** Copyright lawsuit question **
 

okay, so this next year (2009) i'm gonna assfuck a few more people for infringing on my copyrights (so far i've taken 4 people to court & basically bankrupted them)


something i'm considering is whether or not i can sue Jelsoft, Inc - the makers of the popular Vbulletin script. The reason why I'm wondering, is because just about all of these forums that trade content use Vb, and Vb has in their "terms of use" that they can & will revoke the board's license if they're being used for things such as copyright infringement

well, thats just all talk. i've reported several boards to their piracy department and they reply with some bullshit along the lines of "there's nothing we can do" - wtf ? fuck that, if i could slap their ass with a healthy six-figure lawsuit i'd bet they'd find a way to do something about it!!


they're located in canada btw (jelsoft is), dunno how that affects this?


so, any internet-lawyers here wanna give an opinion on this idea ??

I'm thinking of suing Louisville Slugger cause one of their baseball bats was used in the smashing of my mailbox by some anonymous kids a few weeks ago...

You fail at analogies. Try again.

how about this one.. I'm gonna sue your mother for lowering the national IQ.

Double fail, try again, 3rd time's a charm.

not the same


vbulletin's software is a tool that enables the trading of copyrighted materials - since they have been notified of it & haven't done anything about revoking licenses or implemented anything to deter this in any new or upcoming releases, then i see them as a facilitator & thus liable for damages

anyone??? :pimp

did the boards comply with the dmca complient take down request

did the boards they just link to it offending content hosted somewhere else.


if the answer to either question is yes

you are going to have hard time winning your case

canada is a loser pays legal system, so if you sue them and lose you will be paying both your legal bills and theirs.

You can definitely sue them.

Although this "tool for trading copyrighted information" thing *cough-torrents-tubes-*cough* is a bit too delicate.

Our legal department might be able to help you with this, hit me up.

no & no


and i would be talking about taking them to US Federal court, not canadian court :upsidedow

Louisville slugger is a tool that enables the smashing of a mailbox : )

but seriously...

but so does a cassette player, a dvr, a vcr, mp3 players, dvd burner, email, usenet, im, torrents.... or any of the dozens of other forum softare programs out there.

I'm just saying.. it seems a little silly.
You can kill someone with a car.. not gonna sue Ford.

I'd bet most of the people running these sites where your shit is being traded, never even paid for the vB license and are just using a hacked/illegal version..

Just because they put something in their terms of service that they CAN enforce, in no way holds them to HAVE to enforce it.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. Why don't you sue the form owners directly?

I'm curious as why US Federal Court? I mean I can understand it for you, but what would make them answerable to a US court? They're a Canadian company doing business in Canada, right?

Under Canadian law, a plaintiff claiming contributory infringement must prove three elements: that there is direct infringement by another party using a component supplied by the defendant; that the defendant knew that infringement is taking place; and that the defendant encouraged the infringing conduct.

under US law, the first two are all you need to prove.

you better have all three because it will get thrown out pretty quickly. and you will paying for both your lawyers and theirs.

i'm just brainstorming, i dont know if its valid or not thats why i'm asking opinions

US Federal court is what handles Copyright Infringements, thats why them & not canada...but again, i'm not very knowledgeable on cross-country lawsuit stuff :Oh crap

I don't see why this same tactic can't be used against programs that support tube sites. It seems to me that a lot of these tube sites have no way to upload content or don't post content when you do upload it. Even if you send a dmca notice and the content is removed it will likely reappear under a different url on the site. Its not a great leap from there to assume it is the sites owners who are actively involved in the theft/copyright infringement. From there you can then show a pattern of theft/ copyright infringement to the programs that are supporting the tube site in question.
Does the program then not become culpable in some way for the theft if they continue to support the site financially?
Most programs have sections in their TOS's expressly forbidding this theft/copyright infringement and by not enforcing it would they not become an active participant in this theft?

I don't really know a lot about cross-country laws either, that's why I was asking.

