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

[Frank Olson <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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).