Board Logo
« Drone Discussion #10 »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jan 23rd, 2018, 02:24am


Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

*Totally FREE 24/7 Access *Your Nickname and Avatar *Private Messages

*Join today and be a part of one of the largest UFO sites on the Net.


« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25  ...  100 Notify Send Topic Print
 sticky  Author  Topic: Drone Discussion #10  (Read 78115 times)
tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3955
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #341 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 03:38am »

on Sep 30th, 2009, 10:20pm, neveleeleven wrote:
Tomi, listen carefully.



I'll try...

Quote:
Isaac pretended to be a federal agent (D.O.D.), and also pretend to have a security clearance with access to secret documents. That is illegal, and is a felony.



NA to intellectual property law at all. And who is going to prosecute him, her or them? Nobody.

Quote:
If he filed a lawsuit, all of that would come to light because he would have to explain how Alienware got the documents. That means he would probably get sent to jail for impersonating a federal agent.



NA again and you are dreaming... not a chance.

Quote:
Also, he would have to prove that he lost money from Alienware's copywrite infringement. He didn't loose money... so he has no case.



You may know how to do creative work, I know about copyright law. I don't profess to know how to use lightwave, I suggest you don't profess to know how to sue for copyright infringement.

If a company the size of Dell is plastering your design all over their product and using it to market said product, as extensively as AlienWare is doing.. You have lost income and your design has been used to profit another company. This is lost income, believe me.

Quote:
Tomi, since nobody is coming forward and claiming ownership of the LAP then, WHY DON'T YOU? You can fake having the source, you can lie and say you created the LAP, and you can claim copywrite infringement against Alienware, and nobody would be able to prove you are not Isaac. So, if you think there is millions of dollars involved, why don't you pretend to be Isaac and sue Aleinware?



You're trivialising and distracting from facts. To apply for a copyright with the Library of Congress when infringement is the case requires a submission of proof of creation. Any human who created the LAP must be able to prove they created it in the original material they submit.

Quote:
The mundane truth is, the LAP is a piece of sh!t. It probably took the creator(s) a couple hours to make at least. To them, it's an expendable piece of art. Worthless.



So much a pos that AlienWare has incorporated it into their product design and marketing.. that's a wealth of pos for you .. smiley

Quote:
Hey, I could sue Google. I have a website with copywrite images that show up on Google Images.... Nope, wont work. It's called "Fair Use".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use



Fair use is not what is happening with Alienware using the LAP to the extent it is doing, if they were contested by the originator of the LAP. Believe me or not. Ask a good Intellectual Property Rights lawyer.

Quote:
I'm surprise with your "expertise", Tomi, that you never heard of "Fair Use"....



Is Alienware profiting by marketing their computers with the imagery of the LAP used in the product design as well as the marketing? Yes. How is that fair use, esquire?
User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3955
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #342 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 03:44am »

on Sep 30th, 2009, 10:29pm, Radi wrote:
Yes and you know that AW lawyers will capitalize on this very aspect.....Jury or judge will frown upon this also and then the case is pretty much lost because they have no creditability and are just that criminals.....


Not a chance. Not applicable at all.
User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3955
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #343 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 03:49am »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 12:50am, Klatunictobarata wrote:
Look, I have been following this for so long that my head hurts at times.

The whole Alienware shtick is highly overrated.

First of all, who the HELL would go out and buy an expensive computer for its cute alien head logo motif OR the 'mysterious' CARET/LAP diagramming or cool alien alphabet that is not really that impressive at all? Children perhaps?



I'm getting sick of arguing my point. But this is an important aspect to consider at this point in the drone saga.

Quote:
Notice that the "mysterious' graphics and LAP/alphabet are only imprinted on the actual product line...as if the words ISAAC and CARET has to be steered clear of for fear of violating some copyright or servicemark.



The words "Isaac and Caret" have NOTHING to do with the LAP design as a creative work.

Quote:
And consider the highly overrated use of private investigators as a way to add value to this affair.



Again, this has nothing to do with copyright law infringement.

User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3955
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #344 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 04:12am »

When copyright infringement has occured the creator of said work uses a different process to register their work with the Library of Congress as quickly as possible.

