[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Originally posted by jeddyhi2
eddyhi here, Co-Administrator for OMF. No, bad analogy. Batman is owned by DC comics with a copyright and trademark on file. Who holds a copyright for the primer image. Whoever they are, let them stand up and claim it. That was the original plan but thanks to you guys, that got ruined.
If Isaac had a copyright, we would have found out who Isaac really is. Do you think people really want to buy a shirt with the primer on it? Thanks for everything. You didn't prevent "disclosure", you prevented the possible outing of Isaac as I see it. Think about that for a minute.......D'OH.

Well, you've already set up a new store and one of your members made another one. What are you complaining about? What you are doing is illegal, you're using artwork that you did not create to make a profit. Setting all the theories aside, you don't know who the diagrams belong to. Not knowing doesn't mean free to use. You say that you did it in order to get Isaac out in the open. Let's say we believe you. But then why didn't you sell the merchandise at cost? Your attempt would've seemed a lot more serious if you didn't try to earn money of it.

You guys used the drone as an opportunity to earn a little something on the side. We used you as an opportunity to get a little closer to the truth.

Have a nice day.

Originally posted by yuefo
Isaac would have to identify himself to claim proprietorship of the CARET materials. As I mentioned in a previous thread, in order to do that, he would also have to admit it was a hoax since, according to him, the text, designs, and photos are property of the government. That's why I thought it presumptuous at the least that he named usage criteria for the materials in his cover letter. He can do no such thing with "stolen" items.

And that goes for anyone else of course. Anyone who cares to claim ownership must prove it, which debunks it at the same time--unless it belongs to the government, of course.

[edit on 8/3/2007 by yuefo]

Not to mention, the websites selling these T-shirts are violating Isaac's rules set forth on his website. He said everything must be distributed together as a package, and nothing separated. If someone buys a T-shirt with an image, it doesn't come shipped with the rest of the story so therefore they are breaking Isaac's rules. I bet Open Minds didn't think of that....

The co-admin of the Open Minds Forum that just posted here only wants to make a buck, he said so himself, so he wouldn't have to have pop-up ads. Hell, we have pop-up ads here and we deal with it because we like the forum and they don't charge us. Turn on your pop-up blocker if you don't like it. I'm sure if the option came up to do away with the pop-ups for a membership fee, most users here would pay regardless because we like ATS and respect it and want to support its growth. Why don't you have your users do the same? Thanks for going out of your way to prove to us that the owners of Open Minds Forum are only concerned with their own wallets. Once you make a few bucks from selling shirts, why don't you "disclose" your bank statements.

[edit on 8/4/2007 by pjslug]

There is absolutely now Law, not even in your copyright friendly USA, that prevents you from trying to make money of artwork for which noone claims ownership, unless someone does so. if you tried it, all you have to do is compensate the copyright owner if he stands up and proves his ownership. there is no law that makes this a felony or crime like there is for using known copyrighted material, like selling copies of software, or merchandise for copyrighted music, films, comic, you name it.

EDIT:
PJ: Your point about ISAAC demanding to spread only the full package is valid though.
Besides I heavily doubt more than a very small percentage of the current users would pay for ATS or similar forums. I know i wouldnt. There is always a bazillion of free alternatives.

[edit on 4-8-2007 by casketizer]

It's only legal if the images are distributed as public domain. Since there wasn't a clear copyright notice besides isaac's then you have to assume that the copyright exist. Photographers have been battling the change to this law that would allow usage of items if the original owner cannot be found.
This law would just let all violators say "I didn't know there was a copyright / I didn't find the owner" as an excuse for using copyrighted material.

Still it is no crime or felony, all you have to do is compensate the real copyright holder if he steps up. Otherwise the police would have to hunt users of material with unclear origin and/or copyright, and that does not and will not happen. Also, noone but the real copyright owner or their legal representative can sue you for the use of their material.


Edit:Minor Change

[edit on 4-8-2007 by casketizer]

Originally posted by PsykoOps
It's only legal if the images are distributed as public domain. Since there wasn't a clear copyright notice besides isaac's then you have to assume that the copyright exist. Photographers have been battling the change to this law that would allow usage of items if the original owner cannot be found.

