Theft Plus Hotlinking Not Such A Good Idea

sbucciarel Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by cashcow

LOL! I love it! How great to have loyal customers that notify you of such things.

Lee

Isn't it? She's a regular here too and I think one of your customers too. She looks out for us.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2645699].message }}
- mcmahanusa 14 years ago
  
  How gratifying to see revenge served up so well. Good for you, Suzanne.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Success is not to be pursued; it is to be attracted by the person you become - Jim Rohn
  
  Visit our beautiful gardens
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2645833].message }}

dorim

14 years ago

He's hotlinking every one of your images too, that's bandwidth theft. You can report him to his hosting company and domain registrar!

Somebody copied my website and tried to sell it on ebay, but he left my name in the meta tags...... LOL.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2645871].message }}

Ken Strong 14 years ago

I hope you reported him to eBay as well...
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

The RETURN of OBI:
Learn IM From the Experts Who Are Already Doing It!

"Sammy-approved, baby!" -- Offline Brat Pack
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2645892].message }}
- oneplusone 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by KenStrong
  
  I hope you reported him to eBay as well...
  
  Absolutely, it isn't so funny for them when they find they are banned from using ebay and PayPal.
  
  I can imagine them trying to find a merchant account, for their business of pirating other peoples products/services.
  
  PayPal actually have an Infringement Report facility now:
  
  PayPal Infringement Report
  
  (UK link, other countries might be different)
  
  Once they have checked out your report/complaint, they will potentially ban the pirate from using PayPal for life.
  
  Even if they don't, they will attach your infringement report/complaint to the sellers account, and the seller will be very scared of continuing with any piracy when they know they have a marked account.
  
  A second infringement report from another victim, could be the end for them.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  'If you hear a voice within you say "you cannot paint," then by all means paint and that voice will be silenced.' Vincent Van Gogh.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2647798].message }}

dorim

14 years ago

I just noticed on his ebay listing there is a button that says report item, so you can report him that way.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2645941].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Whenever I see someone hotlinking one of my images, I change the path name of the image on my site, then I change the image that is hotlinked, saying that either:

* Image courtesy of MyDomain.com
* Image stolen from MyDomain.com
* Or I slip in an actual ad for my site...

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2645986].message }}

thebitbotdotcom

14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

Whenever I see someone hotlinking one of my images, I change the path name of the image on my site, then I change the image that is hotlinked, saying that either:

* Image courtesy of MyDomain.com
* Image stolen from MyDomain.com
* Or I slip in an actual ad for my site...

Now that ad idea is a real winner...

Hmmm. I wonder if you could slip an opt-in for in there...

Thanks

Signature

Do Your Copywriting Skills Suck?

Let Us Help You Develop Your Writing Skills!

Submit Guest Posts With [ TheBitBot.Com ]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2654624].message }}

King Shiloh

Banned 14 years ago

Many days could be for the thief but one day is for the owner. And the Holy Book recommends that the thief, when caught, should pay 7 times.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2646008].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 14 years ago

Looks like he saw the image and changed his site, but he is hotlinking even to my style sheet and all of the images so I just moved the whole site away

Here's the image that was showing instead of the image of an ebook to sell

[ 11 ] Thanks
5 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2646026].message }}

Bill Farnham 14 years ago

Now it looks like the site has just lost all its' formating.

Oh yea, such a deal for $149. :p

The nerve...

~Bill
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2646046].message }}
- sbucciarel Banned 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Bill Farnham
  
  Now it looks like the site has just lost all its' formating.
  
  Oh yea, such a deal for $149. :p
  
  The nerve...
  
  ~Bill
  
  Yeah ... lol. He's even hotlinking to my style sheet. So I just moved all of my files to a secret folder and it has messed up his site baaaaad.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2646062].message }}

dorim

14 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Looks like he saw the image and changed his site, but he is hotlinking even to my style sheet and all of the images so I just moved the whole site away

Here's the image that was showing instead of the image of an ebook to sell

So he saw your graphic and realized he was stealing your blog and he didn't take the listing off ebay, but fixed the blog? That's lower than a dirtbag, he's consciously ripping you off now.

I hope you reported him to all the places you can.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2646483].message }}

Rashell 14 years ago

S/He left your link (the one to your $17 offer) in the footer. Not too bright at all.

Rashell
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2646553].message }}
- sbucciarel Banned 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Rashell
  
  S/He left your link (the one to your $17 offer) in the footer. Not too bright at all.
  
  Rashell
  
  lol ... yeah, I didn't even think of that, but yes he did leave it. Not the brightest penny in the pot.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2646577].message }}

Lauryn

14 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Looks like he saw the image and changed his site, but he is hotlinking even to my style sheet and all of the images so I just moved the whole site away

Here's the image that was showing instead of the image of an ebook to sell

OMG!! I love it!!! LOL.

Thanks

Signature

I Go Hard = "Slanguage" for putting forth a lot of effort.

Don't be an arse and try to flip something you clearly have no knowledge of against me.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2647234].message }}

mywebwork 14 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

That's priceless Suzanne, great work on your part! It's nice to see the good guy (or good gal in this case) win one for a change.

I'm sure you have sent your loyal customer a nice thank you note for alerting you to this thief.

