Board Logo
« Drone Discussion #10 »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Oct 21st, 2017, 11:36pm


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 ... 26 27 28 29 30  ...  100 Notify Send Topic Print
 sticky  Author  Topic: Drone Discussion #10  (Read 61486 times)
neveleeleven
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 227
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #405 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 3:08pm »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 2:56pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Whoopee ... that makes you a copyright expert!! LOL
Have you ever had the experience of what I'm describing first hand? How many companies have you served on the basis of what I'm talking about?
How many times have you prevailed in court? How many settlements have you negociated?

Let's hear it....




I never claimed to be an expert, I claimed to have a lot of knowledge in that area because I deal with it a lot as a content creator. As a content creator, you have to know what is legal and illegal. You have to know what you can use and what you can't use in your work.

For instance, one company I create content for as a subcontractor always checks my work to make sure it is not breaking any copyright laws. They do this because they use the work in their virtual world and don't want to deal with lawsuits. So as a content creator, I have to know how to walk that fine line of legal or illegal when I want to parody a real life object.


You don't have to have actual settlements or actual court hearings in order to have knowledge, or experience, in a field.

You are the only one who claimed to be an expert "first hand". So why don't you tell use how many settlements and court hearings you have been to?

Once again, your ignorance is incredibly blinding.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Quote:
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”


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

Seriously, sit down, and stfu now. Isaac can not sue Alienware, he will loose for multiple reasons.







User IP Logged

Romans 12:6
tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3955
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #406 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 3:10pm »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 3:07pm, DrDil wrote:
Someone has (got problems) and from my -apparently limited- standpoint it’s certainly not Alienware, Dell or the hoaxers.

Good luck!! grin

Cheers.


Well look, does this look like a "derivative work" to you based on all definitions that will allow for their own independent copyright... I don't think so..

In which case.. they potentially have problems, as even described by numerous other publications out on the web linking Alienware to using the LAP design.
User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3955
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #407 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 3:18pm »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 3:08pm, neveleeleven wrote:
Once again, your ignorance is incredibly blinding.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody
Isaac can not sue Alienware, he will loose for multiple reasons.



Parody? You are serious here? Use of the LAP in marketing a product for profit will eclipse any parody except your reasoning .. lol.

How many times have I prevailed legally in copyright claims ? 13 times all settled to my favor. With 5 or 6 (can't remember exactly) copyright registrations.
« Last Edit: Oct 1st, 2009, 3:18pm by tommi01 » User IP Logged

neveleeleven
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 227
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #408 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 3:29pm »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 3:18pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Parody? You are serious here? Use of the LAP in marketing a product for profit will eclipse any parody except your reasoning .. lol.


Use of the LAP?? They didn't use the LAP. They used very very small sections of the LAP. That is covered by Fair Use.

Pay attention...

I own a website ok? I created an image and it is protected by copyright. If I go to Google Images, and search, I can find an exact copy of the work on their web page. I can also find an exact copy that is a smaller thumbnail on Google's servers, and I can find an exact replica of my entire website on their Google Cache.

There is no doubt that Google makes money from its search engines..... and their search engines potentially stop people from going to my website directly....but do you know why I can't sue Google?? FAIR USE.

They have an EXACT COPY, and they are STILL protected by fair use. Alienware hardly even has small bits of the LAP, they are certainly protected by fair use.

So kindly, get a clue.


on Oct 1st, 2009, 3:18pm, tomi01uk wrote:
How many times have I prevailed legally in copyright claims ? 13 times all settled to my favor. With 5 or 6 (can't remember exactly) copyright registrations.


Ok LHM, nobody cares how many people copied your crappy website.

You could be talking out of your ass for all we know, you certainly don't have any proof of what you say.
« Last Edit: Oct 1st, 2009, 3:30pm by neveleeleven » User IP Logged

Romans 12:6
SiddReader
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #409 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 3:32pm »

Thanks for your post redlite,

I did not dare to say it, because I consider most here as friends. The speed here of talking about nothing has made it impossible to read all that repeated... stuff.

