Ihatequesting - Intellectual Property Theft

Fair - I've provided context to the conversation regarding the agreement so it doesn't look misleading and can be judged as such.

 

@Sythe To me, at present, this case comes down to the meaning of what 'call it my own' means - I think it could support an exclusive license to use. I don't think joint authorship can be made out, because 'all' Bogla has supplied is ideas, and under the law that isn't sufficient to grant copyright generally, or joint authorship.

There seem to be two main arguments that Bogla could advance which I will deal with:

1. Bogla was a joint author with Quid; and
2. The words 'call it my own' meant an exclusive license (although not copyright) was given to Bogla.

Joint Authorship:

Based on the law, I'm not convinced that it can be said that Bogla is a joint author. Here is a small article which alludes to why, specifically this excerpt which I think readily applies to this situation:

"...there is no copyright in an idea, or in ideas. A person may have a brilliant idea for a story, or for a picture, or for a play, and one which appears to him to be original; but if he communicates that idea to an author or an artist or a playwright, the production which is the result of the communication of the idea to the author or the artist or the playwright is the copyright of the person who has clothed the idea in a form, whether by means of a picture, a play, or a book, and the owner of the idea has no rights in that product."​

Although I accept that Bogla did convey instructions to Quid as to how Bogla wanted the website to look and operate. To me this was Bogla conveying 'ideas' and not 'expression'. One very entrenched principle of copyright law is that it protects 'ideas' and not 'expression': the idea-expression dichotomy. Where the line is drawn is cause for much litigation; I don't think this case falls on the borderline. I would briefly argue as follows: Given what Bogla commissioned was a computer program (which I'll define as a 'set of instructions'), for Bogla to have contributed 'expression' to the computer program, logically he would have to write some of that computer program. I would expect Bogla to have coded some non-trivial instructions which formed part of the website (for example if all Bogla did was declare a variable, that would obviously not be sufficient; if Bogla coded a useful function, you would be closer to that borderline). To my understanding, Bogla has not coded any such non-trivial instructions - if this is incorrect @Bogla please let us know.

In short, that is why I don't think Bogla would qualify as a joint author. Assuming we accept the above test, and if Bogla did in fact write some code, I would want to know what Bogla's actual contributions to the writing of the code were.

'Call it my own':

When I first read this, I agreed with iHQ that it did not transfer the copyright to Bogla. I thought that it meant Bogla wanted a unique look and something that differentiated him from his competition. Regardless, focusing on the natural meaning of the words 'my own'. I think the opposite of 'my own' would mean someone elses. In other words, Bogla wanted something that was his own and not someone elses. Interpreting it this way, the consequence would be that it would be illogical to then allow Quid to sell what was Bogla's 'own' to someone else. Because then Bogla's 'own' would be someone else's too, defeating the whole purpose of those words. Logically then, I would certainly see support for the fact that Bogla had an exclusive license to use.

Others could interpret this differently however and so it would be useful to see what others think the natural meaning of the words 'my own' mean in this situation. On the contra proferentem rule, I would note that this was not a standard form contract and that the rule should be invoked at last resort and not first instance. I'd like to hear what other people think on the interpretation of 'my own'; I think this could go both ways even after we've applied the rule.

 

Bogla has been aware of my website since february 29th, 2016(when we launched). He and his entire staff were on it talking to PureAddiction, testing out functions etc.

He has been aware of my website creation/programming thread since February 16th, 2016.


He has only recently began to start drama revolving the website and the sales itself as I now pose a threat to his business. 1400 vouches and $450k in sales later, I can see why he'd try and do everything he can to shut me down. I have to ask, he vouched Quid to sell PieGP a website, which btw is the exact same code i'm using and has never once made a public report regarding it? I have to ask why he waited for me to sell the source nearly 10+ times over the course of nearly a year, and create numerous competitors for himself if the code has been the same for 11 months on my website, and you're telling me after countless times of Bogla's staff and himself on site that you just now figured it out? give me a break.



If you want to grasp at straws with the "call it my own", I can't tell you how many people use that as a way to describe a "personal" feel to their website.

Bogla's developer who has had no problem speaking on behalf of Bogla said if I was banned/scam quit that Bogla would be fine with everyone keeping their website/source code as now that I'm gone he fears nothing. (all he has ever wanted)

I brought it up in one of my first replies, had Bogla shown me a valid contract I would have undoubtedly recreated the website and updated everyone's website to be in compliance with it.

I'd like to ask that if Staff sides with Bogla and his "call it my own" to allow me to discontinue selling this source code and make no further sales until I have a different site created, all websites that are being done/up would stay the same and future sales would be different (his developer said Bogla was fine with people having it if I was banned, as that's all bogla wants)

This isn't Bogla having an actual issue with the work, it's Bogla having a personal vendetta.

