Board Logo
« Drone Discussion #10 »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Aug 17th, 2017, 12:30pm


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 ... 51 52 53 54 55  ...  100 Notify Send Topic Print
 sticky  Author  Topic: Drone Discussion #10  (Read 50299 times)
blackwater
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 104
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #780 on: Oct 17th, 2009, 9:10pm »

on Oct 17th, 2009, 05:42am, Klatunictobarata wrote:
"why there is text written on the side
that faces Earth, so that it can be seen by humans."




With all due respects Albert, might I ask this question:

How do we know that there was no writing at all on the top of the drone arms and superstructure or on the sides not facing the camera on the ground?

How do we know that?


Good point Klatu, also why would a craft that needs to be read from below (or above) have an invisibility device?

You can't read it if it's invisible, so it defeats the purpose of the writing.
« Last Edit: Oct 17th, 2009, 9:13pm by blackwater » User IP Logged

let 'em call ya anything but late for a meal time.
YourWorstNightmare
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #781 on: Oct 18th, 2009, 01:05am »

These very arguments were rehashed aeons ago..if Albert read like he said he read..then why are we revisiting..we know whats going on here ..we dont have to rehash the same .arguments to convince anyone as the record is there..at many places..The summary analysis along with Dr Dils are the two best sources for objective..and I underscoore that as the results of OMF summaries were born out of pro and con arguments..not specious one side only..remain uncontested to this day..with ample opportunity for the other side to post as well as even threads created..which remain vacant....why not one post for the case for..because..there is no case..legal or in rteality for the drone..but the strongest and conclusive for a hoax by any reasonable standard..

Lets not divert to issues already resolved.. to the questions who not why..which should be somewhat apparent by now with Fox and mufon both giving play to the imagery and the sockpuppets here working non stop to keep it in play as a mystery..

Like Sidds parable of the shoes..(The man's a saint I tell you ).you can rest assured and make no mistake about it..the at least one pair of them the shoes fits AW quite comfortably..wearing them then and now..Its the rest of the Cabal im interested in..One PC maker doing this is no story..but all of them working hand and foot together..well..thats horse of a different color..and bigger than the hoax itself..wouldn't one think?
.
« Last Edit: Oct 18th, 2009, 01:18am by YourWorstNightmare » User IP Logged

neveleeleven
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 227
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #782 on: Oct 18th, 2009, 04:48am »

So, I won some money playing poker, and I decided to spend some of it.

I went to justanswer.com and asked a question in their "Intellectual Property Law" section, and I got a reply from a verified attorney with a California State Bar license and a doctoral degree in law from UC Hastings in 1983. This was his answer:

Quote:
By putting it into the public domain the user gave up any hope of claiming copyright, IMHO. - N Cal Attorney


http://img10.imageshack.us/i/ownedsf.png/


on Oct 5th, 2009, 06:36am, tomi01uk wrote:
then go ask an IPR lawyer


LOL
« Last Edit: Oct 18th, 2009, 04:56am by neveleeleven » User IP Logged

Romans 12:6
tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #783 on: Oct 18th, 2009, 06:14am »

OK Drdil, et al....

1st: I said you can't define public domain as cut and dry, it is arguable. So how can I answer those questions with a yes or a no?

I've tried to give examples of how the public domain defense that AW would use, could be overcome by the claimants.

Here from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

Although copyright law generally does not provide any statutory means to "abandon" copyright so that a work can enter the public domain, this does not mean that it is impossible or even difficult, only that the law is somewhat unclear.

Now.. how can I answer this yes or no?

But alternative and reasonable and arguable solutions to the "public domain" defense that probably would be advanced by AW could be argued on behalf of the claimants should they have a viable counter argument to this assertion.

What drove me to change my opinion might be the better way of asking the question(s) you put to me in the previous post?

Money. Because money is what attracts lawfirms. In the USA particularly and in the big NY City lawfirms especially.

Two examples: Little ol me, hypothetically, putting the LAP out on bedsheets, pillow cases and duvet covers, as a "cottage industry", no lawfirm would touch this case..(I would hope..) but Dell computers using it to the degree they have at this time..... a big difference!

Ever hear the saying "indict a ham sandwich"?

