Look

http://www.championhost.com/

http://datapeer.com/

and i know i have seen the other images on another site...

Heh, it seems datapeer is the original (It looks better. :p )

whos ripping who there ?

Well,

somtimes the student gets better than the master...

yes, and question, who's ripping who?

Best,

Enigmatic

Data Peer is the original one

Hmm i thought there is a copyright
Do they know some one copy their style?

Originally posted by klisis
Heh, it seems datapeer is the original (It looks better. :p )

Agreed :)

Choon

don't forget the image at pwebtech.com

yeah plus there is another site in there. i just cant remember who... that is really sad. i am spending thousands on my site and I don't know what I'll do if someone goes and steals it. Things like that make me angry :angry:

I found a couple too....

Adult Data (http://www.adultdata.net/)

Vortech Hosting (http://www.vortechhosting.com)

I don't know what the relationship between this two sites, but they look alike with the page design.

No offense ....

Adult Data

+

Vortech Hosting


Are both owned by the same guy, you can check by running a whois on the both.

Igor is up to his old tricks again huh (Champion)

I noticed he also started a new company id under HostSearch to "clean his image up" if you will...

I would report it to datapeer

They are both our sites.. hehe

They should look a little alike one adult one non-adult.. ;)

We have some new ones coming out for colo, ded. hosting as well but these are all new design.

OOooppss ....

they are the same company, according to the WHOIS searching ....

hehehe ....

:D

Dear Vortech Hosting & Adult Data

will the Adult Data offer the affiliate program soon ??

i saw it but it still under construction ....

please let me know when you launch it.

Thanks.

;)

this is my fav part of it...lol

We host more than 30,000 domains for businesses in over 127 countries around the world. Our product portfolio includes virtual, dedicated, and co-located web hosting and design services. We serve the SME and corporate market, and include among our notable clientele Kinko’s, Simmons, University of Miami, Philadelphia Tribune, Epson, Leica, TRW, Lockheed Martin, as well as the US Government. Businesses large and small employ our hosting services.


:D

LOL

No problem wild_monkey..

You are all ready a affiliate of Vortech's right?

We are working on some new software that will be able to do all out sites from one spot. ;)

Originally posted by Vortech
You are all ready a affiliate of Vortech's right?

I guess so.

Actually, i lack of adult host on my site.

:stickout

Originally posted by klisis
Heh, it seems datapeer is the original (It looks better. :p ) DataPeer is unquestionably the original. On the Champion Host page, that yellow area with the dots arranged in an arrow is part of the DataPeer corporate logo (look at DataPeer's full-page ad on page 209 of December's PC World magazine). After doing a quick search, I see this isn't the first time this guy has ripped off people's sites.
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2397&highlight=champion+host
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3416&highlight=champion+host

Champion Host, a debt-free and privately held corporation, is an organization of people dedicated to helping businesses grow their presence online through scalable web hosting and design solutions. Founded in September 1995, we have grown from a 2 person operation to over 65 employees.

:laugh: :stickout :D

Shh Kiwi, i'm sure those monkeys are very well trained. :stickout

Champion Host, a debt-free and privately held corporation, is an organization of people dedicated to helping businesses grow their presence online through scalable web hosting and design solutions. Founded in September 1995, we have grown from a 2 person operation to over 65 employees.http://www.dreamconcept.com/index_main.html

Originally posted by Intelligent Hosting
http://www.dreamconcept.com/index_main.html It's a commonly-stolen paragraph, regardless of where it's from originally (I'd guess webhosting.com; it's in what appears to be a 1998 pdf version of their support manual). Just do a search for a piece of that text, like this one:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22businesses+grow+their+presence+online+through+scalable%22

You'll find a whole list of insignificant "hosting companies," each proclaiming themselves to be unique and different from all the other hosts while unable even to write their own site copy. Or, though claiming to be huge "debt-free and privately held corporations," unable to pay someone to do it for them.

My favorite among these deceptive claims is near the bottom of this page: http://www.i2net.net/why.htm: "Numerous independent review agencies have recognized us as one of the top web hosting companies in the world."

"Numerous," I suppose, if the number is zero.

Champion Host is notorious for ripping off other webhost designs so I'd say they are the ones copying.

This is not about Champion Host or DataPeer, but I just found out EHostingBiz apparently has ripped some parts of Hostway.com

- The 30 day money back guaranteed on this page (http://www.ehostingbiz.com/oppmain.asp).

