Board Logo
« Drone Discussion #10 »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Sep 21st, 2017, 12:52pm


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 ... 13 14 15 16 17  ...  100 Notify Send Topic Print
 sticky  Author  Topic: Drone Discussion #10  (Read 55711 times)
Double Nought Spy
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 1429
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #210 on: Sep 30th, 2009, 3:50pm »

on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:47pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Great!! Thoroughly discussed... So thoroughly you end up with nothing to back up your "facts". Which you don't have.

Good Luck to you if that is how you apply your form of "reseach" to your hypothesess. Anyway..
A lot of talent, a lot of effort, a lot of excruciating work is being exploited by a major computer company and nobody makes a claim and to top it off.. nobody asks why??



Oh stop! I know you're not that stupid. As for your homework, why would you think I would do that for you? If you really weren't paying attention the first time, that's your problem. Now get to it.
User IP Logged


All sane people detest noise. --Mark Twain

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #211 on: Sep 30th, 2009, 3:51pm »

on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:43pm, Radi wrote:
As said a long time ago in a fourm far far away....If someone or a group came forward to lay claim to the LAP and claim to hold the copyright to that then this would be the Hoaxers......

Let's examine this reasoning for a minute...
No.. it's really too superficial to justify.

It betrays the essence of the point I'm trying to make.. which is what is the point of putting so much in and taking nothing out?? And leaving it out there for the purpose of what?
« Last Edit: Sep 30th, 2009, 3:52pm by tommi01 » User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #212 on: Sep 30th, 2009, 3:55pm »

on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:50pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
Oh stop! I know you're not that stupid. As for your homework, why would you think I would do that for you? If you really weren't paying attention the first time, that's your problem. Now get to it.


Get me the proof you say you have. Get me the evidence. Because a PR response about derivative work is hardly a sufficient answer to the point of nobody making a claim. Especially now with the full exploitation of the LAP taking place in conventions and within their models. It's payback time... and nobody is asking..

Why??
User IP Logged

TheShadow
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 299
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #213 on: Sep 30th, 2009, 3:57pm »

on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:51pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Let's examine this reasoning for a minute...
No.. it's really too superficial to justify.

It betrays the essence of the point I'm trying to make.. which is what is the point of putting so much in and taking nothing out?? And leaving it out there for the purpose of what?


Okay......now if possible follow this train of thought!!

1. Lets assume your hero LMH commissioned the drone hoax to drum up business for her crappy lame ass website.

2. She hires an artist that she pays to create the drones and BS witnesses.

3.That artist signs a Non disclosure agreement (NDA)

4. If anyone learns that Linda commissioned the drones she is finished as a "researcher" (so she absolutely aint going to file a suit)

5. If the artist blabs he.she gets their butt sued by LMH!!!

6. So Alienware gets away with blatant copywrite infringement because Linda sure as hell aint gonna expose herself and the artist doesnt wwish to be sued by her.

OR

AlienWare worked with Linda to create the drones because it benefits them both!!!
« Last Edit: Sep 30th, 2009, 4:00pm by TheShadow » User IP Logged

Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #214 on: Sep 30th, 2009, 4:11pm »

on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:43pm, Radi wrote:
As said a long time ago in a fourm far far away....If someone or a group came forward to lay claim to the LAP and claim to hold the copyright to that then this would be the Hoaxers......


And they would have to walk away from the hoax admitting that Isaac/CARET was a big deception as were all the witness reports and photos.

According to current law, the moment that Isaac uploaded and shared the CARET material, it became copyrighted automatically.

Quote:
'In all countries where the Berne Convention standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights. However, while registration isn't needed to exercise copyright, in jurisdictions where the laws provide for registration, it serves as prima facie evidence of a valid copyright and enables the copyright holder to seek statutory damages and attorney's fees. (In the USA, registering after an infringement only enables one to receive actual damages and lost profits.)'

Source: wiki

So Isaac, whover he is, actually has right to them. So either the material actually did originate from stolen top secret documents and Alienware could care less...... or they are created works by whoever created Isaac/CARET.com
and Alienware will cease and desist if ever told to. A cease and desist by the creator would only destroy the hoax and Alienware may simply cease and desist the usage of the material instead of offering money for the right to use. The claim could be made anytime Isaac wants to reveal himself.
User IP Logged

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


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 1429
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #215 on: Sep 30th, 2009, 4:18pm »

Christ on a crutch! You'd think it was rocket science or something. rolleyes
User IP Logged


All sane people detest noise. --Mark Twain

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #216 on: Sep 30th, 2009, 4:21pm »

on Sep 30th, 2009, 3:57pm, TheShadow wrote:


All strawman crapolla Shads.. All BS with blinder on..

Quote:
1. Lets assume your hero LMH commissioned the drone hoax to drum up business for her crappy lame ass website.



