R
rf
Duende said:While sitting in a puddle rf scribbled in the mud:
Phone Home Pronto
Pig Headed Pilferer
Duende said:While sitting in a puddle rf scribbled in the mud:
Phone Home Pronto
rf wrote: [snip]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.....
Richard wrote:
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?.....
CarolW. said:This is the same guy...
Richard said:Granted, duende may indeed have copyright,
Richard said:It don't take no rocket scientist to come up with "proof" that a
computer generated image was created in 3000 BC.
Time/date stamps can easily be altered.
Not to long ago, there was a case in court where logs of a server
were shown as "proof".
One of the attorneys demonstrated right there in court how easily
such logs could be created.
_"WITH SUFFICIENT PROOF"_ does not mean "Well I published the item
first.". Under the DMCA, the plaintiff needs to show legal standing.
Unless the work is properly registered, there is no legal standing.
While sitting in a puddle CarolW. scribbled in the mud:
???
who is mentioned here:
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?q=bullis
CarolW. said:Oh I knew _that_ about him. I've been lurking in this NG and a couple
others since 2003 and posting intermittently since 2004 ...
it's just unbelievable how something shared with him from more than
one source and he still wants to think his flawed interpretations is
the correct one. In this instance he has had over 10 people share he
is wrong about certain copyright thoughts and he is still insistent
that his flawed interp is the correct one?
who is mentioned here:
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?q=bullis
Wÿrm said:LOL! I think you have a serious problem, bad addiction
Mindblowing aint it?....I should have gone to bed hours ago, but I can't get
up and walk away in case I miss his next installment of insanity.....
Fat Sam said:And with that, I think I'll retire to my bed, as it's gone 3am here in the
UK....
G'night....
Richard said:The host has said, they will not force removal.
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 said:_"WITH SUFFICIENT PROOF"_.
"I created that image" is not sufficient proof.
I can make the same claims.
Richard said: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.
Fat Sam said:<snip>
Are you still going on about this?.....Jeesus, don't you ever shut the
hell
up?
That's why I have the bastard killfiled. If everyone did the same,
this group would have a much lower signal-to-noise ratio and be more
helpful to those who come by needing help.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.