jayeff

I really don't understand how this is panning out. The crux is very simply that the release form was altered or it was not and no-one seems very interested in settling that. So we are left wondering whether we have a money-handling company run by someone who lies in public, or a sponsor who illegally uses content, or a content provider who sells illegal content. Those are all serious possibilities, so I hope this thread will not just trickle away down the board without any answers.

If the release was not altered, then you are remarkably calm about the public accusation Chris Mallick made here. Not only did he accuse you of using content illegally, but since this arose out of his refusal to do business with you and because he made no reference in his post to the content provider, he effectively implied that you had made the alterations.

Alternatively the documents were altered, but not by you. Then why aren't you, Chris and Lesley all over the content provider? In similar circumstances I would have got together with Lesley, identified the changes and then come down on him like a ton of bricks.

And where is the content provider in all this? If his hands are clean, he should have a serious beef with either you or Chris because at least one of you is guilty of raising questions about him and the last thing a content provider needs is people wondering whether it's safe to use his content.

I tend to believe that even if the release was changed, you did not do it. Once the issue was raised (at that point in private) between you and ePassporte, you would have been incredibly reckless to bring it public. You could not have known Chris would bluster instead of simply showing us a "before" and "after", nor that the content provider would sit quietly by through all of this. Nor do I understand why, if Chris had enough damaging facts, he needed to fluff out his post with comments about your promo materials and site presentation which were clearly not true.