It seems like it would be a slippery slope though. For instance, Porn is illegal in China. Should we have to face criminal charges in China for making and selling porn from North America?

what in the hell makes you think a forum promoting stolen content isn't using a stolen copy of VB as well, hahahaha

I would bet most of the boards where stolen content is shared, run on stolen software. Just saying

EDIT: I should read full thread before posting *facepalm*

Interesting thread, seriously, I like where you're going, obviously if Jelsoft gets nailed and you win, they will ENFORCE that to not worry about this shit again, and obviously if they have to, then the users will not use their software, which will kill alot of boards.

The Truth Hurts is right. Just because they have the ability to revoke a license doesn't necessarily mean they are liable if they do not. And your argument that companies must include a kill mechanism to combat misuse laughable.

There are so many offline examples to back this up.

If a criminal rents a truck and the rental agreement prohibits the transportation of stolen property, is the rental place liable if they are made aware of misuse and do not call the truck back?

Is the rental place liable if they haven't "implemented anything to deter this in any new or upcoming [trucks]" as you say?


But the best example...

An adult bookstore is making and selling counterfeit porn, which is prohibited in their store lease. The copyright holder notifies the landlord, but he refuses to get involved. Is he then liable?

some people here are saying that the forum software is probably bootleg also...well here's where it really gets funny - when you report the board to jelsoft, they check on the license. if the board DOESNT have a valid license, they contact the board owners to have them pay for a license

now, if they can do that, then fuck they'd better be enforcing their TOS and revoke the fucking license permanently. i see that as giving them "the ok" to do what they want with the software, as long as jelsoft gets their $$ by making them buy the license they're turning their heads to anything else the board/software is used for

yes & yes...have you taken anyone to court lately on this stuff? :)

i hit you up - turn on your icq

if US copyright law could supersede the laws of other countries don't you think the pirate bay would have been forced to comply with DMCA take down notices.

or they will simply change the TOS to eliminate the liablity.

Uhm...speaking of "truth hurting", you're factually wrong on many counts.

1) Blank media and recording device manufacturers pay a royalty fee to associations of copyright holders as resolution of a string of lawsuits, specifically related to your post. (check out 17 USC Ch. 10)

2) Ford (in particular) has faced countless lawsuits related to design flaws that didn't cause accidents, but exacerbated damage from them, such as the Crown Victoria gas tank placement debacle.

3) Secondary liability has strong precedent in the US, especially in copyright law - i.e.: "A&M Records v. Napster"

Felix, if you *do* have grounds for action in this case, I think it may be for "inducement to infringe". Good luck.

what makes you think they aren't doing that? or do get all jelsoft internal emails?

and I run 50 forums, all run from nulled copies of vbulletin, and they have contacted me 10-20 times in the past 4 years about buying a legal copy, and it is all talk, they have yet to do anything

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

1. by your own declaration you have to make a logical leap and assume they are actively involved
2. the is a huge difference between falitating copyright infringement and simply giving the sites the benefit (as required by law) until they are proven to be truely infringing.


Until the site gets convicted of copyright infringement, those affiliates have not breached the TOS.

You are all missing the point. I don't think that this idiot every sued anyone in his life.

Jelsoft says in their TOS that they have the right to revoke your license if you use their softwarey for copyright infringement. But they ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DO SO, and THEIR FAILURE TO DO SO DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY.

Right off the bat, vB has significant non-infringing uses. This site is running vB. So it doesn't matter what someone uses it for, vB can never be held liable for it.

As for the US - Canadian issue -- yes you can sue a Canadian corp in the US District Court. You will need to go through the Hague Convention rules to do so. Kinda of tricky though, but any firm with experience will now how to get them served. I think you can get jurisdiction over them.

As for Jelsoft being liable... the US Supreme Court in the Grokster case stated that "[t]he rule on inducement of infringement as developed in the early cases is no different today. [A]dvertising an infringing use or instructing how to engage in an infringing use, show an affirmative intent that the product be used to infringe, and a showing that infringement was encouraged overcomes the law's reluctance to find liability when a defendant merely sells a commercial product suitable for some lawful use…"

Inducement can be the basis for contributory copyright infringement. As for Jelsoft, it might be difficult unless you can show that they did more than just turn a blind eye to the infringement.