http://www.hostforweb.com is the exact ripoff of fastwebsites.com (http://www.fastwebsites.com). Can this ripoff be any worse? I think this is the worse cover up ever.


-Mike

Oh my.. That's real disappointing.

Fastwebsites.com is the rightful owner of the site, but the imposter is plainly ripping him off. I wish there is something that can be done. Any suggestions?


-Mike

Originally posted by loballhostin
Fastwebsites.com is the rightful owner of the site

Yep, I believe Pixelbrick wouldn't risk ruining their reputation by stealing a design. FWS looks much better too :)

Fastwebsites should probably be notified, then they can deal with it. I'll pop an email over unless you have already?

I am sending them an e-mail as we speak.

is there any other companies that are up now that have done the same to others. I want to see if we can beat this one=0

I'll talk to Theodore tomorrow anyways, I will talk to him about this.

I already ICQ'd theodore about it... hopefully enough of us can bug him to do something. I know him really well to know that he won't let people steal his company's work.

funny stuff.

Thank you Andy for reporting!
Damn, we just bought it from a desigener.
_______________________________
Max J.
Support Dep.


:rolleyes: :confused:

Oh, God! Thank you guys for reporting.
We just bought it from a designer (http://www.silversun.net).
I'm removing it...
Damn it!!!

For those who missed to have a look at stolen design - please go here - http://www.silversun.net/hostforweb/

Well with all due respect for both sites, I dont think they are the same. They may have the same color scheme and an angled shaped header but thats it. I wouldn't call these two copies of each other at all. But http://www.fastwebsites.com does look sharper and cleaner.

Originally posted by Jag
Well with all due respect for both sites, I dont think they are the same. They may have the same color scheme and an angled shaped header but thats it. I wouldn't call these two copies of each other at all.

Jag,
No doubt that the idea and concept were stolen from pixelbrick.

Perhaps using the word copied isn't correct. The whole concept is definitely stolen though, you can't tell me they don't look the same to you, at first glance.

You cant exactly steal an idea or concept, no doubt he used that site as a guide or inspiration but I would not say he stole anything. He could have been more original and at least changed the colors.

The whole shape/layout of the header is taken from FWS. As far as I can see, it's stolen. The designer clearly didn't just use it as an aid to create the design. He took everything and changed it around a bit.

Court cases have been won by designers whose work was modified to this extent. I'm an old Chicken so the cases I studied involved traditional print design and graphics and layout (what you can do, what you can't), and I believe this site is more than inspired.

While one could make the argument that there are only so many ways to put navigation on a site, which I do agree, that doesn't mean you can rip the basic elements of a design, change the logo, remove an image, put another image here, change the wording and say, this is an original design.

It isn't.

In my opinion it is clearly a copy and he could get in some huge trouble from pixelbrick because their design had to of cost in the thousands and this copy design must have been much cheaper, anyways who would even dare to steal a pixelbrick design, that could lead to a court battle easily.

I agree 100% w/ Chicken. This obviously stepped over the line from inspiration to blatant rip-off.

Dave

Originally posted by vibehosts
In my opinion it is clearly a copy and he could get in some huge trouble from pixelbrick because their design had to of cost in the thousands and this copy design must have been much cheaper, anyways who would even dare to steal a pixelbrick design, that could lead to a court battle easily.

1000 is much cheaper than they paid I can guarentee that so my opinion was correct also you paid a thief 1000 bucks to go and make an amazing design for you but really all he did was copy their site, probably took him 30 minutes.

We should start a club for people who's sites have been ripped off repeatedly :)

-Brendan

..I have the solution


Stop making jaw dropping, stunning, professional sites.

Who wants to rip an ugly site anyway? :D

Originally posted by netacore
..I have the solution
Stop making jaw dropping, stunning, professional sites.
Who wants to rip an ugly site anyway? :D

I have already implemented that plan..!

Originally posted by Max J.


Jag,
No doubt that the idea and concept were stolen from pixelbrick.

This site is definitely not stolen. Using a generic layout scheme is not theft. I'm sad to see the owner chose to get rid of it. Is using a horizontal navbar theft? Is using a vertical navbar on the left hand side theft? Is using a monochromatic composite in the header theft? What are you saying? He stole a "shape"? He stole a "color"? No- these are *design patterns*- not owned content. Using hotlinks or copyed images is stealing. Using a similar layout is not... or you're ALL STEALING from Tim Berners-Lee.

