Thomas Usher Sues The Internets!! - Day 1
JenniferFlusher
<jenni...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>> The article is open for comments.
>
> I don't bluff either. I have already, as you should be well aware,
> sent notification that you are in violation of the Digital Millennium
> Copyright Act.
> Since your website is hosted in the United States, it is not subject to
> Canadian Law, but is subject to current Federal Law instead.
You homeless asshole.
DCMA does NOT apply to Fair Use - and when YOU made a public blog about
the issue then YOU subjected yourself to having your photo and
non-private info posted as a news item.
Although I can see why you are so ashamed about having your face known.
ONe need only look at the pictures to see that.
Oh ... and did you know that here are SUBSTANTIAL penalties for filing
a false complaint? You can be served at your job at work.
And by the way asshole - that picture was taken by Jamie Fenton and you
have NO rights to it at all. I would be happy to provide Barbie with
Jamie's contact info but she can be easily googled.
Homeless people rant and rave and file false complaints every day
Thomas . What makes you think anyone will listen to you?
Barbie
> On 2010-02-27 19:45:26 -0800, "Thomas Jennifer Usher"
> <jenni...@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>> The article is open for comments.
>>
>> I don't bluff either. I have already, as you should be well aware,
>> sent notification that you are in violation of the Digital Millennium
>> Copyright Act.
But who did you send it to? Too afraid that I'll make a counter-claim?
>> Since your website is hosted in the United States, it is not subject to
>> Canadian Law, but is subject to current Federal Law instead.
US copyright law allows for fair use. It doesn't allow for Usher to falsely
claim copyright to the profile picture and to blogger.com artwork, which the
notice did.
> You homeless asshole.
> DCMA does NOT apply to Fair Use - and when YOU made a public blog about
> the issue then YOU subjected yourself to having your photo and
> non-private info posted as a news item.
>
> Although I can see why you are so ashamed about having your face known.
> ONe need only look at the pictures to see that.
>
> Oh ... and did you know that here are SUBSTANTIAL penalties for filing
> a false complaint? You can be served at your job at work.
EFF vs Universal - the "Dancing Baby" clip - Universal is liable even though
they owned the copyright to the music, because it was fair use. $400,000.00
source: law.com
> And by the way asshole - that picture was taken by Jamie Fenton and you
> have NO rights to it at all. I would be happy to provide Barbie with
> Jamie's contact info but she can be easily googled.
I'll look it up tomorrow. Thanks for the info.
Jennifer Usher
"Barbie" <bar...@transboutique.com> wrote in message
news:hmcrgf$hbi$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> JenniferFlusher wrote:
>
>> On 2010-02-27 19:45:26 -0800, "Thomas Jennifer Usher"
>> <jenni...@gmail.com> said:
>>>>
>>>> The article is open for comments.
>>>
>>> I don't bluff either. I have already, as you should be well aware,
>>> sent notification that you are in violation of the Digital Millennium
>>> Copyright Act.
>
> But who did you send it to? Too afraid that I'll make a counter-claim?
The person it was sent to will be in contact with the owner of the site as
per their policy.
>>> Since your website is hosted in the United States, it is not subject to
>>> Canadian Law, but is subject to current Federal Law instead.
>
> US copyright law allows for fair use. It doesn't allow for Usher to
> falsely
> claim copyright to the profile picture and to blogger.com artwork, which
> the
> notice did.
Fair use is very limited. Using copyright material specifically to attack
the owner of the copyright is not fair use.
>> You homeless asshole.
>> DCMA does NOT apply to Fair Use - and when YOU made a public blog about
>> the issue then YOU subjected yourself to having your photo and
>> non-private info posted as a news item.
>>
>> Although I can see why you are so ashamed about having your face known.
>> ONe need only look at the pictures to see that.
>>
>> Oh ... and did you know that here are SUBSTANTIAL penalties for filing
>> a false complaint? You can be served at your job at work.
>
> EFF vs Universal - the "Dancing Baby" clip - Universal is liable even
> though
> they owned the copyright to the music, because it was fair use.
> $400,000.00
> source: law.com
>
>> And by the way asshole - that picture was taken by Jamie Fenton and you
>> have NO rights to it at all. I would be happy to provide Barbie with
>> Jamie's contact info but she can be easily googled.
>
> I'll look it up tomorrow. Thanks for the info.
ROTFL! The photo is not even the issue.
>> Homeless people rant and rave and file false complaints every day
>> Thomas . What makes you think anyone will listen to you?
You have to love it when men act like men. They think the law does not
apply to them, and they think they can scare others into believing them.
And the person who calls himself Diane Lask is nothing, if not a man.
Oh, and the fact that the use of the material is in an activity that is a
total violation of their terms of service not only shows that they are
complete hypocrites (which everyone already knows) it is not going to help
their claim of fair use.
--
Jennifer Usher
JenniferFlusher
Hey Thomas.
I'm guessing that the photo as well as the rest of the article will be
untouched by this time next week.
Face it Thomas - you have no ability to do anything . You're just some
asshole with a big mouth.
And now your picture is right up there where it should be - for
everyone to see ROTFLMAO
Barbie
> Hey Thomas.
> I'm guessing that the photo as well as the rest of the article will be
> untouched by this time next week.
... or we go through the takedown and contestation procedure, which is no
big deal. I contest it, it automatically gets put back up, then Usher has
10 days to sue me. There is no right to a 2nd DMCA request for the same
material.
In the meantime, the Streisand Effect would probably kick in. That's NOT
what I want ... I want slow, manageable growth.
Jennifer Usher
"Barbie" <bar...@transboutique.com> wrote in message
news:hmd0mp$sig$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> JenniferFlusher wrote:
>
>> Hey Thomas.
>> I'm guessing that the photo as well as the rest of the article will be
>> untouched by this time next week.
>
> ... or we go through the takedown and contestation procedure, which is no
> big deal. I contest it, it automatically gets put back up, then Usher has
> 10 days to sue me. There is no right to a 2nd DMCA request for the same
> material.
ROTFL! Not quite. It is not "automatically put back up." The only way he
can get it put back up is to commit perjury, and that would not be a very
smart idea. Granted, it is exactly what I fully expect him to do, but then
again, he is a classic male.
> In the meantime, the Streisand Effect would probably kick in. That's NOT
> what I want ... I want slow, manageable growth.
Given that is currently slower than a glacier.....
--
Jennifer Usher
fluffbun
On 2010-02-28, Jennifer Usher <jenni...@gmail.com> wrote:
8<------8<-----[his usual macho, blustering, troll]----->8------>8
Sure are going through a lot of trouble to punish an "obscure" site,
LOL. Feeling threatened, Howard?
:)
--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")