Jump to content


Photo

Sarah Vaughter - Decides to use C60.net content


  • Please log in to reply
200 replies to this topic

#1 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 2,950 posts
  • 510
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 16 November 2012 - 12:48 AM


It has been brought to my attention that Sara Vaughter has decided to use the C60.net copyrighted content without first paying a commercial fee or notifying myself. I don't have an issue with it, as long as she pays the commercial fees and doesn't try to use content without the proper commercial license.

I have sent her a request for payment.

I hope niner, maxwatt, and others may try to understand why the terms where so strict regarding commercial licenses.

A
  • -1

#2 niner

  • Member, Moderator
  • 14,552 posts
  • 3,474
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:22 AM

It has been brought to my attention that Sara Vaughter has decided to use the C60.net copyrighted content without first paying a commercial fee or notifying myself. I don't have an issue with it, as long as she pays the commercial fees and doesn't try to use content without the proper commercial license.

I have sent her a request for payment.

I hope niner, maxwatt, and others may try to understand why the terms where so strict regarding commercial licenses.


Do you mean that she's using the Moussa interview video? If so, that was dumb. But good luck collecting $980,000.00 from her. Asking for an absurd amount of money doesn't make the agreement more likely to be adhered to, it makes it less likely. What if you had asked for $980 Trillion? Would it have made this outcome less likely? Would it make payment more likely? What if Sarah didn't get it from your site? Maybe someone snagged it and put it on youtube purely out of trollishness.
  • 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert

Adverts help to support LongeCity's non-profit work. To go ad-free join as Member.

#3 smithx

  • Registered User
  • 688 posts
  • 128

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:49 AM

I found the page in question, and it appears to contain only a few stills from the video (although I can't be sure they're from that video because I haven't watched it, due to Anthony's confusing and predatory licensing policy).

What is also on that page is rather curious, and I don't think there's much truth to it but what do people think?

Initially, on Longecity.org was a huge thread with the experiences of those intrepid first-timers, but that thread has been removed, apparently because nearly everyone who took it reported immediate, long-lasting beneficial effects of the C60 in oil. The moderators then removed the thread, deleted the positive mentions of dozens of first-time-users and announced that they had split the thread into a scientific discussion on C60 only and a discussion on how to manufacture the product at home only, and that any mention of positive effects of C60 in extra virgin olive oil was explicitly forbidden and would be censored. You can verify this announced policy in these threads:
http://www.longecity...__hl__mitophagy
http://www.longecity...ic-discussions/


  • 0

#4 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 2,950 posts
  • 510
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:52 AM

Hi niner,

Yes the Moussa interview. It is impossible to get access to the video (or view it) from any other source or place, but the C60.net website. It is also not on youtube.

At this point I am simply waiting for her reply regarding the friendly payment request. If we simply can't work things out within 30 days, then we take the next step.

A
  • 0

#5 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 2,950 posts
  • 510
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:10 AM

I found the page in question, and it appears to contain only a few stills from the video ...


There are more than a few pages on that website, I have checked the whole website and made it available to legal counsel. So if the site suddenly changes, we will still have the original site, formatting and material that requires licensing fees, etc.

A
  • 0

#6 Logic

  • Registered User
  • 1,220 posts
  • 291
  • Location:Kimberley, South Africa
  • yes

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:18 AM

Anthony:
You are the kind of person you stands around on his soap box shouting his fucking head off; long after everybody has lost interest and wondered off.
How the fuck can someones elses words be your property.....?????
IMHO the only reason your bull-shit is tolerated here is because your almost mercenary persuit of the all important buck results in really good supps.
IMHO The reason it results in really good supps is because you dont want to die.
Do you really believe people here believe all the BS you shit in defence of your all important buck?

You would make more money if you were honest with yourself and thus everyone else here.

Edited by Logic, 16 November 2012 - 02:20 AM.

  • 2

#7 smithx

  • Registered User
  • 688 posts
  • 128

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:44 AM

If I were Vaughter, I'd make the case that she didn't take any of the "works" on your site. She took only tiny portions of the "works" and therefore did not have to pay a license fee. She also credited you by name.

Your very long legalese contract tries too hard to be really scary and/or greedy, by asking for $100K to license each separate piece of content, redefining each piece as a "work".

So licensing then arguably applies only to entire "works" and not individual frames of a video, unless you want to make the case that every frame of your video is a separate "work", and I think that would involve a long jury trial, at the very least.
  • 0

#8 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 2,950 posts
  • 510
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:51 AM

Logic,

If you see my linked in profile, you will notice I worked at Vitas Hospice. First week there, it is REQUIRED to go out into the field to see the patients with the on call nurses, that deal with palliative care of the patients who have less than 6 months to live.

During that week, I watched young 5 year olds and older men and women struggling just to breath... so, I am not sorry that those images made such deep gashes and impressions on me that I had such horrid nightmares and struggles with religion during that time... that it made me look for ways to keep people living longer using the only tools I knew how... and with friends much smarter than I to help me understand subjects I was not familiar with.

Logic, I am sorry, but you are way out of line.

A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 16 November 2012 - 02:54 AM.