Hey! I invented the red octagon. All stop signs are stealing from me.

Jake

Jake it looks so much like it so it is a copy, its layed out identical its not just the navbar its everything.

Come to think of it-

My advertising resently got hijacked by some shills from another webhosting company who claimed i "stole" my design. I would like someone who has a hosting company who think's thier site is "original" to post the url. I'll be happy to show you 10 elements that can be shown to have prior art... hope y'all didn't use the websafe color pallette!

Bring it on!

Jeremy "Jake" Suntheimer

Originally posted by Chicken
...that doesn't mean you can rip the basic elements of a design, change the logo, remove an image, put another image here, change the wording and say, this is an original design.
It isn't.

Yes, I agree w/ you Chicken. However, there is nothing that I can see in this case that was "ripped". The two sites don't have a single common element that I can see (although I could have missed something). What was ripped? General color scheme? That can't be owned! The banner-bar shape? If you look carefully, you can tell that they aren't the same at all. Maybe i misunderstand what you mean by "rip".

Jake

This site is definitely not stolen. Using a generic layout scheme is not theft. I'm sad to see the owner chose to get rid of it. Is using a horizontal navbar theft? Is using a vertical navbar on the left hand side theft? Is using a monochromatic composite in the header theft? What are you saying? He stole a "shape"? He stole a "color"? No- these are *design patterns*- not owned content. Using hotlinks or copyed images is stealing. Using a similar layout is not... or you're ALL STEALING from Tim Berners-Lee.

They used the same colour, the same shape and probably even the same look if they had more talnet to be able to rip it properly. What you said is fair, but not with that site.

We may be the outcasts here Jake but Im with you.
*Braces himself for the flaming*

Originally posted by CritticAge


They used the same colour, the same shape and probably even the same look if they had more talnet to be able to rip it properly. What you said is fair, but not with that site.

So your saying that they are the only ones in the world entitled to use a site with those colors with that shape of a header?

Well, for example. The top of the header, they didnt even change the dark blue and light blue. It has the same shpae, same colour. Then to the 'inside' of the header, it is the same colour and also trys to have the grid affect. Then the bottom of the header, it trys to have the same metalic look.

Ok, I get what you mean. Thanks for clarifying.

Originally posted by CritticAge


They used the same colour, the same shape and probably even the same look if they had more talnet to be able to rip it properly. What you said is fair, but not with that site.

So because they didn't make it exactly the same it's a poor attempt at ripping off the site?!?!? Not bloody likely. That's backwards... I think they didn't rip off the site exactly because they weren't trying to... thus the many differences. They didn't steal images. They didn't steal text. The shapes are different, and the colors are different... similar, but different. The one site clearly took queues from the other, but ripping off... that's a strong claim wthout merit.

Look at rackspace.com and mchost.com, for example. Red and black logos in the upper left corner, horizontal navbar, graphical "go" buttons, content blocks.. and mchost used to have a logo bar at the bottom. You wouldn't say mchost stole their design from rackspace, would you?

Jake

Originally posted by CritticAge
Well, for example. The top of the header, they didnt even change the dark blue and light blue. It has the same shpae, same colour. Then to the 'inside' of the header, it is the same colour and also trys to have the grid affect. Then the bottom of the header, it trys to have the same metalic look.

The width and proportion is totally different. That color combo was popularized by MICROSOFT, for crying out loud! Check out msn.com and you can still see them used together. As for the grids, they are placed in different areas, and the grid scheme is totally different... I can find about 50 sites that put a grid in the header "composite".

Alpha blending is totally different.

Also, the orange and blue are complementary colors... it's not unusual to find them used together to create "impact".

Again, you're talking design patterns, not rip offs.

Jake

I am pretty sure ideas are copyright and dont tell me they would of made that without seeing fastwebsites.com's design.

Originally posted by CritticAge
I am pretty sure ideas are copyright and dont tell me they would of made that without seeing fastwebsites.com's design.

Picasso wouldn't be made w/o Cezanne.

What's your point? They site in question used generic shapes, organizations, and colors... but didn't use a single element from the other.

