ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags david farrant , highgate vampire , vampires

Reply
Old 14th September 2007, 08:48 AM   #1041
Marcus
Illuminator
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,061
David, could you please provide some evidence for how the comic was "internationally banned" and "banned from the internet"? I haven't joined those claiming you are untruthful, but I don't see how these statements could be true. I don't believe there is any mechanism for acomplishing either.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2007, 09:18 AM   #1042
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 392
For Marcus

Yes, I can certainly go into more detail about the untruthful claims made by the person responsible for getting it banned (although I've already referred to these in my penultimate post) but I'm not really prepared to name names, either those of the main complainant, of the comic's creators or the name of the website. It somehow just doesn't seem right to do that here.

But please take my word for it, the publication really was banned on untruthful claims made about 'legal action' being threatened, among other things, (all decidedly unChristian!).

I can tell you, however, I have have taken on personal responsibility for the re-publication of the Comic book, and have stated this publicly, just as I am doing now.

There is now absoluetly no recourse such people have now but to come to myself. I doubt very much if such people would find the courage to do that! I just don't bend to lies and deceit that easily. And I think they know it.

Sorry for the quick post, but Friday is my busy evening.

David Farrant
DavidFarrant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2007, 01:31 AM   #1043
Marcus
Illuminator
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,061
I still don't believe the comic was banned from the internet, as I have seen no evidence that such a thing is possible.

On the other hand, I like to see people make money, by all means, go for it and don't apologize. Just watch out for those t-shirts.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2007, 09:01 AM   #1044
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 392
For Marcus

Of course, you are right Marcus, it is theoretically impossible to ‘ban’ anything off the Internet; anyone can keep posting anything they want wherever they want to. I was not trying to mislead anyone, so let me re-define what I meant.

The comic book has not been ‘banned’ in that I have personally re-published it. (Please note, I am not ‘slipping in’ the name or purchase details here, simply because I don’t want to meet more allegations here of advertising it. There is no need to in any event; I imagine most people will have seen - or copied - the original Internet copy anyway).

But its publication has been prohibited by the Internet Service Providers of the strips. This was as a result of deliberately false (and decidedly misleading) information supplied to them (as such erroneous information about myself is still being disseminated on the Internet by the same person). There is absolutely no question about this and I have seen extracts from the relevant emails.

So in theory, the comic HAS been ‘banned’.

I can tell you that (my) distribution of the comic has also been reported to the police with a request that they act in the matter. I have been telephoned about this, but I informed them that I had no intention of withdrawing circulation of the book as I was doing nothing illegal in the UK. I explained the circumstances and said that if anything the person concerned should be warned about making fabricated complaints and wasting police time. I said that if they cared to send me an official cheque for the amount concerned I would send them a published copy if they wanted one. So far, no such cheque has arrived!

I agree that there is nothing wrong with making money. But that is NOT why I re-issued the comic. I just happen to be adverse to deliberate lies being told about myself, which are submitted or published in written form with the deliberate intention of misleading others.

The comic strips just make fun of all such nonsense, and even the authorities thought they were highly entertaining!

So no, I was not ‘lying’ about the comic being technically banned. (Sorry Cuddles).

Anyone can publish the strips on the Internet if they so wish. I very much doubt however if anyone will do this putting their real name to them. I HAVE done this.

Whatever reputation I may have acquired over the years, I at least like to think that I have never had to revert to hiding behind aliases - like certain other people.