  • 1

#9 mikela

  • Registered User
  • 63 posts
  • 21
  • Location:SoCal

Posted 16 November 2012 - 03:29 AM

I am amazed by the lack of forum restrictions on salespeople here! The topic itself seems to be between two vendors.
  • 0

#10 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 2,950 posts
  • 510
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:00 AM


Nope,

Sarah has not replied. So it is simply about issues regarding use of copyrighted material.

A


  • 0

#11 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 2,950 posts
  • 510
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:06 AM

You guys are driving me to drink...

Blue martinis...

Attached Files


  • 0

#12 somecallmetim

  • Registered User
  • 57 posts
  • 19
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:06 AM

Anthony,

Posting about your companies' possible legal issues on a public forum isn't wisdom.
  • 2

#13 Andey

  • Registered User
  • 271 posts
  • 70
  • Location:Kiev, Ukraine

Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:31 AM

Nope,

Sarah has not replied. So it is simply about issues regarding use of copyrighted material.

A


Honestly, I dont think that this case have any legal perspective.
It will be clevier move if you mention c60.net few times during interview - if somebody use it, it would be a nice advertising of your site. Editing content is much much severe law breaking than reusing it without permission.

As for me I am really surprised that Sarah choose todo so - but you know those merchants - there is nothing saint for them ;)

Edited by Andey, 16 November 2012 - 07:34 AM.

  • 0

#14 JohnD60

  • Member
  • 481 posts
  • 46
  • Location:Colorado

Posted 16 November 2012 - 04:41 PM

Hi niner,

Yes the Moussa interview. It is impossible to get access to the video (or view it) from any other source or place, but the C60.net website. It is also not on youtube.

At this point I am simply waiting for her reply regarding the friendly payment request. If we simply can't work things out within 30 days, then we take the next step.

A

Why would it not be possible that someone other than SV stole a copy of the video from your site, posted it onto youtube (or some other similar website), and SV copied it from said third party website which did not have your legal firewall? I don't think that is what actually happened, but it is possible that could have happened, and it is very possible that SV engineered the theft in such a way as to maintain plausible deniability, so it is probable in my mind that you can not prove damages unless SV refuses to now remove that copyrighted material (I am assuming it is copyrighted) from her website. My guess would be your damage claim would be limited to at most gross sales lost, which would be far less than your contract rate, and far less than the cost of the litigation.
  • 0

#15 Mind

  • Lifetime Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 13,356 posts
  • 3,761
  • Location:Wausau, WI
  • yes

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:39 PM

*
POPULAR

Anthony,

Posting about your companies' possible legal issues on a public forum isn't wisdom.


And it isn't wise either.

Moved to the Retailer/Product discussion forum.
  • 4

#16 maxwatt

  • Member, Moderator
  • 4,558 posts
  • 1,415
  • Location:New York

Posted 16 November 2012 - 09:06 PM

Quotes and short excerpts may legally qualify as fair use.
  • 0

#17 smithx

  • Registered User
  • 688 posts
  • 128

Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:07 PM

Quotes and short excerpts may legally qualify as fair use.


Apparently you didn't read Anthony's contract. It attempts to make the signer agree that they waive the right to claim a Fair Use defense.
  • 0

#18 maxwatt

  • Member, Moderator
  • 4,558 posts
  • 1,415
  • Location:New York

Posted 17 November 2012 - 02:27 AM

I would expect such a contract to be unenforceable, though one could try.
  • 0

#19 Logic

  • Registered User
  • 1,220 posts
  • 291
  • Location:Kimberley, South Africa
  • yes

Posted 17 November 2012 - 03:40 AM

Anthony

I was as pissed as a fiddler's bitch when I posted...
But,after much consideration and deliberation; "Wine is the teller of all truethes" and my heartfelt plea, on behalf of all sentient beings, stands.
When you stand back far enough from your bank account, life, the universe and everything: Who the fuck are you bull-shitting...........................?

Logic,
If you see my linked in profile, you will notice I worked at Vitas Hospice. First week there, it is REQUIRED to go out into the field to see the patients with the on call nurses, that deal with palliative care of the patients who have less than 6 months to live.
During that week, I watched young 5 year olds and older men and women struggling just to breath... so, I am not sorry that those images made such deep gashes and impressions on me that I had such horrid nightmares and struggles with religion during that time... that it made me look for ways to keep people living longer using the only tools I knew how... and with friends much smarter than I to help me understand subjects I was not familiar with.
Logic, I am sorry, but you are way out of line.
A



What????!
One question:
Did any of those dying people want to be cashed out and burried with said cash...?
Dude its obvious to everyone exept yourself that you are scraping the bottem of the barrel here.

religion:
Really...?
While your contribution to the collective conciousness is invaluble; the above crap is discounted and benevolantly ignored by all contributers...

All I/we ask is you to grow... think... Stand back far enough to see the big picture...
Your bank ballance...: It hinders you and makes you sadly ammusing.

Sue dude!
We will pass the popcorn and contribute to paying the settlement.
You can then sleep easily attop your big pile of better/cleverer than everyone else...

http://www.techsuppo...arch=&safe=high

Edited by Logic, 17 November 2012 - 03:44 AM.