:uhh: actually I love the design.....

All this site copying is because these are standard templates in crappy design software like macromedia crap... lol...

Copyright © 2001 Champion Host, Inc. All rights reserved You gotta love that.

This is a conversation this board has often. Ive asked this question before and never got a real answer. I looked at thes pages and there are no graphics that are shared. only html. I really doubt it can be considered a crime to use simaler html, it may be wrong moraly, but are there any laws that prevent some on from viewing source, and rewriting it?

Thank you
Jason Miller :homer:

<<URL removed>>

They host Lockeedmartin? Now that is funny, I know for a fact that their server is in house, I know because I worked on the install.

I think the best part is their order screen, no SSL and it is transmitted via formail.pl

Originally posted by Ihoppoet
I really doubt it can be considered a crime to use [similar] html, it may be wrong moraly, but are there any laws that prevent some on from viewing source, and rewriting it?Good question.

Quite simply, yes, it is illegal to copy text that you have not written yourself and distribute that same work on your own site without retaining the rights to do so. The "copyright" is, quite literally, the right to copy the original created work, and it is generally held exclusively by the creator of the work, unless he/she releases the rights to a third party. If you don't have the copyright, you don't have the right to use it.

Copyright law fully protects the creators of all written or recorded works, from HTML to MP3 files of recorded songs. As for laws -- laws never prevent anything. Only the enforecement of them do. Unfortunately, the current state of affairs is such that our law enforcement officials must (and should) focus on catching violent criminals rather than track down every creativity-stealer on the net.

Think about this one: Morally, or legally, if you didn't create it, DON'T USE IT. You're not allowed. Use your own brain. If you're smart enough and morally concerned enough to ask the question, then you're smart enough to put your own fingers to the keyboard and compose your own words.

one2host.com is the other site he used.

Or pay someone else to do it :D

The mentioned sites is nice but is not standing out in any means as for origininality. It is like now I have made this ordinary design and noone else are allowed to do something similar. I agree that copyright should be respected - no copying etc. - do it yourself - but I suppose that many people have made something very similar to that site never ever having seen it.

John

Originally posted by bigmattyh
Good question.

Copyright law fully protects the creators of all written or recorded works, from HTML to MP3 files of recorded songs. As for laws -- laws never prevent anything. Only the enforecement of them do. Unfortunately, the current state of affairs is such that our law enforcement officials must (and should) focus on catching violent criminals rather than track down every creativity-stealer on the net.


Hi bigmattyh,

That's actually not entirely correct. You cannot copyright HTML, it is completely unenforcable. You can copyright the content, and images, but you cannot copyright the design layout. In recent years, this issue has been debated to death, and it is a general consensus that it is a no-win. You can, however, ask 5 different attorneys, and they will all give you different viewpoints and opinions.

Nonetheless, this is directly from the U.S. Copyright Office, relating to intellectual rights.

Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work.


Personally, I've always been torn on this issue. On one hand, you can copyright your placement of words (even that is debatable), so logic would dictate you could copyright the placement of your TD tags. On the other hand, allowing the copyright of layout would be a tremendous mistake. A good example might be Infopop and Jelsoft. When vBulletin was released, there were accusations being thrown around that it was a rip of UBB. Although the design is familiar, the code is entirely different. Now imagine if Infopop had been permitted to copyright THEIR design... vBulletin as we know it today, would look entirely different. The point is, you will never see the ability to copyright HTML--where would the line be drawn?? Remember the Harley Davidson case? They tried (tried, being the operative word) to patent the sound of their motorcycles for pete's sake. While I am a firm believer in the protection of ideas, etc.. I'm also a believer in free enterprise, and I think that sometimes, people take the protection of intellectual property a tad too far.

Hi LLT,

I understand your point-of-view on the unenforceability of copyrighting HTML, but nevertheless, any created work that is written down or published in electronic form -- and that includes web pages -- is copyrighted the instant that it is put into form.

If I create a web page (again, or any type of work), the U.S. government grants me a copyright the instant it is created. It helps if I write "Copyright (C) 2001 Matt Howell", but doing so is no longer necessary for the legitimacy of the copyright. If I register my page with the U.S. Copyright office, all the better -- because then I can sure for legal fees as well as actual damages if I decide to sue.

You can copyright the design of a web page, just as you can copyright the design of a magazine or a newspaper. It is much harder to enfoce this point because determining the level of infringement is highly subjective, and it depends on how much of the original work the copier uses in his copied work, and what percentage of his copied work is based on the original.