Jake

I am no longer fight this subject, I dont even really care :)

SilverSun ripped pixelbrick.
pixelbrick stole from IBM.
it's a party. come on in.

see the stolen pictures (http://www.clio360.com/images/stuff/brickrip.jpg)

www.ibm.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce/CategoryDisplay?cgrfnbr=2048974&cntrfnbr=1&cgmenbr=1&cntry=840&lang=en_US]IMB.com (http://commerce.[url)

You dont know pixel brick didnt buy them.

Originally posted by clio
SilverSun ripped pixelbrick.
pixelbrick stole from IBM.
it's a party. come on in.

see the stolen pictures (http://www.clio360.com/images/stuff/brickrip.jpg)


That's priceless.

Now, this, in fact, would be stealing, if IBM were to object to their use. This would be "RIPPING". This would be "STEALING".

Of course, IBM probably doesn't object- i've talked to various individuals and companies about using their images that I've found on images.google.com, and except for one instance, they've been fine with me incorporating thier images.

Jake

Even if they don't look EXACTLY the same, and even if it uses a "general" layout, the fact that the person at HostForWeb took it down shows that he DID rip it. If he did not rip it, he would have argued it and you all know that, even those who don't think it's a rip. The designer, or whoever, knows where they got the idea, the colors, and basically the entire layout from, and he knows that if there were some legal action taken he wouldn't have won, and for that reason he took it down.

Aside from that, the new HostForWeb layout is horrible. The old, "ripped" one wasn't all that bad. If he's really that good I don't think he would replace a decently designed layout with something as crappy as his new one.

Originally posted by secludo
Even if they don't look EXACTLY the same, and even if it uses a "general" layout, the fact that the person at HostForWeb took it down shows that he DID rip it. If he did not rip it, he would have argued it and you all know that, even those who don't think it's a rip. The designer, or whoever, knows where they got the idea, the colors, and basically the entire layout from, and he knows that if there were some legal action taken he wouldn't have won, and for that reason he took it down.

Aside from that, the new HostForWeb layout is horrible. The old, "ripped" one wasn't all that bad. If he's really that good I don't think he would replace a decently designed layout with something as crappy as his new one.

Dear, secludo.
If you read above, that design was bought by us from a design company. We'll took it down, because we think that it's really was ripped of fastwebsites.

I apologize. I read all of the thread except a few of the middle posts on this last page and did not realize that was there. I skipped through a few of the middle posts because I assumed it would have been more of the, "Well it's just a general color theme and general layout" garbage, when it is extremely similar and the design was quite obviously taken.

the fact that the person at HostForWeb took it down shows that he DID rip it. If he did not rip it, he would have argued it and you all know that

No, he took it down because he was unfairly held up for public hummiliation by a few folks who cannot discern theft from that which is rightly in the public domain: color schemes/ layouts / shapes etc. I'm arguing because i *do* know the difference.

** I will point out NO ONE has offered their own allegedly "original" site for critique. This is because you all know that you're sites are not original, when held up to CRITICAL THOUGHT AND SCRUTINY! Check out http://www.enormicom.com/, and you'll probably see your site staring right back at you.

** No one has been able to point out a single stolen element. People has said he used a similar color scheme- As I pointed out, the contrasting blues were popularized by other sites, and the use of contrasting colors have predate the renaissance!!! There is nothing unsual about this layout. All of your arguments are VACUOUS AND BASELESS! You're quick to point a finger, slow to defend your accusation with FACTS. All anyone can come up with is "you know he stole it". Proof by assertion! Very powerful argument you got there, folks!

The designer, or whoever, knows where they got the idea, the colors, and basically the entire layout from, and he knows that if there were some legal action...

It would have been laughed out of court. "His site looks like mine!" "Howso?" "Uh... He used a blue and orange, and curvy stuff and grids and a similar layout!" "Case dismissed, next case!"


Aside from that, the new HostForWeb layout is horrible. The old, "ripped" one wasn't all that bad. If he's really that good I don't think he would replace a decently designed layout with something as crappy as his new one.

Yeah, after he decided to take down this professionaly designed website cause of people like you! Come on, guy, what's your url. I could have tracked down the urls to the sites of ALL OF YOU STONE-CASTING HYPOCRITES, but I won't lower myself to your level. I won't publicly humiliate your site showing how derivitive it is, unless you offer your site for scrutiny.

