Court is a funny thing, I agree it could go either way.

But what is also agreeable is that cjoverkill is nearly a wholesale copy of ttt. Sure cjoverkill added some features, fixed a few bugs, and shuffled some code around.

Any decent PHP programmer who looks at the source code of both will be able to find identical code, minus the extra whitespace, captical OR's and newlines added in.

But any decent programmer knows that in order for us to have infringed any copyright...we must have produced an exact replica. The fact the the code is not 100% identical coupled with the fact that Choker has means to protect his code but chooses not to...would more than likely result in a ruling in our favor.

We don't deny that CJOverkill looks like TTT. I've mentioned that we did that for a reason, and we had the expected results. Just because two things look the same...doesn't mean that they are.

I'm going to bed. I tried to a while ago...but couldn't pull myself away.

I've seen both scripts.

There is definitely a lot of copy-pasting and code reediting involved. It's ridiculously obvious. Even the file structure is extremely similar, while no other scripts that I know of have such similarities in that area.

Just my observation.

Copied code in trade.php (cjoverkill) and in ttt-webmaster.php (ttt)

<font size="5">
Interesting, they even use the same print_error() function. And they its EXCACTLY the same in both, it follows.

</font>

those are EXCACTLY the same.

NO you are wrong. Maybe you should follow the 3 billion dollar lawsuit SCO has filed against IBM. If you copy any fraction of code you do not have a license to, you have violated the law.

can you imagine having a $3 mil lawsuit on you, and in your heart you know your guilty???

how the fuck would you sleep at night, lol

Thanks for your observation. But again, from what I'm told...In order to say we're violating his copyright, we have to be offering his product in 100% identical form. That is to say he even has a copyright. He has my information, and I've asked for proof that we have done so.

It's my belief that because Choker is unwilling to do so, that we're not in violation of anything. I'm going on the advice of my attorney...not just pulling this out of my ass.

We are not doing so, so it ends there.

For example:

I copyright this paragraph:

Traffic trading is important to the life of your TGP. A script to count traffic in and traffic out will do the trick.

Someone elses puts this out:

Traffic trading is the soul of your TGP. A program to count traffic coming in and traffic going out should do the job.

Both are similar. They have the same structure, use a lot of the same words. But guess what...they're not the same. Any 5 year old reading Dr. Seuss could figure that one out.

I can see why Choker would be pissed. There's a better script that has the same features as his (and other scripts...like yours, Lane) as well as a host of other new functions. People use it, he loses traffic. But he has no ground to stand on when it comes to this copyright infringment. Instead refuses to use the proper channels and resorts to threats, slandor, and extortion.

Still trying to get out of here and get into bed.

The first CDROM (and general net-wide) distribution was FreeBSD 1.0, released in December of 1993. This was based on the 4.3BSD-Lite (``Net/2'') tape from U.C. Berkeley, with many components also provided by 386BSD and the Free Software Foundation. It was a fairly reasonable success for a first offering, and we followed it with the highly successful FreeBSD 1.1 release in May of 1994.

Around this time, some rather unexpected storm clouds formed on the horizon as Novell and U.C. Berkeley settled their long-running lawsuit over the legal status of the Berkeley Net/2 tape. A condition of that settlement was U.C. Berkeley's concession that large parts of Net/2 were ``encumbered'' code and the property of Novell, who had in turn acquired it from AT&T some time previously. What Berkeley got in return was Novell's ``blessing'' that the 4.4BSD-Lite release, when it was finally released, would be declared unencumbered and all existing Net/2 users would be strongly encouraged to switch. This included FreeBSD, and the project was given until the end of July 1994 to stop shipping its own Net/2 based product. Under the terms of that agreement, the project was allowed one last release before the deadline, that release being FreeBSD 1.1.5.1.

FreeBSD then set about the arduous task of literally re-inventing itself from a completely new and rather incomplete set of 4.4BSD-Lite bits. The ``Lite'' releases were light in part because Berkeley's CSRG had removed large chunks of code required for actually constructing a bootable running system (due to various legal requirements) and the fact that the Intel port of 4.4 was highly incomplete. It took the project until November of 1994 to make this transition, at which point it released FreeBSD 2.0 to the net and on CDROM (in late December). Despite being still more than a little rough around the edges, the release was a significant success and was followed by the more robust and easier to install FreeBSD 2.0.5 release in June of 1995.

That's the most ignorant statement I've ever read.