At this point, it becomes pretty clear that all a copier has to do to steal the essence of a design is to change enough things around so that it appears that it is just a coincidence that his design resembles the original. But if he cuts-and-pastes the design and uses it as his own, he can be prosecuted, should the creator decide to pursue the case.

The fact that the laws are difficult to enforce does not change the underlying principle that copyright is copyright, whether in electronic or printed form. In reality, I won't sue someone who has stolen one of my designs, because it would probably never get that far. A simple "cease and desist" letter generally gets the desired action. And the reason for this is that copyright on the web is legitimate.

I know I'm probably debating an academic point, because it's highly unlikely that anyone will take someone to court for ripping off a design. But the copiers of the world (ChampionHost, e.g.) had better be warned that the law is not on their side, and that copyright law applies just as much to the web as anything else.

bigmattyh, here's how I understood LLT's post.

You can't copyright HTML any more than you can copyright the english language. You can copyright the content that is represented with the language.

And you can't copyright layouts, and never have been able to. Although like LLT says, some lawyers will try to argue it, and a lot of web sites claim it in their copyright statement.

But if you visit the Library of Congress's web site and read their instructions for submitting a copyright, they include the words:

"do not include such words as layout or other unenforceable words in your copyright request if you want it to be accepted".

Well I'm paraphrasing, because I'm too lazy to find the quote.

I'm not trying to argue. I'm just saying that I interpreted LLT's post to be correct, while you interpreted it to be incorrect. Assuming that most people are correct when they speak, I was right in my interpretation. But then I hate trying to clarify this point, especially since a lot of peole on this board seem to be wrong.

<rant>

It's better to just state your own opinion, rather than challenging someone elses. "Are you sure, because this is what I understood to be the truth?"

However, if someone starts out challenging my opinion, then I might respond like you did, and have in the past.

IMHO!

</rant>

<discussion of principle of copyright>

You can't copyright HTML any more than you can copyright the english language.Well, if that's the case, then nothing is copyrightable.

An HTML document is an original work, using common (uncopyrightable) elements, but putting those elements together in novel form makes it an original creation, and therefore copyrightable. It's just like putting words together in a novel way to write an article or a novel, etc. etc. etc.

The law is very clear on the issue, in principle and in the letter. That's all I'm saying. Any original created work, put in form beyond the "I have an idea" phase is copyrightable. The law is expressly designed to protect the originators and to punish the copiers.

Whether or not layouts and designs are enforced in court, tell me that if you ripped off Coca-Cola's site design, that their legal team wouldn't respond. The reason why is that the law backs them up. You could never argue in court that stealing their design is justified because it isn't copyrightable. This is not a matter of opinion.

Don't enable the rip-off artists out there. All created works are copyrightable. All.

</discussion of principle of copyright>

I'm not arguing that design is something that is sued over all the time, or should be.

What I am saying is that if the issue were to come up in court, and it is a clear case of infringement (basically stealing the page and replacing the originator's company's name with the copier's), the copier would lose. In a heartbeat.

*looks at championhost*
*looks at datapeer*

They look nothing alike...

A google search shows that Champion stole the text under "Champion Host Web Design Services" on homepage from ADDR.COM. Compare to http://www.addr.com/design.htm .

Oops, looks like someone else already found this in another topic.

Originally posted by bigmattyh
<discussion of principle of copyright>

Well, if that's the case, then nothing is copyrightable.

bigmattyh, Sounds like you just want to argue. Did you even read the sentence after the one that you quoted?

You can't copyright HTML any more than you can copyright the english language. You can copyright the content that is represented with the language.

It's still true. You can't copyright the english language.

And since you don't believe me that you can't copyright layout, I took the time to look up that source:

http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ66.html#complete

Do NOT give statements that refer to elements that may not be protected by copyright, that may be ambiguous, or that do not clearly reflect copyrightable authorship. For example, do NOT use the terms "user interface," "format," "layout," "design," "lettering," "concept," or "game play."

Circular 66 published by the library of congress (yes they maintain all registration of copyrights).

Coca cola's legal team can sue me all they want for stealing their site's layout, but they would have no legal basis and my attorney would move for the court to dismiss the case and punish them for abuse of process.

Hi bigmattyh,

I'm not trying to start a flame war here. The only reason I decided to participate in this thread is simply because there is a common misconception in general, that when you design a website, it is protected in its entirity. That's just simply false.