And the reason it could be considered in the public domain is because, as I've said before, nobody is defending it.

Sure, AW or any infringer could argue that Isaac said to reproduce it at will just keep all of the material intact.
That amounts to about a hill of beans in my opinion now if the claiments argue that the story was fictitious and it didn't imply that Dell could proliferate using it and cherry pick the material to publish, promote with and imprint into its products..

What matters now, IMO, is the interest a lawfirm would take based on some newer elements that have developed or could develop.

a. If the claimant(s) have a background story that would be a reasonable and arguable defense agains the material being considered in public domain.

b. The scope of use by AW has crossed the line from taking some symbols and creating a trademark to outright display and utilisation of the entire design.

c. Before a infringement claim can be made the creator(s) need to obtain copyright registration certificates. This would be possible if they created the work regardless of it being used currently the way it is now being used by AW.

What differenciates this case that would make it so attractive for a lawfirm to persue providing a., b. and c. above are met is the way the game is played in copyright law that involves a big manufacturer and a distributor base involving big ticket products.

So... a lawfirm that found a., b. and c. satisfied sufficiently IMO would then proceed to consider taking this case on contingency.

As I said before, the reason being that they would effectively stop all sales using copyright law until a settlement could be reached. Now, bear in mind that there are liabilities to the lawfirm if they are so frivilous as to attempt to do this without solid argument against the public domain defense that probably AW would raise, that is why a., b. and c. would surely have to be in place before a firm would proceed especially on contingency.




« Last Edit: Oct 18th, 2009, 06:30am 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 #784 on: Oct 18th, 2009, 06:30am »

on Oct 18th, 2009, 06:14am, tomi01uk wrote:
OK Drdil, et al....

None of this alters the fact that you stated in 2007 due to years of experience you were sure that the LAP was public domain. Now drawing on the same experience you state due to the money possibly involved it could be argued it wasn’t.

It’s also worth pointing out that the 2007 statement you made was after Alienware had ran competitions with the text, had websites and flash movies dedicated to the same and it was on show at their related presentation of the new laptops.

So just the one question for you not to answer this time, one question:

What aspects of the LAP as it related to Aliewnware’s involvement were you aware of in 2007 that led you to state with absolute certainty that it was public domain material?

User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
DrDil
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Fighting against truth decay!!


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4224
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #785 on: Oct 18th, 2009, 06:45am »

In fact none of what you state as a reason for not answering the specific questions you asked for can be applied to the last two questions as they ARE purely based on YOUR opinion

In fact I'll narrow it down to just one for you and all I ask for now is based on your opinion on what you wrote previously and what you know personally.

No elaboration necessary, one yes or no answer:

on Oct 17th, 2009, 6:08pm, DrDil wrote:

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?








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: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #786 on: Oct 18th, 2009, 07:04am »

on Oct 18th, 2009, 06:30am, DrDil wrote:
None of this alters the fact that you stated in 2007 due to years of experience you were sure that the LAP was public domain. Now drawing on the same experience you state due to the money possibly involved it could be argued it wasn’t.



Yep. Let's just say a potentially very valuable ham sandwich has been left on the table....

Quote:
It’s also worth pointing out that the 2007 statement you made was after Alienware had ran competitions with the text, had websites and flash movies dedicated to the same and it was on show at their related presentation of the new laptops.

So just the one question for you not to answer this time, one question:

What aspects of the LAP as it related to Aliewnware’s involvement were you aware of in 2007 that led you to state with absolute certainty that it was public domain material?



No more than and probably less than your awareness of what they were using.

Why was I arguing affirmatively the public domain aspect of the LAP in 2007??

I suppose because back then the LAP was being cherry picked by AW. That would factor in in hind sight to what is going on now..

But the answer I bet you are waiting for drdil.. is the one that I am not too proud to give you.. Yes, back then I looked at the Isaaccaret release of material as a believer in Isaac. I think I also, along with others, I argued that the LAP was a government document if I recall....

And..... Hello??

My attempt at finding out if this is the case or not is plainly obvious here by encouraging any creators who may read this thread to stop being stupid, quit their mission and go get a copyright registration.....!

