Board Logo
« Drone Discussion #10 »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Aug 17th, 2017, 6:09pm


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 ... 27 28 29 30 31  ...  100 Notify Send Topic Print
 sticky  Author  Topic: Drone Discussion #10  (Read 50333 times)
neveleeleven
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 227
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #420 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 5:56pm »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:34pm, tomi01uk wrote:
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 elements of a design is used by a commercial company for marketing purposes; 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?



You are going to have to set a scenario first before you talk about any type of infringement. Your example is inconclusive....

You are aware of the "four pillars" of the Fair Use laws right?

1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

2) The nature of the copyrighted work

3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work


Where did the original content come from? Did the original content have Trademarked symbols? Did the original content have a valid copyright? Was the original content fact or fiction? Was the original content in public domain? Did the original content inspire a recreation? Was it an exact copy and paste, or was it a replication?

There are several things you need to know....

So lets talk about your planet... A guy claims to have photocopied stolen secret government property from aliens, and then he claims a copyright on them... LOL..

Please tell me how someone can claim a copyright on a copy of government property, on your planet?


That is like copying a copyright protected government owned user manual for an F-22, and then claiming copyright on the copy.

Wow Tomi, can you even fathom how dumb your world is?
User IP Logged

Romans 12:6
Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #421 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 6:08pm »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:56pm, neveleeleven wrote:
So lets talk about your planet... A guy claims to have photocopied stolen secret government property from aliens, and then he claims a copyright on them... LOL..

Please tell me how someone can claim a copyright on a copy of government property, on your planet?


That is like copying a copyright protected government owned user manual for an F-22, and then claiming copyright on the copy.

Wow Tomi, can you even fathom how dumb your world is?


I believe she is asserting that because no hoaxers have confessed to the hoax and attempted litigation against AlienWare, then it must not be a hoax for why would they not confess and sue AlienWare for millions. That is the crux of her argument.
« Last Edit: Oct 1st, 2009, 6:10pm by Jeddyhi » 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: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #422 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 6:09pm »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:56pm, neveleeleven wrote:
Please tell me how someone can claim a copyright on a copy of government property?

That is like copying a copyright protected government owned user manual for an F-22, and then claiming copyright on the copy.



shocked OMG.. rolleyes You will stoop to even calling it an alien artifact to escape this one !! LOL

Your points 1 through 4 speak for themselves, proving my point that commerical use is not considered "fair use". Etc. etc.. so what do you do? You stoop to calling it an alien artifact stolen from the government..
Gotta hand it to never, you never fail to deliver ..
what I'm not sure... rolleyes
User IP Logged

neveleeleven
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 227
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #423 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 6:15pm »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:35pm, SiddReader wrote:
Sorry 1111,

you were the first, who showed the wrongs in the Raj photo. And you were right.



smiley I know... I even remote viewed the Raj pole location and drew a picture of what I saw, and it had tons of similarities to the actual location.

I even remote viewed a test picture someone gave me to see if I can guess the time of day, and was correct within less than 30 minutes. LOL


on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:35pm, SiddReader wrote:
But as a detective you are very bad. You even had me on the list once.


Well I had everyone on the list because I don't trust anyone.

If you think I am a bad detective, and I took you off the list, are you trying to say I should put you back on the list?

Or am I a good enough detective to take you off the list using unheard-of tactics via internet?

on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:35pm, SiddReader wrote:
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.


Yes, but I would rather not teach the hoaxers how to fix their work. So I will keep the Raj info private. What I have said is already enough.

Quite frankly, I don't trust Tomi at all. So I will accuse her until she can prove herself.

on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:35pm, SiddReader wrote:
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.


I believe this drone hoax was done by a team. Not one person. I believe Tomi could be a part of this team, playing dumb, acting, and just playing along. So far she shows to be doing just that.

I am not a better candidate, because I am not anonymous. I'm not trying to hide. If I trust someone enough, I will tell them my name. I have already told people my location. I told Manny some very good information that could track me down.

I could prove with a doubt I am not the hoaxer.