Where's your proof? Not a chance? You got to be kidding! A production like that and she doesn't need a fricking website you moron!! wink kiss
next..

Quote:
2. She hires an artist that she pays to create the drones and BS witnesses.



Refer to above... rolleyes

Quote:
3.That artist signs a Non disclosure agreement (NDA)



This is the only senerio that has any weight so far.. ok.. but to whom?? Who would commission such work and why?

Quote:
4. If anyone learns that Linda commissioned the drones she is finished as a "researcher" (so she absolutely aint going to file a suit)



You have a baseless argument there that doesn't even bring into consideration the law of diminishing returns.. rolleyes

Quote:
5. If the artist blabs he.she gets their butt sued by LMH!!!



Errrrr... lol right.. grin Like LMH has all these lawyers in her pocket right next to bums around the street corner ready to play Issac for 5 dollars.. hilarious.. grin

Quote:
6. So Alienware gets away with blatant copywrite infringement because Linda sure as hell aint gonna expose herself and the artist doesnt wwish to be sued by her.



Someone should advise LMH where the money is then..
grin

User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #217 on: Sep 30th, 2009, 4:24pm »

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:11pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
And they would have to walk away from the hoax admitting that Isaac/CARET was a big deception as were all the witness reports and photos.

According to current law, the moment that Isaac uploaded and shared the CARET material, it became copyrighted automatically.


Source: wiki

So Isaac, whover he is, actually has right to them. So either the material actually did originate from stolen top secret documents and Alienware could care less...... or they are created works by whoever created Isaac/CARET.com
and Alienware will cease and desist if ever told to. A cease and desist by the creator would only destroy the hoax and Alienware may simply cease and desist the usage of the material instead of offering money for the right to use. The claim could be made anytime Isaac wants to reveal himself.


It certainly would not be a slam dunk, but it would give Dell pause for concern...
User IP Logged

Radi
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 176
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #218 on: Sep 30th, 2009, 4:25pm »

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:11pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
And they would have to walk away from the hoax admitting that Isaac/CARET was a big deception as were all the witness reports and photos.

According to current law, the moment that Isaac uploaded and shared the CARET material, it became copyrighted automatically.


Source: wiki

So Isaac, whover he is, actually has right to them. So either the material actually did originate from stolen top secret documents and Alienware could care less...... or they are created works by whoever created Isaac/CARET.com
and Alienware will cease and desist if ever told to. A cease and desist by the creator would only destroy the hoax and Alienware may simply cease and desist the usage of the material instead of offering money for the right to use. The claim could be made anytime Isaac wants to reveal himself.


And if it was REAL secret stolen documents from whoever (Government, Secret Lab..etc..) It would have been taken down and off the web a loooong time ago and there would be no AW laptops designed on the LAP... wink smiley
User IP Logged

TheShadow
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 299
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #219 on: Sep 30th, 2009, 4:26pm »

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:21pm, tomi01uk wrote:
All strawman crapolla Shads.. All BS with blinder on..



Where's your proof? Not a chance? You got to be kidding! A production like that and she doesn't need a fricking website you moron!! wink kiss
next..



Refer to above... rolleyes



This is the only senerio that has any weight so far.. ok.. but to whom?? Who would commission such work and why?



You have a baseless argument there that doesn't even bring into consideration the law of diminishing returns.. rolleyes



Errrrr... lol right.. grin Like LMH has all these lawyers in her pocket right next to bums around the street corner ready to play Issac for 5 dollars.. hilarious.. grin



Someone should advise LMH where the money is then..
grin



Every word i wrote makes perfect sense.....and i seem to have hit a nerve!!

Mods I believe tomi crossed a line by calling me a moron......how about a brief banning for her to bring up the mentality of the forum for a while??
User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #220 on: Sep 30th, 2009, 4:29pm »

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:25pm, Radi wrote:
And if it was REAL secret stolen documents from whoever (Government, Secret Lab..etc..) It would have been taken down and off the web a loooong time ago and there would be no AW laptops designed on the LAP... wink smiley


Again, another speculation. The reverse could be just as true. In fact, IMO .. and the BIG IF comes into play here .. if this was in anyway an alien artifact, most of the "goberment" would be just as confused by it as everyone else. It would be so compartmentalised that it could sit there looking like a hoax and doing just what it was intended to do.
User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #221 on: Sep 30th, 2009, 4:30pm »

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:26pm, TheShadow wrote:
Mods I believe tomi crossed a line by calling me a moron......how about a brief banning for her to bring up the mentality of the forum for a while??

poetic license ?

When does poetic license not apply anymore? wink

« Last Edit: Sep 30th, 2009, 4:32pm by tommi01 » User IP Logged

TheShadow
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 299
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #222 on: Sep 30th, 2009, 4:31pm »

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:29pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Again, another speculation. The reverse could be just as true. In fact, IMO .. and the BIG IF comes into play here .. if this was in anyway an alien artifact, most of the "goberment" would be just as confused by it as everyone else. It would be so compartmentalised that it could sit there looking like a hoax and doing just what it was intended to do.