Bill
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2647827].message }}

snapcontent

14 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Looks like he saw the image and changed his site, but he is hotlinking even to my style sheet and all of the images so I just moved the whole site away

Here's the image that was showing instead of the image of an ebook to sell

Funniest thing I've seen all week!

I'd say it falls under the aegis of 'natural law'!!!

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2648023].message }}

Amanda Craven

14 years ago

That's superb - well done you! Saw someone pull a similar stunt on Flippa to another WF member and tipped them the wink. That's the point of community as far as I'm concerned.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Want to get the best no-BS marketing advice for free? Click here...

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2646591].message }}

Alfred Shelver

14 years ago

Thanks that is so funny, that site is destroyed. A pity he/she will probably not learn and do it again.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Best $10 Articles on Warrior Forum Guaranteed

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2646599].message }}

sbucciarel Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Cathy Shelver

Thanks that is so funny, that site is destroyed. A pity he/she will probably not learn and do it again.

He will probably do it to someone else, but I banned him in DLGuard from purchasing from me again.

This just in:
THIS LISTING HAS ENDED

Seems he ended his listing prematurely.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2647025].message }}

GarrieWilson

14 years ago

You say no resell rights but you don't say no transfer of rights. Which you would have trouble doing unless you license, not sell it.

What I am getting at, if I purchased a template, put a site up, I would think I could legally sell it - once. Even if it's not as a site w/ a domain, I could.

I'm not an attorney and thats not legal advice but is my understanding from reading. You might want to see how to legally not allow transfers.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Screw You, NameCheap!
$1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:
SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2647065].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by GarrieWilson

You say no resell rights but you don't say no transfer of rights. Which you would have trouble doing unless you license, not sell it.

What I am getting at, if I purchased a template, put a site up, I would think I could legally sell it - once. Even if it's not as a site w/ a domain, I could.

I'm not an attorney and thats not legal advice but is my understanding from reading. You might want to see how to legally not allow transfers.

He didn't purchase just a template. He purchased a PLR site with commercial theme and a commercial plugin and content. But clearly, if he just wanted to rid himself of it and gave it away, who cares? But he had an Ebay auction with a price tag of $149, so he was violating my TOS by attempting to resell it.

Not only was this a violation of my TOS, but he was also going to defraud some poor newbie out of $149, thinking they were getting an original site when they were getting a PLR site ... that was completely hotlinked to my site, which undoubtedly would have gotten into trouble sooner or later.

Originally Posted by oneplusone

I can imagine them trying to find a merchant account, for their business of pirating other peoples products/services.

PayPal actually have an Infringement Report facility now:

PayPal Infringement Report

Just to be clear .... he did not pirate the site. He bought it from me for $17 with No Resell Rights and was attempting to sell it, violating my TOS. But thanks for that Paypal infringement link. Didn't know that Paypal gave a sh*t.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2648383].message }}

Sarge 14 years ago

HA Ha! I'm glad you had a chance to bust his balz! Too many times we get ripped off with no recourse.
Just goes to show you the lazy people who don't want to put in the work will eventually get what they deserve..

I'm surprised about the paypal thing too... last time I had to deal with them, they seemed to care nothing for the vendor, only the buyer. I had 2 instances in a row where people bought graphics packages and then wanted a refund. I tried to contact the buyers and they would not respond. No reason for the refund, paypal said they did not need one! Both from a WSO 2 minutes apart, like 2 or 3 post counts....

Sarge
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2649103].message }}
- Rashell 14 years ago
  
  Shoot, you should put a couple (exclusive ones) up on eBay at $149. Might have a new business outlet.
  
  Just make sure to remove the link to your $17 ones. That still amazes me. I'd think the person who would have purchased it #1-obviously couldn't possibly care about doing due diligence (I mean the link is right there) and #2 is therefore an idiot.
  
  Really could you imagine buying it at $149, loading it up on your site. As you're tweaking, looking just a bit closer to see... hey there's a link to a business that sells the exact same site for $17... You'd have to be an idiot.
  
  Rashell
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2649162].message }}

GarrieWilson

14 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

He didn't purchase just a template. He purchased a PLR site with commercial theme and a commercial plugin and content. But clearly, if he just wanted to rid himself of it and gave it away, who cares? But he had an Ebay auction with a price tag of $149, so he was violating my TOS by attempting to resell it.

Not only was this a violation of my TOS, but he was also going to defraud some poor newbie out of $149, thinking they were getting an original site when they were getting a PLR site ... that was completely hotlinked to my site, which undoubtedly would have gotten into trouble sooner or later.

Just to be clear .... he did not pirate the site. He bought it from me for $17 with No Resell Rights and was attempting to sell it, violating my TOS. But thanks for that Paypal infringement link. Didn't know that Paypal gave a sh*t.

Sorry but legally, anyone can change owner ship of the templates and software - once. Just because your TOS says they can't doesn't mean it's legal. It would fall under first sale doctrine. You would have to say it's a license. But a court has already ruled that if it acts like a sale, looks like a sale, then it's a sale and not a license even if the seller calls it one.

