LUXURIOUSITY, INC.

tsume · Post by **tsume** » Sun May 22, 2005 6:49 pm

I was a bit frustrated, I can't believe this guy renames the software as his company software on Ebay.

I seen a couple people actually started bidding on the auctions.

Ebay auctions like..
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 5776590087
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 7158398242
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 7158408575

http://www.luxuriousity.com

California Business Registry
http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAl ... r=C1820378

If there is only 1 Gregg Collins, then this is what whitepages returned.

Collins, Gregory
2222 Fifth St, Apt 302
Santa Monica, CA 90405-2483
(310) 392-3526

If this is the gregg collins, hes married/living with a woman named Pearl. I called and heard a message on the answering machine.

By the way, if the blender organization may take action against the LUXURIOUSITY, INC. in case some incriminating fact is found. Make sure you have the right person behind the company, I recommend getting a subpoena for the PO BOX.

Information on getting info from a PO BOX.
http://www.junkfax.org/fax/misc/pobox.htm

352.44 form: http://www.tcpalaw.com/free/pobox.pdf

I'm sure one of the blender guys has Attorney friends who can simply request the information. If you need help, message me on the forum. I've many attorney friends

Just in case the Gregg Collins fellow changes his information on the CA business registry, here is the information from the website.

LUXURIOUSITY, INC.
Number: C1820378 Date Filed: 4/27/1992 Status: active
Jurisdiction: California
Address
10 OCEAN PARK BLVD #14
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
Agent for Service of Process
GREGG COLLINS
10 OCEAN PARK BLVD #14
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405

I believe this Gregg to be Gregory fellow. We will see

Gregg is short for Gregory. I'm sure this is the guy's real address.

I'm curious why he doesn't list a real address in his WHOIS information,
which he is breaking rules against. He is also breaking the rules by not including a real contact number. The contact number in the WHOIS is
no longer in service. So he obviously is 1) afraid, 2) know what he is doing upsets people, and 3) is a low life scum bastard

The PO BOX is

CASH
P.O. Box 5670
PMB#400
Santa Monica, CA 90405
United States

ebay ids:

cd-specials
loveourcds
luxuriousitydealer
inexpensivecds

z3r0_d · Post by **z3r0_d** » Sun May 22, 2005 8:23 pm

old news

http://www.blender.org/modules.php?op=m ... pic&t=5836
http://www.blender.org/modules.php?op=m ... pic&t=5832
http://www.blender.org/modules.php?op=m ... pic&t=5555
http://www.elysiun.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37438
http://www.elysiun.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40062

joeri · Post by **joeri** » Mon May 23, 2005 9:08 am

As I understand redhat is a company selling Linux.
They even renamed it to redhat linux.

So,... what is the problem here?
As far as I understand the licence, this is legal as long as he also deliverce the source code.

theeth · Post by **theeth** » Mon May 23, 2005 10:31 am

joeri wrote:So,... what is the problem here?

Use of copyrighted images without explicit permission.

Martin

joeri · Post by **joeri** » Mon May 23, 2005 12:59 pm

theeth wrote:
joeri wrote:So,... what is the problem here?
Use of copyrighted images without explicit permission.

Martin

Well okay. Yes. I agree, sortof. Almost.
But,... from a lot of those images copyright is not clear. They might as well be open content. Easy mistake to make. And if they are not then it would not be hard for luxuriousity to get open content images.

And that's not what the fuzz is about when reading "I can't believe this guy renames the software as his company software on Ebay.". That's perfectly legal, just want you to know that before you are going to burn this guy at the stake.

tsume · Post by **tsume** » Mon May 23, 2005 10:39 pm

joeri wrote: And that's not what the fuzz is about when reading "I can't believe this guy renames the software as his company software on Ebay.". That's perfectly legal, just want you to know that before you are going to burn this guy at the stake.

Perfectly known. However, his unorthodox business tactics place his company in the HALL OF SHAME.
1) He makes it sound like "he" wrote the software
2) He makes no direct references of the software being opensource, or list on website "documents" links to the people who actually wrote the software.

The guy needs to get a real job Real Job. Hes exactly the same as a legal commercial spammer. They are little, bad, and have unorthodox(bad) business tactics.

So yes, I can burn, shoot, and toss the guy in the gutter after being burned at the stake.

joeri · Post by **joeri** » Mon May 23, 2005 10:47 pm

tsume wrote:So yes, I can burn, shoot, and toss the guy in the gutter after being burned at the stake.

