Board Logo
« Drone Discussion #10 »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jun 27th, 2017, 09:06am


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 ... 50 51 52 53 54  ...  100 Notify Send Topic Print
 sticky  Author  Topic: Drone Discussion #10  (Read 36623 times)
tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3940
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #765 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 08:09am »

As far as the public domain issues go with the Isaaccaret material...

It is not a case of preganant or not. Wide sweeping cut and dry in public domain doesn't exist.

Copyright infringement in the aspects I described... using someones copyright registered material in a profitable motive is infrigement.

If they have aquired an registration number then they are on their way to defending their material.

You are asking me to show you my reasoning for arguing both sides of the public domain coin and I've tried. I've tried with drawing senerios of how, if I was the creator who now wanted to defend their work against being used commercially by another company, how it could be approached.

But if left undefended the way it is now, being blatantly ever increasingly incorporated into AW's marketing profiles for their computer lines... how the longer this goes on, undefended the more the case for public domain gets strenthened.

If this doesn't give you the big picture of why there are two ways of arguing this and time and effort from the creator are the factors affecting it, then please specifically ask me a question. I'm not trying to avoid answering anything, and you are asking me also to argue the defense as well as the plaintiffs case here about public domain. The fact is, should someone obtain registration of this to begin with, will go a long way to establishing it as not being in the public domain...

« Last Edit: Oct 17th, 2009, 08:11am by tommi01 » 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 #766 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 08:18am »

on Oct 17th, 2009, 08:04am, Jeddyhi wrote:
Are you aware the caller called back and confessed to hoaxing Art? He even went right into the 'upset,scared, panicked' mode on command. The power going out was an unexpected bonus to the hoax.

on Aug 27th, 2007, 06:17am, DrDil wrote:
Approximately 1am EST, Friday, September 12, 1997.

One phone line was designated for Area 51 employees who wanted to discuss the secretive base.

Midway through this call, Bell's program went off the air for about 30 minutes. After talking to network engineers, the official explanation was that the network satellite had "lost earth lock" or forgotten where the earth was.

Network officials were baffled!!

The caller surfaced a couple weeks later, by the name Brian, and said he had created the character (confirming the claim after a brief performance, using the same panicked voice) but said he had no idea how or why the show was knocked off the air.

Also, one of the first callers after the outage was someone who claimed to be from Area-51 "security." He said that his job was to, "Close gaps," the network had been "Pulsed" and that we "Would not hear from the caller again."

(An ElectroMagnetic Pulse is a method of overloading electronic equipment in a target area; EMP generators were funded under the original SDI research. Apparently the phenomenon was discovered by accident during the 1960's when the phone network in Hawaii was disabled by a nuclear test 800 miles distant.)

Speculation about an EMP continued as this was "verified" by several callers:

A man from Kingston (also near area 51) said he was on hold waiting to go on the air, and both his home telephone lines went dead.

Another caller, an RF engineer employed at Hughes AeroSpace in Tucson (and an expert on EMP shielding), stated that he had suffered "cloud bounce" from the pulse and his personal computer and digital watch were wiped clean."

As always, draw your own conclusions………………

on Jan 20th, 2009, 12:45pm, DrDil wrote:
I ripped it a while ago and can be heard here.

Cheers.
User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3940
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #767 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 08:20am »

Candidly I'll try to explain some thoughts I'm having about this whole copyright aspect with the LAP. Some of it is just suppostion .. but the basis isn't from what I know first hand.

Supposition: This public domain aspect is going to be one hell of an interesting issue to tackle should it reach the point of being used as a defense by AW.

Reality as I know it: A payout to the creators and the aquirement of the rights to copyright would be the most logical approach as soon as possible.
User IP Logged

Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #768 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 08:24am »

I have asked you this before and I ask one more time. How would the creator prove that they created it? There has been so much research and analysis of the LAP, and it has been copied and recreated so many times by so many people, how does the author at this point prove ownership? Early research could be presented as 'early drafts'......I think the fact that the material was placed on the internet anonymously and with permission to use the material would certainly hinder anyone, actual creator or an imposter, from claiming ownership.

But what does it really matter? Why is it even worth discussing? What are the ramifications? You seem worried for someone else's loss of monetary gain. Why?
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: 3940
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #769 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 08:39am »

on Oct 17th, 2009, 08:24am, Jeddyhi wrote:
How would the creator prove that they created it?


In the same way that an inventor shows the patent office that they invented something novel.. (I'm going to stop there because that is the limit of what I know.) They do research as well. When an infringement case is looming they will expidite this work but charge a large fee.

In my case I had to submit actual material of the develpment of the material as well as the original medium the material was printed on to, in my case that was difficult... I had to use metal snips! They ask for whatever they believe will show initial development, drafts, files, showing gradual changes till finished work and publication.

Quote:
But what does it really matter? Why is it even worth discussing? What are the ramifications? You seem worried for someone else's loss of monetary gain. Why?


Because to me this is just one little piece of evidence I'm using to narrow things down in the who and why scheme of things..

I just don't buy that some ppl would put this whole saga out just for sport and then then unexpectedly, Dell computers comes along and starts using the LAP, that they would just allow the commercial profit from work they put out for sport.. If they are sport hoaxers then they also have a soul for capitalising themselves for all their effort..This is my personality profile for sport hoaxers. I might be wrong.. I'm not a shrink.. just surmising..

If it's not sport hoaxers who haven't a mercinary bone in their being ........

Then it must be institutional, government or commerical interests that put the LAP out... I would put extraterrestrial at the very bottom of the list after every other possibility has been exhausted.

And I await for more insight from Mask..
User IP Logged

Katterfelto
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #770 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 08:52am »

on Oct 17th, 2009, 08:24am, Jeddyhi wrote:
I have asked you this before and I ask one more time. How would the creator prove that they created it? There has been so much research and analysis of the LAP, and it has been copied and recreated so many times by so many people, how does the author at this point prove ownership? Early research could be presented as 'early drafts'......I think the fact that the material was placed on the internet anonymously and with permission to use the material would certainly hinder anyone, actual creator or an imposter, from claiming ownership.

But what does it really matter? Why is it even worth discussing? What are the ramifications? You seem worried for someone else's loss of monetary gain. Why?

Good luck getting a straight answer. They flip flop like a fish out of water.
Tomi says it would now be an interesting issue if AW uses a public domain defense. But she also believes it's a slam dunk win if any IP firm filed a claim because they would only do so because they know they will win. So, I guess, interesting does not mean it will work but it's interesting. undecided
She is worried because she does not understand "why". rolleyes
Mask will provide that. laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh
That don't matter either.
« Last Edit: Oct 17th, 2009, 08:56am by Katterfelto » User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3940
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #771 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 09:41am »

I think you are misconstruing my words here.

A lawfirm would consider the situation from the public domain aspect before taking on this case, but they would have no 100% certainty.

They would however know the power of copyright litigation and would know that should their lawsuit offer a reasonable counter defense to the public domain defense that would be raised by AW...

The clock would be ticking at an enormous rate for AW to settle the claim...
« Last Edit: Oct 17th, 2009, 10:20am by tommi01 » User IP Logged

YourWorstNightmare
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #772 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 1:48pm »

Why should they worry about any lawsuit or settlement?

Hi Phil,
I have received the below emails. I do apologise for the delay.
I am looking into this for you but I do believe we have the copyright for the Alienware language.

Kind Regards
Angela Malynn
Marketing Specialist

Alienware Limited
Phone: +353.906.456.505 x8113
Fax: +353.906.486.967
www.alienware.co.uk



In a second email..they denied him permission from putting designs on his computer outfits

This was all prior to the even later trademark apps granted them to them..not long ago. two distinct areas now..Copyright and Trademark..aspects of ownership to intellectual property, and the third enforcement by denial of use of same design by Phil on his wares..

This all following the denial no interest in the property we discuss now as evidenced by Banzais memo..we are all famiar with...

so who has the baton and why would the clock even be ticing? except for the marketing group of course..

why worry about lawsuit or settlement..laughable if you already own it..or share licensing wth the others mentioned like Halcyon or Warners..
The clock is ticking for the elements marketing group that fumbled it and those that pursue this farce as remotely real or a conspiracy..as KenRay proposed..
« Last Edit: Oct 17th, 2009, 2:15pm by YourWorstNightmare » User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3940
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #773 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 2:35pm »

on Oct 17th, 2009, 1:48pm, YourWorstNightmare wrote:
I am looking into this for you but I do believe we have the copyright for the Alienware language.


"I do believehuh?"

Copyright for the Alienware language?

What language? A distinctly dissimilar type of related symbol inspired by the LAP symbols or are you saying they copied them, and now they ain't so sure who owns what and like all good clerks.. he/she is non-committal.

If you want to investigate this, please do, but ask them what submission they have in place for the LAP design they have been using, of which those original symbols originated from..
User IP Logged

Katterfelto
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #774 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 2:59pm »

on Oct 17th, 2009, 08:39am, tomi01uk wrote:
Because to me this is just one little piece of evidence I'm using to narrow things down in the who and why scheme of things..

