.) 🙂
LOL! It’s funny because your sarcasm may be what they really think. Did you notice that the cart they used as and example in thelawsuit document is Animal Kingdom LOL!!!!!
I noticed the forun screen shots don’t have a year date. Will they be able to prove when they appeared on the site? Also all the gallery shots are dated before the suit took place. I will really be so devistated if we loose the MTC forum!!!!
Good question. They could have taken those screen shots seconds before the offending post was removed. Even PC can’t monitor everything on their boards every second. No one knows how long that post was visible before it was removed.
I went through the paperwork again to understand it better. It sounds like they want Andy to hand over all rights to MTC (how he circumvented the system and the entire program) making them able to use it for their own purposes and now claim it as their own.
Anything we say on the forum about backing up our plugin (it was mentioned the other day about how to back up the file on your computer if we already owned a copy) is against the agreement. That does need to stop. We aren’t giving out information, but we are sharing how to store it if you already have a copy. Andy isn’t doing that, but we are. That could cause some huge issues.
Any project we post on the forum PC accuses that we used their cartridges to do it and every single design they claim to own in.
Now it comes down to this. Do the makers of Black Cat, Zing, Pazzles and the other cutter companies have a say in this and should they get involved? In a sense it’s their software too.
The bugs webpage states: Express your creativity how and when you want.
Do you think we could class action sue them instead? After all, it really should say: Express your creativity how, within the confines of our cartridges, and when, as long as you purchase a gypsy or are near your cricut, you want.
Thanks for the deets. I wanted to see the full thing.
Well said! LOL
I like your quote much better. It is much closer to the truth.
Okay, I have more to say, and since I don’t want to get MTC in trouble, I’m going to say it here (hope that’s okay).
So, PC is the one saying “Defendants now owe $100,000 under the Agreement, which amount is past due”. Per that paragraph, it sounds like PC decided that the amount went up, and the due date was hastened. Interesting that they don’t seem to state what those circumstances were that brought them to that decision.
And wouldn’t turning the MTC code over to PC be a violation of MTC’s copyright?
On the positive side, It’s a very tenuous link from “craftblonde” saying something, and MTC being held liable for it. Same with the FB page. None of the “Directions” were from MTC, but from unrelated parties.
An interesting POV: “For example, Provo Craft allows users to make copies of its patterns only if they have the cartridge on which the cutting instructions for the patterns are stored.” How does the Gypsy and the people who sold their Gypsys separate from the cartridges fall under that? Didn’t PC violate their own complaint?
I wonder if PC is familiar with the snipping tool. After all, that was not prevented by PC.
And I want to be on that jury.
And that’s all I’ve done is make copies of patterns on cartridges I OWN. I have no plans to buy any more.
Yea, good question on the Gypsy. I know you can’t use a cartridge on a Gypsy more than once, which kind of sucks because what if you have two Gypsies?
I’d love to be on that jury too, but I’d probably get kicked off right away 🙂
Lets see them sue Microsoft lol
So if I read correctly, anyone that has created a diecut or image that looks like a PC cartridge cut or image will be in violation of PC’s copyrights if PC wins this one against Andy & MTC? How about the stamp companies that have made stamps in the shapes of PC diecuts and advertised that they you can cut & then stamp or stamp and then cut using the centerpoint feature? And how about the nestabilities that are similar or the same as PC’s cuts/images? All you need to do is just have the sizes gradually increase or decrease on PC’s craftroom or Design Studio? Would that be a violation of Spellbinders’ copyrights?
And could we help Andy & Ann by sending emails and letters to the attorneys listed and/or to the new CEO of PC?
I like how they are using Animal Kingdom and A Child’s Year as examples. Because no one has ever cut an animal or designed an animal before PC came along. And I remember making those silhouettes of my head as a child back in elementary school. It seems ridiculous that their examples have been around forever, and pre-PC even being a company.
I so agree. People draw similar objects all the time. It doesn’t mean they are stealing from someone else. Perhaps they should sue anyone who has made a circle or square. Those are on the cartridges too.
Good questions. I don’t know the answer.
I think letters to the new CEO couldn’t hurt. We just need to be factual and not emotional about why we won’t purchase PC products.
Does anyone know if PC gets “the Program Code” from Andy will they be able to disable the plugin from my computer(or anyone’s) if you use Design Studio or Craft Room?
I stopped buying from PC when they started the Cricut Circle and charged to be a member!! Now I see they charge an outrageous price for minimal cutting files on Craft Room. PC DOESN”T get it;
we’re fed up with being charged for every little thing!!! They lost their customer’s because of their greed!!!
Why doesn’t PC take on MicroSoft for the snipping tool? This tool is so much more “powerful” than the MTC plugin!!! It seems like they only want to “bully” the small company that Andy owns!!!
Shame on you PC, shame on YOU!!!!
2 Days ago I saw someone selling the plugin on ebay for $4.95!!!
FYI: Here’s the ebay item # 250998238096 for MTC plugin. The auction starts at $3.95 and is listed several times!!!
Yes, unfortunately someone is doing that. The Heinleins are NOT affiliated with that person in any way and have been working with Ebay to get it removed.
Please report this item to ebay. It might help get it removed.
They have been reporting.
Yes, they should take on Microsoft for the snipping tool. I’d love to sit back and watch that fight. 🙂
I wonder if PC is going to go after SCAL again, too. From reading the documents, it appears a big part of the complaint is that MTC did not comply with the Agreement from the first lawsuit and therefore everything from that suit is open to be re-pursued. I would hope MTC has very good reasons for not fully complying with the previous Agreement – like their lawyer said the terms were bogus and they shouldn’t. (“Cricut” being on MTC’s Facebook profile long after the previous settlement seems like a serious screw-up, though.)
Also, the fact that MTC hosts/owns a forum and gallery provides assistance to others to infringe on PC’s copyrighted works. But that goes directly to sites like YouTube – providing a place to share files does not induce or encourage users to violate copyrights; it’d be like suing Xerox for selling copiers. The question then is whether providing such assistance is in violation of the previous Agreement. PC clearly maintains that the primary purpose of such a forum and gallery is to assist in violating its copyrights. I think that should be easily disproven.
I hope MTC contacts the EFF and gets some assistance.
Does anyone have a good link to the documents now?I tried the link in the post but it did not work 😦
I created the original Boycott Provo Craft Facebook page when the first lawsuit started. I hope that Andy and Ann can come through this new battle shining bright and that PC goes home with it’s tail between it’s legs like the sad dog they are!
Just reupped. They are all separated now.
P.s. please feel free to post the links on your page.
Did anyone notice that the top of the exhibit A for the Make the Cut Forum this statement: “We no longer support the Cricut™ – Make The Cut! Forum” Wonder if the PC lawyers noticed that.
still being sold on ebay…. everyone needs to report it…..251004123056
Can anyone tell me if there is a way to get the browser to work for the clip art we bought from the hug club? We have thousands of dollars of clip art that we can’t access.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 89 other followers
RSS - Posts