But if I am honest... I just see that all the boys here enjoy to throw sand at that big mouthed girl in the sandbox.

Okay, not all the boys... But most of them. And they get even more angry, when that big mouthed girl does not stop, even with a mouth full of sand.

Okay, let's see, how quickly these next 100 pages are filled with nothing - or sand - and get into the next round.
User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3955
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #410 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 3:42pm »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 3:29pm, neveleeleven wrote:
Use of the LAP?? They didn't use the LAP. They used very very small sections of the LAP. That is covered by Fair Use.



Not if you are lithographing the design onto your products it is not fair use, it is called "marketing".
Can you say that word? Marketing? 3 syllables..

Quote:
Pay attention...

I own a website ok? I created an image and it is protected by copyright. If I go to Google Images, and search, I can find an exact copy of the work on their web page. I can also find an exact copy that is a smaller thumbnail on Google's servers, and I can find an exact replica of my entire website on their Google Cache.

There is no doubt that Google makes money from its search engines..... and their search engines potentially stop people from going to my website directly....but do you know why I can't sue Google?? FAIR USE.

They have an EXACT COPY, and they are STILL protected by fair use. Alienware hardly even has small bits of the LAP, they are certainly protected by fair use.

So kindly, get a clue.



You will get a clue and fast if one of your "designs" gets made into a trademark, a marketing campaign, is printed on the products and also stamped on the cases...
Lets hear you say "fair use" after that.. rolleyes


Quote:
Ok LHM, nobody cares how many people copied your crappy website.

You could be talking out of your ass for all we know, you certainly don't have any proof of what you say.


If you want to think so that is fine with me. Of course I could be telling the truth and if you ask any IPR lawyer about the points of law I've mentioned, the method of approach, the insurance involved and other fine points I've mentioned, he will tell you I know the territory. Which I do, because I've gone through it.
User IP Logged

neveleeleven
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 227
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #411 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 4:10pm »

Tomi, it clearly shows that you have no clue about the difference between a Trademark, and a Copyright.

A copyright is protecting the property as a WHOLE. 100%.

Taking 5% of the LAP, like a small symbol, is legal under Fair Use. Even if they use it for marketing.

Since a symbol within the LAP itself is not Trademarked, Alienware can use it in their marketing.

A shape, an icon, a symbol, is not protected by copyright law. You can not protect basic geometry with copyright. That is like putting stars in your copyright image, and then trying to sue USA for having stars on their flag.

Only a Trademark can protect a shape, an icon, or symbol. I'm pretty sure Isaac didn't Trademark every single symbol within the LAP.

Plus, you still haven't proven that Alienware used exact copies. To me they look like fake reproductions (a parody) that come really close to looking the same, but aren't.

Either way, you failed.



User IP Logged

Romans 12:6
Radi
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 176
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #412 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 4:15pm »

on Sep 30th, 2009, 4:37pm, DrDil wrote:
“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


Remember who copied whom...the LAP is not so original it is a derivative of others work also... laugh laugh laugh
So more FAIR USE or reproduction......Perhaps IHEA can sue ISSAC....According to Tomis logic...
« Last Edit: Oct 1st, 2009, 4:20pm by Radi » User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3955
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #413 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 4:36pm »

I'm tired of arguing.

The important point is established that I tried to make that drdil summed up with saying: "or the fact that IF true you think this would be a no-brainer for the hoaxers and they’d take the money and run….."

I'm sorry none of you believe me. I hope someday you will have the chance to run these 20 pages or so by an IPR lawyer and get his/her insights. I'm sure that the IPR lawyer will back me up on the points I've made here.

Never, the trademark value, you misinterpreted. I never suggested the LAP had a trademark, only that a trademark was created using design elements from the LAP. Regardless, it is a moot point, in this matter. What matters is this:

"or the fact that IF true you think this would be a no-brainer for the hoaxers and they’d take the money and run….." This is the point. Check it out if you care to.


User IP Logged

Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #414 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 4:53pm »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 4:36pm, tomi01uk wrote:
I'm tired of arguing.