I just don't buy that some ppl would put this whole saga out just for sport and then then unexpectedly, Dell computers comes along and starts using the LAP, that they would just allow the commercial profit from work they put out for sport.. If they are sport hoaxers then they also have a soul for capitalising themselves for all their effort..This is my personality profile for sport hoaxers. I might be wrong.. I'm not a shrink.. just surmising..

If it's not sport hoaxers who haven't a mercinary bone in their being ........

Then it must be institutional, government or commerical interests that put the LAP out... I would put extraterrestrial at the very bottom of the list after every other possibility has been exhausted.

Well at least I understand (I think) why it's important to you. smiley

I'm not sure about the "whole saga" having the importance you place on it for the hoaxers or limited audience 2 years down the line. There's no way of knowing if the "whole saga" was planned, expected or fanned by them or parasites.

Regarding your profiling. Sport is not always for money. What if the multiple hoaxers cannot agree on going forward? Some may want to for possible $ or even their moment of fame, others may not for many valid personal reasons. A lot of baggage and complications can get dragged out. shocked
It's all speculation but for me is why I do not read too much into it outside of Dell/AW having some connection before or after the fact. Who's to say they contacted (or were contacted by) the creator(s) already and deal struck. Then there's the question of why Dell/AW would not want to protect it themselves beyond the AW fonts? undecided
User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3940
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #775 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 3:30pm »

on Oct 17th, 2009, 2:59pm, Katterfelto wrote:
What if the multiple hoaxers cannot agree on going forward? Some may want to for possible $ or even their moment of fame, others may not for many valid personal reasons. A lot of baggage and complications can get dragged out. shocked


That's why I suggested ages ago here when I first brought this up, that in 2 years things can go pear shaped as they say in England.. and some discontent or cracks may be starting in the team of hoaxers, if there is one.

The other possibility is institutional, government or commerical, in which case the LAP (which is ALL I'm talking about here) the LAP, would be a work for hire and not copyrightable by the ppl who did it.

In that case.. ruling out AW/Dell, and Fox and the other suspects... who or what institution, department or commercial enterprise would be pleased to see Dell profiting on it's own wares? Or is it not important to them as Mask suggests... and why??
User IP Logged

Katterfelto
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #776 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 3:55pm »

on Oct 17th, 2009, 3:30pm, tomi01uk wrote:
The other possibility is institutional, government or commerical, in which case the LAP (which is ALL I'm talking about here) the LAP, would be a work for hire and not copyrightable by the ppl who did it.

In that case.. ruling out AW/Dell, and Fox and the other suspects... who or what institution, department or commercial enterprise would be pleased to see Dell profiting on it's own wares? Or is it not important to them as Mask suggests... and why??

This is where you lose me. huh
Why are you stuck on the question of "Why?" in regards to the other possible institutional, department or commercial aspect of this and Masks curveballs? Could there just be no real others except what Mask wants some people to think?
User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3940
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #777 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 4:15pm »

I was just thinking about the word syndicate and looking it up for any insights into how a syndicate would apply copyright distribution amonst its members..
A loose organisation, probably nothing in place there to keep each party who created something from claiming ownership of it. But other types of syndicates?

My point is that there is substancial use here of the LAP by a subdivision(?) Of Dell.... Applying copyright law to this, opens up the question of if a "cartel" or individuals did this thing.. then why would they allow commercialised use of it by another company to proliferate? Are they crazy or on a mission??



« Last Edit: Oct 17th, 2009, 4:15pm by tommi01 » 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 #778 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 6:08pm »

Hi Tomi I genuinely wasn’t going to bother but after reading your last couple of posts I thought I’d give it one last try.

on Oct 17th, 2009, 08:09am, tomi01uk wrote:
As far as the public domain issues go with the Isaaccaret material...

It is not a case of preganant or not. Wide sweeping cut and dry in public domain doesn't exist.

This isn’t what I meant by a ‘little bit pregnant’ or really even by the legal implications of the term, ‘public domain’ because as I said I was using your words and your theories in order to pose questions that I believed warranted an answer.

on Oct 17th, 2009, 08:09am, tomi01uk wrote:
<snip>

please specifically ask me a question. I'm not trying to avoid answering anything, and you are asking me also to argue the defense as well as the plaintiffs case here about public domain.

<snip>

M’kay firstly I am certainly not asking you to argue both sides but rather why when seemingly drawing on the exact same personal experience your personal opinion on what legally constitutes, ‘public domain’ material has seemingly changed so much in such a short period of time. But forget about that for a second (i.e. don’t answer).

on Oct 17th, 2009, 08:09am, tomi01uk wrote:
<snip>

please specifically ask me a question. I'm not trying to avoid answering anything

<snip>

Straight talk?