BTW: Saying one line of "no resell rights" in an industry that uses the term to mean able to sell others the software - multiple times - isn't the same as no transfer of rights and isn't a TOS.

Not to mention that no where do you have a by ordering you agree to. Plus your order button says "buy now" not "license now".

I didn't see the auction so I can't comment on if he was defrauding someone.

But it's possible that you hurt him by trying to enforce an illegal contract.

You really need to talk to a lawyer as I am not one and this is not legal advise.

Garrie

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Screw You, NameCheap!
$1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:
SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2649301].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by GarrieWilson

Sorry but legally, anyone can change owner ship of the templates and software - once. Just because your TOS says they can't doesn't mean it's legal. It would fall under first sale doctrine. You would have to say it's a license. But a court has already ruled that if it acts like a sale, looks like a sale, then it's a sale and not a license even if the seller calls it one.

You really need to talk to a lawyer as I am not one and this is not legal advise.

Garrie

They are licensed for the Woo theme by Woo and for the autoblogged plugin by autoblogged and those licenses are not transferable. It's clearly understood what they are buying, what they can and can't do before they purchase. It's all over in big red letters and I have stopped several auctions of these sites ... Flippa took one down and this one I handled myself.

If I consulted a lawyer for the things that I can take care of pretty well without one, I'd be broke.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2649398].message }}

Choosetoday 14 years ago

I needed a good laugh! :p

What I know is that "you reap what you sow!" Loyalty is priceless both for developers and consumers. Sbucciarel - it appears you have taken good care of your customers (sowed) and now are have your loyal customer looking out for you (reaping).

I sent you a 'pm.' Again thanks for the laugh !
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2650741].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by GarrieWilson

It would fall under first sale doctrine.

- Not a lawyer
- Not legal advice

First sale doctrine doesn't apply because the theme and plugin licensed to the buyer are resold. Suzanne is the first sale. The buyer is not. Her terms accurately reflect the rights she has purchased and is licensed to transfer, and any dispute related to them needs to be taken up with the licensors - Woo and the autoblogged team. She is under no obligation to take on the burden of that dispute.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2650789].message }}

GarrieWilson

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

- Not a lawyer
- Not legal advice

First sale doctrine doesn't apply because the theme and plugin licensed to the buyer are resold. Suzanne is the first sale. The buyer is not. Her terms accurately reflect the rights she has purchased and is licensed to transfer, and any dispute related to them needs to be taken up with the licensors - Woo and the autoblogged team. She is under no obligation to take on the burden of that dispute.

She does not provide a copy of the licenses either.
She also does not state that it is a license.

First sale doctrine also doesn't mean one sale.

Her sales letters say "no resell rights" but that does not mean "can't transfer rights".

She also says that she purchased a developer license to the plugin. Nothing else. It does not say buyers can not transfer their rights to others. It does not show the license.

Licenses also have to be agreed to with some type of action.

In 2007, Autocad was sued for not allowing someone to resell used copies. He won. However, this month it was over turned and the three judges gave 3 things to make something a license -vs- a sale.

Google for the links as it's interesting.

If you want to see a real license that doesn't allow transfer, look at Amazon MP3 sales.

One of the software licenses I use, created by an attorney, specifically says that it's a license and can not be transfered w/out written permission. When it's sold, they must click "I agree" before they can purchase it.

Woo themes does something like this. Although their license does not fully restrict someone from transferring ownership. All it limits is redistributing the PDF files. That doesnt mean I can't transfer my rights though.

Autoblogged actually allows people to transfer licenses. Developers sell the equivalent of a single site license.

"A developer license means that you can install AutoBlogged on as many sites as you wish and you can resell those sites as long as AutoBlogged is part of the functionality of the site."

Since developers are selling single site licenses, this part comes into play.

"You may sell your license if you transfer all rights to that license to the purchaser. You will no longer be the owner of the license and can no longer use the software. When you sell your license, you must contact us to transfer ownership and issue a new serial number to the purchaser."

But hey. Whatever.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Screw You, NameCheap!
$1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:
SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2651088].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by GarrieWilson

Her sales letters say "no resell rights" but that does not mean "can't transfer rights".

I would not want to argue that before a judge. I suggest that the average person understands "resell" to include every sale, whether a copy of the site is retained for further resale or not, and that arguing the semantic difference between "resell" and "transfer" is kind of like arguing the difference between "steal" and "find."

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2651153].message }}

GarrieWilson

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

I would not want to argue that before a judge. I suggest that the average person understands "resell" to include every sale, whether a copy of the site is retained for further resale or not, and that arguing the semantic difference between "resell" and "transfer" is kind of like arguing the difference between "steal" and "find."

It already has been argued when dealing with promo CDs.

In 2008 a case was brought forth about selling promo cds labeled "not for resell". The seller won but it is on appeal right now.

UMG v. Augusto | Electronic Frontier Foundation

The big red letters might be like a sticker. To be a license, certain things must take place.

And I would be more than willing to argue in court about this because of the improper wording and process of the sale. If it actually caused me harm by having my ebay/flippa/paypal/whatever closed. Of course personally, I wouldn't sell them because I know her intent even if it is done incorrectly.

-

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Screw You, NameCheap!
$1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:
SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2651203].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by GarrieWilson

It already has been argued when dealing with promo CDs.