 

You can't speak on the behalf of the individuals who make up "Bogla". You cannot tell me what they think and feel, you are a 3rd party developer working on someone else's code.

You're telling me he didn't sit around and wait for nearly a year for me to be fully invested with time and money into this website with projects and sales and then just randomly passes by and realize "oh wow this looks like mine" and makes a report? lol, half of his team has sold us gold because our rates are better, and you're saying no one mentioned it to him? I've seen him on all of my threads, he's even posted them in a previous report....


You're telling me he wants to pick and choose who can use the code and who cannot AKA just my website. I'm still wondering why he made no report on PieGp if in his own words he didn't allow it later on? Yet he knows the code is the same and chose not to report it, because he doesn't have a vendetta against Pie, perhaps?

^ which when it was done in 5 seconds you could see it was the same......................................

I can't tell if you're being serious, what do you mean "as far as I know".. Go look at the website?

So Bogla didn't go harass him and make a report about it, after he saw the website? Weird, considering him and quid had a "contract", why would he allow that?

If Bogla had an actual contract with Quid he would have presented one in the OP and we'd be in a different ball game. Instead he searched for "my" on Skype and pulled that sentence out of thin air, not once was it ever restated or explained as no one would assume "my own" would mean a contract and all rights would be his. It isn't a contract, he's clearly talking about the feel he'd like the site to have other than how someone else's feels.

 

I messaged you with some logs of when I was first aware of a similar site being created & to what extent I was aware of the similarities. The person asked I not post publicly, but it’s from a verifiable source.

 

I talked with my partner about what we wanted done about the situation and we’ve decided on requesting that IHQ refund the users who bought the code in question & discontinue use of it on any sites he may be affiliated with, for, but not limited to the following reasons:

· We believe the expression of the code (front end) is one that past customers may associate with our reputation, and find it sensitive especially now that customers are transitioning to our new website.

· It’s still unclear how the code was obtained, and prior to the settlement of this report by Sythe, no effort by IHQ was made to commune ownership of the code and his marketing of the code.

· Customers may have been unaware they were purchasing code that was initially made for BoglaGold, and that the same code was being used on multiple other websites.

· We don’t support the profiteering by IHQ in reselling the code.

I see the verdict didn’t include a grace period, as Sythe was cognizant of the site having at least one major exploit. If it’s within my power in this verdict, I don’t mind if the site is used for 3 weeks while the buyers of the code transition into a new website. This may go against the first point I made, but the people affected by purchasing the code are at no fault if they were unaware, and an option to continue using the platform for 3 weeks seems just to me. This should only be done as a last resort, as there’s currently an exploit that could severely impact your website.

 

@Sythe I don't see how this went from you are deciding what "my own" meant in the conversation with Quid and Bogla to this being case closed.

 

Anyways, I'm not issuing refunds to anyone for code I wrote. I'm glad you all took something so far out of context and allowing him to grasp at straws.


I never wanted it to go this way, you can ban me now.

Edit: I plan to roll out a different website for all purchasers to use and call their own BUT WILL BE MY CODE AND I WILL OWN AND RETAIN ALL RIGHTS (just incase I don't write a formal contract), this won't be done immediately but will be done.

 

You just fucked me in front of everyone because the code is the same... We already know that I HELPED WRITE IT. We were waiting on a ruling for the "my own" in the conversation with Bogla, you took it upon yourself to call it case closed.

I'm not leaving anyone hanging, you quoted this while I was editing.

 

He posted it 4-5 pages in, he very clearly didn't have a contract as he tried to say the one that was posted AFTER BOGLAGOLD was completed that he agreed to that "TOS". Bogla grasped at straws and got lucky with his wording. He frantically searched skype and pulled it out of his ass. You can ban me now.

 

If we take a legal standpoint, this would be a verbal contract, correct? Due to Statute of Frauds, you'd need for it to be in writing as the good you're selling is worth more than what you're selling it for. He had made money off of the good, therefore it technically having a different value to him than it does to the offeree. Even if this category of Statute of Frauds doesn't hold merrit, most states require a written agreement for a sale of goods worth over $500. A contract has not legally been made.

If it isn't treated as a written contract, you'd fall under the Statute of Frauds indefinitely.

 

Well it can't be both services and intellectual property. You can't sell a service of creating something and then claim you sold the product you created, that doesn't make any sense. Also no exclusive license existed, nobody claimed exclusivity in any of the proofs above. If you were to consider it a service, it'd be considered as Bogla employing Quid to do website work and a written contract is required by law in any case of employment.