nevermind... not doing this yet again.

Paul you are right and so very damn wrong.

Don't start using common sense and logic Baddog. :1orglaugh

Amazing that one thread is telling us we all need to stop copyright theft, breaking the terms of a license is copyright theft IMO, then when some asks a licenssee to abide to a license he's pulled to shreds.

You were the first person to realise it's a license not content that was bought. :thumbsup

It's my job to know some stuff.

The price for the new license is a peppercorn payment. Me and the second buyer fell out because of his insistence that the "content" was his and I should just rewrite the license and resupply it because it was all lost while he had it on his tour and affiliates area.

We settled it off the board, but money has still not crossed and the license is still not transferred, free or otherwise and I suspect still in the site and likely still in the affiliates area.

They claim to not even know what is mine.

Yes I did handle it badly, I should of told the original buyer to do as he please, or told the second buyer he could do as he please and sell it to a third buyer, who again can do as he pleases. What's the point of having a license if licensees can do as they please?

I really do not see what I did wrong, other than losing my cool when people ignored the license, we issue a license that licensees are asked to stick to.

Maybe I should say fuck it pay me $30 bucks a set and do what ever you please. That would help the business today a lot.

Good for you, it seems most on this board have a two level interpretation to licenses. When they sell them, memberships, they expect the buyer to stick to them. When they buy them they are for ignoring.

After Shock Media seriously other than losing my cool when I was ignored and the license broke in many ways, what did I do wrong?

I asked a licensee to stick to a license. In fact I insisted he stick to a license. If you bought a license on a product would you like it if others ignored it while you stick to it?

aren't you banned from the pond too? lol

yeah, NP, AdX
Who is going to make the trifecta :D

I'm new, but zango use content?

Which is why content licensor's should be in control of the license and not leave it to people who are selling up and getting out of the business to decide on who should have the new license.

Thanks for bringing that one up Jel. Very good point. :thumbsup

Would people prefer we ignore license abuse and when we find it just smile and bend over. Or is it right for one person to stick to a license and the other to ignore it?

Please people I need an answer on this because I need you to tell me how you want the business to run?

OK I could of handled it better, I could of let the license abuser shaft me and smiled while he did it. I should not of called the guy who was using the content without a license, that had already been broke a pirate and a thief. He was as we all know just a guy ignoring a license so he could make a buck.

Nothing wrong in that and I'm sorry for being so rude and getting upset that he totally ignored me.

And to those who don't want to buy and will put me on ignore for being a person who gets upset when his license is ignored. Please send me your site links so I can send people to your site to ignore your license. Or is that wrong? */sarcasm*

From what I read and what the new owner admitted, the new owner admitted he wasn't diligent enough with his pre-purchase understanding of what he was purchasing. The seller also didn't disclose he was selling property his corporation didn't own. The new owner admitted he was wrong.

Paul found his content being used by someone he didn't have any business dealings. A pissing match ensued and being 100% legally correct Paul turned into a hard-ass.

If contacted prior to the sale I'm sure Paul would have issued a new license for a token amount or thrown it in if more content was purchased. In fact a very agreeable arrangement was worked out.

In this case I think Paul was given a lot more shit than he deserved.

In my first year here I have seen so many disputes and for sure a lot of incidents could have been avoided if delt with in a more business like way between both parties. Small and large problems alike seem to get blown up into public debates that just makes the issue worse and in many cases damages the reputation of all involved long term.

I think its time to set up a PR company :)

it's what the surfer wants

Bot needs reset :1orglaugh

Well, I'm glad things were settled. :thumbsup

it's what happens to ya when you read too many of Pauls posts :1orglaugh

It was kind of "out of the blue" :1orglaugh

it's nearly as much of a contradiction as someone concerned about copyright theft happening to him on the one hand, then helping known pirates (redtube) with the other

How you feel, yes. Wrongfully accuse others of something they didn't do and jeoperdize their reputation, no. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Some cliffnotes of what happened, for the ones who aren't familiar with the case:

