Public Forums 71,145 posts

[rjspence Friend rjspenceJoin date: October 2009Posts: 14Downloads:0Uploads:0]

#145131

Alright,

Let me get this straight. I signed up, didn’t like the service, received a ban for my stating the obvious with a few mild curse worlds. Then I come back when the ban has been removed, and take a better look at the club to find out it states that I must pay an additional fee to remove the footer link? I have to pay to get you off my page?

I just want to verify that this is the case for template club one year. I have a hard time believing that this club is charging me more to remove a link when you charge 70.00USD to join the club in the first place.

Firstly, if this is the case, I need remind you that your business is based off of JOOMLA. A GPL/GNU based software that is public and free for everyone. I go back to mambo.

Please do tell me that I am wrong. And that when you belong to the club that you won’t charge me more money to remove links. Rockettheme does not and I’ve been with them since Andy started it.

And please don’t ban me. I am just having alot of problems with this site, it’s support, and what I continue to find out. If I get charged any more money or have to pay more money to remove a link, I’ll be blown away that you would forget exactly what makes you the money. JOOMLA. You should not charge club members to remove footer links. No one wants your advertisement on their site. So please tell me I cannot read and have this wrong. I hope so. I would be using much stronger language than I already have with less that one week in this club if indeed this is the case.

Thank you,
rjspence

[TomC Moderator TomCJoin date: October 2014Posts: 14077Downloads:58Uploads:137 Thanks: 948 Thanked: 3155 times in 2495 posts]

#320318

rjspence;148568. I would be using much stronger language than I already have with less that one week in this club if indeed this is the case.

And you’ll likely be enjoying the very same ban that you were treated with for the very same behavior.
Using strong language, or veiled threats of such, doesn’t do you any favors – quite the opposite, actually.

1 user says Thank You to TomC for this useful post

1. Arvind Chauhan

[nefar Friend nefarJoin date: December 2007Posts: 434Downloads:0Uploads:2 Thanks: 78 Thanked: 42 times in 1 posts]

#320322

<em>@tcraw1010 148577 wrote:</em><blockquote>And you’ll likely be enjoying the very same ban that you were treated with for the very same behavior.
Using strong language, or veiled threats of such, doesn’t do you any favors – quite the opposite, actually.</blockquote>

For once, I would agree with Tom :laugh:

Using vulgarity in an attempt to get your point across or to achieve an outcome will get you no where on a forum or in person. It generally is used by someone that has trouble forming their ideas in a clear and coherent manner so they resort to language in frustration.

Now as to your questions regarding the footer. Yes, if you wish to remove the copyright information regarding JA you either need to pay extra, or have a developer license. (Or had a developer license and registered your domain at that time.)

Personally, I do not like this either. However, it is in their terms & conditions. You agreed to it when you purchased the membership. This condition is not hidden and you can see it in the price structure on their page. You can pay to have it removed, remove it anyway and take your chances, or participate on the forum and build up enough credits to get a developer account and then remove it.

Joomla being open source has no bearing on if they can require you to leave the footer in tact or not. You can find many examples of other Joomla extension/template developers requiring similar conditions. Some companies will even cube some of their code so you can not edit it.

Keep in mind it is also plainly stated on the main page you have 7 days to receive your money back. 7 days little short for my tastes but it is long enough that you should of noticed you were required to pay to remove the copyright. Thus if it was so upsetting and deal breaker you had ample chance to request your money back.

** For sake of being thorough — I did notice that the price removal for copyright is no longer in the pricing information on the main page. Copyright removal is now in the FAQ. This information should probably be more prevalent on the page regarding membership. Most people do not read a TOS.

1 user says Thank You to nefar for this useful post

1. TomC

[rjspence Friend rjspenceJoin date: October 2009Posts: 14Downloads:0Uploads:0]

#320323

<em>@nefar 148582 wrote:</em><blockquote>

Keep in mind it is also plainly stated on the main page you have 7 days to receive your money back. 7 days little short for my tastes but it is long enough that you should of noticed you were required to pay to remove the copyright. Thus if it was so upsetting and deal breaker you had ample chance to request your money back.

