Ihatequesting - Intellectual Property Theft

[iHateQuesting]

The precedent you’re setting in this report is:

· You can take anyone’s code as long as a contract isn’t present, without proof that you wrote it, or that it’s yours.

· When evidence is presented of somebody else writing the site (your own words, however you try twisting them 1 year later) with actual code being displayed to verify it, it’s completely disregarded as long as another party said they wrote the code.

And more specifically to Sythe:

· You can keep lying and changing your story in your defense until you find a lie that puts you in a better light.

The precedent you're setting is you can report anyone you want with 0 proof for your case other than asking the one you're reporting to prove something.

 

[iHateQuesting]

This report can be closed.

https://i.gyazo.com/8baedabb4ef124fa0e8e057fc4703e06.png

 

[Alch]

I’ve never authorized the sale of the code, as Quid claims, to PieGP – I vouched him to develop his site (I recall there was a Sythe pm to Pie regarding this), and I later withdrew it as my involvement with Quid ceased after somebody with server access on Tokenbets generated ~5b tokens to withdraw on accounts via VPS’. He later contacted my domain host and had the Tokenbets URL reversed to him due to his name being on the registration, despite it being in my Godaddy account. He then listed it on Godaddy for >2K USD, forcing me to buy it before a competitor, or someone with malicious intent towards users bought it.

That email also further confuses your stance in 2015 where you stated Joshua made the BoglaGold site, in defense of being reported for ban evasion and even before then you inquired asking me who made my site (Ihatequesting - ban evasion).

One way or another, the report still comes down to judging between:

· An inconsistent story, where you’re confused about who actually made the site until it was clear claiming you did was your only out of a situation where you would have to admit that the code wasn’t made by or for you.

· Failure to show any evidence of writing any of the code (correspondence with Quid showing you made the majority?)

· An email from an individual that shows clear dislike for me prior to the email being presented (as stated in my previous post), but does clarify Quid’s stance on the situation.

· The actual code only having evidence of Quid being involved, and Quid’s service topic saying he does projects himself (and I assume he did Pie’s on his own).

I do agree that this circular report has run its course now that we have the POV from all parties. I won't be allocating any more time to it unless new evidence needs to be addressed / added from either party. A judgement should be made by a moderator that accurately sets precedent for how future similar reports are handled.

 

[iHateQuesting]

So I've done everything in my power to prove what I said is true. You've made this report on me for stealing property you can't even show a contract for?

I don't know what else you want me to do. I contact him he replies that it's mine to sell as much as his, confirming I didn't steal anything.

You come up with another excuse as to why this isn't valid. I have nothing more to prove, you made a report with no proof.

 

[iHateQuesting]

Also, I thought you said he scammed you $2000? now it's suddenly 5b?

 

[iHateQuesting]

You've also yet to provide proof of a contract showing you have any grounds in this report. So, you can either provide it or don't and admit you actually have nothing?

 

The case still hinges on who, if anyone, owns the exclusive rights to the source code in question. That depends on what was agreed between the contractee (Bogla) and the contractor (the developer(s) who worked on the code).

Without evidence of these contract terms the case can't proceed. Further, if no explicit terms were set determining exclusive rights then automatically the rights are non-exclusive. I.e. the developer would be free to reuse the source code in other projects.

 

IHQ cant produce ANY rights to the code? Why is the burden of proof on Bogla? Bogla doesn't have to prove anything if IHQ can't prove he has any right to the code? By your answer I could just rip any source off the internet and if the person doesnt have a contract with the dev specifying the code is exclusively theirs to use I would be in the clear to resell it to whatever I want.... I think youre analysis is correct but it completely lacks what IHQ is supposed to produce in this circumstance. He needs to SHOW he has ANY rights to this code at all, THEN it can be determined whether Bogla has EXCLUSIVE rights or not.

You guys can remove all of my posts you want @video but it doesnt stop them from being spot on and I hope you guys read them.

In the case of front end code that is public and can be copied -- yes the burden would be on IHQ to prove he has rights to it. However in the case of private back end code there is only two ways to obtain it. Either you are given it or you hack a server and steal it.

