Have your ATS threads been hijacked?

Originally posted by earth2
I think this whole thread is a racket to promote another website.
Gimme a break, conspiracymann jumps in and all he does is advertise his own website...think about it.

One of the effects of this thread was for it to be pulled. If this was a racket, then it was a poorly though-out one. I respectfully disagree with that assertion.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


I apologize, I should have been a little more clear. I'm only saying you were an innocent accomplice, for if you hadn't started this thread, conspiracymann knew someone else eventially would.

It was a way for him to get noticed and he knew if he lifted the material he would eventially get caught, but he also knew he would get noticed. Hence him chirping in and saying how sorry he was, but at the same time advertising his website.....dig?

Originally posted by Come Clean
Let's look at this legally.

If I write, "I agree" then I can't go around suing people for saying that.

Intellectual property is another thing. I don't think conspiracy sites count as intellectual property. WHY? Because most of the post use cited material from someone elses intellectual property.

Come on here with your OWN intellectual property then you might have a case. Right now, ATS are the only people who can complain. Even then, why would they? Why should they rather? Do they not want internet traffic flowing to their site?

You are wrong on every single issue of this post.

Firstly you can not enforce an illegal contract simply by clicking a button that says "I agree" the law is the law on the internet or anywhere else.

2nd The Intellectual property has nothing to do with a "conspiracy site" If you spend time to write original content be it words / images / audio then that creation belongs to you and anyone that wants to use it has to seek your permission to do so or have your agreement as part of a legal contract

There are established laws about what is allowable to print under the notion of "fair use" and what isn't. These are actual federal laws and they apply to the internet as much as they apply to anything else. You wouldn't expect to be able to copy a chapter of a book and pass it off as your own work without repercussions, the same applies here.

reply to post by earth2

Understood. I cannot even guess what his intentions were, and it would be wrong of me to do so. But if that was his goal, it backfired. A consequence that I did not necessarily intend myself.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


I don't think it backfired, I think it was a homerun (compared to what it was).

More people now know about his website, even if he is starting over.

reply to post by conspiracymann


Do your own research rather than stealing the work of others. Youve got a brain use it. Quite pathetic stealing the work of others and totally inexcusable and unacceptable..

Originally posted by Expat888
reply to post by conspiracymann

 

Do your own research rather than stealing the work of others. Youve got a brain use it. Quite pathetic stealing the work of others and totally inexcusable and unacceptable..

Did you even read the post you have replied to?

He apologized for copying and pasting the threads (one of which was mine) and he explained the reasoning for doing it was to merely try and "spread the word" which is what the original posters were trying to do in the first place is it not? He isn't trying to steal anything here and he's showed a lot of guts by posting in this thread.

He doesn't deserve posters trying to bully him still, if anything he should be praised.

Oh, and maybe you should read his next post as well.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Looks like it was written by a 13 year old, what with all of those capitalized letters. There's no way that a professional journalist would write like that.

ATS pranked by a 13 year old?

reply to post by The Sword


13 yr old.... probably not. Just an eager Beaver? I do have to admit though that I do not like the claim that we censored his website. Maybe its just a way to get people to check out his site.

Originally posted by Come Clean
Let's look at this legally.

We are not qualified to do so.

Come Clean,
You are not logically permitted to look at this legally. If you care to prove this last statement invalid, please share with us specify the total number of laws that exist and what they mean when held in context to each other simultaneously.

All other peoples' fears and hates do not define anything except for the laws. Laws are a byproduct of peoples' fears and summerize peoples' hates. The things we hate we make laws against, the things we fear losing we make laws to preserve.

"Let's look at this legally."
Who is permitted to do so? If we locked up all the supreme court justices and all the congressmen up in one plush hotel/resort with all they needed to survive, and we did not let them out until they wrote down from memory all existing laws, does anyone here think they would live long enough to write down all the existing laws word for word from memory, even collectively? Yet we participate in a system where we pay people our taxes to make more laws when no child born today will live long enough to learn the mandatory expectations (laws) that each member of society is expected to conform to in order to be a "free" member and citizen of "civilization".

Let's sit a bunch of two month old infants down to play monopoly and when they break the rules we can slap them across the face. I know, maybe not a fair analogy, considering children in war zones are getting more than just slapped in the face.

Am I ranting, or am I just stating simple obvious truisms?

"Let's look at this legally"....

Am I a law abiding citizen? How the hell would I know?

-ET