|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 20, 2009 12:37:36 GMT -4
So essentially, as far as the law goes, people who are using copyrighted DVD rips, and using such footage to call the makers of the sets "liars" and those who are creating video after video insinuating real, living people are also "liars" and posting said videos on YT are opening themselves up for some potentially expensive litigation? Undoubtedly, but under different laws for your different scenarios. If you reproduce enough of someone's copyright-protected work, you are liable for copyright infringement. The purpose for which you have reproduced it affects whether it qualifies as an infringement, but the unlawful act in that case is the infringing reproduction -- less so the purpose to which you have put the reproduced content. Reproducing 30 seconds of a 1-hour DVD simply to call its author a liar might qualify legally as a review for copyright purposes, albeit an abysmally infantile review. Copyright infringement is considered quite serious under U.S. law; judgments routinely are assessed in the tens of thousands of dollars, and sometimes into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Particularly egregious violations of copyright are considered a criminal matter; you can actually go to prison. Calling someone a liar may qualify as defamation, regardless of whether a copyright infringement has also occurred. However to prove defamation one must establish that the claim is a false allegation of fact, that it was made maliciously, that it had a reasonable chance of being believed, and that it caused actual harm. Consequently defamation is usually difficult to prove. It is a sad testament to our society that being an idiot is often a reasonable defense against defamation: one is not held liable for misunderstandings or mistakes. Judgments for defamation vary widely with circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Mar 20, 2009 22:22:26 GMT -4
his videos are well produced visually Thanks, I appreciate the compliment. If you don't know what I'm referring to, compare my work with the stuff Jarrah released in the months following. More than once I could've sworn I was watching examples from my own editing sessions. Not only is Jarrah White totally clueless about the subject he purports to be an expert in, but he's an unoriginal copycat as well.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Mar 20, 2009 22:58:33 GMT -4
I tried to do that with Cosmored (aka, DavidC) on YouTube, by asking him to debate on IMDb. As you know Jay, anything goes on the boards there.
Well, Cosmo tries some song and dance about being asked for personal info.
I compared the fields for a YouTube account and an IMDb account. They are the same.
Obviously, Jarrah's claiming someone a "liar" is directed at the wrong person.
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Sept 12, 2009 10:19:33 GMT -4
Hi: I have been very busy with moving my household and other chores during the past several months, but finally found the time to write Brian’s bio for NASA. Now, off to NASA. We’ll see if this lack of a bio is just an issue of bureaucracy. If anybody has a contact there to approach first, I’ll take it, but I will probably just go the public’s route. To wrap up this thread, regarding Brian’s erasure, these are the facts, some in the public domain, and some not. Wally Schirra publicly stated that Brian should not be called an astronaut because he did not go fifty miles up, in that article that I cited earlier in the thread. Schirra was responding to an interview that identified Brian as an astronaut. The science writer who interviewed Brian left her position the next year. Brian says that not long after Schirra tried to publicly demote Brian, MUFON told that Brian that he had misrepresented his credentials and was not an astronaut, because NASA said that he was not an astronaut. projectcamelot.org/brian_o_leary_interview_transcript.htmlI followed up with MUFON on this one. Bob Bletchman, the MUFON lawyer who accused Brian of not being an astronaut after NASA denied his astronaut status, died last year, so I contacted MUFON and heard from the head of the international MUFON organization, and they had no record of the exchange that Bletchman, MUFON and NASA had. Regarding Brian’s erasure from Cal Tech around 2000, Brian says that he was erased from Cal Tech’s records when he was asked to become a commencement speaker because of his free energy activities. Today, Cal Tech says that he worked there. Questions that I cannot answer, and maybe nobody here can, are: Did Schirra influence NASA’s alleged denial of Brian’s astronaut status? Did Schirra’s great influence in the San Diego media lead to that reporter leaving her position with the paper the next year? Was Brian’s Cal Tech erasure an incomplete or temporary action? Thanks, Wade
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Sept 13, 2009 6:19:47 GMT -4
Wally Schirra publicly stated that Brian should not be called an astronaut because he did not go fifty miles up, in that article that I cited earlier in the thread. I wonder how much Schirra's hostility was related to O'Leary being a scientist-astronaut. Would he have had the same attitude to a fellow test-pilot who had been selected as an astronaut but not flown in space?
