Re: An email from yoursecuritysource.com's hosting provider

["Just Looking" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>(I'll  have to dig out my mini-skirt, pom-poms & ankle socks).

You can borrow mine if you have them back in time for Halloween.


"Frank Olson" <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O3rTi.131182$1y4.108213@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> tourman wrote:
> > On Oct 23, 9:20 am, Frank Olson
> > <use_the_email_li...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Frank Olson wrote:
> >>> tourman wrote:
> >>>> On Oct 23, 3:11 am, Frank Olson
> >>>> <use_the_email_li...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >>>>>> Ask them to identify the specific copyrighted work to which they
are
> >>>>>> referring, by title.  Obviously you cannot remove an allegedly
> >>>>>> copyrighted
> >>>>>> work unless they tell you specifically what it is.
> >>>>>> Then ask them for proof that the person or entity that has filed
the
> >>>>>> complaint is the owner of the copyright, or the authorized agent of
the
> >>>>>> copyright owner.
> >>>>> My Lawyer said the same thing...  almost to a word.
> >>>> RHC: What is it with these idiots. I have a link up on my website but
> >>>> it doesn't work because I don't have the space to house the Techman
> >>>> files. These guys are a real bunch of bad actors ! Frank, may I have
> >>>> your permission to set the hyperlink on my site to lead to the link
on
> >>>> your site that gives access to this file ?
> >>> By all means.  I'm sorta hoping my HP isn't going to "cave" without
> >>> their ensuring a TOS violation has occured (like Jim's did for a few
> >>> days).  I'd really like them to show me were a US Court Injunction
> >>> against a US company has *any* bearing on what I do (in Canada).  I
> >>> still can't understand why Tech Help was removed from his site.  One
> >>> thing he's not posted is the Injunction and perhaps the wording in
that
> >>> is what prohibits him from posting the links to the AlarmsBC website
as
> >>> well.  If you actually look at the manuals offered on that site, there
> >>> are only a few of the early ones that have a Brinks Copyright.  The
> >>> Brinks 3000 manual has an Intellisense Copyright and is therefore not
> >>> their intellectual property.
> >> On further reflection I'm also wondering why Honeywell, Ademco, DSC,
> >> Moose, Elk, Napco, etc. haven't proceeded
againsthttp://www.tech-man.comandhttp://www.alarmsbc.ca.  Do you really
think
> >> they care whether their manuals are made public?  Remember when Bass
> >> kept posting the Dealer login information for the Honeywell site?  I
> >> sincerely doubt they care either way because nothing has ever come of
> >> it.  In fact, being able to demonstrate how simple one panel is to
> >> operate and having the ability to compare features is probably a big
> >> help to the manufacturers in providing competitive product.  I think
the
> >> reason why Brinks doesn't want that information out there is because
> >> their technology is years behind or has been "dumbed down" from the
> >> standard panel Honeywell and GE offers.  It's going to make it pretty
> >> easy to sell against.  As for Brinks having any "intellectual
property",
> >> they don't.  As Jim has demonstrated, even their much "ballyhooed"
> >> Patented keypad has a Copyright stamp from Scantronics on the back.  If
> >> Jim's posts the appropriate Scantronics programming sheets (with the
> >> appropriate Brinks revisions to the program fields), I don't see that
> >> they can do *anything* about that.
> >
> > RHC: I don't think that the right or wrong of it has much to do with
> > their insistence to keep going. Lawyers in their employ are simply
> > paid minions who do what they are told within the limits of the law,
> > or within the limits of what they think they can get away with by
> > stretching things as far as they can to their client's advantage. All
> > the big mass marketers are geared towards one thing and one thing only
> > -  the garnering of long term monitoring contracts for the purposes of
> > a guaranteed revenue stream. Other industries do it as well; however,
> > at least in most of those cases, they give a proper level of equipment
> > and service to go along with it, unlike the mass marketers in the
> > security community.. Sableman and crew are simply doing what they
> > think best to represent their clients. While I don't defend them in
> > this particular case, this is life within the legal community on both
> > sides of the border.
> >
> > If you remember, a couple of years ago, I had a legal run in with ADT.
> > I had posted something on my website which was done in good faith, but
> > which subsequently turned out to be untrue. As soon as I found out, I
> > worked with their lawyers to rectify the wrong, and they were
> > completely fair and flexible allowing me to write pretty much what I
> > wanted in response, and set the terms and duration of the response -
> > not because they cared, but because my doing their thinking made their
> > job easier (besides leaving me in control). Their head lawyer even
> > called me after it was all over to wish me a Merry Xmas (believe it or
> > not). If it had been correct though, I would have fought it just as
> > hard as Jim is doing. However, there are proper procedures and a
> > proper legal "game field" to do so, and not following the courts rules
> > can put you in a position where you lose by default.
> >
> > I am truly worried that Jim may have shot himself in the foot at this
> > stage. I would hate to see a good guy ruined by a heartless
> > organization like Brinks. As for your ISP caving in, it's likely being
> > a big organization, they care far less for your business than they do
> > about the cost of having to defend themselves against threats from
> > Brinks, no matter how they might pontificate about the reasons for
> > pulling your site down.  It's all about money !
> >
> > I'll make the changes to the hyperlink. If they force you down, I'll
> > put the file up on my site (somehow) even if I have to find a place
> > overseas.
> >
>
>
> I think Jim may already by investigating that should Brinks win an
> Order.  I, however, don't think a "Default Judgement" is going to
> provide Brinks with the necessary "clout" to enable them to defend
> unestablished and/or non-existent intellectual property rights.
> Unfortunately, Jim is in a "hard place" at the moment.  I'm going to
> look into going to Texas for the 26th.  Since these individuals have
> seen fit to include me in their little game, they're going to get a bit
> more than they bargained for.  Even though I would have no legal
> standing in a Texas Court, I figure Jim could use a cheerleader (I'll
> have to dig out my mini-skirt, pom-poms & ankle socks).