What clear copyright notice of Isaac's?? I seem to remember his telling us that he stole the materials. Care to explain how he has rights to government property? Unless he was telling us a little fib about where he got it, eh? The only thing he has rights to is the cover letter unless he comes clean and admits its all a concoction of his, and only then if he reveals his identity.

[edit on 8/4/2007 by yuefo]

I didn't mean 'clear copyright by isaac'. I meant 'no other sign of any kind of copyright besides what isaac has written', which isn't really much except that the material should be kept together.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I didn't mean 'clear copyright by isaac'. I meant 'no other sign of any kind of copyright besides what isaac has written', which isn't really much except that the material should be kept together.

But if I steal some of your photos, admit that I took them from your studio, do I have any right to say how they can be used? The only one that can claim these photos, without admitting the hoax, would be the Government.

And even if Isaac came forward to claim the photos, his statement that they were stolen would/should prove that the use by others was not in any way an intentional misuse, provided they had a representative of the government to sign off on it.

Originally posted by NGC2736
And even if Isaac came forward to claim the photos, his statement that they were stolen would/should prove that the use by others was not in any way an intentional misuse, provided they had a representative of the government to sign off on it.

That's a great additional point. But I don't think anyone from the government has to sign off on anything. His own usage criteria is an erroneous implication that he has rights to the materials because he explicitly describes obtaining the materials through theft. Therefore, he's locked himself in a box.

He can 1) claim they're his and be forced to forgive improper usage by others due to his own written statements, or 2) stick with his story, preventing him from laying claim to any of the materials. Pick your poison, Isaac.

Wow..

This is absolutely amazing.. I started reading the thread. Only to end up realizing that it will take me foreeevvvveeerrrr to finish reading this thread.

One thing came to mind, and I stopped reading and thought about it.

I remember this. I have seen this before. There was a group known as "UHUK" (United Hackers of United Kingdom) in 1999 - 2000 not sure when that was, there was one guy who claimed similiar technology such as written tech. I remember seeing this and was fascinated reading it off of the underground BBS.

The fonts on the designs are called TEK or TEKTRONICS or similiar to it. It does look "alien". It was claimed to be real ET technology however it was quickly debunked because of the material used in the creation of such things. I remember downloading pictures off of the bbs links and it's exactly identical to the writings and the designs used by whoever came up with that "manual". Took me forever to download but it was fascinating. It made me think hard about this. I am surprised I remember this.

I am absolutely positive this is the same "manual" claimed to be from PACL. If I remember right, PACL is a old name for VMware or some company in Palo Alto. I studied the pictures and manual about this and I noticed alot of blocked out sentences and paragraphs. The only reason that the hoaxer would have blocked them out, is because it would state the design's material composition. It would give away it's little dirty secrets.

Anyone can come up with statements which was said about the material? In the supposed manual? I am betting its not mentioned.

Besides, yes someone did come up with a amazing "manual", in perfect grammar, etc.. all by "plagarising" (sp) from different tech manuals on different objects made in the airlines manufacturing. Yes its starting to make sense to me. Why would someone go all that far to make a manual like that? Back in 1999-2000 it was easier to copy and paste descriptions from tech books than it is today. (I think so.. maybe im wrong)

Aww well.. its a HOAX! ... I wish I can find those old bbs links.. to prove it! .. maybe someone here at ats will have better luck finding those links.

"Issac" may be Joe Alderman of UHUK. Probably the same dude!

[edit on 5-8-2007 by sgtpro7]

[edit on 5-8-2007 by sgtpro7]

Some big claims there sgtpro7. Quite a lot of people have been spending serious time on trying track down these fonts. If you can possibly track down any links to the pages you are referring to that would be incredibly helpful! Otherwise it's all just more wind along with the latest who owns the copyright to "Stolen Government Documents/hoaxed pictures" discussion as chances are in either case no-one will come forward to do anything about it. In my opinion, more power to OM, get the images out there and see if anyone does do anything or if anyone recognizes them from somewhere in the past as sgtpro7 claims to.

[edit on 5/8/07 by CthulhuRising]

This is BS, I knew it, the next move is to get a hacker to show a picture or something to verify that PACL did exsit.

This hoax is basically a movie promo for the Matix 4, the movie is going to explain how the machine or robots got conscious, you will see, time will tell.

