thats my theory too, been with Dave at weblegal since 98 or 99 and never had a problem, presumed that someone like David Lace who had been around for a long time and had a good name would be safe to deal with, how wrong can a guy be

Does it say anything about non-payment or you giving the images to other content providers?

I will have to have a look about the non payment bit but it does say that he must give me 50% of the money for every set sold and the agreement with him is non exclusive

Well, at least *that* is good to know.

I'd feel a bit more comfortable if he addressed the allegations here.

I provided him with the URL to this thread and the initial message in HTML.

Don't most people use board tracker? This will be hanging over him across the adult community until he makes some statement.

:(

We can only wait and see

Alphawolf
This has not been the first time he has been slammed on the boards and he rarely comes to defend himself.

Well I would be perfectly happy to discuss with him openly on this board absolutly all that has gone on as well as payment, that way everyone can see whats been going on

Kevin... I never said it WAS stolen. I said it could work on the same principal... often... the last guy in line gets fucked the hardest. Hard but true.

legally?? I don't really know... it would be interesting.. if Bri wanted to press it... most would probably pay him or take his stuff down.

Things would be simple if i knew exactly how many licences he had issued and to who as then they could chargback what they paid to him, buy the same title at the same price from me and get a new licence but I have no way of telling who has bought what as he wont give me any stats but admits sales of differing amounts depending on when you talk to him not that you can talk to someone that wont answer your emails

Let me ask the supplier this. Was the content sold to the webmasters using david laces license or a lincese supplied buy the actual provider of the content?

You have a PM bri |waves|

Hi as far as I know he would have used his own licence agreement rather than one of mine, but without going through the files it is only a presumption, I think there was the option to use my own but went I went with his standard agreement

That's a bummer. I'll have to check out board scanner later.

In the end, he only hurts himself as I would have been spending a great deal more with him in the future.

You should post samples of all 29 sets you asked/agreed in that contract DL selling for you.

This statement is so true. Right now we don't know anything about the situation and we can not help you in any way and while my gut tells me that you are very honest and that you're telling the truth I don't really have anything to base that feeling on.

Please help us help you.

Sorry to hear you're having some problems with DL, but...

Why do you guys keep advising people to chargeback? This is absolutely outrageous advice!

Everyone here relies on a CC to operate their business. Charging back for received goods is illegal. Charging back leaves a black mark on a CC making it virtually unusable.

Advise people to request a refund, which is perfectly legal: not to do something which could jeopardise their entire business.

Very good point, but sometimes it takes drastic measures to get someones attention.

However as SirMoby has pointed out it's difficult to do anything without seeing the content. I'm starting to get a funny feeling about this.

Dropped you a note eyesore bri, lets talk when your online |shake|

sorry guys been in and out over the weekend and not been able to keep up with the thread, I will make a page with samples on over the next few hours and put a link to it here so that you can check them out

Im gonna have to agree with Kevin on a few things here. If I go to wal-mart and buy a couple of starter t-shirts and then in 6 months starter pulls there cloths because wal-mart refuses to pay for the product am I supposed to take the shirts back, no, its called consumer protection. It may not always work the way it should be the webmasters who bought content shouldnt be the ones to feel the brunt of this.

Wicked
I hear what you are saying, but the law may be different when it comes to Licensing. I'm advocating the buyer charges back and buys the license off the producer.

Makes the broker come to his senses, something he has not done yet as this is on many boards and he has yet to respond.

At the moment the buyer has his content, the broker has his money and the producers and the producers has dip shit. Except sympathy, which does not pay bills.

This might be hurting DL, not enough to bring him here, but it is doing nothing to help the producer.

OK guys if you go to http://www.eyesoreimages.com/dl/setstodl.htm

there is a pic from each of the 29 titles that he had if you need any other details or pics just let me know

Paul I enderstand where you are comming from because I am also a producer. Other than the whole legal/civil case issue I think it is a bad reflection on a producer to tell webmasters that their licences are invalid just because they have been screwed. You won't even know who all the webmasters are that purchased that content anyway.

Webmasters are our customers and their interests should be protected above all else as far as I'm concerned. This has happened to me and I lost thousands and I posted on the boards that the licenses would be honoured by me. Webmasters don't need this extra crap in their life because of a deal I made with a broker. It's not fair. I made the deal then I take the loss without placing any burden on the webmaster.

Kevin
I understand your point of viwe, but I disagree with you.

I think the people who bought this content from DL should charge back and pay the money to Eyesore.

All DL is doing is stealing content and getting away with it, what is to stop him doing it again and again? Relying on the fact that suing him is going to be too expensive.

Paul that’s where you and I differ. I don’t think it’s fair to pass the consequences of my business decision onto others who are innocent in the whole matter. My decision my loss. The same goes for a Webmaster. If he purchases crap content and he looses members because of it I wouldn’t expect him to turn to the provider and blame him. His business decisions his loss.

Maybe it’s because I am a Webmaster with my own pay sites that I can see both sides. If I as a Webmaster purchased content from a provider and was then told by someone else that I must charge back and then repurchase I would never do business with either of them again. Why you ask? Because I am busy and I don’t have the time to waste because you or any other producer has been screwed.

I do agree that a broker or producer that screws another should be dealt with legally as well as on boards like this. So in a nutshell you and I agree but we only disagree about the way we treat webmasters.