Yep, you heard it hear first.
-
-
ok and the paper says?TripleXPrint on Megan Fox
"I would STILL suck her pussy until her face caved in. And then blow her up and do it again!" -
I'd rather not guess about legal matters. :D What's the skinny?Sleep well, and dream of large women.
Comment
-
Got served from xpays is my guess..
Do I win a prize?Comment
-
haha, xpays came through, huh?
I am still waiting on my papers from a certain someone else on this board, I need something to wipe my ass withComment
-
Ouch did he serve them in personICQ 584665926Comment
-
-
I guess the hilton tape isnt selling as good as it once was..
Comment
-
sucks for him.Comment
-
oh my........Comment
-
i just missed it.Comment
-
people shouldn't fuck with lindsey
Comment
-
O my homey.......Comment
-
He is the Counter Suit Docs.
http://celebritycash.com/lawsuit/countersuit.pdf
Article from AVN.
LOS ANGELES - Claiming defamatory statements and fraudulent charges have been made against it, CelebrityCash.com has filed a counter-suit against XPays in regard to a copyright dispute over the so-called Paris Hilton sex tape.
XPays filed its suit on Sept. 11, claiming sole ownership of the Hilton video and alleging that several defendants (including affiliate program FlashCash, Adult Profit, SK Entertainment, billing company Verotel, and CelebrityCash parent company ICG Entertainment) knowingly violated copyright and trademark laws by using stills derived from the video on their sites? tours in order to lure customers.
According to CelebrityCash president Salvatore Abbate, however, XPays did not hold an exclusive copyright on the Hilton tape and had no foundation upon which to file its suit. Additionally, Abbate is counter-suing XPays? Evan Horowitz for several infractions, including defamation, trade libel, and unfair competition.
The origin of the suit against CelebrityCash dates back to April of 2003, when according to Abbate, Horowitz sent a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice to CCBill claiming CelebrityCash was violating the copyright he held on the Hilton tape. Because of confusion over valid email addresses, CCBill was not able to contact CelebrityCash directly, and because of DMCA guidelines, within 24 hours had shut the site down. The site remained dormant until Abbate agreed to remove the Hilton stills.
Abbate claims he obtained permission to use the stills from copyright owner Rick Soloman and Red Light District, the company that was distributing the DVDs.
Subsequently, Abbate says, CelebrityCash attorneys requested documentation proving XPays held exclusive rights to the Hilton tape.
?When we started requesting information from Evan, we saw in the contracts that he did not have the right to exercise copyright,? Abbate tells AVNOnline.com. ?Only Rick Soloman and Jim Soloman had that right.?
Nothing else happened until September, when CelebrityCash posted a single photo of Hilton from the tape in one of the site?s blogs.
Says Abbate, ?Evan saw us promoting our website, and he saw the image. [He] contacted CCBill?and tried to get us shut down again.?
When his efforts were rebuffed by CCBill, Horowitz hired attorney Paul Berra to file suit against CelebrityCash and the other companies.
?I had no choice but to file a counter-suit,? Abbate says.
In court documents obtained by AVN Online, Abbate claims Horowitz has been enforcing copyright illegally in regard to the Hilton tape. Additionally, he alleges that Horowitz posted several defamatory and false statements about CelebrityCash on several webmaster message boards, including GoFuckYourself. He is seeking an unspecified amount in punitive damages for fraudulent DMCA notice, trade libel, defamation, unfair competition, intentional interference with contractual relations, and intentional interference with prospective economic relations.
?After we did our research, we found that that Evan is basically making false claims,? Abbate says. ?The way the contracts were written, he didn?t own a copyright when he had our website shut down.?
In the court documents, Abbate alleges that Rick Soloman gave copyright of the Hilton tape to his brother Jim, who in turn allowed Horowitz to distribute the tape via the Internet. However, Abbate says, ?[Jim Soloman] did not give [Horowitz] an exclusive right, so he did not have the right to enforce the copyright the way he did.?
Abbate says CelebrityCash lost more than $100,000 during the time the site was shut down and adds that Horowitz?s defamatory statements have damaged the company?s reputation.?I agree with free speech, but I think it?s wrong when people get on the boards and make businesses look bad when it?s not really justified,? Abate says.
?I?m saddened to be in this position,? he adds. ?That we have to fight each other in the industry like this when we should be working together. The last thing I want to do is be in this position, but [Horowitz] left me no choice.?
Horowitz was not available for comment at press time.Comment
-
I remember the first time around when Rick Saloman's lawyer was sending out C&D's, alot of peoples recycling boxes were a little bit fuller that day.
Celebrity content is pretty impossible to control, especially when everyone has already seen it and it's old news, im not sure what xpays is trying to accomplish. Surfers can do a quick google search or pull it up on any p2p program in less than a minute and download it rather than putting up with a streaming DRM video.
Besides, if someone really wanted to put the video on their site they could use up to 7% of it for "review" puposes under fair use laws no? Just like regular movies.Last edited by stev0; 10-19-2006, 09:24 AM.Comment
-
law suit alertComment
-
This is one of the legal battles that I will be very interested to see the outcome of. It isn't just a question of content, but a question of reputation and word.