I can't even find any logic in someone making a hoax and then going through all the effort to debunk it.... I guess it could be like a disguise, but it would be smarter to not say anything at all. It would be smarter to be silent, than a debunker.

on Oct 1st, 2009, 5:35pm, SiddReader wrote:
Hehe, imagine, this could be true... Funny thought, isn't it? wink


Stupid funny maybe, but not funny funny.

If I was the hoaxer, I wouldn't have made the mistakes that I have been pointing out in the Raj images.

Anyway... I am leaving to the race track right now to ride motox... If anyone wants to say "Hi", I will be at Milestone MX park from 7:00pm to 10:00pm.

http://www.milestonemx.com/

Talk to you later!
User IP Logged

Romans 12:6
tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #424 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 6:16pm »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:08pm, Jeddyhi wrote:
I believe she is asserting that because no hoaxers have confessed to the hoax and attempted litigation against AlienWare, then it must not be a hoax for why would they not confess and sue AlienWare for millions. That is the crux of her argument.


Jeddyhi, I'm asserting that there must be a reason why nobody has "confessed" to the Library of Congress while they register the LAP and then "confess" to a NY IPR Law Firm...

I have no idea why.. btw.. but there must be a reason.
User IP Logged

neveleeleven
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 227
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #425 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 6:26pm »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:09pm, tomi01uk wrote:
shocked OMG.. rolleyes You will stoop to even calling it an alien artifact to escape this one !! LOL



Sorry I was under the impression that you still believe the LAP isn't a hoax. That is why I said ON YOUR PLANET.

It's ok, you have like 2 active brain cells, I didn't expect you to understand.

on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:09pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Your points 1 through 4 speak for themselves, proving my point that commerical use is not considered "fair use". Etc. etc.. so what do you do? You stoop to calling it an alien artifact stolen from the government..
Gotta hand it to never, you never fail to deliver ..
what I'm not sure... rolleyes


Those are not my points. Those are the 4 tests for Fair Use, all of them are explained here:

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

Point 1 explains the "parody" rule.
Point 2 explains the "fact or fiction" rule.
Point 3 explains the "percentage of and partial usage of" rules.
Point 4 explains the "actual amount Isaac lost" rules.

All of them are explained, but you are just way to freaking dumb to understand.

You are now accusing me of not delievering...LOL.... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... I single handedly debunked the entire drone hoax.

I was calling it an alien artifact because I was talking about YOUR PLANET. Not mine... On YOUR PLANET you actually think the LAP is real, which means you actually think is a photocopy from alien design. LOL


Holy f**K how do you even survive being that freaking clueless?



User IP Logged

Romans 12:6
Radi
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 176
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #426 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 6:30pm »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:16pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Jeddyhi, I'm asserting that there must be a reason why nobody has "confessed" to the Library of Congress while they register the LAP and then "confess" to a NY IPR Law Firm...

I have no idea why.. btw.. but there must be a reason.

Well perhaps this is a reason and just like your assumption that they registered the LAP I will make an assumption....PERHAPS THE LAP CREATORS ARE NOT FROM THE USA and rather not care to deal with a different country and its laws... wink laugh
« Last Edit: Oct 1st, 2009, 6:32pm by Radi » User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #427 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 6:34pm »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:26pm, neveleeleven wrote:
Sorry I was under the impression that you still believe the LAP isn't a hoax. That is why I said ON YOUR PLANET.

It's ok, you have like 2 active brain cells, I didn't expect you to understand.



Those are not my points. Those are the 4 tests for Fair Use, all of them are explained here:

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

Point 1 explains the "parody" rule.
Point 2 explains the "fact or fiction" rule.
Point 3 explains the "percentage of and partial usage of" rules.
Point 4 explains the "actual amount Isaac lost" rules.

All of them are explained, but you are just way to freaking dumb to understand.

You are now accusing me of not delievering...LOL.... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... I single handedly debunked the entire drone hoax.

I was calling it an alien artifact because I was talking about YOUR PLANET. Not mine... On YOUR PLANET you actually think the LAP is real, which means you actually think is a photocopy from alien design. LOL


Holy f**K how do you even survive being that freaking clueless?