** For sake of being thorough — I did notice that the price removal for copyright is no longer in the pricing information on the main page. Copyright removal is now in the FAQ. This information should probably be more prevalent on the page regarding membership. Most people do not read a TOS.</blockquote>

They didn’t make it quite obvious no. And I’ve also asked for a refund. You are also incorrect. They stated that NO REFUNDS and only for DEVELOPMENT CLUB within 7 days. Look at it.

I swear… as I do daily, that this is the worst experience I’ve had period with anything to do with Joomla since before JOOMLA existed. I have also read that they have their templates being called back to their site via some sort of a bot using google. READ IT. ITS THERE. It’s like this JoomlART is trying to be Microshaft. I don’t use windows, won’t use any software that doesn’t promote freedom. And these templates are not promoting freedom. It’s against everything I believe in and have for over 25 years. And to the first guy, I own the company I work for. I cuss all day long. When I was a CEO for a corporation, I cussed all day long. If you had any responsibility at all, you might be cussing up a storm yourself.

My belief is simple. I asked for a refund because I “cannot” agree to these terms. And I was refused. You are NOT welcome to a refund if you are dissatisfied. I requested a refund and I am COMPLETELY dissatisfied. Anyone in their right mind would be. If you don’t believe me, I’ll PM you the emails I sent asking for a refund and let you see the response.

I’m not paying to remove a footer link. They can either refund my money and I’ll leave, or I’m hacking the templates to do as I need. I will not have someone telling me that I owe them more money to remove URLS off my templates.

It should be an embarrassment to JOOMLA art to use the name JOOMLA to make money with GNU/GPL software and turn around and state that you have to pay more, and that they have a bot that reports to them with their templates. It’s insane. And completely unethical. Certainly not what the GNU/GPL stands for. Make money fine. But using someone else’s name to make your buck and turning your software into microshaft is horrendous. And to top it all off. We are talking about templates. This is what they do with just templates. Hard telling what bots and terms of use they would have for anything that actually did something. If I were on the board of Open Source Matters, I would be asking this site to remove all aspects of using the name JOOMLA in any part of their name or business.

I’m still considering a charge back against this site being they refused the refund.

Thank you,
rjspence

[nefar Friend nefarJoin date: December 2007Posts: 434Downloads:0Uploads:2 Thanks: 78 Thanked: 42 times in 1 posts]

#320326

<em>@rjspence 148583 wrote:</em><blockquote>They stated that NO REFUNDS and only for DEVELOPMENT CLUB within 7 days. Look at it.

I</blockquote>

I stand corrected — I did not notice it was only developer membership. I don’t recall it only being dev when I signed up. Yep, I’d say you’re screwed on the refund. Furthermore after reading the conditions on the “guarantee buy with confidence” it’s pretty much garbage lol.

As for the google “bot” — There are a few template companies that run bots like this that search for code to try and track down anyone using their templates “illegal”. Spammers/exploiters also do this so it’s always a good idea to remove at minimum the generator and joomla footer tags.

[rjspence Friend rjspenceJoin date: October 2009Posts: 14Downloads:0Uploads:0]

#320330

<em>@nefar 148588 wrote:</em><blockquote>I stand corrected — I did not notice it was only developer membership. I don’t recall it only being dev when I signed up. Yep, I’d say you’re screwed on the refund. Furthermore after reading the conditions on the “guarantee buy with confidence” it’s pretty much garbage lol.

As for the google “bot” — There are a few template companies that run bots like this that search for code to try and track down anyone using their templates “illegal”. Spammers/exploiters also do this so it’s always a good idea to remove at minimum the generator and joomla footer tags.</blockquote>

Yeahp…

Btw Nefar, I’m in IL too. Just south of Springfield IL by 30 min. Land of Lincoln, Land of taxation with little to no representation… 🙂

Which reminds me not to purchase anything anymore from anyone overseas on the net. This site is based in Vietnam. Our laws would do little to hold them accountable. No more purchasing from lands of the lawless.