David Farrant
DavidFarrant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2007, 09:08 AM   #1045
Kilgore Trout
Wuse
 
Kilgore Trout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,441
Originally Posted by DavidFarrant View Post
I was not trying to mislead anyone, so let me re-define what I meant.
Although this thread still lives, at least it isn't without sweet ironic humor.
__________________
“I don't even know how to count.” -- Sylvia BrowneThis is invisible.“We're playing for blood, the stake is EARTH.” -- L. Ron HubbardThis is invisible.“I don't feel strong.” -- Uri Geller
Kilgore Trout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2007, 10:49 AM   #1046
six7s
veretic
 
six7s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,716
Originally Posted by DavidFarrant View Post
I just happen to be adverse to deliberate lies being told about myself, which are submitted or published in written form with the deliberate intention of misleading others.
You seem to be incapable of answering specific questions being asked about yourself, which are submitted or published in written form with the deliberate intention of informing others

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant View Post
But its publication has been prohibited by the Internet Service Providers of the strips
An ISP can't ban anything, unless they own the copyright. However, an ISP can refuse to host content that is slanderous, libellous, or just plain repugnant
__________________
Evolution and the rest of reality fascinates the be-jeebus out of me!
six7s is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2007, 11:43 AM   #1047
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 392
For 67's

Er . . . There is just one small point I may have forgot to mention: the ISP does hold the copyright! Though not of the story-line or the ideas.

David Farrant
DavidFarrant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2007, 12:47 PM   #1048
Paul
Illuminator
 
Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3,070
Originally Posted by DavidFarrant View Post
the ISP does hold the copyright! Though not of the story-line or the ideas.
Then what is it that they hold the copyright to? Not the characters, those were created with stripgenerator.
Paul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2007, 01:06 PM   #1049
Ashles
Pith Artist
 
Ashles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The '80s
Posts: 8,689
I've just entered this thread and skipped straight to page 28.
Have I missed anything interesting?
__________________
With extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. - Jeffrey Burton Russell
It is obvious to any scientist that the bumblebee can fly because experiment proves it. - Zetie 1996
Ashles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2007, 01:12 PM   #1050
Paul
Illuminator
 
Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3,070
Originally Posted by Ashles View Post
Have I missed anything interesting?
Depends if you find this interesting:

Paul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2007, 01:13 PM   #1051
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 392
For Paul

Paul, I really don't know. All I can tell you that is what one of the two people who made the complaint is saying and is posting on the Net right now.
That is also what this person told the police hence my phone call.

Quite honestly, I consider the point to be academic. I would have re-published the comic whether ISP held the copyright of not. Illegal? Technically in America I suppose, but again I'm not sure. But I would imagine anybody serious would want to avoid having the comics laughed over in court! I mean, can you really imagine any judge keeping a straight face?!

I know this might sound funny, but I am being really serious.

David (Farrant)
DavidFarrant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2007, 02:18 PM   #1052
Kilgore Trout
Wuse
 
Kilgore Trout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,441
I'll probably regret this.

'stripgenerator.com' is not an 'ISP'. 'ISP' stands for 'internet service provider.' When you pay your internet bill, David, the business you pay is your ISP. Stripgenerator is no more an ISP than espn.com or randi.org.

The creator of a strip, using stripgenerator, grants stripgenerator the rights to publish the strip. Stripgenerator also does not claim ownership of the strip. The web site is located in Slovenia.

According to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (an international agreement to protect creative works among countries) a copyright is automatically in force at creation. (In other words, they just get it upon the completion of the work.)

From those last two, the creator of the strip retains copyright and ownership; they grant stripgenerator a license to publish the material on the web. The 'ISP' as you so erroneously call it, never had, never will own the copyright. They have nothing at all to do with the ownership of the material.

Both the UK and US are part of the Berne Convention. So is Slovenia, if the location of stripgenerator is in question, though I don't think it is. In any event, there is no weasel room for you, David, to think that it's different because you are printing in the UK.

Therefore, David, unless you are a) the author of those strips or b) you have express consent of the author, you are committing copyright violation in the printing of the strips in question. There is no "I'm saving them from being banned" or "I'm not making much/any money from this" or "They're funny so people in court would laugh!"

It took me about 15 minutes to look this crap up, David. You might want to, as well. Granted, in the end, maybe nobody cares (or maybe they'll only care if you show a profit). But the point is this: "Illegal? Technically in America I suppose [...]" Yes. It is. No suppose about it. It's also technically illegal in the UK as both are members of the Berne Convention. And if your sole defense is that they are funny and everyone in court will laugh, you're a complete and utter loon.