And you called me a moron?? Jesus christ woman.....can you be that freaking stupid?? No we all know you arent.........just doing your job!!

How pathetic.......
User IP Logged

TheShadow
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 299
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #223 on: Sep 30th, 2009, 4:36pm »

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:30pm, tomi01uk wrote:
poetic license ?

When does poetic license not apply anymore? wink


General Rules and Regulations for Posting


3) As a member, you have the right to disagree with another member's post. However, you can do this without attacking that person's character. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. Again, a warning message with be issued, and a member will be banned upon a second offense.
« Last Edit: Sep 30th, 2009, 4:37pm by TheShadow » User IP Logged

DrDil
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Fighting against truth decay!!


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4224
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #224 on: Sep 30th, 2009, 4:37pm »

on Sep 30th, 2009, 1:46pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Uh huh.... but you gotta hand it to the LAP... not every "hoax" ends up having a computer line designed after it.

Considering the new way Alienware has incorporated even greater amounts of the LAP design into its products.. it bears considering this I think..

The use of certain aspects of the LAP have obviously gone uncontended by copyright claim, this has probably given greater confidence in using even more of it.

Whyhuhhuhhuhhuhhuh Why would someone allow all this lost talent, design, work, time, and most inportant, revenue.... just go like that.... ** poof ** tongue
Boggles the mind as Masker would say..

Masker what's your take on this question??

“A computer line designed after it”?

What, from the five original accounts, the varying Drone designs and the many-worded explanation and images of alleged alien technology (antigrav device etc.) that Isaac proffered they copied what is best described as a schematic including known bastardized fonts and this is your idea of “Designed after it”?

I guess I really am in the minority here as I disagree with everyone about the viral angle but also with you about basing their design on it, or more specifically exclusively based on it as it seems you’re implying with “Designed after it”. Strangely the reasons I disagree with both theories are similarly themed but as for the copyright issue I still don’t think anyone has answered about claiming of such as surely whichever way you look at it it’s of no massive importance?

First scenario:
If Isaac is telling the truth (meh) then only Caret or one of the many alien races (according to Isaac anyway) could possibly claim copyright and if either were to do so then it’s game over as the fabled ‘disclosure’ would be upon us.

User Image


Second scenario: If it’s all lies, and as (when considering this theory) Isaac has, you have purposefully deceived from the outset (as well as waived copyrights,) plus there is no trademark registered, and most of the designs have been around as individual items in some form or another for long before Isaac claimed them, e.g.:


User Image

User Image

(Heh, heh, even the Drones themselves had their predecessors.

What about this one, it’s one of my my favourites.
User Image
From a Lightwave tutorial no less..... grin


All of these examples pre-date the Drones and I agree that the LAP was an inspired combination and subsequent representation of them (intentionally, subconsciously or otherwise), but unique?

Anyway when considering the above then would/does/could even intellectual copyright be argued? I.e. when already waived and there has been no one willing to be identified and we’re now past the two year mark? As I’ve stated previously this isn’t like a pseudonym as this was someone claiming anonymity and asking for no payment or recompense as well as asserting no ‘real’ copyright (in fact the exact opposite)?

But back to your original question about the design thing, as Masker has pointed out then a couple of prints on the INTERNAL board components are the only difference from the earlier designs, isn’t it? Well, apart from a vague screen-shot on the desktop on the main page for the desktops (note, NOT notebooks).

So regarding: “Considering the new way Alienware has incorporated even greater amounts of the LAP design into its products.. it bears considering this I think.” There may be an extra couple of representations of the schematic ‘under the hood’ but I still don’t get the implications of such as surely it’s just the same as the SCC, or bioware, or Serenity, isn’t it?

IF they were the originators then surely this would have been claimed instead of appearing to plagiarise the LAP, and as you said the earlier inclusion of the symbols in the original MX’s was perhaps just testing the water before printing another couple of representations on the inside of the new aurora’s?

I still don’t see why this is of any real relevance?

After all, this IS Alienware.

Remember the one with the iconic aliens head as a trademark?
That was around for many moons before they slightly altered and claimed it, wasn’t it?
Hmm, I wonder if Whitley has a case with Alienware?
Or come to that if the Crowley estate has just cause against Whitley regarding Crowley’s “LAM”?

But back to Alienware, you know, the one that has hardware named after famous & misidentified UFO events (aurora, Area51) and is futuristic in design, what better way than to try and tie it in with reversed alien technology be it legitimate or merely claimed as legitimate (i.e. alien-tech)?

I guess I'm on my own in thinking this way but never mind as it's not the first time and I'm sure it won't be the last.....

Cheers. smiley
User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17  ...  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