I have been following this lawsuit, and if you have then you know that IBM is fighting this in the same manner we are.

SCO has just filed lawsuit, they haven't proven anything. I guess in the porn biz, slandor on GFY is similar to a lawsuit. Only in court the proof comes out. We never see the proof on GFY. Just the hot air.

In the end, most people think that IBM will win the lawsuit or that this is some lame attempt at getting IBM to buyout the stuggling SCO. They have to prove, in a court of law mind you, that IBM not only did use their code but copied it 100% into Linux.

The SCO lawsuit is similar to Acacia suit. They were one company that absorbed another companys assets, and are trying to cash in on them. IBM's pockets are as deep as M$...why not go after them first. Also...M$ is has a sizable chunk of Ownership in SCO. Don't think there aren't ulterior motives.

If that's ignortant...blame the laws. That's part of the copyright laws in a nutshell. A real small nutshell...but it's still a nutshell.

Not only that it shows what little Candyflip knows about copyright law. Notice how thieves always make excuses for their actions?

Explain the print_error() function in cjoverkill.

Its 100% identical copy of whats in ttt. Same font, same font size, same spacing, EXCACTLY THE SAME.

I told you. I can't explain the code. You and I both know that in some cases there are multiple ways of doing something and in others there aren't. Perhaps this is one of those cases. I have pointed out quite a few examples of how our code base is different. They both use <php include>...what does that prove.

What I can tell you (for like the 1000th time) is that there is no copyright infringement. I didn't code the progam, but have had both examined by an attorney. With respect to copyright law and intellectual property, we are not violating anything. It is up to Choker to prove that we have violated his copyright if he feels that we have. I've asked for this proof, but he doesn't want to waste his money on lawyers. He just wants to make threats and bully people into sticking with his program. That's who white trash do business. I lived in Orlando for a few years...there's lots of white trash. Choker's probably down off the The Trail now, shooing crackheads and hookers from off of doorstep. (With all the name calling I've endured...just had to get one in :Graucho )

How is that an excuse. I don't need to know copyright law. I just need to know the jist of it. That's why I have counsel. It actually shows how little you know.

a = a
a not = b

Prove to me and everyone else that you hold the copyright and that we're in violation. It's up to you to prove that we're in the wrong. Not the other way around. I'll fight you on the boards and I'll fight you in court.

Please... you mean you have to use the EXCACT same font size and face? HAHAHA YOU ARE A JOKE.

I have all the proof I need.

Palease, you are really grasping at straws now thief. If me not letting shitheads like you who steal my work then I guess I am a bully.

BTW the thief own these domains:
http://www.nyonic.com/
http://www.killerpeach.com/

BTW if this hacked script is so great why are you using TTT on your site?

How am I a joke. Did you miss the part where I said three times...I didn't write the code. Fonts and font size aren't the issue here. The code is not 100% reproduction of TTT, therefore...it's not a reproduction of TTT.

That's really the end of the story. Well...we all know it isn't, but it really is :Graucho

The print_error() function is a 100% reproduction of the print_error() function in TTT.

That site gets about 200 hits per day. I've been letting it slowly die, before moving on to other things. The others are running CJO.

You can post my domains all you want. Again...I have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide. I've been upfront and honest with you and everyone else here. Kel (PowerCum) has done the same thing. We got the reaction we expected, but were hoping to see this play out. We're confident that we have abided by all the laws. If you feel that we have broken any laws or infringed upon your copyright, please have your lawyers contact us. A simple cease and disist with all the proper documentation will get this off and running. Taking matters into your own hands as you put it, will only come back to bite you in the end.

100

griffin
I love sucking Choker's dick for free traffic.

Registered: May 2003
Location:
Posts: 17

Enough said...goodnight.

You are a joke, I get no traffic from Choker. I am not afiliated with Choker.

this is becoming alot to read, lol

candyflip I have been following this stupid move of yours for weeks now and I must say that you are for sure a THIEF and a CHEATER.

You keep saying it's not 100% the same as TTT code. Now how about you tell us just what percentage of it is TTT's code?

If you were to strip ALL the code out of it that was "added" etc, what % of what's left would be identical to TTT code?

Would be interested to see your answer and the answer from a programmer who does the same thing and analyzes it.

I don't know choker or you, just sick of kids who think they can hotlink, copy and steal from hardworking webmasters and then throw it in their faces.