The law distinguishes quite dramatically between tangible physical media and pure digital assets.

Yes, you can sell your "not for resale" promo CD.

Yes, you can rip the audio off that promo CD to your hard drive.

No, you cannot sell someone a copy of the ripped audio from your hard drive, even if you delete your copy and destroy the physical CD.

Take the physical CD out of the picture, and you're arguing that you should be able to transfer digital assets in the same way you can physical media. But the existing precedent already says you can't do that. When there is no physical media, it is generally understood that you are licensing and not purchasing the data... and that when you download your copy, you are accepting the stated terms of the licence. Because nothing else gives you the right to download it.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2651255].message }}

GarrieWilson

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

But the existing precedent already says you can't do that. When there is no physical media, it is generally understood that you are licensing and not purchasing the data... and that when you download your copy, you are accepting the stated terms of the licence. Because nothing else gives you the right to download it.

What precedent? I have looked many times for digital only cases and found none when the software has been licensed.

If by precedent you are referring to the MP3 lawsuits, thats different. They didn't purchase the digital version. They also don't sell MP3s. They license them - correctly - on digital purchases.

It's also NOT generally understood. Besides, even if it was, it wouldn't matter. Remember, people generally think it's ok to download MP3s from file sharing sites. What people generally think or believe isn't always correct.

A sales letter is also NOT a license. I have not seen a license on any of her WSOs or her site. If it was able to be done the way she is or even the way you think, do you think Apple, Amazon, etc. would have these long licenses for digital sales? They do it because they can't just toss the words "no resell" on a sales letter.

Now I must goto bed as it's late.

-

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Screw You, NameCheap!
$1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:
SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2651334].message }}

CDarklock 14 years ago

Originally Posted by GarrieWilson

What precedent?

And with that, we cross the line from "explain the reasoning" to "do the research for me." Which I am not going to do.
- Thanks
Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2651377].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by GarrieWilson

She does not provide a copy of the licenses either.
She also does not state that it is a license.

First sale doctrine also doesn't mean one sale.

Her sales letters say "no resell rights" but that does not mean "can't transfer rights".

She also says that she purchased a developer license to the plugin. Nothing else. It does not say buyers can not transfer their rights to others. It does not show the license.

Licenses also have to be agreed to with some type of action.

In 2007, Autocad was sued for not allowing someone to resell used copies. He won. However, this month it was over turned and the three judges gave 3 things to make something a license -vs- a sale.

Google for the links as it's interesting.

If you want to see a real license that doesn't allow transfer, look at Amazon MP3 sales.

One of the software licenses I use, created by an attorney, specifically says that it's a license and can not be transfered w/out written permission. When it's sold, they must click "I agree" before they can purchase it.

Woo themes does something like this. Although their license does not fully restrict someone from transferring ownership. All it limits is redistributing the PDF files. That doesnt mean I can't transfer my rights though.

Autoblogged actually allows people to transfer licenses. Developers sell the equivalent of a single site license.

"A developer license means that you can install AutoBlogged on as many sites as you wish and you can resell those sites as long as AutoBlogged is part of the functionality of the site."

Since developers are selling single site licenses, this part comes into play.

"You may sell your license if you transfer all rights to that license to the purchaser. You will no longer be the owner of the license and can no longer use the software. When you sell your license, you must contact us to transfer ownership and issue a new serial number to the purchaser."

But hey. Whatever.

But hey whatever back at ya. It occurs to me that maybe you're a "friend" of the seller in question.

This forum is literally packed full of people who make their living selling products and they assign the rights they want to assign to those products and state those rights in their sales pages, as I have done.

And they do this without the advice of a lawyer or huge disclaimers all over their sales pages. The average Warrior and my average customer respects those terms. Hosting accounts and Flippa also respect those terms because they have taken down sites and listings on my behalf.

If you think it's a good idea to try legal mumbo jumbo to "get around" the intent of the buyer in terms of the rights they give you, you are perhaps on the wrong forum. As you can see, if you are an honest seller and treat your customers well and give them a good deal, the majority of them like you and they'll report things like this to you, so you can take the appropriate action.

As for the autoblogged plugin ... they do get the license, because under my developer's license, I contact them and THEY issue the license to my buyer directly.

Not only was this sleeze violating my terms of service, but he was going to outright rip off some innocent buyer. He was selling a PLR site as if it were a unique site and not just a copy of other sites. Not to mention the fact they he was either too lazy or too stupid to set the site up without hotlinking everything to my site, which is going to cause the new buyer nothing but grief in the long run.

Fortunately, most people on this forum respect the buyer's intent when the rights are listed on the sales page for everyone to see. You might not be one of them, but there are plenty that do.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2652284].message }}

Tom B

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

But hey whatever back at ya. It occurs to me that maybe you're a "friend" of the seller in question.

Not cool at all Suzanne. It seems if you don't like the message you start casting aspersions towards the messenger.

Garrie is very consistant with his postings. If you do some searches on his posts you will see he has said these types of things for a long time.

The law will trump whatever rights you or I put on our sales page.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2654591].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Thomas Belknap

Not cool at all Suzanne. It seems if you don't like the message you start casting aspersions towards the messenger.