Now, i'm as against stealing copywrited material, graphical images, false advertising, etc as the next one. In fact, I don't own ANY stolen mp3s, or any pirated software. How many of you can say that? That is "RIPPING". But all you ERSATZ ART CRITICS without a dime's worth of critical thinking skills are willing to destroy a companies reputation, and in this case waste a man's money. But to keep his site up, he has to throw up an inferior design and YOU MOCK HIM FOR IT.

You make me sick! If you can't defend your accusations, SHUT UP. Most of you already have.

Jake

BTW- If it's cheap, i'd buy that design off of you. I'd gladly put it to good use. If you're interested, pm me.

Jake

I couldn't have said it better than Jake, so I will just leave it at I agree with him.

You ****ing dumbass. The OWNER of the website that was stolen website already said that he thought that the company stole the design!!! Even HE agrees with the fact that they look so similar.

No, he took it down because he was unfairly held up for public hummiliation by a few folks who cannot discern theft from that which is rightly in the public domain: color schemes/ layouts / shapes etc. I'm arguing because i *do* know the difference.

So if YOU designed a site and did not get a SINGLE idea from anyone, and some one else designed a site strikingly similar to yours came to you and said, "Hey, you stole my design. Take it down or I'll sue." - you wouldn't argue the fact that you did not steal it, all in hopes of avoiding public humiliation? You would simply take it down with no further questions?

This is because you all know that you're sites are not original, when held up to CRITICAL THOUGHT AND SCRUTINY!

I never claimed that my sites are original. HOWEVER, they do not look nearly IDENTICAL to any other site that I PERSONALLY have found.

http://www.collinraye.net

** No one has been able to point out a single stolen element. People has said he used a similar color scheme- As I pointed out, the contrasting blues were popularized by other sites, and the use of contrasting colors have predate the renaissance!!! There is nothing unsual about this layout. All of your arguments are VACUOUS AND BASELESS! You're quick to point a finger, slow to defend your accusation with FACTS. All anyone can come up with is "you know he stole it". Proof by assertion! Very powerful argument you got there, folks!

Not even going to comment on this, as my comment about the owner of HostForWeb already stated that he thinks it was ripped - that covers it.

It would have been laughed out of court. "His site looks like mine!" "Howso?" "Uh... He used a blue and orange, and curvy stuff and grids and a similar layout!" "Case dismissed, next case!"

Not necessarily. People sue other people over more ridiculous things that this. "McDonald's HOT coffee spilled all over me and burned me! You bastards, you will pay for selling me hot coffee! You should have KNOWN that I like it cold!" "I couldn't stop for the ambulance because the lights and all the noise scared me, so I just kept going and got hit by the ambulance and decided to sue and get lots of money!!" I rest my case.

Yeah, after he decided to take down this professionaly designed website cause of people like you! Come on, guy, what's your url. I could have tracked down the urls to the sites of [B]ALL OF YOU STONE-CASTING HYPOCRITES, but I won't lower myself to your level. I won't publicly humiliate your site showing how derivitive it is, unless you offer your site for scrutiny.

First of all, I'm not a guy. He took down his professionally ripped site because he felt that it was ripped and wanted to avoid further confrontation. And then he put up a not-so-professionally designed site. Why? Because the one that he had before was ripped by a company who sold it to him!! Humiliate my site - doesn't bother me. I don't run a hosting company or a web design company. All you can say is, "Ha, what a ****ing loser, she made a site about some dorky Country Music singer!!" What, are you going to ruin my reputation or something? I'm building some more sites for company's of my dads, and would be happy to give you the URLs when I'm finished when them. I'm not afraid of you seeing them, dear.

You make me sick! If you can't defend your accusations, SHUT UP. Most of you already have.

Well, I'm not "most of them" and I've already defended my accusations. Aside from that, you are the moron who didn't notice my reply to my original post with an apology for what I had said - because I hadn't seen the posts where they were talking about why they took it down - because THEY, the hosting company being ACCUSED of stealing a design, DOES think that it was ripped!!

/me hopes that my DSL doesn't go out when I hit Reply..

Originally posted by secludo
You ****ing dumbass.

Profanity is the verbal crutch of the illiterate.


The OWNER of the website that was stolen website already said that he thought that the company stole the design!!! Even HE agrees with the fact that they look so similar.


