[JustinTyme]

Just browsed thru the VC site and noticed that when the pics in the overview page won't display, the VoyeurWeb logo appears as it has done on this site. Hmmmm

[DarknLadyJedi]

That's because they swiped the entire database and don't care if anyone knows they did.

[DarknLadyJedi]

Anything anyone sees on their screen can be copied.

When Igor left he took a copy of the image database and either gave it to Simon or more likely sold it to Simon.

While it isn't up at the moment there are member areas to VW, mainly Redclouds and Homeclips.

[DarknLadyJedi]

Stole?

You have proof of this?

WOW.....pretty harsh statement, don't ya think.

Try and stay on subject big boy, that wasn't my question.

I did answer your questions. And I never said stole.

Although, when you are no the owner of something, even intellectual property, and you take it from the rightful owner and give/sell it to someone else so that they can use it to make money it's pretty obviously theft.

[zardoz1962]

Stole?

You have proof of this?

WOW.....pretty harsh statement, don't ya think.

Try and stay on subject big boy, that wasn't my question.

I did answer your questions. And I never said stole.

Although, when you are no the owner of something, even intellectual property, and you take it from the rightful owner and give/sell it to someone else so that they can use it to make money it's pretty obviously theft.

Just because I am a nitpicky bastard.

The US Supreme court in a case on copyright has officially ruled that copyright violation is not theft so that phrase has a nice "sound bite" to it, but is legally meaningless.

There is a potential theft of business assets charge in taking the database (though that is not clear since VW was not the owner of the content of the database) and there is a potential civil claim on copyright violation from the original photographer (except US law only allows actual damages unless you registered your copyright with the US government, and I doubt you can actually show real damages, so what is the point). There is no possibility of criminal copyright violation charges until 180 days and there are numerous hurdles there.

So there is potentially a viable claim of theft / misappropriation by VW if any code, VW generated material, subscriber lists, etc. were taken but it is incredibly unlikely that there is any viable legal claim on any sort of copyright violation.

You are of course free to issue take-down demands from either VC or VW. Legally, you must tell them the exact URLs of the offending material ("just saying everything by Frieda9922" is not legally binding), but that is about the limit.


As I said elsewhere, this is why you have to be able to trust the site to which you contributed your data to appropriately safeguard it. I hope VW has learned a lesson about appropriate safeguards.

[DarknLadyJedi]

Zardoz, I like most of your posts, and I agree with you about trusting the site you use. But I wasn't referring to the individual images here, but the entire image database, user database, and any other items that Igor copied.
He obviously transferred these items from the owner of Voynetworks to the owner of DNSClouds in order for the owner of DNSClouds to make a profit off of them.


FL law defines theft as:

812.014 Theft.
(1) A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently:
(a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property.
(b) Appropriate the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property.

Now, obviously since the operations center was in Canada these laws would be difficult to enforce. But, Social Media and Igormania are both in FL, and Igor has a home in FL. So a case could be built that FL law may apply.

In this case though it is clear that Igor was not the owner of VW, and has no clear legal connection to VW or Voynetworks' ownership. While the papertrail clearly shows JA's connection. So Igor removed intellectual property from VW, and he appropriated the property so that the owner of DNSClouds could make a profit.

[zardoz1962]

FL law defines theft as:

812.014 Theft.
(1) A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently:
(a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property.
(b) Appropriate the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property.

Here where where things get really, really messy because of contradictory legal necessities.

You would like to claim the database is your property.

However you also need to claim the pictures are the sole copyright of the photographer, so it becomes your database, none of the contents of which are your property.

Next you want to claim you are not the publisher of the pictures, otherwise you may have to keep all the age verification records, which VW, VC, and everyone else does not want to do (they redefined the law to create "secondary publishers" to cover web 2.0 sites like VW - OK, that was struck down but its not really dead and you do want to cover your ass in case it re-arises). Look carefully and you will note that the TOS provide an acknowledgement that the pictures will appear on websites, but not actually permission to publish them. The distinction is there for a reason.