A program was sold and somehow the content was lost and there were no backups. When trying to restore the content it turns out that the seller wasn't aware that the license of the content he bought from Paul wasn't transferrable. The buyer tries to negotiate with Paul who keeps changing the asking price to more and more ridiculous figures/terms. Which is fine, he has the right to do so, it's his content. The buyer posts a warning thread for people not to do business with Paul but after a few pages of discussions he realizes that the terms of the license did in fact prevent the license to be transferred and he apologizes to Paul. The program gets sold again and Paul runs out to the boards and posts threads that the program (owners) are thieves and pirates because they have his content in the design of some sites yet they don't hold a license for it. This despite the fact that Paul was asked REPEATEDLY to provide a list of what content of his is featured there so it can be removed. Paul was asked to issue an apology for calling the new program owners thieves, since they didn't steal anything to begin with and Paul's beef should've been with the initial seller of the program who gave the content to affiliates to use for promotion, despite the license forbidding that. The one who issued the warning about Paul apologized. Paul wrongfully accused someone of stealing and refused to apologize. He will stay banned, as he never actually contributed anything to the discussions. He's welcome to issue an apology to the program owners here though.

Best of luck in your future endeavours, Paul. :thumbsup

Sounds like you were looking for an excuse. Hate to break it to you, but Paul is in the right this time.

So you got two sides of a story and decided to pick one and ban the person who has the version you don't agree with?

If you didnt want paul to post, why bother finding a lame reason? Just ban him and give the reason cause you don't like him :2 cents:

Pm deserved to be banned even before beacuse he was constantly repeat one thing even after many valid replies from pornonada and that make him public abuser.

Don't be to harsh judging someone's attitude when they are thrust into a situation where their being completly right is ignored. Paul was minding his own business when this mess started.

What do you expect from a sig whore?

Sorry I don't understand eastern european jibberish.

But a simple solution would be for the program who had the unlicenced content to remove it. They didn't. They didn't even know what content they had and as claimed above "repeatedly" kept asking him.

Who is this program who has unlicenced content and no records of who it belongs too, so we know who to steer clear from?

Sorry to hear that Paul .

Well .........

They didn't steal it. They bought the program as it was and, as I said above, repeatedly asked Paul to point out which content was his so that they could take it down and replace it.

Another board Paul is banned from, whats a shame ;)))

So wait someone is in the right? When the program owner asked which content was his so he could remove it and comply and Paul refused and choose to call them out on the boards and call them scammers and thieves?

How is that in the right, if Paul gave him a list of the content that they were using illegally and they refused to move it, then Paul has the right to call them out and their business.

1. After they found out they had content they had no licence to, thats the same as stealing it. They were using it without buying it and and without buying the licence and knowingly carrying on using it.

2. Why did they ask Paul repeatedly to point out what content was his? Didnt they know? They have no records? What a bunch of cunts Can someone point out this so called program who keep no records and have no idea where the content they have comes from

3. And this all has got something to do with you because?

Dont worry, I know that one, it was an excuse to get rid of a poster who didnt lick your arse

1. Shouldnt the people using the content know where it comes from? Can I have all your content and use it and then when you complain, make you go through every gallery, pic and page I have, asking you to remove it? Thats bullshit and you should know that as a content provider, if you dont know that then maybe you shouldnt be selling content. :2 cents: It isnt for paul to point out what content they are using illegally. Its for the people using it illegally to know. :2 cents:

2. What has all this got to do with the forum owner? You as somebody who moans and groans when he gets banned from netwank every so often, I thought you would understand that?

Only time before hes banned from here

from how many boards have u been banned Paul?

Wait a minute. Didn't you have the exact opposite response to tube sites?

Now that I think about it, I wouldn't want to have a site that I have licensed my content to go ahead and sell it to anybody they want to including someone unscrupulous......Hell, I could license something to someone reputable and then Vlad Igorvsky could own it use the site for all kinds of criminal things with my content used as a front for it...

I was thinking along the lines of a TV station where I would imagine if you purchase a channel, that all of the shows for that station are still valid....I guess it shouldn't work the same way with the internet..

I think I jumped the gun on the criticism this time.

absolutely paul was in the right until he refused to give the list of offending content

bottom line paul had no right to force anyone to pay him. He had a right to give them the ultimatum pay me or don't use my content but the second they choose not to use his content he had a responsiblity to give them the list so they could take down the infringement.

So what you are saying is that neither the seller nor buyer of the program could pass a 2257 inspection.

That's what I was going to say. Now I don't have to. :thumbsup

I'm just glad that we all have a more valid reason to dislike Paul. Before, it was completely based on his lousy personality. Now we have confirmation that he is an unethical, soulless old man.

still over fair value for your stuff

Was the content in the tour design, or wank material in the members area?