The Library of Congress has every process in place to assist the submitter in expiditing the registration process. It costs (if I remember correctly) about 800 dollars to process each submission in this way.

The personnel in the Library of Congress are extremely knowlegable and able to qualify the submission personally for you.

An important point I'm trying to make here is that extreme remedies are in place for copyright violation and this includes seizure orders on products, after the lawsuit is served. Sue the manufacturer and the distributors and this gets their attention immediately. It ceases the marketing of the product quite effectively.

Why, if the LAP was done by human hands, should the creators not seek compensation from Dell? Public domain precidents aside, with enough profit motive, as now occuring in the AlienWare use of the LAP design, a NY law firm would be interested in this case due to the deep pockets involved and extensive use of the design.
« Last Edit: Oct 1st, 2009, 04:44am by tommi01 » User IP Logged

Gort
New Member
Image


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 0
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #345 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 06:31am »

Starting to think Nineteenth Amendment should be reviewed. Holy crapo batman, like describing the color purple to a blind person.
User IP Logged

Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #346 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 06:34am »

Tomi, you are NA lol! grin

What is your main point for bringing up the AW connection again? I mean why are we on this road yet one more time? The Las Vegas Convention isn't for more than a month. Can't we all just take a break instead of rehashing old stuff just for your amusement. There will be plenty to post about after the Convention, I'm sure!
« Last Edit: Oct 1st, 2009, 06:38am by Jeddyhi » User IP Logged

"Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it."- Masker33
Sheepdog
Junior Member
ImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 39
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #347 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 07:11am »

Because no one has come forward with a claim means there may be no hoaxers and this is real.
If I'm incorrect, I know I will be corrected by Tomi.
But that's my take on what I think she's getting at.
User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3955
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #348 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 07:35am »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 07:11am, StaffLetter666 wrote:
Because no one has come forward with a claim means there may be no hoaxers and this is real.
If I'm incorrect, I know I will be corrected by Tomi.
But that's my take on what I think she's getting at.


No, it is just an important point to consider. When weighing the reality of this drone saga.

Why is money not an issue for those who executed this "hoax" if that is what it is. Why?

Why would a group of people or even more remarkable, one or several individuals, who created this LAP, leave it all to be used exploitedly by a computer company like Dell without capitalising on it. Why?

User IP Logged

Marvin
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Mmm, yes, very curious, very interesting....


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1119
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #349 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 07:38am »

Using your words and logic:


on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:51pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Let's examine this reasoning for a minute...



on Sep 30th, 2009, 6:49pm, tomi01uk wrote:
OMG.... first of all... who ever did this is beyond being a "designer", the group behind this is showing no profit motive whatsoever so far..




So I will respond to this statement with your words again…


on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:55pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Get me the evidence.



How do you know if there is or isn’t any profit motive? Are you on the inside of this group?

(Looking ahead to your response to this…)

If you do not know the answer to that, then why make a statement that flies in the face of reason? There can be… and likely is… a profit motive involved. People are already making money off of it. grin

User IP Logged

Oh Goody! My Illudiom Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator!

User Image

"You naughty earth specimens!"
Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #350 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 07:52am »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 07:35am, tomi01uk wrote:
No, it is just an important point to consider. When weighing the reality of this drone saga.

Why is money not an issue for those who executed this "hoax" if that is what it is. Why?

Why would a group of people or even more remarkable, one or several individuals, who created this LAP, leave it all to be used exploitedly by a computer company like Dell without capitalising on it. Why?



Suppose the drones are government disinfo. Is the government going to scrap the disinfo campaign just to sue AW?

Suppose the hoaxer has made money as a result of the hoax...That is illegal. What if LMH, C2C, and WHitley Streiber were behind the hoax and each of them profited from the hoax with increased subscriptions, book sales, etc.....Would they come forward to face prosecution in order to sue AW?

Suppose that the drones are just an internet hoax by a group of unknowns who wish to remain anonymous. Would they come forward and expose the whole thing just to sue AW? Would the suit even be worth it? The LAP was presented as being Alien in origin, therefore owned by nobody but the Aliens. Submitted anonymously to the public domain as Alien in origin.....that simple fact would have to have an impact on the legality of any copyright infringement.