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Sept 13, 2009 6:40:43 GMT -4
Regardless of what Wally thought, Dr O'Leary was selected as an astronaut. If we say he is not, then neither were Elliot See, Charlie Bassett, Roger Chaffee, CC Williams, Ted Freeman, etc.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 13, 2009 14:29:14 GMT -4
I'm just not sure why we're assuming Wally Schirra had enough influence to change NASA policy. Even assuming he did, wouldn't other astronauts be able to protest and therefore make the issue more complicated that "Wally Schirra doesn't like me"?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 13, 2009 20:35:48 GMT -4
My impression is that Schirra comes from the military pilot school of thought that says you are not a pilot until you have earned you wings. By not completing training you would not be allowed to call yourself a pilot. O'Leary was certainly hired to become an astronaut but did not complete hes training. So the question is was he a astronaut or an astronaut candidate or does it matter. Well to me not at all. It really is a matter for the NASA personnel office to determine what his job description was. But I'll give him his due for being capable enough to be selected.
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Oct 14, 2009 8:56:10 GMT -4
Hi:
I submitted Brian's bio to NASA a month ago today, and not a peep back yet. Strange that Laurel would get a quick response on why Brian’s bio was not on NASA's site, and my submission of Brian's bio (with an invite to get Brian into the loop, to get the bureaucracy part handled) goes unanswered. If anybody has a better email address than the one on NASA's site, I'll take it (private message works fine).
Thx,
Wade
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Dec 18, 2009 9:16:18 GMT -4
Brian’s NASA bio is now in at least one place in cyberspace: www.brianoleary.info/Astronaut.htmNASA is well aware of the situation of Brian’s bio. We’ll see what happens on their end, if anything.
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on May 8, 2010 10:02:20 GMT -4
Well, that took about a year, from the beginning of the process to publication: www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/oleary-bt.htmlI write publicly about the adventure a little here: www.ahealedplanet.net/paths.htm#bioThere has already been exception taken to Brian’s given reason for leaving the astronaut program, but he was partly following the lead of fellow Excess-11 astronaut Chapman: www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/chapman-pk.htmland what he wrote is technically true. He could not have discussed all of his reasons for leaving the astronaut program in that short bio. In his The Making of an Ex-Astronaut, the reason given to Deke Slayton and the public was that he did not like flying. It made for an easy reason to give the public (and Brian even became a game show answer to: “Who said ‘Flying is not my cup of tea?’”), but the reality was a bit more complicated. I am going to do battle with Wikipedia’s editors on Brian’s bio later this year, oh the joy: www.ahealedplanet.net/wikimass.htm
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on May 8, 2010 11:58:43 GMT -4
Congrats on that. This forum is effectively dedicated to preventing the rewriting of history, and NASA's omission of O'Leary was just such a rewrite.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on May 9, 2010 0:47:42 GMT -4
It seems to be a weapon of favour for some HBs: if in doubt, accuse of lying. Indeed. HBs love to play people off against each other. They never allow for differences of opinion, for different assumptions, or for honest mistakes. Whenever two people seem to contradict each other, there's only one reason: at least one is lying.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on May 9, 2010 11:48:20 GMT -4
I'm pretty sure its that way because the Hoax hypothesis is fundamentally founded on theory of mind; specifically, the typical HB thinks that everyone else thinks like they do, therefore everyone else must be a deceptive, irrationally greedy fool. Ad as such all evidence to the contrary is part of the deception/"angle" the other party is running.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 11, 2010 10:34:28 GMT -4
Well, that took about a year... Good work, Wade. Persistence pays off.
|
|