Proof by reference to agreement. Another shockingly convincing argument you've made. Just because he is acting professional doesn't mean anything more then that the best way to handle these types of attacks is to remain 100% professional and conciliatory. I could say more about the owners sentiments, but his sentiments are as actually irrelevant to the merit of the claims.


So if YOU designed a site and did not get a SINGLE idea from anyone, and some one else designed a site strikingly similar to yours came to you and said, "Hey, you stole my design. Take it down or I'll sue." - you wouldn't argue the fact that you did not steal it, all in hopes of avoiding public humiliation? You would simply take it down with no further questions?


Now we come to the real issue, don't we? It would be impossible not to get a SINGLE idea from anyone else. That, I believe, is my point. How I would react under those circumstances doesn't matter at all in establishing the legitimacy of the accusation of theft.


I never claimed that my sites are original. HOWEVER, they do not look nearly IDENTICAL to any other site that I PERSONALLY have found.
http://www.collinraye.net


It's a fine site. You should feel good about it. I'm not going to attack it. If you make a webhosting website, and choose to continue this argument, I would be happy to show prior art. Your fan site has a intimate, bloggy feel to it.



First of all, I'm not a guy. He took down his professionally ripped site because he felt that it was ripped and wanted to avoid further confrontation. And then he put up a not-so-professionally designed site. Why? Because the one that he had before was ripped by a company who sold it to him!! Humiliate my site - doesn't bother me. I don't run a hosting company or a web design company. All you can say is, "Ha, what a ****ing loser, she made a site about some dorky Country Music singer!!" What, are you going to ruin my reputation or something? I'm building some more sites for company's of my dads, and would be happy to give you the URLs when I'm finished when them. I'm not afraid of you seeing them, dear.


Please do not attempt to portray me as sexist. In any event, I am not going to humiliate your site. That's seems to be a passtime of yours, not mine. Moreover, you have nothing at stake by my critique. If I took accusations of impropriety to other collin ray(?) fans, that would be more similar to what you chose to do. And you aren't particularly the object of my indignation- all those made these allegations are dispicable in my eyes.



Well, I'm not "most of them" and I've already defended my accusations.


I must have missed your defense. All I saw was your apology for being rude and dead wrong.

Jake

they put the site back up.

http://www.hostforweb.com/

:eek:
They're using it, even though they admitted it was stolen. That's quite sad.. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by NetXL
:eek:
They're using it, even though they admitted it was stolen. That's quite sad.. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: why is it so sad? Perhaps they spoke with their designer and he was able to produce his psd files. They paid for a design, they may as well use it. And beyond that, who the hell cares??? What is it with you people getting your panties in a bunch because people have similar sites?!

Man, has NO ONE EVEN did a screen cap of both SITES and placed them over another and MATCHED up everything?


Hostforweb.com is a RIP off of Fastwebsites.

Just screen cap both the pages and lay them on top of each other in photoshop. Its a rip.

Originally posted by Drewcifer


:rolleyes: why is it so sad? Perhaps they spoke with their designer and he was able to produce his psd files. They paid for a design, they may as well use it. And beyond that, who the hell cares??? What is it with you people getting your panties in a bunch because people have similar sites?!


why should my hard work benefit another site, who hasn't paid me to use it.

Im sure you'd be happy that someone comes over your house to borrow your car without giving you $$$ for gas.

Ironic?
I read another thread a few minutes ago about someone "stealing" HostGUI's Ideas. Which was not ok. But the same person that thinks it is not ok, thinks it is ok in this case?

Originally posted by Annie-Mei
Man, has NO ONE EVEN did a screen cap of both SITES and placed them over another and MATCHED up everything?

Hostforweb.com is a RIP off of Fastwebsites.

Just screen cap both the pages and lay them on top of each other in photoshop. Its a rip.

No actually, they aren't. Look more carefully.

Jake

is this a rip www.****microsoft.com ?

Originally posted by rally
is this a rip www.****microsoft.com ?

Replace **** with a four letter word that starts with f and ends with k

That IMHO is kinda like when Wierd Al Yankovic redoes a song to make fun of the original.(of course then again I believe he "normally" gets permission)

Originally posted by Annie-Mei
Man, has NO ONE EVEN did a screen cap of both SITES and placed them over another and MATCHED up everything?