[instantinlaw Friend instantinlawJoin date: February 2007Posts: 1646Downloads:6Uploads:28 Thanks: 68 Thanked: 210 times in 62 posts]

#320333

I have to say,
I’ve been a member of this club for some time now, and I don’t spend much time answering these types of threads, but I just had to take a little time out of my schedule to answer this one.

I have been outspoken in the past and have gotten very positive results from not only the other members of this forum, but Hung (the owner) as well. I was able to get these positive results by being respectful and friendly.

You rjspence, have gone about this thing the wrong way. You have jumped to uninformed conclusions, and demanded things that you have no right demanding, and when you didn’t get things your way, you acted childish and immature.

Now, I’ve taken some time to point out all your errenous assumptions, and point out all your mistaken points of view. Please read on for my comments.

rjspence;148583When I was a CEO for a corporation.[/quote]
Maybe that’s why you are no longer a CEO, LOL.
Cussing in the forum (even mild cussing as you put it) is against the rules and is offensive to some members. Demands and threats are usually met with either a non answer to problems, or an equal response.

rjspence;148583I’m not paying to remove a footer link. They can either refund my money and I’ll leave, or I’m hacking the templates to do as I need. [/quote]
This info is available in at least two places on the index page of this site. If you did not read it, it’s not JA’s fault and you have no right to demand something that is clearly stated that you can’t do.
<blockquote>
Note: This restriction is applied to new memberships purchased on JoomlArt from 16 Sept 2008 only. All templates under memberships purchased before this date are not subject to this restriction.
You can remove JA copyright information with condition that you purchase Copyright Removal feature which is separated from your JATC Standard membership fee. With this package you can remove our footer “Designed by JoomlArt.com” and changed it to “Designed/Powered by YourCompany” as well as other reference to JoomlArt.com.
The Copyright Removal fee structure is as follows:

• Copyright Removal for 01 domain: USD40
• Copyright Removal for 02 domain: USD70
• Copyright Removal for 03 domain: USD90

</blockquote>
The money back guarantee also states:
<blockquote>
Within 7 days from your purchase, you can request a refund at our Refund Request Form if

• Our templates/extensions have problems and not functional
• Our support team are not able to get it solved via the premium email support

</blockquote>
It doesn’t say that you are entitled to a refund if you don’t like the terms of sale. Again, it’s not JA’s fault if you didn’t read the text. Plus the big orange badge also says developer memberships only.

rjspence;148583I will not have someone telling me that I owe them more money to remove URLS off my templates.

Actually you do not own the template…
<blockquote>
Taken from the license page:
5. OWNERSHIP: You may not claim intellectual or exclusive ownership to any of our products, modified or unmodified. All products are property of JoomlArt.com. Our products are provided “as is” without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. In no event shall our juridical person be liable for any damages including, but not limited to, direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages or other losses arising out of the use of or inability to use our products.
</blockquote>

instantinlaw wrote:

It should be an embarrassment to JOOMLA art to use the name JOOMLA to make money with GNU/GPL software and turn around and state that you have to pay more, and that they have a bot that reports to them with their templates. It’s insane. And completely unethical. Certainly not what the GNU/GPL stands for. Make money fine. But using someone else’s name to make your buck and turning your software into microshaft is horrendous. If I were on the board of Open Source Matters, I would be asking this site to remove all aspects of using the name JOOMLA in any part of their name or business.

First off, the GNU/GPL license does not apply to Joomlart because Joomlart templates do not hook into the Joomla code. So my friend, JA can apply any kind of license they want to their templates.

instantinlaw wrote:

And to top it all off. We are talking about templates. This is what they do with just templates. Hard telling what bots and terms of use they would have for anything that actually did something.

What???
I’m sorry, I didn’t understand this bit of rambling, maybe you can re-phrase this CEO mumbo jumbo so a mere underling such as myself can understand it?

To sum all of this up…
The world does not revolve around your wishes, so if you gave up your spoiled brat attitude and started playing by the rules, you might be a little happier here.