There are to many 'what if' scenarios and numerous reasons why the hoaxer(s) could still remain anonymous.
User IP Logged

"Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it."- Masker33
Sheepdog
Junior Member
ImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 39
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #351 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 07:54am »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 07:35am, tomi01uk wrote:
No, it is just an important point to consider. When weighing the reality of this drone saga.

Why is money not an issue for those who executed this "hoax" if that is what it is. Why?

Why would a group of people or even more remarkable, one or several individuals, who created this LAP, leave it all to be used exploitedly by a computer company like Dell without capitalising on it. Why?

People's values differ and cash is not everything.
The scrutiny and exposure may not be worth the cash.
These are plausible whys.

Maybe you are putting a higher value on their worth then others.
You can ask why are Dell/Alienware using them if not of value: because they can and want to.
User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3955
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #352 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 07:59am »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 07:38am, Marvin wrote:
Using your words and logic:

If you do not know the answer to that, then why make a statement that flies in the face of reason? There can be… and likely is… a profit motive involved. People are already making money off of it. grin



Marvin, what logic tells you that AlienWare produced the drone saga just to benefit by using the LAP design?
User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3955
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #353 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 08:17am »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 07:52am, Jeddyhi wrote:
Suppose the drones are government disinfo. Is the government going to scrap the disinfo campaign just to sue AW?



Exactly.. All points to consider. Once you take in as fact what I'm trying to tell you here.
About copyright issues.

Quote:
Suppose the hoaxer has made money as a result of the hoax...That is illegal.



ummmm not illegal. Copyright law does not apply here.

Quote:
What if LMH, C2C, and WHitley Streiber were behind the hoax and each of them profited from the hoax with increased subscriptions, book sales, etc.....



I think drdil has shown sufficient evidence that this is not the case, them being the creators of this for increased subscription rates.. seriously?? You are way underestimating the efforts and convienently too to make a point that is quite disproportionate to returns..
as would be creating this saga for increased subscriptions..

Meanwhile, AlienWare's market value and their Errors and Omissions insurance deep pockets is what I'm talking about. No subscriptions are ever going to come close to that kind of renumeration.

Quote:
Would they come forward to face prosecution in order to sue AW?



For what? What law has been broken by the hoaxers that would be applicable to federal prosecution? or even state prosecution for that matter?

Quote:
Suppose that the drones are just an internet hoax by a group of unknowns who wish to remain anonymous. Would they come forward and expose the whole thing just to sue AW? Would the suit even be worth it?



Definately it would be worth it. Dell computer using your designs all over their product line and in their multiple media marketing campaign? You serious?

Quote:
The LAP was presented as being Alien in origin, therefore owned by nobody but the Aliens. Submitted anonymously to the public domain as Alien in origin.....that simple fact would have to have an impact on the legality of any copyright infringement.



When Isaac made the request that all material be reproduced in whole not utilised or marketed separately, he was establishing a very loose yet plausible condition of use... this may be the key a good firm would use to overcome the public domain aspect of this work after it has been so blatently exploited for marketing purposes... just thinking here..

But I believe that will not even be necessary as the fortune city website in reality may be construed as a fictious story.. one that is not to be exploited by the marketing efforts of a major company for their computer product line.

Quote:
There are to many 'what if' scenarios and numerous reasons why the hoaxer(s) could still remain anonymous.


Nope.. not IMO when a fat settlement for use and damages is considered....
« Last Edit: Oct 1st, 2009, 08:22am by tommi01 » User IP Logged

Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #354 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 08:22am »

It is illegal to make money from a hoax. Do you dispute that?
User IP Logged

"Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it."- Masker33
tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3955
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #355 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 08:25am »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 08:22am, Jeddyhi wrote:
It is illegal to make money from a hoax. Do you dispute that?


Show me which laws apply.

edit to add: Intellectual property law is a completely separate domain from other avenues of law. Completely separate.
« Last Edit: Oct 1st, 2009, 08:29am by tommi01 » User IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25  ...  100 Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 19,000 members.

Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls