Ping duende

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Richard, Jan 11, 2005.

  1. Richard

    Richard Guest

    Read 'em and weep bubba.
    the real powerst that be at batcave.net have finally spoken on this issue.
    In short, they don't care. That's an issue you'll have to deal with in
    court.
    Now I'd like to see you walk in to a court, in front of a judge and jury.
    "What evidence do you have that you created this image sir?"
    "I don't have any real evidence. But I created it."
    "Your honor, we make a motion that this case be dismissed on lack of
    evidence."
    "Granted".

    Now then sir, if you would kindly move on to the copyright office site, you
    will learn that in order to have legal standing in a court of law, the work
    MUST be registered.
    Show me the proof that says YOU registered the work.
     
    Richard, Jan 11, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Richard

    Wÿrm Guest

    "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote in message
    news:...
    ..
    > the real powerst that be at batcave.net have finally spoken on this issue.
    > In short, they don't care.


    Wrong. Read their answer AGAIN... Here's snippet for you if you get lost
    because of too much text in there.

    "person can either pursue that person legally to make them cease using the
    content, or contact our abuse department with sufficient proof. "

    See that little part "contact OUR ABUSE department". Basically all
    Duende has to do is contact batcave abuse department now because you have
    REFUSED to take image off :) As simple as that.

    <SNIP>
     
    Wÿrm, Jan 11, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Richard

    CarolW. Guest

    On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:02:21 -0600, "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001>
    wrote:

    >Read 'em and weep bubba.
    >the real powerst that be at batcave.net have finally spoken on this issue.
    >In short, they don't care. That's an issue you'll have to deal with in
    >court.


    That is NOT what they said at all.

    The Forum Admin stated:
    "If a copyright infringment is reported - the person making the claim
    should contact the owner of the website and ask them to remove the
    content."

    Duende has publically asked you, the owner of the site, to remove the
    image. I would think it would be very hard to argue that he did not
    ask you to remove the content - particularly with your posts shared in
    response to his and the subsequent threads you started.

    The forum admin also said:
    "If the person publishing the disputed content does not - then the
    person can either pursue that person legally to make them cease using
    the content, or contact our abuse department with sufficient proof."

    Which means that Duende can indeed take it up with the site host if he
    so wishes to do so. Personally I hope he does. Sufficient proof should
    be easy for Duende to share plus the threads on this NG would help
    back up any proof he can provide as you posted yourself that you
    lifted the image _from_ his site to begin with.

    [snip]
    >Now then sir, if you would kindly move on to the copyright office site, you
    >will learn that in order to have legal standing in a court of law, the work
    >MUST be registered.
    >Show me the proof that says YOU registered the work.


    It does NOT have to be registered with the copyrights office to have
    proof of copyrights. One has that option but it is not required as
    proof of copyrights. I know you won't care to beleive that even though
    it is true.

    Carol
     
    CarolW., Jan 11, 2005
    #3
  4. Richard

    rf Guest

    "Wÿrm" <> wrote
    > "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > .
    > > the real powerst that be at batcave.net have finally spoken on this

    issue.
    > > In short, they don't care.

    >
    > Wrong. Read their answer AGAIN... Here's snippet for you if you get lost
    > because of too much text in there.
    >
    > "person can either pursue that person legally to make them cease using the
    > content, or contact our abuse department with sufficient proof. "
    >
    > See that little part "contact OUR ABUSE department". Basically all
    > Duende has to do is contact batcave abuse department now because you have
    > REFUSED to take image off :) As simple as that.


    I don't think that Duende even needs to provide any proof on this matter.
    RtS has quite publicly in this newsgroup many times stated that he stole the
    image from Duende's site. He has also publicly stated something along the
    lines of "So what, I stole it, it is now up to Duende to prove he owns it".

    If I owned batcave this dipstick would be out the door as soon after receipt
    of Deunde's complaint as I could press the delete key.

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Jan 11, 2005
    #4
  5. Richard

    Richard Guest

    On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 02:44:54 +0200 Wÿrm wrote:

    > "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > .
    >> the real powerst that be at batcave.net have finally spoken on this
    >> issue.
    >> In short, they don't care.


    > Wrong. Read their answer AGAIN... Here's snippet for you if you get
    > lost
    > because of too much text in there.


    > "person can either pursue that person legally to make them cease using
    > the
    > content, or contact our abuse department with sufficient proof. "

    Hello ding ding
    ding...........................................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    "I own the copyright" ain't good enough.


    > See that little part "contact OUR ABUSE department". Basically all
    > Duende has to do is contact batcave abuse department now because you
    > have
    > REFUSED to take image off :) As simple as that.