I also suggest you GET ANOTHER lawyer as saying the code has to be 100% identical is just stupid and not the law.

I cant beleive i started a thread that became a flame war, and im actually not the focus of it

sheesh, wtf is this board coming to?

I have looked at the in php of both of these scripts just to see how they were tracking uniques. They both use cookie time but the overkill version will not set a tracking cookie if you are using SSI to call the in php which means it will not store unique click data only raw. It also appears that the maths for checking the cookie time are incorrect which means that even if you are getting cookies set the raw/unique data will be incorrect.

If you are using overkill on your site take a look at the raw and unique stats, the values should be the same unless I have missed something.

There?s no doubt that overkill is a rip of TTT but there?s a lot of code changes and additions in overkill that probably get it around the copyright laws - not sure.

If I was the owner of the TTT script then I would be pissed too.

108

Choker,

I hope you have contacted the owners of the TGP who use CJOverkill.

Otherwise, without a warning, that is just plain obnoxious of those who aren't aware of the "penalities" that result from using the script.

Copyright infringement can cover a piece of intellectual property in whole or in part. And reproduction of that copyrighted property can be prosecutable for the entire work, or just parts of the work.

However, if someone sues you for just parts of the work that were reproduced, they have to prove that those parts were unique to ONLY their property at the time it was created.

Case and point... music. There's been literally thousands of lawsuits filed by musicians who claim that a loop or melody in their song was reproduced in another person's song. A loop can be just one part of the entire piece of work.

Some of these cases can be proven, some can not. They have to show 100% reproduction of that one PIECE of work, not necessarily the entire thing as a whole.

But again, it's the burden of the accuser to prove this, and to prove that the parts allegedly stolen were unique to them at the time they were produced.

PS: I am not a lawyer, but I have spoken to a few about patents and copyrights over the years.

PPS: Such proof that a piece of work was copyrighted to a particular company or individual at a certain time can be unconditionally substanciated if that person had simply registered the copyright with the US Copyright Office soon after the time of production. If it's on file, it's a gold standard to win 99% of the cases of copyright infringement.

Better seek out a second or third professional opinion on this. Because what you are stating here is actually how patent and trademark laws work. In order to be infringing on a patent, it would have to be a 100% identical reproduction or usage of the entire protected work. But that's not so with Copyrights. In certain cases, only part of a copyrighted property need to be reproduced in order for an infringement to be made. Refer to my post above.

However, I am not a lawyer, so you'd need to contact a good lawyer who SPECIALIZES in this (same goes for Choker). In fact, it wouldn't hurt to talk to several specialists in the field, because I'm 99.9% sure I'm correct. I've actually pursued copyright and Trademark infringements in the past. Luckily, they were all resolved out of court.

:Graucho

Also, I'm not sure if an entire trade script as a whole would be protected by a copyright anyway. In order to fully prosecute thieves, it may require a patent.

"Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something - patenting does. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work." -- according to inventors.about.com

I'm not sure about that though. Might be able to find more about it here:

http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa032801a.htm

Thanks for your insite. Like you, I am no lawyer. I mentioned that we have sought the advice from counsel on both sides of the Atlantic. According to the lawyers, we are in no violation. Choker may feel that he is standing up for his rights, but he has not proven his case in a court of law as you mentioned. Instead he choses to take matters into his own hands.

We would love to settle this matter, so that all can move on and continue to do business.

To thefreakybeaver, unless you have something constructive to add...you're just slinging mud. My partner put together a great script and I'm standing by him.

Dopy...on all the versions I'm running, my raws and uniques are 99 times out of 100 different. I can't code to save my life...so I'm guessing you missed something somewhere.

HA I knew there would be no answer to my VALID questions. Slinging mud, no. Slinging the truth. Also, even if by some chance you could win in a court of law, you are still morally guilty of COPYING and THEIVING others hard work PERIOD!

I saw your post on choker's board when all of this first started. You and "your friend" are thieves. There is no way around this. You know it, "your friend" knows it, Choker knows it and now 75% of the adult webmasters in the biz know it :)

Is that constructive enough for ya?

Now answer the question. What percentage of the script after all the "enchancements" are stripped from the code is the same as TTT?

If you copy even one line of code out of another program, it is STEALING. If you take a Tom Clancy novel and add a few lines here and there, slap your name on it and try to sell it you will be in court so fast your head will spin.