Garrie is very consistant with his postings. If you do some searches on his posts you will see he has said these types of things for a long time.

The law will trump whatever rights you or I put on our sales page.

I don't know Garrie ... first time I ever saw him post is in this thread although it's clear he's posting somewhere.

As for his theory of the law on this ... I could care less. I have my TOS plastered all over my listings and if that buyer wants to sue for a $17 website, he can, although technically he won't have a leg to stand on.

What did I do? I didn't contact him. I didn't bother reporting him to Paypal or Ebay. I didn't issue a takedown notice. What I did was move MY DEMO SITE and apparently ... it screwed up his site and he ended his listing of his own free choice. So sue me. I would love to hear the evidence presented in court ... uhhh your honor sir ... she moved HER files and I was stealing HER bandwidth by hotlinking everything to her site ... she screwed my site up ... duh ... your honor sir.

I will protect my business from all these little loophole finders who are basically nothing but a pack of thieves. It's very apparent what my offer is about and what it includes and does not include. Anyone attempting to get around it is just trying to rip me off and when I find it, I have been successful with takedown notices ... every time.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2654634].message }}

Tom B

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

What did I do?

You decided Garrie must be friends with your buyer since he didn't agree with you. :rolleyes:

I think you owe him an apology.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655424].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Thomas Belknap

You decided Garrie must be friends with your buyer since he didn't agree with you. :rolleyes:

I think you owe him an apology.

Neither you nor he has established that he is not.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655511].message }}

Tom B

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Neither you nor he has established that he is not.

I didn't expect you to apologize for jumping to conclusions. I guess it is up to him to prove himself innocent of unfounded accusations based on paranoia.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655526].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Thomas Belknap

I didn't expect you to apologize for jumping to conclusions. I guess it is up to him to prove himself innocent of unfounded accusations based on paranoia.

He implied that by taking action against his (the buyer's) sale (by moving my own files, which destroyed his hotlinked site) that I may be harming this poor little miscreant. Give me a break.

Sorry Garrie for assuming you might be friends with the sleeze. Actually happy you stepped up for him and his rights rather than the seller's rights to set their own terms for a sale .... :rolleyes:

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655579].message }}

Tom B

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

He implied that by taking action against his (the buyer's) sale (by moving my own files, which destroyed his hotlinked site) that I may be harming this poor little miscreant. Give me a break.

Sorry Garrie for assuming you might be friends with the sleeze. Actually happy you stepped up for him and his rights rather than the seller's rights to set their own terms for a sale .... :rolleyes:

Heaven forbid that you actually saw Garrie trying to help you and others on this forum in better protecting yourself from breaking the law. :rolleyes:

Yes, your terms could be breaking the law and it is something you should consult with an attorney over. The same thing Garrie stated.

I guess when you are focused on bad things you only see bad things.

Give us all a break.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655598].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Thomas Belknap

Heaven forbid that you actually saw Garrie trying to help you and others on this forum in better protecting yourself from breaking the law. :rolleyes:

Yes, your terms could be breaking the law and it is something you should consult with an attorney over. The same thing Garrie stated.

I guess when you are focused on bad things you only see bad things.

Give us all a break.

I'll leave that to all you great legal minds. The buyer can sue me. Yawn. Over a $17 purchase. No wonder lawyers are rich with advice like that. I have a small business and for those who are honest and can actually read NO RESELL RIGHTS, I don't have a problem doing business the way I do business without running down profits by running to a lawyer for everything.

But I get it. I'm the bad guy here because I take steps to protect my business and prevent people from stealing my bandwidth. Right. I'm ok with that. So until you and Garrie graced this thread ... it was light and humorous ... now I'm the villain and so focused on bad things ... :rolleyes:

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655626].message }}

Tom B

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

But I get it. I'm the bad guy here because I take steps to protect my business and prevent people from stealing my bandwidth. Right. I'm ok with that. So until you and Garrie graced this thread ... it was light and humorous ... now I'm the villain and so focused on bad things ... :rolleyes:

Yawn is right. Now you are playing the victim. Gets really boring, Suzanne.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655641].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by GarrieWilson

Suzanne,

Why would I bother trying to prove it? You ignore how I didn't see the auction. How I wouldn't try to sell it because I know your intent. So why prove something when your mind is already made up?

My first post was advice. The others was showing you why you need an EULA, need to follow certain procedures and showing others that they can transfer their rights to Woo themes and Autoblogged. I even showed the wording. Yet you still say they can't.

You also seem to be confused as to what I am talking about. You keep saying you would be out of business if you allowed resell rights. But that's not true because I am not talking about "resell rights". What I am talking about is fully transfering a blog once.

As far as the comments about how you must be right since Flippa closed an account and hosts... it only shows they are PARTLY following the DMCA. The part they aren't is putting them back if you haven't filed a law suit in so many days or the person could file a statement to get it back online.

Forrest. Trees. Oh My.

Kurt,

If it was really that simple life would be grand but it's not.

-

You did not see the auction because that would be a Rule #1 violation of the forum. But as for your legal advice ... thanks. I'll keep doing what has been working for me with the exception of a couple of sleezes, but I appreciate free legal advice, even if I'm not going to hire a lawyer now to plaster legaleze all over my listings.