And your statement of "I would have re-published the comic whether ISP held the copyright of not." basically tells me you believe yourself to be above the law and have no compunction to steal.
__________________
“I don't even know how to count.” -- Sylvia BrowneThis is invisible.“We're playing for blood, the stake is EARTH.” -- L. Ron HubbardThis is invisible.“I don't feel strong.” -- Uri Geller
Kilgore Trout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2007, 03:37 PM   #1053
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 392
For Kilgore Trout

Thank you for clarfying that, if nothing else but for my own information. You are right, of course, the ISP does not own the copyright. I was just confusing the word ISP with the owner who was originally mentioned, and who is still being mentioned. I did not do this deliberately, just my ignorance of the Internet. The fact remains that this person told deliberately told the owners untruthes about the comic, the T Shirt and myself which resulted in the emails prohibiting any further publication.

No, Kilgore Trout. Whatever you, or other people may think of me, I am not a thief; I would not steal off anybody.

This is not a contradiction believe it or not!

I suppose you could term the re-publishing of the comics technical 'theft', but it is apparently only the owners who have been urged (by this same person) to take exception. As far as I am aware, no objection has been made by the creators of the original comics i.e. of the ideas and the storyline. If it had been otherwise, of course, I would never have re-published them. As an author, I have great respect for the work of other authors and would never dream of infringing anyone's copyright.

So if I am 'guilty' of anything, it is of disregarding the ultimatum of the owners. But even then, as this was not directed specifically to myself (but instead relayed third person over the Internet) how was I to know?!

Well, my identity is no secret neither is my address as the publisher. So the ball is really in their court now; 'court' being the operative word!

David Farrant
DavidFarrant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2007, 08:29 PM   #1054
Marcus
Illuminator
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,061
Perhaps this will help, this information was related to me so I can't vouch for its validity.

Quote:
What happened was: CLD created the strip with Stripgenerator.com and used the "Bishop" design on a t-shirt from CafePress. David and his girlfriend, Cathrine, split in July and she complained to the owners of Stripgenerator because she thought david was the creator of Bishop Bonkers. Cathrine also threatened the owner of Stripgenerator with a lawsuit because a character on Bishop Bonkers had her name.

The Slovenians that own the comic website were taken aback by all the hysterics. CLD did not read his membership agreement very well, either. He was not allowed to use any images on any merchandise. So the Slovenians claimed intellectual property theft to Cafepress and the shirt was axed. As CLD had violated the TOS with Stripgenerator, his account was cancelled and the strip was deleted from their servers.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2007, 04:02 AM   #1055
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,560
Originally Posted by DavidFarrant View Post
So if I am 'guilty' of anything, it is of disregarding the ultimatum of the owners.
And if I walk out of HMV without paying for a CD I'm not guilty of theft, I'm just guilty of disregarding the wishes of the owners.

This just gets better and better. What is it with woos that they aren't content with ignoring reality for their own beliefs, but they also have to ignore reality when it comes to the law? David hasn't quite reached the level of Kent Hovind, but the reasoning behind it seems almost identical.
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2007, 05:26 AM   #1056
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 392
For Cuddles

Hello again, Cuddles

I think you think (as you have clearly demonstrated before) that all the world’s problems can be solved or explained by categorising them as ‘black’ or ‘white’. Sometimes maybe things are, but sometimes they’re not, and this is one such situation.

I don’t consider my re-publishing the ’banned’ comics to be ’theft’. Who is being ‘stolen from’? Not the owners, surely, they haven’t ’lost’ anything. You will probably argue that I’m making money illegally at their expense; but the money is really of no interest to me personally, all I’m concerned with is putting material back in the public domain which was only removed in the first place as a result of someone’s lies and deceit. THAT is the real sin, as far as I’m concerned.

Someone said here earlier, that I think I am ’above the law’. No. I respect the law. Society would be in a far greater mess if we didn’t have any. However, I am against abuse of the law, and if that happens to affect me personally (as this has done), I will certainly ‘rise above it’ without any conscience.