I don't believe anyone is claiming the source was taken via a hacking. Therefore the question is this: did whomever gave IHQ the source have the right to give it to him?

This depends on who owns the rights to the source and whether those rights are exclusive rights. This depends on the agreement between Bogla and his developers.

 

[MadDev]

I'm still not fully understanding your argument here.

You claim that Bogla doesn't have the rights to the code due to no contract claiming so, so the developer (Quid) has rights to distribute it to anyone he wants.

Shouldn't this be implied? If I custom ordered some private code from a developer, I would assume this means that it is PRIVATE, and not for resale.

 

[iHateQuesting]

I'm still not fully understanding your argument here.

You claim that Bogla doesn't have the rights to the code due to no contract claiming so, so the developer (Quid) has rights to distribute it to anyone he wants.

Shouldn't this be implied? If I custom ordered some private code from a developer, I would assume this means that it is PRIVATE, and not for resale.

If you order private code that would be implied and a contract would be written, you wouldn't just assume that. @Wintastical I posted proof I am a rightful owner of the code, Bogla hasn't posted proof stating otherwise or any kind of contract.

 

I'm still not fully understanding your argument here.

You claim that Bogla doesn't have the rights to the code due to no contract claiming so, so the developer (Quid) has rights to distribute it to anyone he wants.

Shouldn't this be implied? If I custom ordered some private code from a developer, I would assume this means that it is PRIVATE, and not for resale.

No I'm saying he doesn't automatically obtain exclusive rights unless the contract he has with his developer either explicitly states that he obtains exclusive rights or it is an employment contract.

Copyright Ownership: Who Owns What?

At this point I have no evidence as to what was agreed between Bogla and his developer. It could be anything from a complete exclusive reservation of copyright on Bogla's behalf to a simple non-exclusive license of a copyrighted product owned entirely by the developer.

 

@malakadang

Your assessment of this case would be greatly appreciated.

 

[malakadang]

@Sythe I agree with you in 750 words.

When a person has 'copyright' in a work, this means that they have the exclusive rights to that work (whatever those rights may be under law). Copyright infringement occurs when a third-party infringes on the copyright owner's exclusive rights. Accordingly, if Bogla is arguing that there has been copyright infringement, he must first show that he has 'copyright' in the work, such that he has exclusive rights which can be infringed. A person has 'copyright' in a work when they are its owner. Who is the owner in this case?

There is an important distinction to be made between who is the author of the work, and who is the owner. For the most part the default position is that the author of the work is its first owner. There are three possibilities as to who is the author:

1. Sole Author (Quid);
2. Joint Authors (Quid & iHQ, etc)
3. Orphan Work (this means there is no readily identifiable author.

Although I know iHQ argues he was part of the creation, for the present, I will assume that Quid the sole author. This means, as the author, Quid is, by default, the owner of the copyright. This is why Bogla bears the burden of proof in showing that he owns the copyright (because by default, he does not own it, the author does: Quid). There are two main mechanisms Bogla may do this by:

1. Bogla can argue that Quid was his employee (as opposed to an independent contractor); or
2. Bogla can argue that, pursuant to a contract, the rights/ownership of the copyright was assigned (read given) to Bogla on its creation.

I am not going to deal with the employee point - I very much suspect Quid was not an employee. The second point requires an agreement of some sort - a contract. If there is no satisfactory agreement, then the default position wins: Quid, the author, owns the copyright.

I am assuming there is no acceptable contract/explicit agreement, what about an implied one as @MadDev suggested. In the absence of an agreement, the commissioner of the work (Bogla) may get an implied license to use the work for the purpose in which it was commissioned. Bogla would NOT get ownership of the work. This is how strict copyright is - it is a hurdle to argue you have an implied license, let alone arguing you own the work outright in the absence of an agreement/contract! I agree with what Sythe has said, and our analysis has lead to the same point: to know what rights and privileges Bogla has, we need information about what was agreed upon. In the absence of that information, the default position applies. Again, that is why Bogla bears the burden of proving he owns the copyright.