Originally Posted by Thomas Belknap

Yawn is right. Now you are playing the victim. Gets really boring, Suzanne.

No one is forcing you to stick around the thread if you are bored ... but you will.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655653].message }}

Kay King

14 years ago

I don't disagree with advice offered - but I dislike the tag teaming going on in this thread.

The letter of the law is a complicated alphabet - but stealing bandwidth and (re)selling a site in a way that could harm an innocent buyer isn't acceptable with or without the exact wording.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655676].message }}

Tom B

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

I don't disagree with advice offered - but I dislike the tag teaming going on in this thread.

The letter of the law is a complicated alphabet - but stealing bandwidth and (re)selling a site in a way that could harm an innocent buyer isn't acceptable with or without the exact wording.

Tag teaming? I am assuming you are referring to Garrie and I? If so then that is funny.

No one said anything in regards to stealing bandwidth being good. I would appreciate you posting where it was said.

I don't remember anyone saying anything about Suzanne changing her files as being bad either.

If someone sold a whole site with traffic then I don't see why that site would only be worth $17 and not what they were asking.

Selling a whole site isn't the same as reselling a template. That was the point being made.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655688].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 14 years ago

[QUOTE=Thomas Belknap;2655688]Tag teaming? I am assuming you are referring to Garrie and I? If so then that is funny.

Selling a whole site isn't the same as reselling a template. That was the point being made.[/QUOTE

And I didn't sell a template. I sold a site complete with plugins and content with NO Resell rights. If I were to sell with resell rights, I guarantee you I wouldn't be charging $17.

Never mind the fact that he was also stealing bandwidth and going to sell some poor sucker a site that was stealing bandwidth from me to someone else.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655705].message }}

Tom B

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

And I didn't sell a template. I sold a site complete with plugins and content with NO Resell rights. If I were to sell with resell rights, I guarantee you I wouldn't be charging $17.

Never mind the fact that he was also stealing bandwidth and going to sell some poor sucker a site that was stealing bandwidth from me to someone else.

I doubt very highly you will be able to restrict them from transfering their ownership to someone else. As long as they don't keep anything associated to that site.

I know I can't do that when I sell my software programs. If what you're asking is illegal then it doesn't matter what you put on your sales page.

I would have expected you to know that there are ways to making a site worth more even if you only purchased it for $17.

I am sure you wouldn't be charging $17 if you started bringing in traffic and making it worth more. That could have been the same thing this person did. I don't really know but that is entirely possible.

I have had people hot linking to my images because of products I sold that came with sales pages. I don't call them thieves but understand they didn't change the links to images on their own servers.

I bet the same thing happened to your buyer.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655719].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Thomas Belknap

I doubt very highly you will be able to restrict them from transfering their ownership to someone else. As long as they don't keep anything associated to that site.

I know I can't do that when I sell my software programs. If what you're asking is illegal then it doesn't matter what you put on your sales page.

I would have expected you to know that there are ways to making a site worth more even if you only purchased it for $17.

I am sure you wouldn't be charging $17 if you started bringing in traffic and making it worth more. That could have been the same thing this person did. I don't really know but that is entirely possible.

I have had people hot linking to my images because of products I sold that came with sales pages. I don't call them thieves but understand they didn't change the links to images on their own servers.

I bet the same thing happened to your buyer.

Uh ... he hotlinked more than images. He even hotlinked the style sheet. I'll bet he didn't even bother to change the ads to his. Pretty obvious that his sole intention was to buy the site from me for $17 and make a big profit from it. Traffic ... don't forget ... I know who the buyer is and when he bought it. He hasn't had time to promote the site and get traffic.

A few and I mean a very few customers have attempted to sell the sites and as I said earlier, Flippa removed a listing on my behalf when I reported that he was selling with no resell rights ... I showed them my demo site and listing and that was good enough for them, so none of this legal discussion is going to change the way I do business ... it has largely worked for over a year. The vast majority of my buyers are very happy with their sites, with the customer service, and what they get with them and with the terms I set.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655764].message }}

Tom B

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Uh ... he hotlinked more than images. He even hotlinked the style sheet. I'll bet he didn't even bother to change the ads to his. Pretty obvious that his sole intention was to buy the site from me for $17 and make a big profit from it. Traffic ... don't forget ... I know who the buyer is and when he bought it. He hasn't had time to promote the site and get traffic.

A few and I mean a very few customers have attempted to sell the sites and as I said earlier, Flippa removed a listing on my behalf when I reported that he was selling with no resell rights ... I showed them my demo site and listing and that was good enough for them, so none of this legal discussion is going to change the way I do business ... it has largely worked for over a year. The vast majority of my buyers are very happy with their sites, with the customer service, and what they get with them and with the terms I set.

It doesn't take long to get traffic to a site. Paid traffic is very fast.

If they were already selling an affiliate product in that market then switching traffic from the affiliate product to the new site is pretty easy.

All I was saying is to cover your ass. No tag teaming, no conspiracy theories, etc...

Yeah, people try to screw me over on my software programs but I learned not to assume until I have proof.