    You fail to understand their standing in this issue. "It's a picture of an
    eye. So what?".
    Proof Bubba.
    To have legal standing the work MUST be registered.
    Once it's registered, you get a unique ID number for it.
    No number? No proof.
     
    Richard, Jan 11, 2005
    #5
  6. Richard

    Fat Sam Guest

    <snip>

    Are you still going on about this?.....Jeesus, don't you ever shut the hell
    up?

    --
    Sam.
    www.fixaphoto.co.uk
    high quality photographic
    restorations and repairs
     
    Fat Sam, Jan 11, 2005
    #6
  7. Richard

    Richard Guest

    On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:55:55 GMT CarolW. wrote:

    > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:02:21 -0600, "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001>
    > wrote:


    >>Read 'em and weep bubba.
    >>the real powerst that be at batcave.net have finally spoken on this
    >>issue.
    >>In short, they don't care. That's an issue you'll have to deal with in
    >>court.


    > That is NOT what they said at all.


    > The Forum Admin stated:
    > "If a copyright infringment is reported - the person making the claim
    > should contact the owner of the website and ask them to remove the
    > content."


    > Duende has publically asked you, the owner of the site, to remove the
    > image. I would think it would be very hard to argue that he did not
    > ask you to remove the content - particularly with your posts shared in
    > response to his and the subsequent threads you started.


    > The forum admin also said:
    > "If the person publishing the disputed content does not - then the
    > person can either pursue that person legally to make them cease using
    > the content, or contact our abuse department with sufficient proof."


    > Which means that Duende can indeed take it up with the site host if he
    > so wishes to do so. Personally I hope he does. Sufficient proof should
    > be easy for Duende to share plus the threads on this NG would help
    > back up any proof he can provide as you posted yourself that you
    > lifted the image _from_ his site to begin with.


    > [snip]
    >>Now then sir, if you would kindly move on to the copyright office site,
    >>you
    >>will learn that in order to have legal standing in a court of law, the
    >>work
    >>MUST be registered.
    >>Show me the proof that says YOU registered the work.


    > It does NOT have to be registered with the copyrights office to have
    > proof of copyrights. One has that option but it is not required as
    > proof of copyrights. I know you won't care to beleive that even though
    > it is true.


    > Carol



    _"WITH SUFFICIENT PROOF"_.
    "I created that image" is not sufficient proof.
    I can make the same claims.

    For a photographer, sufficient proof would be in the form of the negative.
    As the negative can only be owned by one person.
     
    Richard, Jan 11, 2005
    #7
  8. Richard

    Fat Sam Guest

    Richard wrote:
    > On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:55:55 GMT CarolW. wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:02:21 -0600, "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001>
    >> wrote:

    >
    >>> Read 'em and weep bubba.
    >>> the real powerst that be at batcave.net have finally spoken on this
    >>> issue.
    >>> In short, they don't care. That's an issue you'll have to deal with
    >>> in court.

    >
    >> That is NOT what they said at all.

    >
    >> The Forum Admin stated:
    >> "If a copyright infringment is reported - the person making the claim
    >> should contact the owner of the website and ask them to remove the
    >> content."

    >
    >> Duende has publically asked you, the owner of the site, to remove the
    >> image. I would think it would be very hard to argue that he did not
    >> ask you to remove the content - particularly with your posts shared
    >> in response to his and the subsequent threads you started.

    >
    >> The forum admin also said:
    >> "If the person publishing the disputed content does not - then the
    >> person can either pursue that person legally to make them cease using
    >> the content, or contact our abuse department with sufficient proof."

    >
    >> Which means that Duende can indeed take it up with the site host if
    >> he so wishes to do so. Personally I hope he does. Sufficient proof
    >> should be easy for Duende to share plus the threads on this NG would
    >> help back up any proof he can provide as you posted yourself that you
    >> lifted the image _from_ his site to begin with.

    >
    >> [snip]
    >>> Now then sir, if you would kindly move on to the copyright office
    >>> site, you
    >>> will learn that in order to have legal standing in a court of law,
    >>> the work
    >>> MUST be registered.
    >>> Show me the proof that says YOU registered the work.

    >
    >> It does NOT have to be registered with the copyrights office to have
    >> proof of copyrights. One has that option but it is not required as
    >> proof of copyrights. I know you won't care to beleive that even
    >> though it is true.

    >
    >> Carol

    >
    >
    > _"WITH SUFFICIENT PROOF"_.
    > "I created that image" is not sufficient proof.
    > I can make the same claims.
    >
    > For a photographer, sufficient proof would be in the form of the
    > negative. As the negative can only be owned by one person.


    It isn't difficult to prove when Duende first published the image to the
    net, and when you published it.....That would constitute "sufficient
    proof".....Is the chronological concept of linear time too complicated for
    you to understand?.....
     