As for iHQ. Assuming Quid was the sole author of the work, if iHQ used his code (without a license/permission), then iHQ would be infringing on Quid's copyright. Bogla would not be a relevant party to this infringement. This screenshot suggests that Quid (assuming he is the owner of the copyright) probably wouldn't care that iHQ is using it, or has been using it. This presumed authorization essentially gets iHQ off the hook. If iHQ was a joint author, then this would not be a problem in the first instance (unless Bogla owned the copyright pursuant to a contract/agreement).

Now I know a lot of you are thinking this is Sythe.org not a country. Nevertheless, at law, in the countries that I know of, Bogla would be placed in the same situation as he is now: he needs to show evidence of an agreement. However, given that we are a website, I don't think we can expect an air-tight contract with hundreds of clauses. We can use our discretion however, to determine what facts amount to an acceptable level of agreement between Bogla and Quid for Bogla to own the copyright - it wouldn't have to be signed and in writing for example (that would be too strict), as it the requirement in Australia. What level of agreement I'm not sure of, and it is something we can all weigh in on. However, at present we don't know what was agreed upon between Bogla and Quid. So accordingly, @Bogla please post any screenshots, chats, etc, of all correspondence you had with Quid regarding the creation of the website for you.

 

@Sythe I agree with you in 750 words.

When a person has 'copyright' in a work, this means that they have the exclusive rights to that work (whatever those rights may be under law). Copyright infringement occurs when a third-party infringes on the copyright owner's exclusive rights. Accordingly, if Bogla is arguing that there has been copyright infringement, he must first show that he has 'copyright' in the work, such that he has exclusive rights which can be infringed. A person has 'copyright' in a work when they are its owner. Who is the owner in this case?

There is an important distinction to be made between who is the author of the work, and who is the owner. For the most part the default position is that the author of the work is its first owner. There are three possibilities as to who is the author:

1. Sole Author (Quid);
2. Joint Authors (Quid & iHQ, etc)
3. Orphan Work (this means there is no readily identifiable author.

Although I know iHQ argues he was part of the creation, for the present, I will assume that Quid the sole author. This means, as the author, Quid is, by default, the owner of the copyright. This is why Bogla bears the burden of proof in showing that he owns the copyright (because by default, he does not own it, the author does: Quid). There are two main mechanisms Bogla may do this by:

1. Bogla can argue that Quid was his employee (as opposed to an independent contractor); or
2. Bogla can argue that, pursuant to a contract, the rights/ownership of the copyright was assigned (read given) to Bogla on its creation.

I am not going to deal with the employee point - I very much suspect Quid was not an employee. The second point requires an agreement of some sort - a contract. If there is no satisfactory agreement, then the default position wins: Quid, the author, owns the copyright.

I am assuming there is no acceptable contract/explicit agreement, what about an implied one as @MadDev suggested. In the absence of an agreement, the commissioner of the work (Bogla) may get an implied license to use the work for the purpose in which it was commissioned. Bogla would NOT get ownership of the work. This is how strict copyright is - it is a hurdle to argue you have an implied license, let alone arguing you own the work outright in the absence of an agreement/contract! I agree with what Sythe has said, and our analysis has lead to the same point: to know what rights and privileges Bogla has, we need information about what was agreed upon. In the absence of that information, the default position applies. Again, that is why Bogla bears the burden of proving he owns the copyright.

As for iHQ. Assuming Quid was the sole author of the work, if iHQ used his code (without a license/permission), then iHQ would be infringing on Quid's copyright. Bogla would not be a relevant party to this infringement. This screenshot suggests that Quid (assuming he is the owner of the copyright) probably wouldn't care that iHQ is using it, or has been using it. This presumed authorization essentially gets iHQ off the hook. If iHQ was a joint author, then this would not be a problem in the first instance (unless Bogla owned the copyright pursuant to a contract/agreement).

Now I know a lot of you are thinking this is Sythe.org not a country. Nevertheless, at law, in the countries that I know of, Bogla would be placed in the same situation as he is now: he needs to show evidence of an agreement. However, given that we are a website, I don't think we can expect an air-tight contract with hundreds of clauses. We can use our discretion however, to determine what facts amount to an acceptable level of agreement between Bogla and Quid for Bogla to own the copyright - it wouldn't have to be signed and in writing for example (that would be too strict), as it the requirement in Australia. What level of agreement I'm not sure of, and it is something we can all weigh in on. However, at present we don't know what was agreed upon between Bogla and Quid. So accordingly, @Bogla please post any screenshots, chats, etc, of all correspondence you had with Quid regarding the creation of the website for you.