4 users say Thank You to instantinlaw for this useful post

1. Arvind Chauhan
2. Phill
3. TomC
4. mfcphil

[instantinlaw Friend instantinlawJoin date: February 2007Posts: 1646Downloads:6Uploads:28 Thanks: 68 Thanked: 210 times in 62 posts]

#320334

BTW,
I just reviewed your previous posts, you’ve done nothing but complain and make demands right from the begining. bennitos was being kind banning you for only 2 days, if you belittled me for trying to help you as bennitos was, I would have banned you for a month.

2 users say Thank You to instantinlaw for this useful post

1. TomC
2. mfcphil

[Phill Moderator PhillJoin date: February 2014Posts: 7013Downloads:40Uploads:77 Thanks: 917 Thanked: 2206 times in 1818 posts]

#320351

If you are not happy with the products supplied here why have you downloaded 234 of them in just a couple of days?

It looks to me like you have more than your monies worth.

[nefar Friend nefarJoin date: December 2007Posts: 434Downloads:0Uploads:2 Thanks: 78 Thanked: 42 times in 1 posts]

#320359

<em>@rjspence 148594 wrote:</em><blockquote>Yeahp…

Btw Nefar, I’m in IL too. Just south of Springfield IL by 30 min. Land of Lincoln, Land of taxation with little to no representation… 🙂

Which reminds me not to purchase anything anymore from anyone overseas on the net. This site is based in Vietnam. Our laws would do little to hold them accountable. No more purchasing from lands of the lawless.</blockquote>

Illinois is definitely highly taxed and the county I’m in, Cook, is the highest taxed in the country. I’m not to far outside of Chicago; where you come to learn how to be a crooked politician. Just ask Obama, he received his training here. :-[

** Don’t anyone get their undies in a bunch — I just like teasing the political zealots.

Yes, JA is based in Vietnam. Though even if it was based in the U.S. they did not violate any laws. I understand you feel you got a “raw” deal. I will even say as I did originally, the information should be more prevalent on the page regarding the copyright footer. That being said, I think you would have to agree that if this was the U.S. and you went to “court” over this you would lose. Technically they have done nothing wrong in your situation.

You could also admit that you could of handled the situation a tad better. I am by no means a staunch blind supporter of JA, anyone here could probably tell you that. However, I’ve never been so vulgar that I have received a ban and ****** off multiple moderators lol. (well I suppose I could of annoyed a few moderators) I have no idea what you said in previous posts but just reading how the moderators are responding to you here I would say you must of gone fairly overboard.

If you’re making sites for yourself the copyright should not be that big of a deal. There are ways to hide it or bring that footer so low no one going to see it. If you are creating sites for clients then just add in the cost of the removal to the price tag. Either way you have a membership so might as well try and make the best out of it. You will easily get enough usable templates to justify a $70.00 cost and if you do build a site for “business” with a template that $70.00 just turned into a right off 😉

[rjspence Friend rjspenceJoin date: October 2009Posts: 14Downloads:0Uploads:0]

#320400

<em>@nefar 148627 wrote:</em><blockquote>Illinois is definitely highly taxed and the county I’m in, Cook, is the highest taxed in the country. I’m not to far outside of Chicago; where you come to learn how to be a crooked politician. Just ask Obama, he received his training here. :-[

** Don’t anyone get their undies in a bunch — I just like teasing the political zealots.
</blockquote>

Oh yeah. You do know your IL. 🙂

To the moderators that responded, it’s simple, and easy to understand.

This site and it’s product is what happens when proprietary minded individuals use the open source model for their own gain many times. They use the names (ex, Joomla), they used the brand, (again, Joomla), they use the popularity of the product. Again Joomla. What they throw out is the concept of freedom to compute. The license behind the product.

I had no clue that within every file there would be a J.O.O.M Solutions and Joomlart.com license number specifically generated for a specific user. This includes all of the .CSS. Nor did I know that the terms stated that you could not remove this code along with any footer links etc.. that point to this site.

To make matters even worse, and upon further investigation, I found out that this site applies bots to their template code that reports back to them. This is not the open source model, this is not freedom to compute. Anyone should have the right to opt-out of any of the above.

