Peter Leaman W3Theory

[Dave]

Well, I recently stumbled across Peter Leaman's new site (Federation54.com) on arriving at the site I thought the system looked rather simular to something I had created alongside him before. Funnily enough. It was.

After viewing the source I found something incredibly interesting (Screenshot posted due to site content most likely being hidden/removed).

As you can clearly see in the screenshot above I am listed as an author on this website? Also if you compare the source to that off OperationJarhead.com you'll notice that a wide variety of the tags and content are simular, some are not exact due to Peter creating a game called "ThugsWar" with the engine and him using that copy of this particular code. The source code also includes an old email of mine "[email protected]".

When we both ended our partnership we both agreed that we wouldn't be allowed to use the code, which can be seen discussed below. We codenamed the code "SkyGine" for the purposes of being "cool".

Sadly after trying to discuss the issue with Peter over MSN he refused. So I've decided to take this issue publically. This is not the first, nor I imagine the last time Peter has done something dodgy. He has also now decided to remove all contact between myself and him. The sign of a "true" gentlemen.

If you require more evidence that the code which was hosted on Federation54.com is in fact my code you are welcome to contact me via MSN, Email or anything else.

Due to this issue I would highly reccomend not allowing Peter access to any of your content or graphics. He cannot be trusted.

[W3Theory || Peter]

Hahah I knew you would post this up there :P So has the site released yet? Or was I just using it to check out the new template?

[Jordan Palmer]

Hahah I knew you would post this up there :P So has the site released yet? Or was I just using it to check out the new template?

Why could you not use MCCodes v2 basics?

[W3Theory || Peter]

Didn't have the engine properly yet, so why use it? I had that on a site and was just placing it there to see how features would look on it. Took site down, Pudda I thought it was okay that people had V2 McCodes on their sites if they were only for testing purposes and not releasing? Was the game released, no.

[Dave]

Hahah I knew you would post this up there :P So has the site released yet? Or was I just using it to check out the new template?

I posted it up here, after you so kindly left our conversations where we were trying to resolve this and then decided to block me shortly after. I offered to try to resolve this privately but you didn't seem to want to hear about it. You don't need to upload the whole script to "check out a template" you could simple of done that with a few HTML files? Considering the inside of the game holds no CSS to modify the content.

So sadly, I don't think your "to check out the new template" point is valid on any level?

I'll delete script, wow I have never seen a kid cry or complain so much in my life dave.

I'm not crying or complaining? I'm protecting my rights and following an agreement which we made when we broke partnership.

[Jordan Palmer]

I'm not arguing about the fact it was online... However you and dave had an agreement. IF you ever used it...not if you ever used it in a released game...IF You ever used it generally

[W3Theory || Peter]

I have the template up on my w3theory site, I wanted to test the features out and not just what it looks like. I stated my point. People work on their site, if I released the game then yes you would have something to argue about. But since I was testing the template on an engine that we had to see how features would look, then no. You really do not have a case, but go ahead and keep trying to bring me down.

[Dave]

I have the template up on my w3theory site, I wanted to test the features out and not just what it looks like. I stated my point. People work on their site, if I released the game then yes you would have something to argue about. But since I was testing the template on an engine that we had to see how features would look, then no. You really do not have a case, but go ahead and keep trying to bring me down.

Do I need to say anymore?

[danger boy]

I don't see a problem with peter using the code to test the template out. Yeah, if he released the site with your code installed then he's definately in the wrong, but if he's using it for testing purposes only then i don't see anything wrong with that.

[Dave]

I don't see a problem with peter using the code to test the template out. Yeah, if he released the site with your code installed then he's definately in the wrong, but if he's using it for testing purposes only then i don't see anything wrong with that.

Well, me and him agreed about use off the script so using it to "test" a template (Read the other post why I did "test") is still in breach of our agreement. It's like installing a nulled version of VBulletin just to see if it's cool. It's still illegal, even if it's just for testing.

[Jordan Palmer]

I don't see a problem with peter using the code to test the template out. Yeah, if he released the site with your code installed then he's definately in the wrong, but if he's using it for testing purposes only then i don't see anything wrong with that.

Let me try and explain it simpler

 

-> Using Operation Jarheads favicon would be a breach of the law..

-> Any use of the script was permitted. Now if he used it on wamp then maybe, but using it on a PUBLIC server is classed as public release...Many hosts shut down testing versions of mccodes due to it.