Now we're talking!! grin

I’ll take your advice on board and try to condense my earlier comment down to a more manageable size, even better I’ll condense it down into five “yes or no” questions, no discussion just five simple yes or no’s posted in numerical order. If you think you can’t reply with a simple yes or no just answer the ones you can, (I kind’a like this back to basics approach!! laugh)



Q1) If something is placed in the public domain it can’t be conditional but by very definition must be absolute?


Q2) Regardless of what purpose the public domain material is later used for it doesn’t alter the fact that once placed in the public domain all legal rights to claim any monetary recompense are completely waived regardless of how the material is used and by whom?


Q3) Regarding your quotes from November 2007 –and that I previously provided screen shots of- and which I have once again posted below do agree that you personally specifically stated/typed/wrote the following statements? (Spelling mistakes and all):

Quote:

• I didn't spend 6 years in a legal battle and come away prevailing and knowing nothing about the subject. I probably know more about the keener aspects of copyright law than most general practice lawyers.
• Having the experience of going through a very tough copyright lawsuit that involved 13 companies in 4 countries I'm pretty familiar with what I'm talking about. The Berne Convention ties the various laws within each to a stanadard and it is THAT unified standard I speak of as well as US copyright law.
• Well I am not quoteing UK copyright law but USA copyright law
• But don't ask me.. I've just been there and back in copyright issues and have experience with it.. something this lawyer friend of yours obviously has not. Did she/he mention how you search for something that is in the public domain as much as this is?
• She/he (EDIT: I.e., the above ‘lawyer friend’) would know that something released into the public domain as the LAP has been
• I am sure that the lawyers representing Alienware have given this a go ahead status for being in the public domain.
• It is in the public domain.
• Have you ever read up on what makes something be in the public domain? That will clear your questions up quite fast.
• So on both fronts Alienware is covered. They took something in public domain and used it to create something new in a design and promotion format. There is no violation here even if you stretch your pockets with lawyers.
• Also you should study what makes something come into public domain. You are wrong if you think it is only because the original author gives permission. You are very wrong.
• Exactly what you said here is the reason this material is public domain. Every fact you have stated here would provide defense to it being in public domain. No lawyer would touch this case if somebody came out claiming original copyright on the LAP.



Q4) The first part of this question (#4) is merely a provable and verifiable statement of fact and as such doesn’t require an answer unless you contest that the following words were wrote by yourself:

on Oct 17th, 2009, 08:09am, tomi01uk wrote:
The fact is, should someone obtain registration of this to begin with, will go a long way to establishing it as not being in the public domain...

Now as evident in this recent post (directly above this text) you claim there could be a hypothetical lawsuit to be answered, so do you concede that the material couldn’t possibly have been classified as public domain in the first place? (As if this was the case there would be no case to answer?)


Q5) Again the first part of this question (#5) is merely a provable and verifiable statement of fact and as such doesn’t require an answer unless you contest that the following words were wrote by yourself:

“I didn't spend 6 years in a legal battle and come away prevailing and knowing nothing about the subject. I probably know more about the keener aspects of copyright law than most general practice lawyers…..Having the experience of going through a very tough copyright lawsuit that involved 13 companies in 4 countries I'm pretty familiar with what I'm talking about …..But don't ask me.. I've just been there and back in copyright issues and have experience with it.. something this lawyer friend of yours obviously has not.”

“I am sure that the lawyers representing Alienware have given this a go ahead status for being in the public domain….It is in the public domain…..on both fronts Alienware is covered. They took something in public domain….Exactly what you said here is the reason this material is public domain.”


Basically you stated you were drawing on your years of relevant experience and you came to the conclusion based on this prior experience that the Isaac material was indeed public domain material.

(And here’s the actual question)

Were you wrong in these (2007) assertions when alleging that the Isaacs documentation were in your learned opinion and assessment public domain material?



And there you have it, five yes or no answers Tomi…..

Cheers. kiss

User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
Klatunictobarata
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #779 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 7:52pm »

on Oct 17th, 2009, 07:04am, tomi01uk wrote:
Who the hell is falcon now... rolleyes




Tomi,

Your answer from me is a TWOFER - two answers for the price of one.


First:

Falcon is the name of the boy in the 'Balloon Boy' hoax on the news these past three days out of Colorado, USA.


Second:

In a rare (or not so rare, dimensionally speaking) coincidence, 'FALCON' was the code name of one Richard C. Doty used with Linda Howe in that whole lies/misleading the media/disinformation fiasco from the spring (April) of 1983.

I can provide your own UK researcher Timothy Good's reference with direct quotes if you are interested.

Ciao.
User IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 50 51 52 53 54  ...  100 Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 18,000 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