Thank you for your insight and clear reasoning.

With reference to the last paragraph: we're a private club and we provide a (free) dispute resolution service for disputes arising between our members. We follow a common law standard for these disputes. As such the elements of a contract are the standard common law elements: Offer, acceptance, meeting of the minds, consideration and capacity. The agreement doesn't need to be in any particular form, it just needs all of the elements.

 

[Alch]

I did find an old laptop and a previously locked skype (live:boglamanagement) that contained logs from December 17th-20th. Sorry about the cellphone quality of these pictures.

Initial offer from him to make a website + time estimate & price :


Gyazo - c05ea267c2b2577c279958bd634ca9ee.jpg

Some discussion regarding the site previous to the one he made :


Gyazo - 5da929f99526d81868a8f3c2c54e22a3.jpg


Gyazo - 0e2838be357cc325f3e8933f17ff21c8.jpg

Talk regarding new site “I need something that I can call my own” & agreement to that statement:


Gyazo - 0cd899f06a528a0a8d8dcc7f7c38e68b.jpg


Gyazo - de2a1cf5683acf6400a644ada698be22.jpg


Gyazo - 6bd186b50aca2fb01a2b44197da193a5.jpg

Further discussion & initiation of a To-Do on Basecamp :


Gyazo - d24695c29eb4adda35cd9d4f0e6f174c.jpg


Gyazo - 951868e5168c57cd3f32774cc8052703.jpg

(email censored)


Gyazo - 65ec50c9765789ea355009d16ff30e90.jpg

Renegotiation of price :


Gyazo - 40b18c9e4f59e4657b7126e1ba38b995.jpg

I also found some emails from basecamp on an email corresponding to when he posted something on basecamp, and an email from him regarding a To-Do. Note that at the bottom of the emails it says that the email was only sent to Quid & I/brother (P G) & not a second developer, nor was a second developer mentioned throughout the entire process of designing the site – all of which can be seen in the pictures. We were removed from the basecamp so only the emailed updates remain.