To use the name of the most popular open source CMS licensed via the GNU/GPL and turn around, use the name in their business, within all of the files with J.O.O.M solutions, adding licensing numbers strictly correlating each user to an individual file, expecting further payment to remove such code and links, is not freedom to compute. Nor is it how open source software works, or should work.

Yes. I’ve complained. And will complain. Any company using the name of JOOMLA and providing a license that does not correlate with the GNU/GPL, any site that creates products that restrict usage or doesn’t allow for the modification of such information thereof, will not be used on our sites and should state explicitly that their product is proprietary in nature, that their license structure is that of a proprietary type, and that the code includes bots and individual licensing beyond that of the GNU/GPL. This should be stated on the front page if you are going to use the name, and create your business with the name of an open source product such as Joomla.

And yes anyone can create any licensing structure they would like. However, naming your site and business after a well established open source product, using such name in the business url, using such open source code to promote and gain financially from should require such site to state the proprietary nature of the business up front, and with no question to how the business operates. Any “call home” features, bots, or any other code created that reports to the site in question should have an opt-out policy, or should be expressly stated on the front page of the site when using another product name such as Joomla GNU/GPL software to promote their trade.

You can think anything you like about what I state. But the bottom line is simple. Not everyone can, or would agree to this sites terms and conditions if indeed they would be aware of such before signing up. While this may indeed be “in part” my own fault for not completely reading all of this sites documentation prior to paying and signing up for an account, there are still parts of the matters that would not have been completely known until such files were opened and reviewed.

I asked for a refund due to the issues. And I’m asking again, formally with written notice to this site.

For more information on the licensing and copyright information for Joomla, please see http://www.opensourcematters.org/
For more information on the GNU/GPL and it’s licensing and concepts, please review http://www.gnu.org/

Furthmore,

/*————————————————————————
# JA Sulfur for Joomla 1.5.x – Version 1.3 – Licence Owner JA169097
# ————————————————————————
# Copyright (C) 2004-2008 J.O.O.M Solutions Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
# @license – Copyrighted Commercial Software
# Author: J.O.O.M Solutions Co., Ltd
# Websites: http://www.joomlart.com – http://www.joomlancers.com
# This file may not be redistributed in whole or significant part.
————————————————————————-*/

/* Son of Suckerfish Dropdowns
———————————————————
Originally developed by Patrick Griffiths and Dan Webb
http://www.htmldog.com/articles/suckerfish/dropdowns/
———————————————————
NOTE: After a deep research, we decide to divide this
CSS into 2 parts. The first part will define the layout.
The second part will define the visual look for this menu.
———————————————————*/

This code cannot be used in commercial products without express permission to do so via the terms of use of both Patrick Griffiths and Dann Webb. You can review the terms of use here:

http://www.htmldog.com/terms/

Material may not be used for profit without the express permission of the author.

I would like to see where joomlart.com has “express” permission to use Patrick Griffiths and Dann Webb’s code within their commercial works. Our company, and the works we produce cannot have code that has been taken from others. If the authors of the code have given Joomlart.com and J.O.O.M Solutions LTD “express” permission, we will need to see this in writing. There is no way to take the word of this site or it’s owners at face value. Please produce documentation that states that you have this exclusive right to use this code.

And yes, we still want a refund.

Your Ticket has been received and a member of our staff will review it and reply accordingly. Listed below are details of this Ticket. Please make sure the Ticket ID remains in the subject at all times.

Ticket ID: ETR-321626
Subject: Request Refund
Department: General Information
Priority: Low
Status: Open

If you are a registered user, you can use login details to check the status of or reply to this Ticket online at: http://support.joomlart.com/

Please do let us know if we can assist you any further,
JoomlArt Customer Services

[instantinlaw Friend instantinlawJoin date: February 2007Posts: 1646Downloads:6Uploads:28 Thanks: 68 Thanked: 210 times in 62 posts]