    Fat Sam, Jan 11, 2005
    #8
  9. Richard

    Fat Sam Guest

    Wÿrm wrote:
    > "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > <snip>
    >
    >> To have legal standing the work MUST be registered.
    >> Once it's registered, you get a unique ID number for it.
    >> No number? No proof.

    >
    > Bollocks. If you do not understand plain english from
    >
    > http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc
    >
    > (here's little snippet for you)
    >
    > "Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation
    >
    > The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently
    > misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the
    > Copyright Office is required to secure copyright."
    >
    > you really should ask some adult read/explain that text to you. Ask
    > from copyright office if you do not believe :)
    >
    > I suggest you BOTHER read http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
    > to get SOME grasp of things instead of making false claims.


    I suspect that, even if he did get someone to explain it in words of 1 or 2
    syllables, he'd still deliberately fail to understand.....

    --
    Sam.
    www.fixaphoto.co.uk
    high quality photographic
    restorations and repairs
     
    Fat Sam, Jan 11, 2005
    #9
  10. Richard

    Wÿrm Guest

    "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote in message
    news:...
    <snip>

    > To have legal standing the work MUST be registered.
    > Once it's registered, you get a unique ID number for it.
    > No number? No proof.


    Bollocks. If you do not understand plain english from

    http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc

    (here's little snippet for you)

    "Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation

    The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently
    misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the
    Copyright Office is required to secure copyright."

    you really should ask some adult read/explain that text to you. Ask from
    copyright office if you do not believe :)

    I suggest you BOTHER read http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html to get
    SOME grasp of things instead of making false claims.
     
    Wÿrm, Jan 11, 2005
    #10
  11. Richard

    rf Guest

    "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote

    > To have legal standing the work MUST be registered.


    Terribly and pitifully wrong.

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Jan 11, 2005
    #11
  12. Richard

    Wÿrm Guest

    "Fat Sam" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    <snip>

    > I suspect that, even if he did get someone to explain it in words of 1 or

    2
    > syllables, he'd still deliberately fail to understand.....


    True, he seem to have some serious comprehension problems indeed. And seems
    that these problems are involved in pretty much everything he does, kinda
    sad thing how someone can be lacking in so many areas of understanding ;)
     
    Wÿrm, Jan 11, 2005
    #12
  13. Richard

    rf Guest

    "Wÿrm" <> wrote
    >
    > "Fat Sam" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > > I suspect that, even if he did get someone to explain it in words of 1

    or
    > 2
    > > syllables, he'd still deliberately fail to understand.....

    >
    > True, he seem to have some serious comprehension problems indeed. And

    seems
    > that these problems are involved in pretty much everything he does, kinda
    > sad thing how someone can be lacking in so many areas of understanding ;)


    We may be through with the dipstick thief for a while. He is over in the PHP
    groups trying to convince them to tell him how to convert it to PHP :)

    Of course I suspect he has no idea what PHP actually *is*.

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Jan 11, 2005
    #13
  14. Richard

    Fat Sam Guest

    rf wrote:
    > "Wÿrm" <> wrote
    >>
    >> "Fat Sam" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>> I suspect that, even if he did get someone to explain it in words
    >>> of 1 or 2 syllables, he'd still deliberately fail to understand.....

    >>
    >> True, he seem to have some serious comprehension problems indeed.
    >> And seems that these problems are involved in pretty much everything
    >> he does, kinda sad thing how someone can be lacking in so many areas
    >> of understanding ;)

    >
    > We may be through with the dipstick thief for a while. He is over in
    > the PHP groups trying to convince them to tell him how to convert it
    > to PHP :)
    >
    > Of course I suspect he has no idea what PHP actually *is*.


    I doubt it...As we speak, he's probably scrabbling frantically round google,
    trying to find more snippets of copyright law that he can mis-quote and fail
    to understand.....I suspect we'll see another new thread from him
    shortly.....

    --
    Sam.
    www.fixaphoto.co.uk
    high quality photographic
    restorations and repairs
     
    Fat Sam, Jan 11, 2005
    #14
  15. Richard

    Fat Sam Guest

    Wÿrm wrote:
    > "Fat Sam" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >> I suspect that, even if he did get someone to explain it in words of
    >> 1 or 2 syllables, he'd still deliberately fail to understand.....

    >
    > True, he seem to have some serious comprehension problems indeed. And
    > seems that these problems are involved in pretty much everything he
    > does, kinda sad thing how someone can be lacking in so many areas of
    > understanding ;)


    I say one thing for him.....He's entertaining.....So much so that he forced
    me to de-lurk in this newsgroup....