Originally posted by bigmattyh
[B]<discussion of principle of copyright>

Well, if that's the case, then nothing is copyrightable.

An HTML document is an original work, using common (uncopyrightable) elements, but putting those elements together in novel form makes it an original creation, and therefore copyrightable. It's just like putting words together in a novel way to write an article or a novel, etc. etc. etc.


I'm sorry to keep arguing this point, but your statement is misleading, and people should understand the truth before carrying on with a false sense of security (if you would like to call it that.) You cannot place a few tags on a page with colors and call that an "original creation." Now if you get into custom header and background images, and flash, then that's a different story and completely different than simply layout.

The law is very clear on the issue, in principle and in the letter. That's all I'm saying. Any original created work, put in form beyond the "I have an idea" phase is copyrightable. The law is expressly designed to protect the originators and to punish the copiers.

Again, not true, and to respond to an earlier statement regarding, what amounts to, implied copyright--Unless you obtain a valid, registered copyright, good luck enforcing any infringments. "This guy stole my website..." "No I didn't, I made my site months ago, he stole it from me." Copyright law is tremendously hard enough to enforce as it is, and to be frank, it's not high on a court docket, unless you're backed by a Fortune 500 company, with deep pockets and leagle eagle defense team.

Whether or not layouts and designs are enforced in court, tell me that if you ripped off Coca-Cola's site design, that their legal team wouldn't respond. The reason why is that the law backs them up. You could never argue in court that stealing their design is justified because it isn't copyrightable. This is not a matter of opinion.

Coca-Cola isn't exactly a fair example. I highly doubt anyone competent enough to duplicate a site such as that would even bother in the first place, as they would obviously have the capacity to create their own. It's not quite as simple as copying/pasting the "View Source" ;)

Don't enable the rip-off artists out there. All created works are copyrightable. All.

Please know, that is not my intention at all. I have just as little respect for the average ripoff artist as the next guy.. My only point in all of this is that you are providing a false sense of security by claiming things that are just simply not factual. :rolleyes:

Regards.

Mark, I am not arguing; I am simply trying to clarify to people that you cannot, for any reason, take a site and recopy it as your own.

You are right that layout per se does not generally fall under the umbrella of enforceable copyright. If that were the case, every women's magazine would sue each other weekly over their all-too-similar cover layouts.

However -- dealing with the case at hand -- if you take a site's source and simply do a find-and-replace and insert your own text in place of the original, you are effectively stealing a large portion of another's work, and using it as a substantial portion of your own. This is copyright infringement, and enforceable under federal and international copyright law (which actually tends to be even more on the side of creators than U.S. law).

It does not matter if the document is created in HTML, XML, or WHATEVERML. If you use another's work without getting the originator's permission, you are stealing, and you can be prosecuted, especially if the originator believes that the theft is creating damages.

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" height="22">
<tr>
<td width="31%" height="40">&nbsp;</td>
<td width="36%" height="40" bgcolor="#000066">
<div align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3" color="#FFFFFF">Webhosting
Talk </font></div>
</td>
<td width="33%" height="40">&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</table>


Ok, Copyright (c) 2001 - LLT, All rights reserved. :)

ROTFLMAOPMP!!! You can't do that. lol

LLT, I fully agree with your statements in this thread. ;)

-Kyle

Look, copyright law is a highly complex issue whose case history stretches back many hundreds of years. I have only attempted to expound upon general principles here. To do otherwise and pick at every little example isn't really useful, and is, more often than not, fodder for misinterpretation.

LLT: You are right that copyrights are very difficult and resource-consuming to enforce. People need to know, though, that registration or not, they do have rights. Even though copyright enforcement is so difficult to enforce, that fact does not in any way change the fact that if you create a web page, you do own the copyright to your creation.

People also need to know, though, that if you want full protection, you must save your documents to disk or print them in hard-copy form, and send the hard evidence to the copyright registry. Doing so provides you teeth in case you choose to prosecute someone for copyright infringement.

The whole point of why I joined this discussion was to dispel the notion that somehow just because HTML documents are freely available and distributable, that they are not copyrightable and not protected.

Just a little wonder, why people like to fight for what they don't have much?

Originally posted by NetXL
Shh Kiwi, i'm sure those monkeys are very well trained. :stickout

LOL!!! Oh man, I have to read WHT more often.. These comments are cracking me up!