#320445

rjspence;148684Oh yeah. You do know your IL. 🙂

To the moderators that responded, it’s simple, and easy to understand. [/quote]
You’re right. But I guess I’ll have to explain it again so it sinks in. Hopefully…

rjspence;148684
This site and it’s product is what happens when proprietary minded individuals use the open source model for their own gain many times. They use the names (ex, Joomla), they used the brand, (again, Joomla), they use the popularity of the product. Again Joomla. What they throw out is the concept of freedom to compute. The license behind the product. [/quote]
Nobody is stopping you from computing.

rjspence;148684
I had no clue that within every file there would be a J.O.O.M Solutions and Joomlart.com license number specifically generated for a specific user. This includes all of the .CSS. Nor did I know that the terms stated that you could not remove this code along with any footer links etc.. that point to this site. [/quote]You should have read the TOS that is linked to in at least 2 places on the home page of this site.

rjspence;148684
To make matters even worse, and upon further investigation, I found out that this site applies bots to their template code that reports back to them. This is not the open source model, this is not freedom to compute. Anyone should have the right to opt-out of any of the above.[/quote] So opt out. Remove the template and go to another club.

instantinlaw wrote:

To use the name of the most popular open source CMS licensed via the GNU/GPL and turn around, use the name in their business, within all of the files with J.O.O.M solutions, adding licensing numbers strictly correlating each user to an individual file, expecting further payment to remove such code and links, is not freedom to compute. Nor is it how open source software works, or should work.

You apparently don’t understand the GNU/GPL, or what I told you about templates and the GNU.

instantinlaw wrote:

Yes. I’ve complained. And will complain. Any company using the name of JOOMLA and providing a license that does not correlate with the GNU/GPL, any site that creates products that restrict usage or doesn’t allow for the modification of such information thereof, will not be used on our sites and should state explicitly that their product is proprietary in nature, that their license structure is that of a proprietary type, and that the code includes bots and individual licensing beyond that of the GNU/GPL. This should be stated on the front page if you are going to use the name, and create your business with the name of an open source product such as Joomla.

Don’t you know how to read? or do you just see what you want to see?

1. Again, the GNU/GPL license does not apply to JA, and even if it did the GNU/GPL does not restrict an author from claiming copyright.
2. The TOS (with a link to it on the front page in more than one place) quite clearly states that the copyright information must not be removed unless you have a developers license or pay to remove it.

instantinlaw wrote:

And yes anyone can create any licensing structure they would like. However, naming your site and business after a well established open source product, using such name in the business url, using such open source code to promote and gain financially from should require such site to state the proprietary nature of the business up front, and with no question to how the business operates. Any “call home” features, bots, or any other code created that reports to the site in question should have an opt-out policy, or should be expressly stated on the front page of the site when using another product name such as Joomla GNU/GPL software to promote their trade.

If you don’t like the way JA opperates, I can’t wait until you buy another commercial product that’s been cubed, lol… Oh… wait, that’s not allowed in your world is it?

instantinlaw wrote:

You can think anything you like about what I state. But the bottom line is simple. Not everyone can, or would agree to this sites terms and conditions if indeed they would be aware of such before signing up. While this may indeed be “in part” my own fault for not completely reading all of this sites documentation prior to paying and signing up for an account, there are still parts of the matters that would not have been completely known until such files were opened and reviewed.

Almost, but not quite…

While this may indeed be “in part” my own fault for not completely reading all of this sites documentation prior to paying and signing up for an account

Should read: This is my fault for not reading the License agreement in the first place.

instantinlaw wrote:

I asked for a refund due to the issues. And I’m asking again, formally with written notice to this site.

