LITHIUM PICNIC ([info]akuma13) wrote,
@ 2007-10-08 13:22:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Lawsuit Update abd Ebay Auctions
Apnea updated the info site and posted some new information.

We're selling some more stuff to raise money for the legal defense, links to the auctions and updates can be found here!

www.lithiumpicnic.com

thank you!!

(7 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]rolette
2007-10-08 06:32 pm UTC (link)
Seriously...this whole thing is fucked up. I really hope things work out in the end for you and Apnea and SG gets what they deserve.

(Reply to this)


[info]disassociation
2007-10-08 08:47 pm UTC (link)
i am not seeing a link to the new ebay stuff? am i just blind? (its the masturbation)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]abiding_ophelia
2007-10-08 09:03 pm UTC (link)
http://www.apneaticmedia.com/static.php?page=ebay

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]mordaciouslove
2007-10-09 11:00 pm UTC (link)
After reading the documents involved, I only found one line of the contract that even gives the SG case any ground on which to stand.

"Not withstanding the foregoing, SG competitor shall not include single girl personality based sites, niche fetish and fineart sites that are based on specific themes dissimilar to those of Suicide Girls..." I think I copied that correctly since the file was read-only.

Does www.apneatic.com constitute a site with a dissimilar theme? Or does the clause also apply to single girl sites in general?

I ask this with the realization that you might be limited as to what you can discuss regarding a pending lawsuit.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
gah typos
[info]apneatic
2007-10-10 12:07 am UTC (link)
niche fetish? sure you bet we have heavy latex and rope bondage, and many themes SG has officially told models to avoid.

also - themewise SG describes their site as follows "we are a COLLECTION of over 1300 girls"

"we are... we are.. we are...." it goes on.

I am a single girl with a site based on my personality that features me in every photo. My site is exactly like the sites Philip cited as examples to Paul Loving and Missy when drafting his contract.

How on earth do you think that contract gives SG ground to stand on? If anything I think it cuts their legs right out from under them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: gah typos
[info]mordaciouslove
2007-10-10 02:33 pm UTC (link)
I was tired last night and upon rereading my response, I feel it was a little insensitive.

You seemed frustrated with my inquiry. I realize that playing devil's advocate in this issue is going to strike a nerve because SG is attempting to ruin your husband's career, and possibly your own. I only asked such a question because I feel it is important to accurately present the facts when discussing this matter with uninformed people.

I support Philip's case 100%. I have reasons outside his lawsuit for disliking SG and their manner of conducting business. Before reading the documents, I believed the case was cut and dry. I didn't understand, then, why the motion to dismiss had been denied. The ONLY part of his contract that I could see giving the judge a reason to let the case proceed was that clause. I could see someone perceiving "dissimilar themes" open to interpretation. Based on that clause, I could see someone interpreting your single girl site as having a theme similar to that of SG and thus be considered, according to the contract, a "SG competitor." However, your comment about niche fetish raises a great point to counter that idea. Your site is definitely focused on themes that I personally know SG does not allow in their site.

What I see as being the real reason why Philip's case will win in trial is what you have stated many times. For SG to consider Philip a genuine competitor is ridiculous for multiple reasons you have already stated. Fearing substantial financial loss, much less nearing $100,000, because of subscribers migrating to your site simply because Philip provided content to both is clearly unrealistic. Furthermore, I see their claim for reimbursement for teaching him photography and web designing as overreaching and self-damaging. It outlines their motives for the lawsuit and undercuts any grounds the suit had in the interpretation of dissimilar themes.

Good luck to both of you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]hadoukenbomb
2008-01-11 04:09 pm UTC (link)
=)

Free LP.

(Reply to this)

(7 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…