I've been banned from another board.

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

Well, I'm glad things were settled.

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

It was kind of "out of the blue"

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.

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

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. It isnt for paul to point out what content they are using illegally. Its for the people using it illegally to know.

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.

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?

Clueless or a liar.

First thing you missed was the original buyer (A) was told to send his customer for his program to me to relicense it. I was well prepared to do so and have done so in the past many times.

The new buyer (B) did not try to negotiate and you know this. He wanted me to supply the content and new license for free. You know this because I spoke to you about it on ICQ and can post the logs. I asked for an advert on your board and you refused.

The new buyer wanted a NEW LICENSE, not a transfer and NEW LICENSE, as he wanted to resell the content after he had been expressly told he did not own the content, he did not even own a license. He has sold the program, our content is still all over it and no new license has been issued.

So the second buyer has sold the program along with my content to a third person (C) which is also in the affiliates area. So lets just recap here.

(A) broke the license by selling it. After being told not to sell it.
(B) bought something he had no license, IDs models releases on and used it as he pleased. Even after he was told he continued to use it and sold it, however we agreed the new buyer would contact me and arrange a new license. I told him to take my content out of the affiliates area. He should know what content he's giving to affiliates is legal. I supplied him with a list of the content.
(C) now has it and breaking the license by using it in the affiliates area. He has the list and has contacted me, because he sent me the copy of the list. So he knows what is mine, knows it should not be in the affiliates area and has not removed it.

AND YOU WANT ME TO APOLOGIZE??????

And some on this board are astounded I got upset and lost my rag. I bet they would of kept theirs if it were them.

I don't think I've ever said anything about content and the design on tube sites.

And you did not answer my question, so can you please answer instead of trying to "own" me.

Thanks

You missed one.

The seller, the buyer/seller and the present owner. None have a clue what is what. Well that's not true 100% the buyer/seller was given the list and the present owner was given this list and showed it to me. But no worries my content is still in the affiliates area. Unlicensed, undocumented and unpaid for.



According to the terms of my license, which they chose to ignore. The price of $250 to transfer the license is now changed. To use our content in the affiliates are we want 3 times the listed price. They can now pay that. Plus the transfer fee.

http://lesbofever.com/

http://myexgirlfriendz.com/

http://toyteenies.com/

Our content on the banners and if it's there it would be inside the site as well. But please I must not get upset and call anyone a thief or pirate. Maybe I should do the same to Damage and see what he will call me. LOL

Tour design, affiliates area and I will bet money inside the site.

But I must not get upset.

Shouldn't the buyers know what content was Paul's? After all they need to have proper 2257 docs in place that should easily give them info about the models' age, content producer, etc.

They didnt beacuse they didnt know what belonged to PM content.Pornonada offered u/p to PM so he can see what is his content and tell him what to remove it but he didnt accept it.

So Damage you think buying a program with content is something you can do without verifying the buyer has the rights to sell the program and the content, the content is legal and all the documents are in place. Then just hand out content you are not positive about it's legality to a lot of affiliates. Good to know how tight you run your ship.

So far I've found 10+ infringements in the affiliates area alone. Not going to tell them to delete the content as it's already been given out to affiliates and it would mean them taking it back, and proving they have done so. So will add it to the bill.

They had the list and ignored it, so not my fault. Run a tight ship and you don't get these problems.

Still think I should say sorry for calling him a thief, what would you call him?

That's not right. Pornonada told me I should give him the content for free. As he had already paid for it. That's when I told him to buy it again and we got to arguing. But even when he knew what was mine he still sold it with our content in the affiliates area. Or is the screen cap from today wrong?

Pornonada actually blocked my original login to his affiliates area and I had to re register a new one today. He has never offered me a u/p to his members area. I will bet if our content is in the banners, in the affiliates area it's inside the site as well.

So please unless you know what you're talking about the less said the better.

Strange.One side claims one thing and other another.Too complicated for me.But tehnicly this is all fault of original owner which didnt checked licence before selling program,so maybe he should be pursued.

hell during that thread i pointed out smokincash was a corporation and the entire ownership of the licience (the corporation) would not have changed with the sale of the affiliate program you claimed that licience to an individual

i responded

after which pornodo offered to pay you 250 to licience it to the smokincash (the corporation)

you still haven't explained why you refuse to licience it to a corporation so the issue would be solved once and for all

Hell you could end the issue right now by posting a list of all the offending content IN THIS THREAD
effectively calling pornado on the claim that he would remove all the offending content in question.

I never sold to Pornonada so your whole post is a crock of ******

I sold to an individual in the first place, but are you saying that if an individual sells it to a corporation it make it all fine?

Offers have been made for the license but that's all we've had so far offers.

I did provide him with a list of our content, which he ignored and sold it with the content in the affiliates area.

Why don't I license to a corporation? I do and we do it all the time. We license to Hustler, Paul Raymond Publications, Score, and many more. But this was not a license to a corporation it was a license to an individual.

Who broke the license therefore making it null and void, or is it only us that sticks to a license? He broke it by selling it after he was told not to.