Spoiler: basecamp

Gyazo - 3ec12728db4c1e48245508e0246d802d.png


Gyazo - b65218a638b36c7ba978e5eefcade461.png


Gyazo - c0a8d687a7677328214f3f8ecf766363.png


Gyazo - 00e7dc98e6673f8764c4d91d1a518f43.png

Gyazo - 754770e1bdee2e02cc607039f52d0581.png


Gyazo - b06ea7ab5c42c7fdde4269fa1ee72498.png


Gyazo - cf2cb003dca8a6ca5b3936f83e5d6a31.png


Gyazo - 428a9ff4263f9660de6a65437304a428.png


Gyazo - 56b1603a5e383ccc75f9bddcb0c5b469.png


Gyazo - f68831a0ba05981e116099ed37a8d9af.png


Gyazo - cda0bad94575d0aae6722efd2ff33bb5.png


Gyazo - 0f5db1d83cadd5757c9397be28ab6f89.png


Gyazo - 76dff4ecac9ba7b96995f2b174564145.png


Gyazo - 4ddac4b2ffd06e5479032cb702c25344.png


Gyazo - fecd94264e3b317d568858528d902304.png


Gyazo - 01ecdb3953bb3603bc9beb575d32208d.png


Gyazo - 2d89d2ec9a80ed87155b9866458442c3.png


Gyazo - 4cccf2f294a912fe96fd8cb6c94b8df5.png


Gyazo - af9aec2d2cb8248296de88f42301929a.png


Gyazo - 366783ddf8850a81a503e8f9affc51a5.png


Gyazo - 058f927ca882b46b4a5d0c3f38d6906a.png


Gyazo - f0dcf4aa7b7abece88f42f57d33a9905.png


Gyazo - 12e81111b0ea4dfc6f92b7acaf76a16b.png


Gyazo - 9c4008cfbc89933fd93f3bad62f47138.png


Gyazo - 9db1e0f1b5f221114bc35ba1a929ea24.png


Gyazo - d08636ceac45686306930ebc5402fa86.png


Gyazo - 9714cee853bbe0583312503102b26535.png


https://gyazo.com/14f414a037fa9763302a9f113f612627


https://gyazo.com/860487a1d91571350df248059c9f5775


https://gyazo.com/737b72975ba07fff5fb087cf95cfccf3


https://gyazo.com/64eb4c4f79bf355f252e5709e8d5eb96


https://gyazo.com/b1d33387437abfe3ff87e97e87f3d97a



https://gyazo.com/5994e67ca17b459334116549e8b36ff8


https://gyazo.com/3f5d30467ec6adbe9196594b1cbc0513


https://gyazo.com/e847d058eb7584788db9e5fd39bd008a


https://gyazo.com/318c67eb2d83149c3dd841c1063e7449


https://gyazo.com/302173ea01df2ba9921be10d25eddcf8


https://gyazo.com/6d4856f3b903673d9ab7c6c295b46917

NOTE: There is also daily recaps such as https://gyazo.com/b1ab1467e801acd0177a696244fc0047 that can be used to ensure I’m not omitting any details, and if required, I can be teamviewed to review all of the recaps.

 

I did find an old laptop and a previously locked skype (live:boglamanagement) that contained logs from December 17th-20th. Sorry about the cellphone quality of these pictures.

Initial offer from him to make a website + time estimate & price :


Gyazo - c05ea267c2b2577c279958bd634ca9ee.jpg

Some discussion regarding the site previous to the one he made :


Gyazo - 5da929f99526d81868a8f3c2c54e22a3.jpg


Gyazo - 0e2838be357cc325f3e8933f17ff21c8.jpg

Talk regarding new site “I need something that I can call my own” & agreement to that statement:


Gyazo - 0cd899f06a528a0a8d8dcc7f7c38e68b.jpg


Gyazo - de2a1cf5683acf6400a644ada698be22.jpg


Gyazo - 6bd186b50aca2fb01a2b44197da193a5.jpg

Further discussion & initiation of a To-Do on Basecamp :


Gyazo - d24695c29eb4adda35cd9d4f0e6f174c.jpg


Gyazo - 951868e5168c57cd3f32774cc8052703.jpg

(email censored)


Gyazo - 65ec50c9765789ea355009d16ff30e90.jpg

Renegotiation of price :


Gyazo - 40b18c9e4f59e4657b7126e1ba38b995.jpg

I also found some emails from basecamp on an email corresponding to when he posted something on basecamp, and an email from him regarding a To-Do. Note that at the bottom of the emails it says that the email was only sent to Quid & I/brother (P G) & not a second developer, nor was a second developer mentioned throughout the entire process of designing the site – all of which can be seen in the pictures. We were removed from the basecamp so only the emailed updates remain.