« Last Edit: Oct 18th, 2009, 07:12am 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 #787 on: Oct 18th, 2009, 07:28am »

on Oct 18th, 2009, 07:04am, tomi01uk wrote:
But the answer I bet you are waiting for drdil.. is the one that I am not too proud to give you.. Yes, back then I looked at the Isaaccaret release of material as a believer in Isaac. I think I also, along with others, I argued that the LAP was a government document if I recall....

So is that a yes then!! laugh

Perhaps not too proud but I'm sure I'm not the first to say that occasionally you're quite hard work. wink

I hope you know it’s never personal Tomi and as I’ve said before if you personally hadn’t put so much store on your previous experience then it would never even have been an issue (and for what it’s worth I agree with Tomi_2007).

Quote:
Pseudonyms

If you are writing under a pseudonym but do not wish to have your identity revealed in the
records of the Copyright Office, you should give your pseudonym and identify it as such. You
may leave blank the space for the name of the author. If the author’s name is given, it will be
made part of the online public records produced by the Copyright Office and will be accessible
via the Internet. This information cannot be removed later from those public records. You
must, however, identify the citizenship or domicile of the author.

In no case should you omit the name of the copyright claimant. You may use a pseudonym
in completing the claimant space, but you should also be aware that if a copyright is held under
a fictitious name, business dealings involving that property may raise questions of ownership
of the copyright property. You should consult an attorney for legal advice on these matters.


FL-101, Revised May 2009


Quote:
Copyright registration of visual arts

If the visual art is published, the proper deposit is generally two complete copies. Identifying
material can be deposited in some cases. If the visual art is unpublished, one complete copy is
generally required. This copy must represent the entire copyrightable content of the work for
which registration is sought.

Identifying material deposited to represent the visual art shall usually consist of photographs,
photostats, slides, drawings, or other two-dimensional representations of the work. The
identifying material shall include as many pieces as necessary to show the entire copyrightable
content of the work, including any copyright notice on the work. All pieces of identifying material
other than transparencies must be no less than 3" * 3" in size, and not more than 9" * 12",
but preferably 8" * 10". At least one piece of identifying material must, on its front, back, or
mount, indicate the title of the work and an exact measurement of one or more dimensions of
the work.

FL-115, Revised May 2009


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: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #788 on: Oct 18th, 2009, 07:54am »

on Oct 18th, 2009, 07:28am, DrDil wrote:
So is that a yes then!! laugh

Perhaps not too proud but I'm sure I'm not the first to say that occasionally you're quite hard work. wink



And annoying... smiley

In fact I copied the post:

"I don't think it's human any more, Shads, if it ever was. I think it's some awful misbegotten experiment gone wrong. Like a cross between some Terminator prototype and a manure spreader, loaded with defective software. It scares the hell out of me!"

to my husband, so it was fully appreciated. grin
User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #789 on: Oct 18th, 2009, 08:35am »

With regards to this part of your post Drdil:

Quote:
Pseudonyms

If you are writing under a pseudonym but do not wish to have your identity revealed in the
records of the Copyright Office, you should give your pseudonym and identify it as such. You
may leave blank the space for the name of the author. If the author’s name is given, it will be
made part of the online public records produced by the Copyright Office and will be accessible
via the Internet. This information cannot be removed later from those public records. You
must, however, identify the citizenship or domicile of the author.

In no case should you omit the name of the copyright claimant. You may use a pseudonym
in completing the claimant space, but you should also be aware that if a copyright is held under
a fictitious name, business dealings involving that property may raise questions of ownership
of the copyright property. You should consult an attorney for legal advice on these matters.

FL-101, Revised May 2009


Revised 2009? Not even going to go there with what has happened in 2007? But where is there pseudonym or not registering the LAP... None so far... and what is the relevence of this to public domain? Especially if the website is argued to be a fictitious story?

And your post:

Quote:
Quote:Copyright registration of visual arts

If the visual art is published, the proper deposit is generally two complete copies. Identifying
material can be deposited in some cases. If the visual art is unpublished, one complete copy is
generally required. This copy must represent the entire copyrightable content of the work for
which registration is sought.