Pornonada broke it to my knowledge by putting or having our content in his affiliates area without paying for it. That's shaving.

Then he sold it to the new owners without removing the content from the affiliates area, which was agreed. He has the list of what is ours and he gave it to the new owners who passed it to me. I knew I had it, wanted to know if they had it and they do.

So basically you run as tight a ship as DamageX.

People must get to your site and treat you as you think I should be treated, see how nice you are to them.

Thank you for stepping into something you don't have a clue about Gideon.

To the rest of you.

I have been through the affiliates area and found 8 pieces of our content in there which were never licensed. The affiliates area is open, taking sign ups and the content is available for download. So I have just sent this email to the support at smokincash as I'm sure that will not be able to take it away from all their affiliates nor want to.

I think that's fair. Not getting bitchy about them using it without a license, 2257 or anything else. I'm smiling about it as I must not get annoyed.

no paul you claimed it was sold to an individual and that is your claim, HOWEVER it really depends on who paid you because the concept of "agent of" status

i have licienced software before too, on at least 3 occasions a person paying me with a corporate check put his personal name on the contract, i clearly told him his actions were EMBEZZELMENT unless he provided me with a letter signed by all the board of directors authorizing the liciencing of my software an individual when it was paid for by the company.

Look if i go in to best buy and purchase a copy of windows xp for my boss company, even if i screw up and put my name on the registration it still belongs to the company. If i as a person took that software and installed it on my home pc (i not my company would be guilty of copyright violation)



IF you were paid from the business account AND
if your countries laws are not ass backwards then your basically saying you CONSPIRED with the previous owner to Embezzle money from the smokincash company and YOU were the only who profited from it

if you are saying the contract laws in your country don't recognize the principle of "agent of" status then that another reason not to deal with you.

in the previous thread Pornonada offered to pay you 250 to relience the content to the smokincash CORPORATION (the affiliate program) which should have solved the problem forever no matter how many times the affiliate program was sold (because the corporation would own the licience and the corporation was getting transfered with each sale)

yet your response was

if you understand the concept of how a corporation and how it is a self contained legal entity capable of owning the licience. If you understand that the corporation can change ownership without revoking any of the rights of that corporation, why did you demand an additional payment from the new owner of the corporation.

Basic common sense the licience would never have been transfered because it is still OWNED BY THE CORPORATION.

again if he used it beyond the scope you can sue and would win. You can post the list document exactly what content is being used without a licience
not only would it solve the problem by notifying all affilates of the issue but it would PUBLICALLY PROVE that you are complying with pornada's request for the list.

right now it a he said /he said arguement between you and smokincash. your getting slammed because you keep it that way. Post the list of offending content publically and you PROVE you complied with pornada request. don't and everyone thinks this problem is your fault.

again you say/ he says arguement post the list of offending content and you prove you actually provided him the list. don't and people will it your fault.


well i am a coder and i licience my custom code all the time, bottom line is i would never be in this situation because IF someone wanted to buy my code for a company and they screwed up and put their personal name in the licience i would tell them about the error AND demand letter of authorization from the BoD for the action.

Most people who screwed up like the smokincash previous owner would quickly fix the mistake. if they didn't then i had proof they were being release from the default "agent of" status and i was not guilty of profiting from EMBEZZELMENT.

It was paid on a credit card and to be honest I do not know if it was a personal credit card or a corporate one. What do you think the odds are it being a corporate one. So are you saying if someone buys as a corporation yet pays with their own credit card the license goes to them and not the corp? The original license, was to a person, who broke the licenses by selling them.

Pornonada further broke them by having the content in the affiliates area and then asked me to rewrite the license so he could sell it. So a new license was needed.

As for what you do, that is your company. You run your company your way, can we do the same with ours?

Please stop going on and on about a corporation you're starting to look stupid. So for the LAST time. The original license was to a person not a company.

He offered to buy. After telling me to supply it for free. An offer is not a buy. He also said he would remove the content from the affiliates area, yet did not. So an offer not fulfilled and a promise not kept. Is that your idea of a binding contract? However we both agreed to waive the $250 for HIM to pay. Read on.

I also agreed to NOT sell a new license to him or his corporation. Because he was going to sell everything to a third buyer. I told him to send the new buyers to me for me to issue them with a new license. So again you got it wrong.


It's in the affiliates area, see screen grab, it was bought when the Paul Markham Content Store license never included affiliate use. What more proof do you need? The new buyers of the program have sent me a copy of the list Pornonada gave them that I gave him.


How many times do I have to tell you. The company that now runs Smokincash have no rights to any of our content in their site. Do you understand this? They have NO RIGHTS to any of our content on their site. You are wrong if you think content becomes legal if the buyer buys unlicensed content. So if I buy a program from you and then sell it against the terms of the license, does it become legal if I bought it?

Here is the list the new owners sent to me. I did not provide it to them, Pornonada provided it to them. I provided it to Pornonada.