Spoiler: basecamp

Gyazo - 3ec12728db4c1e48245508e0246d802d.png


Gyazo - b65218a638b36c7ba978e5eefcade461.png


Gyazo - c0a8d687a7677328214f3f8ecf766363.png


Gyazo - 00e7dc98e6673f8764c4d91d1a518f43.png

Gyazo - 754770e1bdee2e02cc607039f52d0581.png


Gyazo - b06ea7ab5c42c7fdde4269fa1ee72498.png


Gyazo - cf2cb003dca8a6ca5b3936f83e5d6a31.png


Gyazo - 428a9ff4263f9660de6a65437304a428.png


Gyazo - 56b1603a5e383ccc75f9bddcb0c5b469.png


Gyazo - f68831a0ba05981e116099ed37a8d9af.png


Gyazo - cda0bad94575d0aae6722efd2ff33bb5.png


Gyazo - 0f5db1d83cadd5757c9397be28ab6f89.png


Gyazo - 76dff4ecac9ba7b96995f2b174564145.png


Gyazo - 4ddac4b2ffd06e5479032cb702c25344.png


Gyazo - fecd94264e3b317d568858528d902304.png


Gyazo - 01ecdb3953bb3603bc9beb575d32208d.png


Gyazo - 2d89d2ec9a80ed87155b9866458442c3.png


Gyazo - 4cccf2f294a912fe96fd8cb6c94b8df5.png


Gyazo - af9aec2d2cb8248296de88f42301929a.png


Gyazo - 366783ddf8850a81a503e8f9affc51a5.png


Gyazo - 058f927ca882b46b4a5d0c3f38d6906a.png


Gyazo - f0dcf4aa7b7abece88f42f57d33a9905.png


Gyazo - 12e81111b0ea4dfc6f92b7acaf76a16b.png


Gyazo - 9c4008cfbc89933fd93f3bad62f47138.png


Gyazo - 9db1e0f1b5f221114bc35ba1a929ea24.png


Gyazo - d08636ceac45686306930ebc5402fa86.png


Gyazo - 9714cee853bbe0583312503102b26535.png


Gyazo - 14f414a037fa9763302a9f113f612627.png


Gyazo - 860487a1d91571350df248059c9f5775.png


Gyazo - 737b72975ba07fff5fb087cf95cfccf3.png


Gyazo - 64eb4c4f79bf355f252e5709e8d5eb96.png


Gyazo - b1d33387437abfe3ff87e97e87f3d97a.png



Gyazo - 5994e67ca17b459334116549e8b36ff8.png


Gyazo - 3f5d30467ec6adbe9196594b1cbc0513.png


Gyazo - e847d058eb7584788db9e5fd39bd008a.png


Gyazo - 318c67eb2d83149c3dd841c1063e7449.png


Gyazo - 302173ea01df2ba9921be10d25eddcf8.png


Gyazo - 6d4856f3b903673d9ab7c6c295b46917.png

NOTE: There is also daily recaps such as Gyazo - b1ab1467e801acd0177a696244fc0047.png that can be used to ensure I’m not omitting any details, and if required, I can be teamviewed to review all of the recaps.

It seems clear to me that in terms of authorship of the code it was a joint effort, which would mean automatically without any other information copyright would vest in both of you.

However you do have as part of the agreement that idiom "to call my own".

This could be read down to mean "custom" or read up to mean "custom and exclusive to me".

@malakadang what do you think?

 

[iHateQuesting]

You are taking "call it my own" out of context. You're clearly talking about the "personal feel" to the front end of the website as the first one was a copy paste of someone elses website (I believe Divica). In no way would someone take this as "yeah, i'd like all ownership of the rights and code".

 

You are taking "call it my own" out of context. You're clearly talking about the "personal feel" to the front end of the website as the first one was a copy paste of someone elses website (I believe Divica). In no way would someone take this as "yeah, i'd like all ownership of the rights and code".

It can be read up or read down as I said above.

 

That said:

Contra proferentem (Latin: "against [the] offeror"),[1] also known as "interpretation against the draftsman", is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.[2] The doctrine is often applied to situations involving standardized contracts or where the parties are of unequal bargaining power, but is applicable to other cases.[3] The doctrine is not, however, directly applicable to situations where the language at issue is mandated by law, as is often the case with insurance contracts and bills of lading.[4]

The reasoning behind this rule is to encourage the drafter of a contract to be as clear and explicit as possible and to take into account as many foreseeable situations as it can.

It should probably be read down according to common law doctrine.

 

[Alch]

The comment was in reference to a situation where RS3Goldmart used Dialatic’ code to make my website, explained here - RS3GoldMart stole my design that I wasn’t happy with. It was ruled that I would have 3 weeks to vacate the design and I would be refunded the $200. The reference to the 3 weeks is shown in the Skype picture. Quid was fully aware of the RS3Goldmart situation (see the pictures in my previous post under the “Some discussion regarding the site previous to the one he made”heading) and he was helping me to secure the previous website while I was on vacation in Portugal and while he was designing the new website. The RS3Goldmart report (dated December 17th) gives context as to what information both Quid & I were speaking in regards to.

I think it's clear that I didn't want to share code with another gold seller, and I believe Quid's agreement to the statement is what should be analyzed while keeping the information he was aware of in mind.