I am hoping this one isn't settled out of court quietly, otherwise we might never know all the truth.Comment
-
that countersuit claim was a very interesting readComment
-
I wonder what context the screen cap used on the blog was... if it was a review of some sort commenting on the video then a screen cap should be completely legal under fair use laws. If anything it's good publicity for xpays I would think, someone might go buy the dvd after seeing that image.Comment
-
this ought to be funComment
-
Here's a basic run down
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...view/chapter9/
I can't remember who told me it was 7%, im no expert on the subject.. could be wrong, but i know its something like that ;)Comment
-
Also depends on whether the use hurts the copyright owners ability to market the video, so if it's the "money shot" being used it seems that it wouldn't be considered fair use.
2. Artwork and Audiovisual Cases
* Not a fair use. A television news program copied one minute and 15 seconds from a 72-minute Charlie Chaplin film and used it in a news report about Chaplin's death. Important factors: The court felt that the portions taken were substantial and part of the "heart" of the film. (Roy Export Co. Estab. of Vaduz v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc. , 672 F.2d 1095, 1100 (2d Cir. 1982).)
* Fair use. The makers of a movie biography of Muhammad Ali used 41 seconds from a boxing match film in their biography. Important factors: A small portion of film was taken and the purpose was informational. (Monster Communications, Inc. v. Turner Broadcasting Sys. Inc., 935 F. Supp. 490 (S.D. N.Y. 1996).)
* Not a fair use. A television station's news broadcast used 30 seconds from a fourminute copyrighted videotape of the 1992 Los Angeles beating of Reginald Denny. Important factors: The use was commercial, took the heart of the work and affected the copyright owner's ability to market the video. ( Los Angeles News Service v. KCAL-TV Channel 9, 108 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 1997).)
* Fair use. In a lawsuit commonly known as the Betamax case, the Supreme Court determined that the home videotaping of a television broadcast was a fair use. This was one of the few occasions when copying a complete work (for example, a complete episode of the "Kojak" television show) was accepted as a fair use. Evidence indicated that most viewers were "time-shifting" (taping in order to watch later) and not "library-building" (collecting the videos in order to build a video library). Important factors: The Supreme Court reasoned that the "delayed" system of viewing did not deprive the copyright owners of revenue. (Universal City Studios v. Sony Corp., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).)
* Not a fair use. A poster of a "church quilt" was used in the background of a television series for 27 seconds. Important factors: The court was influenced by the prominence of the poster, its thematic importance for the set decoration of a church and the fact that it was a conventional practice to license such works for use in television programs. (Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997).)
* Fair Use. A search engine’s practice of creating small reproductions (“thumbnails”) of images and placing them on its own website (known as “inlining”) did not undermine the potential market for the sale or licensing of those images. Important Factors. The thumbnails were much smaller and of much poorer quality than the original photos and served to index the images and help the public access them. (Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 03 C.D.O.S. 5888 (9th Cir. 2003).)Comment
-
Congrats to the lawyers.ICQ#: 142295729Comment
-
-
Lindsay looks visibly shaken in that pic, I hope he is doing ok
Comment
-
damn that sucks
TAEMDLRMSKRJIXMRLSMRJ.Comment
-
Lindsay will kick ass, take names and come out smelling like a rose.Comment
-
Damn, Lawsuits are mad dramaComment
-
wow, this is some news...damnComment
-
During our brief intermission, you are cordially invited to see sig...Comment
-
From what it sounds like after reading the counter lawsuit, which I might add was very nicely done, CelebrityCash.com did nothing more than post one photo in an Stripped and Famous feature about Paris Hilton and how she has used nudity to advance her career. And secondly in the lawsuit you can see that they made the extra effort and contacted Red Light and Rick Soloman and the emails proved that it was approved by them.
So when Xbiz and AVN wrote the article about Xpays suing everyone they used a photo from the Video. I am surprised they weren't added to the lawsuit.
Is Evan related to Norm?????
Comment
-
Time for some real dramaComment
-
The domain GFYLawsuits.com is available for someone to blog and keep up with how GFY makes lawyers wealthy and happy.- Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com
- For Sale: Obscenity.com
Comment
-
CelebrityCash.com Statement about the lawsuit.
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=668240Comment
-
Linds,
Call me.
SalComment
-
all I have to say to that is:
EMAIL: allen @ vasmediagroup.com | ICQ: 311329761 | SKYPE: abyss.al | AIM: xABYSSxALxComment
-
hahaha baddog i was thinking the exact same thing when i saw this pic
Comment
-
I would love to see the look on the attorney's face when Lindsay drops those papers on his desk and says "Can you take care of this shit for me ??"
and the attorney says "Linds, did you WIPE YOUR ASS WITH THESE OR WHAT???"
and Linds says "Of course I did you dumb fuck! What would you do??"
Sometimes attorneys DO earn their pay!
ChadKnowsLawComment
-
I would love to see the look on the attorney's face when Lindsay drops those papers on his desk and says "Can you take care of this shit for me ??"
and the attorney says "Linds, did you WIPE YOUR ASS WITH THESE OR WHAT???"
and Linds says "Of course I did you dumb fuck! What would you do??"
Sometimes attorneys DO earn their pay!
ADG WebmasterComment
do you have a source for the 7% rule?
Signature For Sale
Comment