009226
009239
009241
009247
009250
009268
009298
009400
009408
009275
009285
009289
009412
009417
009283
009407
009415
009422
009424
009426
009428
001679
001680
001681
001682
001683 in BBCS
001684
001685
001686
001693
001915 In BBCS
001922
001928 In BBCS
001965
009453
009455
009456


And if they used your license in a way you had not agreed and had not paid for you would be nice about it. Again that's the way you run your company. We run ours another way.

What has happened here is someone bought a license, then decided to use the content as they see fit without paying for the extra use. That's the same as someone sending traffic and the sponsor deciding they can do with that traffic as they please.

So far after me losing my temper because I was ignored and the new buyer thought I should fix the problems made by the original seller. I have tried to fix this situation. Yes I called someone who was knowingly using unlicensed content a pirate and a thief and I appologised to him personally. But he continued to keep it in the affiliates area. He sold the site with the program with our content in the affiliates area and I suppose both he and the new owners have distributed the content to affiliates.

If Pornonada claims he never put the site live it's strange that I could log in as a new affiliate and see our content there. But if he did not put it there the original buyer did. Making the original license null and void.

There is only one innocent victim here, us. Pornonada is responsible for buying a program with content he did not have a clue about. He is guilty of using it after he knew it was unlicensed, he never removed the content from the affiliates area.

The new owners have gone amazingly quiet over the whole thing and using unlicensed content in their site, also no 2257 info. Plus giving it to affiliates. They have ignored my email. So where do we go from here? DMCA, email the paymant processors CCBILL, or just swallow it?

But if DamageX had kept his mouth shut and not banned me I would not be annoyed at being shafted. It was him that raised the issue again. No wonder his nick is Damage.

Mark, the guys a fucking tool, ignore him.

Fuck me you are stupid. Not paying for stuff is OK where you come from but for the rest of the world it is something we do.

I dont expect you to know this because you are nothing but a two bit sig whore who has achieved nothing.

But THEY SHOULD KNOW WHAT CONTENT WAS Paul Markhams. Not just for this but also for 2257, to make sure their models are legal, to make sure they have the rights to use it etc etc

Exactly

Well stated.

Sorry but I get annoyed at idiots posting. Seems he's not that bright. You are right, I will ignore him.

Here's an interesting one and can someone pop over to Ask D and ask if he will shit list Smokincash for shaving a content producer and giving affiliates unlicensed content?

He likes to run a tight ship and shit list people for fucking others. Will he be consistent?

but the point i am making and you are ignoring is the company WOULD HAVE HAD THE RIGHT if you accepted the $250 to relicience FROM the individual TO corporation.

They would have rights if you respected the "agent of" status from the original buyer.

trying to misrepresent what i am saying into some thing else is one of the biggest problems i have with. It the reason i am would believe Pornada side of the story because
1. his offer to relicience to the corporation is public
2. you keep misrepresenting what i say to make believe i am just stupid.



ok this is a start but i hope you realize that this means nothing to smokincash affiliates, post thumbs that way there is a clear documented record of the content.

you would also have proof necessary when you go to court over the issue.
i send them the notice, certified mail, and i send in the lawyers and report them to CAAST. Stat damages is a wonderful thing. they work really effectively to get people to become complient.

The important part is to collect the documentation that proves you are being reasonable.

Your PUBLIC refusal to reliciene request (from an individual to is what is hurting you right now

Your refusal to acknowledge "agent of " status for the original purchase hurts you right now.


you are not an innocent victim as long as you ignore "agent of" status
you are not an innocent victim as long as you refuse to accept reliciencing offer by pornada.


you keep asking oppinion on what to do but when i tell you you counter with you run your business your way i will run it mine.

Right now pornada looks like the reasonable because he made the offer to relicience to the corporation.

so if i were you i would make yourself look reasonable again, so the courts would side with you.

I would recognize the "agent of" status of the original purchase.
once that issue is closed you can solve the problem with the out of scope use of your content.

A simple letter sent to by registered mail to the address specified on the domain.

Dear sir

The original licience purchased mistakenly by purchased _______________ as an individual when it should have been assigned to smokincash corp has been properly reassigned.

The licience is now assigned to your corporation. I have enclose said licience. You will notice that this licience grants you the following rights

1. state rights
2.
3.
4.
However it does not give you the following rights
1. giving to affiliates
...

Currently you are enjoying such rights without the proper licience to do so.

You have two choices
1. remove said offending uses of my content
2. upgrade your licience to one that grants you the right you are currently enjoying.

Failure to do either would constitute a wilful violation of my copyright and subject to statutory damges of $25,000 per instance (assuming you registered the copyright on all your images)

I have enclosed a bill for the for the upgrade in the licience you will notice i deducted the purchase price of the original set even though the licience agreement does support such a refund.

please respond within 15 days of recieving this letter or i will be force to take legal actions.


sincerly

Paul Markham.


If you had done that in the begining, and pornada had not responded or given bogus reasoning then you would have proof to call him on it. You would have proven that you went above and beyond in your dealing with him. you could have sued him for millions and won because you would have the preception of bending over backwards to get this issue resolved. And you would have gotten tons of good will (which would have translated into more people wanting to buy from you)