Hostforweb.com is a RIP off of Fastwebsites.

Just screen cap both the pages and lay them on top of each other in photoshop. Its a rip.

The more I think about this post, the more I feel that it demands more of a response. Upon close scrutiny, it's clear that **NO** images were copied. A layover actually COMPLETELY VINDICATES hostforweb.com, and their designer. All proportions are different, graphical elements different, etc. So since the layovers don't match... what's your point?!?!? How can you conclude that the site was stolen?.

Hostforweb.com's website stole NOTHING from fastwebsites. You are making malicious accusations with no basis in fact.

Jake
This thread isn't making me a lot of friends, but all this character assasination is *REALLY* getting under my skin.

Originally posted by Jake29


This thread isn't making me a lot of friends, but all this character assasination is *REALLY* getting under my skin.

Just because a couple of very narrow visioned individuals don't agree with you doesn't mean they represent the majority:cool:

Originally posted by Jake29


The more I think about this post, the more I feel that it demands more of a response. Upon close scrutiny, it's clear that **NO** images were copied. A layover actually COMPLETELY VINDICATES hostforweb.com, and their designer. All proportions are different, graphical elements different, etc. So since the layovers don't match... what's your point?!?!? How can you conclude that the site was stolen?.

Hostforweb.com's website stole NOTHING from fastwebsites. You are making malicious accusations with no basis in fact.

Jake
This thread isn't making me a lot of friends, but all this character assasination is *REALLY* getting under my skin.

Jake, these people have no point. They are simply too caught up in their own self-riteousness to look at any facts. Also, perhaps if they'd been around the block a couple times, they wouldn't do childish ebayish aoler stuff like this anyway.

Originally posted by Annie-Mei



why should my hard work benefit another site, who hasn't paid me to use it.

Im sure you'd be happy that someone comes over your house to borrow your car without giving you $$$ for gas.

What hard work? The design obviously wasn't stolen. It's obvious to anyone who's looked at the source. It's obvious to anyone who's done any web design. Perhaps you should do the world a favor and stop looking for a cause to get angry about.

Originally posted by Annie-Mei

why should my hard work benefit another site, who hasn't paid me to use it.

Im sure you'd be happy that someone comes over your house to borrow your car without giving you $$$ for gas.


Very very true. That is why in a case like oxygenhost's (see the related thread), there is a valid complaint. This instance is completely different. Nothing other then a most general layout resemblance and generally similar color scheme was used. Do you claim that because you placed some element of a page design in a general area of the page, that not one can place a conceptually similar element in that area? Well I hope you don't put a logo to the left, center, or right of your page or towards the top of your page, because if you did, by YOUR criteria YOU ARE A THIEF, AND MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE.

Here's something to try for fun. Take the bgcolor element of your body tag (or background color of your css) of a page design you've made, and run it through google. See how many times you've stolen someone elses gasoline?

Jake
"Ain't no carjacker, like a webhost carjacker, cause a webhost carjacker don't stop!"

Ya know...while we're at it, that flash thing with the boxes and the computer...that kinda reminds me of http://www.hostrocket.com

hmmm...wonder if they'll take any legal action....

Originally posted by Drewcifer
Ya know...while we're at it, that flash thing with the boxes and the computer...that kinda reminds me of http://www.hostrocket.com

hmmm...wonder if they'll take any legal action....

Yeah, it's interesting how everyone is glossing over the fact that the only documented instance of images taken from another source wasn't from hostforweb- they were the images on fastwebsites page, that were taken from IBM's website.

If "originality" is the overriding virtue here (I'm not saying it is, but it seems to be a tacit argument of the accusers), then I think hostforweb is actually on more solid ground.

Jake

Originally posted by Jake29


Yeah, it's interesting how everyone is glossing over the fact that the only documented instance of images taken from another source wasn't from hostforweb- they were the images on fastwebsites page, that were taken from IBM's website.

If "originality" is the overriding virtue here (I'm not saying it is, but it seems to be a tacit argument of the accusers), then I think hostforweb is actually on more solid ground.

Jake

Yes I find that quite interesting as well.