The Wachowski Brothers are really smart and they read everything. Think about it, who got the money and cause to make hoax like this and why some of the letter look almost 70% to Primer Lingustic report. If you watch The Matrix you will see a drone that almost look like the Chad Drone!

Run Isaac the aliens are after you brother, run, run, run.

Originally posted by sgtpro7
The fonts on the designs are called TEK or TEKTRONICS or similiar to it. It does look "alien". It was claimed to be real ET technology however it was quickly debunked because of the material used in the creation of such things. I remember downloading pictures off of the bbs links and it's exactly identical to the writings and the designs used by whoever came up with that "manual". Took me forever to download but it was fascinating. It made me think hard about this. I am surprised I remember this.

If that's true, certainly you must have saved those pictures on your hard drive. Can you show us them? It would certainly add credibility to your story and would prove very helpful to all of us.

Originally posted by jeddyhi2
Who holds a copyright for the primer image.

The Creator of the image immediately upon its creation. It is unnecessary for anyone to know who the creator is, only that they are not the creator to know they are profiting off someone else's work. Period end of subject. Nice try

Originally posted by casketizer
There is absolutely now Law, not even in your copyright friendly USA, that prevents you from trying to make money of artwork for which noone claims ownership, unless someone does so. if you tried it, all you have to do is compensate the copyright owner if he stands up and proves his ownership.

Although the second part of your statement is true only because you have to be caught to be stopped; the first part is wrong. The Creator holds copyright until they sell or reassign it. Copyright is automatic upon creation. Just because people get away with it does not make it legal or ethical. It also leaves the person who steals the work wide open for Punitive Damages in the event of a law suit over ownership. Since the creator of the work has the original file proof of copyright is quite easy.

Originally posted by yuefo

What clear copyright notice of Isaac's?? I seem to remember his telling us that he stole the materials. Care to explain how he has rights to government property?

If it is not a hoax copyright belongs to the Government Agency or Contractor. If it is a hoax copyright belongs to the artist who created the image for the hoax or the person or entity who commissioned the work. Either way it does not belong to anyone who chooses to use it for commercial purposes without documented permission from the copyright holder.

What is even more interesting is what a copyright DOES NOT PROTECT! This is from the US Copyright Office:

What Is Not Protected by Copyright?

Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

* Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)
* Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
* Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration
* Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)


Tips:
A copyright protects only the physical expression of a work. It does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation.
Names, like company or organization names, names of performing groups, or names of people cannot be copyrighted.
Copyrights remain in effect for the lifetime of the certificate holder plus 70 years unless renewed.

Originally posted by newkid
This is BS, I knew it, the next move is to get a hacker to show a picture or something to verify that PACL did exsit.

This hoax is basically a movie promo for the Matix 4, the movie is going to explain how the machine or robots got conscious, you will see, time will tell.

The Wachowski Brothers are really smart and they read everything. Think about it, who got the money and cause to make hoax like this and why some of the letter look almost 70% to Primer Lingustic report. If you watch The Matrix you will see a drone that almost look like the Chad Drone!

Run Isaac the aliens are after you brother, run, run, run.

I'm actually thinking of approaching a filmmaker to do the Isaac story.

From now on, any references to any other films in relation to the Isaac documents will be subject to copywright infringement notice.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
It is unnecessary for anyone to know who the creator is, only that they are not the creator to know they are profiting off someone else's work. Period end of subject. Nice try

So what? You can't be sued by an anonymous party. Is Isaac going to come forward and admit the hoax? Very doubtful. Is the government going to come forward and admit its reality? Never.

There is also something called public domain, which I think applies here. Isaac described the origin of the materials as the government project he was working on, which gave everyone the green light to use them how they saw fit, despite the usage restrictions he tried to place on them. He can't turn around now and sue anyone.

Are you suggesting no one should copy anything off the web via a personal sense of ethics, or do you actually think there's a legal implication with the selling of Isaac images? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

If it is in fact an alien language, Isaac can no more copyright it than you could copyright Cuneiform. As far as I'm aware, copyright doesn't explicitly apply to human entities, as the law makes no mention of such a thing. Regardless, as I've said, what OMF is doing is extremely unethical in my opinion.