I have nothing against peter but looking at it from daves point of view peter is in the wrong

[W3Theory || Peter]

I will state my apologizes then, as I mis understood are agreement on how we could use it. I thought I could use it for testing purposes like McCodes let's people use for . The scripts has been taken down for any other further troubles. Sorry and definitely won't happen again. As I like to look as myself on the good side of the law, if anything was in error I do apologize. It was meant in no harm or disregards to Dave, just testing purposes only. I know now that our agreement did not reach out to the testing side of things, so I have removed the scripts.

Once again I will like to say sorry for mis understanding the agreement as the terms weren't 100% discussed we just sort of quickly went through the process.

[PHPdaniel]

What's this all about? The original agreement (And this is excerpted as EXACT words) was that if it was used, I don't believe this is a case of using it (not commercially, at least) and it doesn't seem as if anything is owed (Why should somebody have to pay royalties on something nobody's even seeing?).

Peter's intentions were clearly stated as this is only a testing ground (Copyrights only come in to play when intellectual property is plaguerised/used in a commercial environment, and he's in no way doing that).

I've worked with Peter in many occasions, I've worked for him, and he's worked for me too. He's a hard worker & honest worker, and he's never done anything to disadvantage any other person, he is extremely fair even when it inconveniences himself.

Just wanted to let you all know my opinion on this situation - the entire point of this thread seems greedy & petty to me.

Daniel

PHP/MySQL Web Developer

[Jordan Palmer]

What's this all about? The original agreement (And this is excerpted as EXACT words) was that if it was used, I don't believe this is a case of using it (not commercially, at least) and it doesn't seem as if anything is owed (Why should somebody have to pay royalties on something nobody's even seeing?).

Peter's intentions were clearly stated as this is only a testing ground (Copyrights only come in to play when intellectual property is plaguerised/used in a commercial environment, and he's in no way doing that).

I've worked with Peter in many occasions, I've worked for him, and he's worked for me too. He's a hard worker & honest worker, and he's never done anything to disadvantage any other person, he is extremely fair even when it inconveniences himself.

Just wanted to let you all know my opinion on this situation - the entire point of this thread seems greedy & petty to me.

Daniel

PHP/MySQL Web Developer

An agreement was breached.

He used it on a PUBLIC SERVER.. Copyrights come into play ;) if you fail to see this talk to some of the bigger ask them they'll confirm this so did peters lawyer.

[Ghostriders]

I agree with Jordan. :O

It wasn't used on WAMP where other people don't have access to it online unlike a public server where peter used It.

By the way, where did you buy the template from? Looks very sexy! :D

[Danny696]

He probbably made it himself, im guessing. But im not taking sides, but sure, its wasnt on WAMP, but it also wasnt 'as' public as your making out, he didnt go around giving the link etc...

[Jordan Palmer]

He probbably made it himself, im guessing. But im not taking sides, but sure, its wasnt on WAMP, but it also wasnt 'as' public as your making out, he didnt go around giving the link etc...

That really doesn't matter, He used it on a public server. No blocked access ect

[Equinox]

He's apologised and admitted fault, no?

If it was anyone else, some of the people here would've been so quick to jump up their ass and close the topic.

This post will probably get deleted as well just because it's true. You're trying to make it worse than it actually is, yes it is wrong but the site isn't public and as Peter said, he just wanted to see what the template looked like.

[Jordan Palmer]

He's apologised and admitted fault, no?

If it was anyone else, some of the people here would've been so quick to jump up their ass and close the topic.

Yes he did.

That wouldn't happen, Everyone is treated the same.

 

This post will probably get deleted as well just because it's true. You're trying to make it worse than it actually is, yes it is wrong but the site isn't public and as Peter said, he just wanted to see what the template looked like.

It won't be deleted, And yes I understand his point but also the agreement was broken whichever way you dress it up

[Dominion]

Msn conversations are like word of mouth. Not worth the paper their written on. Well you can prove it, legally you have very little to go on. At least in the uk where I know you are dave. An agreement may have been broken, however legally speaking you cannot do much with a screen shot of an msn conversation. If there is more I would like it to be posted.

Now as for the conversation where you attempted to talk to him, and he blocked you I would like to see it, as would I like to see the full msn conversation the the segment already posted shows (as implied above). As for peters lawyer I can't comment since I have no idea where he lives, however I am curious to fine out what country if he would tell us. Peter did you mention dave's age, means a fair amount when signing a contract.

Copyright breach would come into play if it was a legal agreement that the company held the copyright to created work, anything to show this is the case? If not really peter should hold it, however I could be wrong there.

At the moment (as always with posts here) I see someone who has done something wrong, but a post that's way over dramatic.

[Jordan Palmer]

Topic locked.

Issue has been resolved.