I ran into the hot linking problems and it was just ignorance on the buyers side. They just uploaded the site and didn't change the code. Probably my fault in the way I created the links on the site.

That could be the same thing regardless if your css files were being hot linked.

I have had a wso closed down because of a crazy person making statements towards owning all rights to my software. That certainly didn't prove he owned all rights to all my software.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655791].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Thomas Belknap

It doesn't take long to get traffic to a site. Paid traffic is very fast.

If they were already selling an affiliate product in that market then switching traffic from the affiliate product to the new site is pretty easy.

All I was saying is to cover your ass. No tag teaming, no conspiracy theories, etc...

Yeah, people try to screw me over on my software programs but I learned not to assume until I have proof.

So, does this right of transfer also apply to software products such as yours? Do your buyers have the right to resell your software?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655831].message }}

Tom B

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

So, does this right of transfer also apply to software products such as yours? Do your buyers have the right to resell your software?

Yes, my customers can sell their license.

Garrie just pointed out that I could stop them legally with a well drafted EULA. THANKS GARRIE!

In all honesty, I don't have a problem with them selling their license if they are not going to use it.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655836].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Thomas Belknap

It doesn't take long to get traffic to a site. Paid traffic is very fast.

If they were already selling an affiliate product in that market then switching traffic from the affiliate product to the new site is pretty easy.

Well with my business I've got a pretty good idea when someone is trying to rip me off and this smells exactly like that. He had the blog a couple of days, put nothing of his own into it, hotlinked everything to my site ... and get this, I just checked the ads ... it's still running my Adsense and ShareASale ads. His only purpose was to ignore the big NO RESELL RIGHTS on the listing and resell it at a big profit.

Originally Posted by Thomas Belknap

Yes, my customers can sell their license.

In all honesty, I don't have a problem with them selling their license if they are not going to use it.

Well honestly, if someone is sick of the site they buy from me, they can delete the highly customized Woo theme (I purchased the customizations) and graphics that I created... heck ... I'll even give them a copy of the plain, ordinary looking standard Gazette Woo theme to replace it with and sell it. No problemo.

If they transfer the autoblogged plugin, they will have to contact autoblogged and null their license and get a new license for the new owner issued according to autoblogged TOS.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2656637].message }}

GarrieWilson 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

I don't disagree with advice offered - but I dislike the tag teaming going on in this thread.

Two people talking to some one is tag teaming? Even when one person only made ONE post today and only did so because they (me) was accused of being friends w/ the person selling the site?

Really?

- but stealing bandwidth and (re)selling a site in a way that could harm an innocent buyer isn't acceptable with or without the exact wording.

Notice I never talked about the bandwidth theft. I also never said she was wrong for changing the images.

I also never said if the seller was possibly defrauding someone. I couldn't because as stated already I never saw the site. If the seller said certain words, he could be. If he omited certain words, he might not be. Simply selling a turnkey site for more than it cost isn't.

Some might argue that enforcing illegal/improper terms would also be harming an innocent buyer.

Matter of fact, people in this former jump on "gurus" when they do things a little incorrect. Remember all the continuity talks...

-
- Thanks
Signature

Screw You, NameCheap!
$1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:
SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655708].message }}

pavionjsl

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Thomas Belknap

I didn't expect you to apologize for jumping to conclusions. I guess it is up to him to prove himself innocent of unfounded accusations based on paranoia.

Did not feel a friend of the thief was saying what he said, in fact got no friend vibes here. He is making everyone very aware of the actual limitations of your "TOS". The accusations are not cool, and should instead open up better discussions on the subject.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Dog Attacks Getting Worse In London

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2656685].message }}

Kurt

14 years ago

Originally Posted by GarrieWilson

Licenses also have to be agreed to with some type of action.

.

If I was on the jury in this case, based on my Law 101 class I took a very ver very long time ago, here's my opinion:

Basic contract law says there must be a meeting of the minds for a contract to be valid. IMO, the buyer and the seller didn't have a meeting of the minds as to the rights of the license, therefore the contract is void.

Buyer can not use/sell the template in any way.

Seller must refund.

Where's Brian K?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2654808].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

If I was on the jury in this case, based on my Law 101 class I took a very ver very long time ago, here's my opinion:

Basic contract law says there must be a meeting of the minds for a contract to be valid. IMO, the buyer and the seller didn't have a meeting of the minds as to the rights of the license, therefore the contract is void.

Buyer can not use/sell the template in any way.

Seller must refund.

Where's Brian K?

Buyer did not ask for a refund. Seller would issue a refund if they did. Then seller would issue a DMCA takedown to host and host would order them to take the site down, which has happened in all cases so far where people have bought a site from me and requested a refund.

Contract law ... all the forum lawyers here don't get it. Who is going to pay a lawyer to sue over a $17 purchase? lol.

I will continue to offer my sites with no resell rights attached and the vast majority of my customers respect those terms and the ones who don't are dealt with and the legal mumbo jumbo ... I'll leave that to the legal minds to ponder endlessly. It won't affect the way I do business or the way hundreds of others do business on this forum. Many sellers have no resell rights attached to their products without going to the expense of hiring lawyers to write a bunch of blather for their sites.