How you can misconstrue those 4 points, (which I was already aware of) into the logic that you have employed is beyond me.. but don't take my word for it, ask an IPR lawyer...
User IP Logged

Sheepdog
Junior Member
ImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 39
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #428 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 6:42pm »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:16pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Jeddyhi, I'm asserting that there must be a reason why nobody has "confessed" to the Library of Congress while they register the LAP and then "confess" to a NY IPR Law Firm...

I have no idea why.. btw.. but there must be a reason.

Why do you think money is that important to everyone?
It is not.
You seem unable to even accept that as a reason.
Privacy and not being hounded (including possible dragging family and children along) for years could be more important.
You want your identity and personal matters plastered all over the web?
They may not even think it's a slam dunk as you do.
This discussion is pointless.
You are getting blinded like a deer in the headlights with all these what if's, has to be a reason and what not.
You simply can't accept any reason and never will.
User IP Logged

neveleeleven
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 227
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #429 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 6:42pm »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:34pm, tomi01uk wrote:
How you can misconstrue those 4 points, (which I was already aware of) into the logic that you have employed is beyond me.. but don't take my word for it, ask an IPR lawyer...


You asked me at what point does it become "infringement"? However you asked me without explaining the origins of the original content. So I showed you those 4 points (which are blatantly short and are described in the link I provided) that the original content must meet before I could tell you if it is infringement or not. That is why I followed up with several questions that you have failed to answer.

So I gave you 4 points that are described in the Fair Use link I gave you. Those 4 points will explain at what point it becomes "infringement".

I figured you already "knew" about the reality of the four points and how unclear they are. But the reality is, you don't have a freaking clue...

Tomi, you are the dumbest person I have ever talked to.
« Last Edit: Oct 1st, 2009, 6:43pm by neveleeleven » User IP Logged

Romans 12:6
redlite
Junior Member
ImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 37
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #430 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 7:18pm »

Shadow, thanks and good to see your talents and sharp wit will not be wasted until something of substance is posted. LV is coming....

Radi, it was your post a few days ago on the 5 page thread on another forum that got the wheels turning. Full of arrogance and transparent manipulation by another coward, Lev. Got his hinney kicked and had to tuck 'tale' and slink off. It was cool, thanks. Of interest was that tomi almost got banned from that thread for being a skeptic of Lev's crap.....And the thread is about 2 years old!

Jed, thanks and I completly share your frustration at the 'intentional ignorance', seems to be the standard bearer for this thread. Kinda draws ya in and gets all balled up in a 'mid-air'.....

Sidd, your welcome and your observation that this place is like a grade school play yard is spot on. Never liked the bullies and came home sore more than once. I'll be honest, though, that post sat on my screen for more than 45 minutes before I hit 'post'. I like friends too, but enough is enough....Your new posts have the fire.....

Doc, the post would have been a weak sister without the numbers, at best. It gave the post weight, since numbers don't lie and the rest was opinnion. Took 15 minutes of 'research' to establish the data. The 'lack of content', unfotunately, extends beyond yesterday and I should have done a better job at conveying that. Less smartass and more to the point..... just one more shot...

I'm going to follow Shadows lead and bid farewell to this thread, so carry on and on and on and on........
« Last Edit: Oct 1st, 2009, 9:56pm by redlite » User IP Logged

Klatunictobarata
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #431 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 7:34pm »

Now just look and see what you have done, Tomi!

angry cheesy cheesy grin
User IP Logged

Radi
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 176
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #432 on: Oct 1st, 2009, 9:44pm »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 7:18pm, redlite wrote:
Radi, it was your post a few days ago on the 5 page thread on another forum that got the wheels turning. Full of arrogance and transparent manipulation by another coward, Lev. Got his hinney kicked and had to tuck 'tale' and slink off. It was cool, thanks. Of interest was that tomi almost got banned from that thread for being a skeptic of Lev's crap.....



hehe sorry about wink But yes its always a great read.. grin
I would post other things as well but we'd have to put up with Tomi posting more senseless arguments trying to bury the posts...

on Oct 1st, 2009, 7:18pm, redlite wrote:
I'm going to follow Shadows lead and bid farewell to this thread, so carry on and on and on and on.........