I am willing to bet that for maximum flexibility and minimum liability, the business is legally set up to claim no ownership over the pictures, and even to claim they are not the product, but are simply a free service to their customers while the customers and product are defined as the BB. Now you have to claim theft of a database which is not your product and does not contain your property and does not contribute to the value of your business.

Meaning that to avoid any chance of prosecution by pornography laws, you also made it impossible to claim theft.

[zardoz1962]

As an aside, I think that was the real purpose of the porn laws - to make truly securing a web pornography company so legally difficult that it would not be attractive to a large company with real assets (such as Playboy, etc.)

[DarknLadyJedi]

I agree, it's a mess. And I think that is what Igor and Simon are counting on. Even Igor basically admits he knows he is wrong but that it will be 2050 before the lawyers get done with it.

I also note he has not posted a single shred of his evidence anywhere.

[DarknLadyJedi]

That's because they swiped the entire database and don't care if anyone knows they did.

Oh, guess that's not what you meant?

Must be a liberal.

Yes, he swiped it. He was the webmaster for the site. NOT the owner, even he admits he wasn't the owner. So when he left and took the images he swiped them.

[mrfluffer]

At this point, and since I am a long time lurker who has seen VW and Igor go thru many changes, I question if we are talking to/about different people or one with a very split personality.

Meaning VC and VW are being controlled by the same people/person and they are laughing at us from behind a keyboard...

If, for the sake of an argument, we are talking about two entirely different companies and people, they do really go to court (nothing has been filed that I am aware of) - This would make a very interesting test case for copyright in the new world..

VW is a popular, world wide website. With viewers and contributors from all points of the globe. With servers spread across the world, companies registered in one country, but working offices in several others. Photos from people all over the world and the variety of obscenity and copyright laws... This could (if all things are real) set a new stage for courts to rule who has jurisdiction? What really is copyright infringement verses stealing? What is obscenity on the Internet and who is to be charged with what, when?

Here in America, the FCC just kicked the ball down the road a little further by not ruling on an obscenity case involving television channels.. Nothing yet has been brought forward to challenge the new world of telecommunications like this could.

[zardoz1962]

I also note he has not posted a single shred of his evidence anywhere.

Quite true, and I am disappointed that nearly a week after Igor says he gave his lawyers the OK to publish the proof, we have seen no further mention of it. It does make you wonder what is actually there.

But for fairness sake, lets also say that the JA/VW side has given no evidence either. Igor claims the true "ownership" of VW does not lie with a single company, but with a group of companies all of which have either joint or independent ownership of the content. There is nothing on this side that shows otherwise.

Ownership of the domain proves nothing - domain registration requires a single owner and in any case, ownership of a domain is not ownership of a site.

Ownership of the billing company proves nothing - of course a billing company has an owner and again, many billing companies have no ownership of the underlying site.

Paying contributors, etc. means nothing. Having the billing company also take care of payments is good business sense.

If VW was selling softballs or puppies, I would think these things would allow some presumption of ownership. In the world of adult websites though having a 3rd party do all this is just par for the course.

There are many good reasons, especially in this business, to obscure the true ownership of a company. All these various registrations do is create a legal presumption of ownership. They do not in fact have to represent the true ownership and often do not. To prove real ownership, JA is going to have to demonstrate how his company controlled the site, hiring and firing personnel, signing contracts, directing work, etc. and a direct relationship between his company and the other companies doing work where he had the right to control and direct the work performed. Understandably this is not something he is likely to provide us as it will be a matter for the courts.

In all likelihood this process will last far longer than any of us will care. In the end, we will have to make an early decision based on:

• Which side is more forthcoming about the past and future.
  Which side appears to be truthful.
  Which side follows through with their promises.
  Which side appears to have the community's interests at heart.
  Which side attracts the people who know and want to continue to know.
  And the big one, which side seems to bullshit the least.

I am not interested in whose opinions are on which side yet. If you have decided already, you are deciding on the personality of just two people, not facts. Each side has a big hurdle to meet soon. VW needs to show us a site in just a few days that justifies all the hype and delay and makes clear they were not building from scratch. VC needs to come out with some of the promised proof. Let's see what Monday brings.