For more information on the licensing and copyright information for Joomla, please see http://www.opensourcematters.org/
For more information on the GNU/GPL and it’s licensing and concepts, please review http://www.gnu.org/

Furthmore,

/*————————————————————————
# JA Sulfur for Joomla 1.5.x – Version 1.3 – Licence Owner JA169097
# ————————————————————————
# Copyright (C) 2004-2008 J.O.O.M Solutions Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
# @license – Copyrighted Commercial Software
# Author: J.O.O.M Solutions Co., Ltd
# Websites: http://www.joomlart.com – http://www.joomlancers.com
# This file may not be redistributed in whole or significant part.
————————————————————————-*/

/* Son of Suckerfish Dropdowns
———————————————————
Originally developed by Patrick Griffiths and Dan Webb
http://www.htmldog.com/articles/suckerfish/dropdowns/
———————————————————
NOTE: After a deep research, we decide to divide this
CSS into 2 parts. The first part will define the layout.
The second part will define the visual look for this menu.
———————————————————*/

This code cannot be used in commercial products without express permission to do so via the terms of use of both Patrick Griffiths and Dann Webb. You can review the terms of use here:

http://www.htmldog.com/terms/

Material may not be used for profit without the express permission of the author.

I would like to see where joomlart.com has “express” permission to use Patrick Griffiths and Dann Webb’s code within their commercial works. Our company, and the works we produce cannot have code that has been taken from others. If the authors of the code have given Joomlart.com and J.O.O.M Solutions LTD “express” permission, we will need to see this in writing. There is no way to take the word of this site or it’s owners at face value. Please produce documentation that states that you have this exclusive right to use this code.

And yes, we still want a refund.

While I can’t speak for JA on the status of using the Son of Suckerfish code, I’m sure they have permission to do so.

And as far as the bot goes, there is no bot installed on your site. JA could just as easily spider the web for the name of the template and check the domain against it’s database of members registerd sites to see if it is licensed.

Why don’t you suck it up and admit (to yourself at least) that you are/were wrong and stop obsessing over a copyright issue that is really a non issue, and get on with building your website…

Just so you know, honey attracts bees.

2 users say Thank You to instantinlaw for this useful post

1. TomC
2. Phill

[TomC Moderator TomCJoin date: October 2014Posts: 14077Downloads:58Uploads:137 Thanks: 948 Thanked: 3155 times in 2495 posts]

#320447

rjspence;148684
I asked for a refund due to the issues. And I’m asking again, formally with written notice to this site.

So, let’s see if I understand this correctly . . . . you’ve downloaded 234 products (to date), and you want a refund ??
Seems to me that you’ve gotten your money’s worth a dozen times over.

Perhaps you should spend a little less time and energy complaining and more time working with the 234 products you’ve acquired via your membership, eh?

😎

[instantinlaw Friend instantinlawJoin date: February 2007Posts: 1646Downloads:6Uploads:28 Thanks: 68 Thanked: 210 times in 62 posts]

#320448

tcraw1010;148748So, let’s see if I understand this correctly . . . . you’ve downloaded 234 products (to date), and you want a refund ??
Seems to me that you’ve gotten your money’s worth a dozen times over.

Perhaps you should spend a little less time and energy complaining and more time working with the 234 products you’ve acquired via your membership, eh?

😎

234 products, and a whole bunch of complaining, and all within 13 days of joining.
I wonder how many of those downloads he is planning on using with his 3 domain license? Oh wait… We don’t read licenses do we? lol. :laugh:

[Arvind Chauhan Moderator Arvind ChauhanJoin date: September 2014Posts: 3835Downloads:74Uploads:92 Thanks: 1240 Thanked: 1334 times in 848 posts]

#320450

Dear rjspence,

1. I think its high time you fall in line and restrict yourself. If you din read the TOS, its your problem.
2. Stop marking your own answers as Best Answer, I have reset it over 3 times now. Next time i see it up again, you are heading for another round of sight-seeings.

To make matters even worse, and upon further investigation, I found out that this site applies bots to their template code that reports back to them. This is not the open source model, this is not freedom to compute. Anyone should have the right to opt-out of any of the above.

25 years into business and an ex CEO? WOW? Show me the Bot you said to prove your allegation or else…. How about an infarction / Ban for leveling wrong allegations against JA?

There are no bots or reporting mechanism installed in any of the JA Templates.

I wish to inform you that, we are trying our best to be kind to you, as you are a new member and we wish to keep your stay here healthy and supportive. Please co-operate.

Arvind

2 users say Thank You to Arvind Chauhan for this useful post

1. instantinlaw
2. TomC

[Author]

Posts