  • -1

#20 Kevnzworld

  • Registered User
  • 755 posts
  • 252
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 17 November 2012 - 07:44 AM

I don't know what Sarah's web designer was thinking when they constructed this page. If I was Anthony, I'd be pissed too! He flew out to Paris and got this exclusive interview with Mousa, and Sarah poached it! I think a Cease and Desist order may be applicable here. I doubt any money will change hands if the page is modified to no longer include pictures of Anthony's video and quotes from his interview.

http://c60antiaging.com/
  • 1

#21 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 2,950 posts
  • 510
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 17 November 2012 - 02:15 PM

We are simply following the steps on the clickwrap agreement.

It provides 30 days to discuss the fee resolution, if there is a fee dispute.
At the present time, all I can say is that there is a fee dispute.

A
  • -2

#22 niner

  • Member, Moderator
  • 14,552 posts
  • 3,474
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 17 November 2012 - 02:25 PM

http://c60antiaging.com/


Wow. The paranoid conspiracy theorizing is impressive. Sarah snagged a couple of stills from the video, and published a couple quotes. She didn't provide a link back to c60.net, or even a mention of it. Pretty sleazy, imho.
  • 2

#23 Turnbuckle

  • Registered User
  • 1,538 posts
  • 311
  • Location:USA

Posted 17 November 2012 - 08:57 PM

Having some passing understanding of IP as a non-legal person, I'd say that unless there's some written agreement, Loera owns the copyright to the questions and Moussa owns the copyright to the answers. Paraphrasing of either wouldn't be a problem. The stills might or might not be. I don't see any damages, however. Enforcing a clickwrap agreement might work, if one is prepared to spend hundreds of thousands. A simple cease and desist letter from a lawyer would work better. In any case, I think posting a picture of Loera for competitive advantage shows a lot of nerve.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 17 November 2012 - 09:12 PM.

  • 0

#24 smithx

  • Registered User
  • 688 posts
  • 128

Posted 18 November 2012 - 08:05 AM

As I understand it, whomever shoots the video owns it.

That, however, does not necessarily mean that they get to charge $980,000 to license it.
  • 0

#25 niner

  • Member, Moderator
  • 14,552 posts
  • 3,474
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 18 November 2012 - 01:54 PM

That, however, does not necessarily mean that they get to charge $980,000 to license it.


If you took it before a judge, you might have some luck with the $100,000.00 license fee, but the $880,000.00 "late fee" would almost certainly be thrown out, possibly on the basis of usury law, if nothing else.

It may well be that the whole thing would be thrown out on the basis of the fact that no one reads legal boilerplate on the web, they just click through it. There's probably some precedent out there as to whether or not this is sufficient to constitute a contract.
  • 0

#26 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 2,950 posts
  • 510
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 18 November 2012 - 07:22 PM

As I understand it, whomever shoots the video owns it.

That, however, does not necessarily mean that they get to charge $980,000 to license it.


Ever try to license a TV show to sell a product? ;)

A




That, however, does not necessarily mean that they get to charge $980,000 to license it.


It may well be that the whole thing would be thrown out on the basis of the fact that no one reads legal boilerplate on the web, they just click through it. There's probably some precedent out there as to whether or not this is sufficient to constitute a contract.


There is precedent law in my favor, google the term "clickwrap".

A


  • 0

#27 hav

  • Member
  • 940 posts
  • 162
  • Location:Cape Cod
  • no

Posted 18 November 2012 - 09:58 PM

We are simply following the steps on the clickwrap agreement.

It provides 30 days to discuss the fee resolution, if there is a fee dispute.
At the present time, all I can say is that there is a fee dispute.

A


Personally, I see problems with copyright and contract rights under these circumstances... particularly when the contract claim specifically disavows the copyright doctrine of fair use and is surrounded by adhesion issues with terms that seem to be intentionally designed to be unconscionable. But then again, although I'm kind of in the music video business myself, I have no idea how many licensees there are for Anthony's video or others similar to it... if folks are lining up to pay similar fees to license videos like that it would be some evidence of the commercial reasonableness of the terms.

Howard
  • 0

#28 smithx

  • Registered User
  • 688 posts
  • 128

Posted 18 November 2012 - 11:10 PM

There is precedent law in my favor, google the term "clickwrap".


In Switzerland?
  • 0

#29 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 2,950 posts
  • 510
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:09 AM

Apple paid 21 million to license a swiss clock icon. Video game makers license a software engine for 1.2 million.

I think $100,000 is more than reasonable, to pay as a license fee. The problem is that they did not notify us, or pay us prior to use. So the late fee, that was accepted per the clickwrap agreement, is simply required now for each individual content item.

I confidently believe we will prevail regarding the fee and late fees.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 19 November 2012 - 01:17 AM.

  • 0

sponsored ad

  • Advert

Adverts help to support LongeCity's non-profit work. To go ad-free join as Member.

#30 Turnbuckle

  • Registered User
  • 1,538 posts
  • 311
  • Location:USA

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:38 AM

I confidently believe we will prevail regarding the fee and late fees.


Your lawyer tells you this?
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users