    --
    Sam.
    www.fixaphoto.co.uk
    high quality photographic
    restorations and repairs
     
    Fat Sam, Jan 11, 2005
    #15
  16. Richard

    CarolW. Guest

    On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:14:12 -0600, "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001>
    wrote:

    >On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:55:55 GMT CarolW. wrote:


    [snip]
    >> The forum admin also said:
    >> "If the person publishing the disputed content does not - then the
    >> person can either pursue that person legally to make them cease using
    >> the content, or contact our abuse department with sufficient proof."

    >
    >> Which means that Duende can indeed take it up with the site host if he
    >> so wishes to do so. Personally I hope he does. Sufficient proof should
    >> be easy for Duende to share plus the threads on this NG would help
    >> back up any proof he can provide as you posted yourself that you
    >> lifted the image _from_ his site to begin with.

    >
    >> [snip]
    >>>Now then sir, if you would kindly move on to the copyright office site,
    >>>you
    >>>will learn that in order to have legal standing in a court of law, the
    >>>work
    >>>MUST be registered.
    >>>Show me the proof that says YOU registered the work.

    >
    >> It does NOT have to be registered with the copyrights office to have
    >> proof of copyrights. One has that option but it is not required as
    >> proof of copyrights. I know you won't care to beleive that even though
    >> it is true.

    >
    >> Carol

    >
    >
    >_"WITH SUFFICIENT PROOF"_.
    >"I created that image" is not sufficient proof.


    More than what you can offer to the otherwise in defense of refusing
    Duende's reasonable request to remove the image, regardless of what it
    is an image of, from your site.

    >I can make the same claims.


    Not likely as you really don't know what proof Duende has on his side;
    all you know is that he didn't rise up to your baiting of him.

    After all, why should he when you have already admitted that YOU
    _lifted_ the image _from his site_, At no time - in any of your posts
    on this topic - did you refute how you came into possession of the
    image or the source of where you acquired it from [Duende's site]. You
    have only tried to erroneously interpret copyright and fair use
    thoughts and topped that with a liberal, but equally erroneous,
    thought of "what is public domain".

    >For a photographer, sufficient proof would be in the form of the negative.
    >As the negative can only be owned by one person.


    Sorry, but that is not correct.

    Carol
     
    CarolW., Jan 11, 2005
    #16
  17. Richard

    Wÿrm Guest

    "Fat Sam" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    <snip>

    > I say one thing for him.....He's entertaining.....So much so that he

    forced
    > me to de-lurk in this newsgroup....


    hehe :) In some sense yes, but he seems to have habit of repeating same
    mistakes or false asumptions again and again, so I guess it gets boring soon
    :)

    I am getting bit worried though, he seems to appear several newsgroups I
    typically lurk in, might be boring future if pay too much attention on his
    insane ramblings :/
     
    Wÿrm, Jan 11, 2005
    #17
  18. Richard

    Duende Guest

    While sitting in a puddle rf scribbled in the mud:

    > Of course I suspect he has no idea what PHP actually *is*.


    Phone Home Pronto

    --
    D?
    http://wipkip.biz just to raise my PR
     
    Duende, Jan 11, 2005
    #18
  19. Richard

    CarolW. Guest

    On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 01:54:41 -0000, "Fat Sam"
    <> wrote:

    >I say one thing for him.....He's entertaining.....So much so that he forced
    >me to de-lurk in this newsgroup....


    *chuckle*

    It does boggle the mind on how far left field he will go to develope
    some of his thoughts.

    Carol
     
    CarolW., Jan 11, 2005
    #19
  20. Richard

    Duende Guest

    While sitting in a puddle rf scribbled in the mud:

    > We may be through with the dipstick thief for a while. He is over in the
    > PHP groups trying to convince them to tell him how to convert it to PHP
    > :)


    Damn, you mean I have to change chanels just to keep up with this cartoon
    show?

    --
    D?
    http://wipkip.biz just to raise my PR
     
    Duende, Jan 11, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. bernd wegener

    Piping ping into perl-prog

    bernd wegener, Sep 15, 2004, in forum: Perl
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    673
    Jim Gibson
    Sep 22, 2004
  2. Fábio

    ping

    Fábio, Jul 2, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    621
    Fábio
    Jul 2, 2003
  3. Fábio

    Ping in ASP.NET

    Fábio, Jul 2, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    505
    Fabio
    Jul 2, 2003
  4. Edwin van der Vaart

    OT: Ping Duende

    Edwin van der Vaart, Jul 27, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    415
    Andrew Urquhart
    Jul 27, 2004
  5. Richard

    Oh duende dear

    Richard, Jan 8, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    976
    Duende
    Jan 9, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page