Welcome to the wonderful world of web design people. where if you use orange and blue in your design, or integrate some flash lameness with flying boxes and lightning or whatever into your site, it doesn't mean <b>someone else can't do exactly the same thing if they want to.</b>

In fact, I maintain, in looking at this case that it's entirely possible that the person designing hostforweb never even looked at the fastwebsites design. The design and color scheme are common enough that <b>nobody</b> could discern whether it was 'inspired' by the fastwebsites design.

Even if it was, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and there is also a legal phrase called "creative parallelism" which, if this case were to be dragged into court would probably have it thrown out in about 4 seconds.

So, please, to all the self-riteous out there, get a clue before you go accusing people. This is nothing like the gearhost thing below that *IS* a real rip. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Originally posted by Drewcifer


In fact, I maintain, in looking at this case that it's entirely possible that the person designing hostforweb never even looked at the fastwebsites design. The design and color scheme are common enough that <b>nobody</b> could discern whether it was 'inspired' by the fastwebsites design.



My guess is that the designer did look at it. But hey, the designers of fastwebsites have obviously looked at a website or two... and for that, they must DIE!!! DIE!!!!!!

Jake

Originally posted by Jake29


My guess is that the designer did look at it. But hey, the designers of fastwebsites have obviously looked at a website or two... and for that, they must DIE!!! DIE!!!!!!

Jake

Ya, I'd guess they did too, but I still maintain that it's possible that they came up with that design on their own. It's a common enough design. There's surely some guy out there that started that whole movement, who could really lay claim on it I'm sure...

Originally posted by Drewcifer


:rolleyes: why is it so sad? Perhaps they spoke with their designer and he was able to produce his psd files. They paid for a design, they may as well use it. And beyond that, who the hell cares??? What is it with you people getting your panties in a bunch because people have similar sites?!

Hello, that layout will be up until design company provide us a new one. They are working on it right now. Then we'll see if it's not a new copy of another site :angry:

It's aight Max, I would just redo the header and call it a night.

And does anyone think Fastwebsites should take the chick off the header ? :(

OUCH, WOOF WOOF WOOF


Oh and another thing. All of PixelBricks sites look the same to me.

Notice they use the same sounds on most of there flash and button effects.

i still remember how the old hostforweb.com site looked like (it was awful), didn't know that they *redesigned* it already. :eek:

i had so much repect for their service, they said they were the *oldest* web host. been around 5-8 years or so.:(

i also think pixelbricks sites all look the same , especially the 3-d rotating box . Anyways , like i posted in another forum , i think if i had enough money to pay someone for a site , i would look right over pixelbrick and contact 2advanced , none of there sites look as similar as pixelbricks , not to mention the bragging rights you would get from a eric jordan site =] .

I personally do *not* think that they are copying in any way. Ideas in fact are *not* copyright-able, you can try o patent an idea, but it may take months or even years. Designs however, ARE copyright-able, *but*, HostForWeb's design is not a direct copy of PixelBrick's.

Take for example my site (http://www.ibetas.net) vs. GamingSurge (http://GamingSurge.com). Mine has been up since january 1st of this year, while his was released sometime in April. I'm sure you will notice how similar the sites look, the logo having the red-white gradient, the drop shadow, the light gray text, etc... The only thing that doesnt resemble my site is how he designed his mid-page. I have on record his IP visiting my site quite frequently in the days leading up to his release, but the fact remains, his site does NOT use any of my images. For quite some time I was very angry at him, but as time went on, I have decided that I am fine with him using my site as an inspiration. He spent his own time creating the psd files (I saw them), so what if my site was insiration, thats the sincerest form of flattery in my opinion. His images, his site. My idea, his site. His time, his site.

Oh! Goody! :) I'm at hosted at HostForWeb.com and let me tell you... their previous design was horrible.

My 2 cents... that is not the same design (unless they changed it a little since you've guys posted.) I can probably (with a good amount of hunting) sniff out three more sites with the same layout concept.

For one thing, the 90o angle shown in both sites isn't exactly a patented move. There are even tutorials out there showing that same effect.

In fact, if you take a really close look at it, you'll find similarities common to mainstream webpages (ie: the 1 pixel dotted line divider, the 90o folder like interface, the.... hmmmm... that's about all I see) but most of it is pretty much their own basic web design. Even their navigational systems are different.

Best brush up on your designer's intuition. :)

Today, I accidently went to this site:

http://www.certifypro.com/