Fact is, you can put all the crap on your site that you want and a thief is still a thief and could care less. Digital thieves take what they want with no regard for law.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655399].message }}

DogScout

14 years ago

Man,
That is like if the guy robs a bank and his defense is: "I bought a web site and no where in the TOS did it say I was not allowed to rob a bank."

Hot linking should not have to be explained and disclosed as something not to do.

Besides, Since no one here has any idea what 'read me' file was in the final exchange, I cannot see anyone as qualified to comment based on incomplete info. (even a friend of the perpetrator, may have been lied to as whether or not there was a 'read me' file and/or what was in it.)

The fact that a company like Flippa is willing to take sides in a dispute like this gives a pretty good amount of credibility to Suzanne, (as if she needs any more than she has).

Thanks

Signature

Otis's Blog (Own The Internet, Silly)Paint Shop Tubes - Free images - Free Graphics - Free Photos - 3D - Poser Tubes - Scrap Kits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2652411].message }}

JamesM

14 years ago

Okay, a tender subject here. Sounds like the "seller" was a sleazebag who was trying their luck, but fortunately you were tipped off.

However, I'd be interested if anybody can answer me this:
If I were to purchase a PLR blog, and (as suggested) rewrite the articles, change the header and put it up under my own domain, then it starts to become a unique entity, no? If I spend months backlinking it and tweaking the SEO, and regularly post new content, at what point does this become *my* website, to the extent that it's acceptable to sell on? I'm not talking about flipping, but building a business based around a website, then selling that business?

In the case of the OP there is a clear infringement of an implied license, but surely somewhere, at some point, there is a boundary?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

If this post has been helpful please click the "thanks" button ;-)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2654538].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by JamesM

Okay, a tender subject here. Sounds like the "seller" was a sleazebag who was trying their luck, but fortunately you were tipped off.

However, I'd be interested if anybody can answer me this:
If I were to purchase a PLR blog, and (as suggested) rewrite the articles, change the header and put it up under my own domain, then it starts to become a unique entity, no? If I spend months backlinking it and tweaking the SEO, and regularly post new content, at what point does this become *my* website, to the extent that it's acceptable to sell on? I'm not talking about flipping, but building a business based around a website, then selling that business?

In the case of the OP there is a clear infringement of an implied license, but surely somewhere, at some point, there is a boundary?

You cannot transfer the Woo theme or the autoblogged plugin or the graphics I created for the ebook, or autoresponder or header. If you take all that away, you are left with the content. Put your own theme on it and sell it. Several of my customers have done that, but most buy these for personal use, which is what they are intended for.

I used to sell these to one person with domain on Flippa for $320 each with unique content. If I were to sell these with resell rights ... I would not be offering these for $17.

This offer is intended to get newbies a quick start with a great looking blog already set up. All they need to do is change the ads to theirs and start posting their own content instead of having to learn to set up wordpress blog, find a great theme, design a nice header, etc.

Also, if I permitted resell rights at this price, my business would be gone. They would be all over the net competing with me for the business that I've spent over a year building up.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2654576].message }}

GarrieWilson

14 years ago

Suzanne,

Why would I bother trying to prove it? You ignore how I didn't see the auction. How I wouldn't try to sell it because I know your intent. So why prove something when your mind is already made up?

My first post was advice. The others was showing you why you need an EULA, need to follow certain procedures and showing others that they can transfer their rights to Woo themes and Autoblogged. I even showed the wording. Yet you still say they can't.

You also seem to be confused as to what I am talking about. You keep saying you would be out of business if you allowed resell rights. But that's not true because I am not talking about "resell rights". What I am talking about is fully transfering a blog once.

As far as the comments about how you must be right since Flippa closed an account and hosts... it only shows they are PARTLY following the DMCA. The part they aren't is putting them back if you haven't filed a law suit in so many days or the person could file a statement to get it back online.

Forrest. Trees. Oh My.

Kurt,

If it was really that simple life would be grand but it's not.

-

Thanks

Signature

Screw You, NameCheap!
$1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:
SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655624].message }}

MichaelRay

14 years ago

I actually read the whole thread.

I guess what's Garrie and Thomas was trying to say was to create a clear EULA so there will be no guessing what the buyer can or can not do.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

VoIP and Tech Blog

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655715].message }}

snapcontent

14 years ago

I can't believe people are giving him such a hard time. Someone steals his stuff, he's entitled to stop them. End of story. Right?

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2655936].message }}

Michael Oksa

14 years ago

I don't know about the legalities of the situation, but there is definitely food for thought here, IF people can take a step back and take their ego out of it.

That being said, WAY TO GO, SUZANNE!!!

I love the way you handled the hotlinking of your images. The seller is lucky you were in a good mood. LOL

All the best,
Michael

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

"Ich bin en fuego!"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2656676].message }}

dagaul101

14 years ago

That's the thing with theft of copyrighted material, the newbies always forget something like the URL lol

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2657038].message }}

Theft Plus Hotlinking Not Such A Good Idea

Trending Topics

What's the Best IM-Related Skill to Learn Today That Can Help in the Future?

Would You Go?

Any good link monetization services?

Are billboards still effective in driving customers?

My WordPress website was hacked and this is what happened