Identifying material deposited to represent the visual art shall usually consist of photographs,
photostats, slides, drawings, or other two-dimensional representations of the work. The
identifying material shall include as many pieces as necessary to show the entire copyrightable
content of the work, including any copyright notice on the work. All pieces of identifying material
other than transparencies must be no less than 3" * 3" in size, and not more than 9" * 12",
but preferably 8" * 10". At least one piece of identifying material must, on its front, back, or
mount, indicate the title of the work and an exact measurement of one or more dimensions of
the work.

FL-115, Revised May 2009



How does this factor into what I have been saying? The Lib of Congress holds snipped flattend lithographed sides of a tin can to how "publication" of copyrighted work... for instance.. but the work involved in developing the copy is submitted to show evidence of rightful ownership to obtain the number but not retained as "the record" of copyright as addressed above.





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 #790 on: Oct 18th, 2009, 09:05am »

None of it has to factor into what you were saying, does it?

I have no desire to get into this Tomi as I’ve said several times and was merely posting what I found interesting. But the relevance of it to public domain is minimal although it has been discussed on several occasions (on this forum) if the copyright could be claimed while retaining anonymity, and so I offered up what I found relevant.

This genuinely is my last post on Alienware & CARET copyright issues unless some new evidence comes to light.

So alas, I fear I must leave you to wallow in a quagmire of your own obfuscation….. kiss

Cheers!! grin
User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #791 on: Oct 18th, 2009, 09:05am »

on Oct 18th, 2009, 08:35am, tomi01uk wrote:
How does this factor into what I have been saying? The Lib of Congress holds snipped flattend lithographed sides of a tin can to how "publication" of copyrighted work... for instance.. but the work involved in developing the copy is submitted to show evidence of rightful ownership to obtain the number but not retained as "the record" of copyright as addressed above.


Translation, Please. grin
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 #792 on: Oct 18th, 2009, 09:30am »

on Oct 18th, 2009, 09:05am, Jeddyhi wrote:
Translation, Please. grin


The medium along with the copy must be submitted.
Suppose your copy was on a tin can? You have to submit that part of the tin can... but this is only the record they keep. The development of that copy may also be requested in order to get the copyright to that copy registered as yours.
User IP Logged

Radi
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 176
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #793 on: Oct 18th, 2009, 09:58am »

on Oct 18th, 2009, 09:30am, tomi01uk wrote:
The medium along with the copy must be submitted.
Suppose your copy was on a tin can? You have to submit that part of the tin can... but this is only the record they keep. The development of that copy may also be requested in order to get the copyright to that copy registered as yours.


You submit a photograph of the tin can not the tin can itself....Like a painting..You don't slice up the painting and send part of it....You take a photo of it and send that along...The LAP would be simple since it all exsists in the computer already.It would be easy to send... wink smiley

This is the key part of that..
"material deposited to represent the visual art"
Which means the photos, slides, drawings submitted for copyright approval are copies of the original work...Or represent the original work....Or you have the tin can and you take a picture of the tin can..You can now send that picture of the tin can and give the measurements and what in the photo is supposed to be subject of the copyright approval process....Since chopping up the original work would destroy that original work it is done with the photos, drawings...ect...

Quote:
Identifying material deposited to represent the visual art shall usually consist of photographs,
photostats, slides, drawings, or other two-dimensional representations of the work.
« Last Edit: Oct 18th, 2009, 10:25am by Radi » User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #794 on: Oct 18th, 2009, 11:00am »

on Oct 18th, 2009, 09:58am, Radi wrote:
You submit a photograph of the tin can not the tin can itself....Like a painting..You don't slice up the painting and send part of it....You take a photo of it and send that along...The LAP would be simple since it all exsists in the computer already.It would be easy to send... wink smiley

This is the key part of that..
"material deposited to represent the visual art"
Which means the photos, slides, drawings submitted for copyright approval are copies of the original work...Or represent the original work....Or you have the tin can and you take a picture of the tin can..You can now send that picture of the tin can and give the measurements and what in the photo is supposed to be subject of the copyright approval process....Since chopping up the original work would destroy that original work it is done with the photos, drawings...ect...



In my case, believe me.. it was tin cans..
I'm glad there are provisions for oil paintings.. but in my case it was flattened metal.. with sharp edges..(I taped over to protect fingers..)
User IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55  ...  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