Even if you look at the source code to a program and then write something similar it can be a copyright violation. Even if the code isn't identical - if it is implemeted using very similar methods it can be a violation. In the software industry we have what is called a "clean room implementation". This is an implementation done by coders who have never looked at the code of whatever software they are "copying" (sometimes called "virgins").

Candyass err...I mean Candyflip is stupid and a liar. There is no way any lawyer has looked at what he is doing and said it is ok. Unless said lawyer got one of those mail-order degrees.

That said, I see no point in copying TTT. What it does is not very complicated and it isn't even written well. If you are going to steal, at least steal something worth stealing.

Is there an example documented where this is proven? Making something similar (but not exact) to something else is not a copyright violation. If this were true, everyone would sue everyone.

What Choker is saying is that the exact code was used, and simply modified. This means there should be a whole lot of code still in there that is an exact copy. That would be where the violation occurs. Duplication of the code. Assuming the code used on TTT was 100% unique as well.

:winkwink:

I don't mean just making something similar or even that does the same thing - this is only an issue if patents are involved. I mean if the acutal code itself is implemented in a similar fashion (ie - it incorporates ideas / algorithms) or goes about solving the problems in the same way. This is not an issue if the programmers of the supposed offending software have never seen the source code to the other software - if they write the code independently and happen to do so a similar fashion, then so be it.

Consider the following. You write a program that solves a complicated problem. I then am given the opportunity to look at the source code for whatever reason and do so. I then write a program that does the same thing as yours. I don't copy and paste the code directly, but I have seen the clever and non-obvious methods you used to solve the problem and I use these methods in my program. I would be committing a copyright violation.

If someone takes the latest Harry Potter book and writes a very similar book, but changes a few inconsequential details here and there, they will still be sued by Rowling's publishers for copyright violations.

Since you asked for references - here are some links straight from the U.S. Copyright Office.

Copyright Basics
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

See the very first section:


Also the Copyright FAQ

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html

Well, I'll be buggered! I hate having to spend hours on this silly BBS just to find out what the hell's going on.
Yes, Choker, I'm Scuzz, not Candyflip.
No, Adultnex, I wasn't contacted.
BTW choker, none of the sites of mine listed above have got, or have ever had CJoverkill installed on them.
The site you were actually looking for is http://www.honest-ed.com
I dunno who sent you all the "cool info", but you obviously never checked the sites out. Maybe you should take your traffic and/or $$$ back.

The first I heard of all this, was when my partner noticed that a site was blacklisted from findtrades.com
I started a search for my sites, and sure enuff some of them were blacklisted. I then wrote to you, Choker.
I got 2 emails back. One asking if I was sure I wasn't Candyflip, whom I had never heard of. I replied that no, I wasn't. (I'm still not)
The second email I recieved is as follows.
"NM, now I see, yes your sites are using this stolen script, you also posted on his bbs board after the post about the script being stolen, so how could you have missed this? I have yet to send C&D letters to the sites hosts using this script, when I get around to it I will.
Choker"
Yes, I had posted on Icefires board after some guy named "hitman" made some threat. I've seen threats before, and discounted it. I was certainly not aware of any other controversy.

I was testing the script on a site that gets pretty much bugger all traffic, just to see how it worked (or if it worked)
I have tried TTT on a few sites, and I've had problems and no support.
I even got locked out of the admin on one site. for some reason.
Posted on Chokers board about it, but was seemingly ignored. I replaced the affected scripts database with one from one of my other TTT sites, and could log in.
Switched back, and was locked out again. Deleted the whole shebang, and reinstalled to a different database, added all trades, etc. Still couldn't get in for some reason.
Switched to TD or something.
I then went on a search for free trading scripts. I'm currently trying:
Traffic Drive
Clickzs
Arrowtrader
TTT
TGPtrader
TTpro
CJultra
Overkill
and I think I've dumped a couple of others.
BTW, TD and Arrowtrader look good!
I don't have enough traffic on honest-ed to really be able to see if the anti-cheat measures of overkill work well enough for my purposes.

That's the story, and if I had been made aware that overkill is/was illegal in your mind, I would have removed it.
I doubt very much that publishing all the wrong sites has done you any good.
I've been doing this (Smut) for a few years now, and have nothing to hide.

Hey YO ,

Be nice to Choker , you want to be Dumbass of the Month or what :1orglaugh

blieve me we can vote for you for free traffic , be aware

"we sold our soul to Choker Traffic" ..


:1orglaugh