Eventually there will be no one for Tomi to argue with... undecided
« Last Edit: Oct 1st, 2009, 9:47pm by Radi » User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #433 on: Oct 2nd, 2009, 01:20am »

on Oct 1st, 2009, 6:42pm, neveleeleven wrote:
You asked me at what point does it become "infringement"? However you asked me without explaining the origins of the original content. So I showed you those 4 points (which are blatantly short and are described in the link I provided) that the original content must meet before I could tell you if it is infringement or not. That is why I followed up with several questions that you have failed to answer.

So I gave you 4 points that are described in the Fair Use link I gave you. Those 4 points will explain at what point it becomes "infringement".

I figured you already "knew" about the reality of the four points and how unclear they are. But the reality is, you don't have a freaking clue...

Tomi, you are the dumbest person I have ever talked to.


Never, you are so full of bluster and bs that no wonder you don't trust anyone else. Anyone with half a brain who looks at what you have written with any scope at all in this subject, will know you are talking rubbish.

And when you are so simple minded that you have to resort to personal attacks instead, it says more about you than I could say back in retaliation myself.

My point about the LAP being used by AlienWare to market their computers has resulted in the following opinions which can not all be correct:

Their use is "derivative work".
Their use is a "parody". (a joke in itself)
The creators of the LAP were contracted by AlienWare.
The creators of the LAP have already "settled" with Alienware.
The creators of the LAP are benevolent souls who wish to donate this work to Dell computers.
The LAP is a government document as Isaac said it was.
The hoaxers are more interested in keeping their secret than profiting from their creation...

Now who is right?

The irony of this whole thing is that I have had the experience in my days of being in business over in the states of having to sue 13 companies and settle with each of them, in the manner prescribed for remedy as I have just described in these pages, for copyright infringement. Who else here has had to go through that? Any IPR lawyer who reads what I have written here about the process, the procedure and the remedies available including seizure of product and the insurance policy which kicks in, will know I am speaking from first hand experience. That is the irony.
« Last Edit: Oct 2nd, 2009, 01:27am by tommi01 » User IP Logged

YourWorstNightmare
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #434 on: Oct 2nd, 2009, 08:21am »

Wow, that is Substantive based on your say so? The others can provide documentation, can you? where is yours , what company, what court docket, Where on Planet Karen?They here and everywhere else are verifiable, and their findings scientifically sound and even unchallenged such as at OMF and elsewher..The same basis and methodology, a little bit more substantive than your myopic and fixed ideations .You jhave a short memory..These people asked question , they took notes, they tested their proof and statements..You on other hand..forget when which you avoided then and now..for example..on sound suggestions such as that University Professor, who could discern even from scans, ann obstacle tooted by many, and chided talking to experts like Syd Miers from Hollywoods Blade runner, "embarassing and shameful, or seeking any well qualified authority. But you talked to "your friends in the graphic business" just who are they?whereas these are people well into the graphics and film business such as Torvald, ,as the way to help..resolve the case.
Now we have tihis as your basis ..Because Tomi says so and she had it tuff..

Again, prima facie proof you are a willfull LIAR, not merely absent minded..along with numbers.
From a shellac distributor and brochures, and handouts maker to small company computer consultant , listed and untraceable..anywhere..UK under yours name or any other.now .a self appointed..copyright attorney?

From watching start trek to learn science to watching Judge Judy as well as traffic court on TV now to learn law.

The problem here Tomi and the mountain of lying blather with that icing you just provided is you forgot your case..because Legally or even at a bar of attorneys, or a bar with drunks..thats a fact tomi..you and your friends..have no case , never had a case to begin with...

I agree and join with others,Until you bring something concrete..verifiable on any statement, you lack standing for any credibility

So it was well suggested..until then..
You simply remain with just the status..of a full fledged and Proverbial ....Pest .

G'day

« Last Edit: Oct 2nd, 2009, 08:52am by YourWorstNightmare » User IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31  ...  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