Rather violent.
And you can do this because....?

modron · Post by **modron** » Tue May 24, 2005 10:09 pm

I believe it was a figure of speech, denoting general disrespect for the guy, which i share. The guy is a common thief, in fact he's worse. his deception involves not only taking money from people who don't know any better, but appropriating the hard work of the blender programmers without giving them any credit. i hope this jackass winds up in the slammer where he belongs, along with pickpockets, petty thieves, burglars, and frauds.

joeri · Post by **joeri** » Wed May 25, 2005 10:50 pm

So, come again, what did he steal?

As I understand the license I can do with the software what ever I want as long as I release the code.

So I can fork and rename it, maybe as Tapaha.
I can sell Tapaha, and I don't need to tell who else made Tapaha.
(Just as redhat does not have to state that mr Thorval made large parts of what they sell)
It's in the code that I need to release with the software.

I don't need to tell you that you can download blender for free at blender.org. Why would I need to do that? Redhat does not need to say you can download Suse. Shell does not need to say the petrol is cheaper at Exxon a block further on the road.
And I changed the code, so you can't download Tapaha at blender.org.

It's all in the license. Or is it not?

Anyway, shameless or not, it does not give any of you the right to "I can burn, shoot, and toss the guy in the gutter" In my opinion, it sortof brings you to the level you claim he is on. Specialy if you have no legal grounds to base your statements on, in some countries that is called slander.

modron · Post by **modron** » Thu May 26, 2005 1:50 am

As I understand the license, it is required to state where the code came from, and from what I gather he didn't do that. I could be wrong, but that is what i recall. Legitimacy aside, he is still charging people for what they can get for free. He is still taking credit for work he didn't do. Whether it violates the law or not doesn't change the fact that he is an opportunist and a thief.

osxrules · Post by **osxrules** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:18 am

I might be doing my Maths wrong but he has a rating of 2374 and if most of his products are $10 then he has made over $20,000 in the past couple of years for no work other than burning programs onto CD.

Whether it's legal or not, which it's fairly clear it isn't since he is misrepresenting products, the fact he is making so much money from other people's hard work is in very bad taste.

Someone should go on ebay selling Luxuriousity products at half price and kill his market and then just donate the money to the Open Source community. The thing is, since what he is doing is illegal, Ebay will likely ban him if a complaint is made. Has anyone complained yet?

joeri · Post by **joeri** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:13 am

I'm not a LUXO fan. And I find his doings bad taste too.
But bad taste is not illegal.

"Whether it violates the law or not doesn't change the fact that he is an opportunist and a thief."

? A thief is someone who takes something away from you. Now what does he take away?
Don't get me wrong, I mean, I don't even find music copying theft because I don't take anything away from you, your not missing out anything after I've copied it. (And don't give me the "But we miss millions of dollars because your not buying the record" crap because I was not going to buy the record in the first place)
So I'm not going to see this as theft.

"the fact he is making so much money from other people's hard work is in very bad taste"
Come again? that's called capitalism. Sell stuff for the price that people want to pay for it, not for what it cost to make. Very common in,... on,... euh,... the world.

ox · Post by ox » Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:58 pm

Simple solution for those all fired up. Turn around is fair play. Name Blender luxairyoxity on ebay and send then to blender.org for a free download.

NateTG · Post by **NateTG** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:27 pm

ox wrote:Simple solution for those all fired up. Turn around is fair play. Name Blender luxairyoxity on ebay and send then to blender.org for a free download.

hahahaha

man, I'm glad we have ox around

Zarf · Post by **Zarf** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:36 am

joeri wrote:So, come again, what did he steal?

As I understand the license I can do with the software what ever I want as long as I release the code.

So I can fork and rename it, maybe as Tapaha.
I can sell Tapaha, and I don't need to tell who else made Tapaha.
(Just as redhat does not have to state that mr Thorval made large parts of what they sell)
It's in the code that I need to release with the software.

I don't need to tell you that you can download blender for free at blender.org. Why would I need to do that? Redhat does not need to say you can download Suse. Shell does not need to say the petrol is cheaper at Exxon a block further on the road.
And I changed the code, so you can't download Tapaha at blender.org.

It's all in the license. Or is it not?

Anyway, shameless or not, it does not give any of you the right to "I can burn, shoot, and toss the guy in the gutter" In my opinion, it sortof brings you to the level you claim he is on. Specialy if you have no legal grounds to base your statements on, in some countries that is called slander.

I agree 100 percent with Joeri here. Also, publishing that guys home number and address (especially without confirming it!) is quite honestly, creepy and potentially illegal.

Regards,
Xarf