The important point is established that I tried to make that drdil summed up with saying: "or the fact that IF true you think this would be a no-brainer for the hoaxers and they’d take the money and run….."

I'm sorry none of you believe me. I hope someday you will have the chance to run these 20 pages or so by an IPR lawyer and get his/her insights. I'm sure that the IPR lawyer will back me up on the points I've made here.

Never, the trademark value, you misinterpreted. I never suggested the LAP had a trademark, only that a trademark was created using design elements from the LAP. Regardless, it is a moot point, in this matter. What matters is this:

"or the fact that IF true you think this would be a no-brainer for the hoaxers and they’d take the money and run….." This is the point. Check it out if you care to.



Dr dil actually said:

"while I respect your experience I completely disagree, and especially about AW paying undisclosed millions to any subsequent claimant or the fact that IF true you think this would be a no-brainer for the hoaxers and they’d take the money and run….."

Nobody thinks that is true except you. Apparently not even the hoaxers who may have a better understanding of copyright and fair use than you do. grin
« Last Edit: Oct 1st, 2009, 4:59pm by Jeddyhi » User IP Logged

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


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 227
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #415 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 5:00pm »

The IPR Lawyer would probably put it in layman's terms for you Tomi, because you don't get it.

Copyright.....COPYright..... COPY....right....

Alienware didn't COPY anything. They made a replica, a parody, their own version of it that looks similar.

Trademark.....TRADEmark.....TRADE...MARK....

Since Isaac didn't have the symbols Trademarked, Alienware has the right to do it first. Then they can use it as a mark for their trade (market).

Geeezzz

You seriously think Alienware and it's hired content creators don't know copyright and trademark laws? You think they don't know a way to tip toe around them?

You are not the brightest crayon in the crayon box.

User IP Logged

Romans 12:6
SiddReader
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #416 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 5:09pm »

BlahblahCopyrightsYaddaNoNewsBlahYaddah? huh undecided lipsrsealed
User IP Logged

neveleeleven
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 227
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #417 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 5:21pm »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:09pm, SiddReader wrote:
BlahblahCopyrightsYaddaNoNewsBlahYaddah? huh undecided lipsrsealed


If you read between the lines, some good info can be found.


on Oct 1st, 2009, 4:53pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
Nobody thinks that is true except you. Apparently not even the hoaxers who may have a better understanding of copyright and fair use than you do. grin


I actually see a similarity between the hoaxers', and Tomi's understanding of copyright law.

They both thought that the message Isaac included about copyright infringement would actually change copyright, fair use, and trademark laws.
They were both wrong.

For all we know, Tomi is a part of the hoax and was recently studying the Isaac vs Alienware/Dell scenario, and using us to see if she has a real case or not.

Thinking she had a case, and using it to some how add credibility to the LAP is beyond any normal logic.

She is truly in her own little world.
User IP Logged

Romans 12:6
tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3955
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #418 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 5:34pm »

LOL grin

Never... I was going to leave this conversation, but you have yet again baited me, and I'll take a bite ..

Tell me, ol wise one:
On your planet,
when a substancial number of elements of a "creative work" is used by a commercial company for their marketing of their product; for a trademark, a convention display, brochures, websites, background images and even lithographed on the interior of the product case as well as stamped in the exterior casing..
and on your planet all this is considered "fair use"..
Where does infringement begin.. ?
eh?

« Last Edit: Oct 1st, 2009, 5:52pm by tommi01 » User IP Logged

SiddReader
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #419 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 5:35pm »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:21pm, neveleeleven wrote:
If you read between the lines, some good info can be found.


Sorry 1111,

you were the first, who showed the wrongs in the Raj photo. And you were right.
But as a detective you are very bad. You even had me on the list once.

You said, you could show more inconsistencies in those other Raj photos. Better talk about this, than about that copyright/"you are a hoaxer"-nonsense.

I don't want to join this "You are the hoaxer"-debate at all. But if you tell me, Tomi is THE candidate, than I would say, you are the better candidate.

Hehe, imagine, this could be true... Funny thought, isn't it? wink
User IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30  ...  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