Again, I am not a ‘woo’, Cuddles. I have no interest in what ‘woo’s believe or don’t believe. I am just me. I just have a mystical approach to life and that is what I live by. Sometimes things that are blatantly wrong are within the law, but that doesn’t justify them or make them right. Lies and deceit are not ‘illegal’ for example, (unless this takes place in Court under oath), but this does surely not make this right?

David
DavidFarrant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2007, 05:37 AM   #1057
Wheezebucket
Master Cylinder
 
Wheezebucket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,491
You're a liar and a thief, so far as I can tell. Well done, you're following the woo path rather nicely. I wonder how long it'll be before you start actively advertising and charging for your various 'services'? You look pretty old, better get started soon.
Wheezebucket is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2007, 05:39 AM   #1058
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,560
Originally Posted by DavidFarrant View Post
I think you think (as you have clearly demonstrated before) that all the world’s problems can be solved or explained by categorising them as ‘black’ or ‘white’. Sometimes maybe things are, but sometimes they’re not, and this is one such situation.
As has clearly been explained, you are publishing material which you do not own the copyright to and do not have permission to use. That is breaking the law, plain and simple. No matter how much you waffle about sin and conscience, you will find that the courts are not as gullible as the people who believe your crap. Yes, there are some things that are not black and white. This isn't one of them. Either you have permission to publish something or you don't. You don't.

Quote:
I don’t consider my re-publishing the ’banned’ comics to be ’theft’. Who is being ‘stolen from’? Not the owners, surely, they haven’t ’lost’ anything. You will probably argue that I’m making money illegally at their expense; but the money is really of no interest to me personally, all I’m concerned with is putting material back in the public domain which was only removed in the first place as a result of someone’s lies and deceit. THAT is the real sin, as far as I’m concerned.
It is irrelevant whether you consider it to be theft. The law considers it to be theft.

Quote:
Someone said here earlier, that I think I am ’above the law’. No. I respect the law. Society would be in a far greater mess if we didn’t have any. However, I am against abuse of the law, and if that happens to affect me personally (as this has done), I will certainly ‘rise above it’ without any conscience.
So you'll follow the law as long as it doesn't disagree with you. You're not the first person to think like this, and you won't be the first to find out what the consequences are.

Quote:
Again, I am not a ‘woo’, Cuddles. I have no interest in what ‘woo’s believe or don’t believe. I am just me. I just have a mystical approach to life and that is what I live by.
Perhaps you don't understand what "woo" means. All it is is a phrase used to refer to all paranormal beliefs, or any beleifs which are not based on evidence, and also to those who hold such beliefs. A "mystical approach to life" is pretty much the defintion of woo.

Last edited by Cuddles; 26th September 2007 at 05:42 AM.
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 05:32 AM   #1059
Marcus
Illuminator
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,061
Originally Posted by The Overseer View Post

Hi Marcus,

Can you tell me the source of your info in post #1095?
Hello Overseer,

Since the information was related to me privately, I don't think they want to become involved in this discussion, and I am respecting their privacy. I don't know if it is accurate, I just thought I would throw it out and see if those involved would care to comment. Since David hasn't taken any issue with it, I suspect it is true.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2007, 07:47 AM   #1060
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
 
chillzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,546
Mod WarningI have split many posts out to Abandon All Hope. I removed the ones from the past week or so that I perceive as most off-topic and uncivil.

Please all re-read your Membership Agreement, and keep this thread civil and on topic. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Should the bickering continue, the thread will be set to moderated status.
Posted By:chillzero
chillzero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2007, 05:43 PM   #1061
The Overseer
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 137
To Marcus

To Marcus,

Quote:
Since the information was related to me privately, I don't think they want to become involved in this discussion, and I am respecting their privacy. I don't know if it is accurate, I just thought I would throw it out and see if those involved would care to comment. Since David hasn't taken any issue with it, I suspect it is true.
Yes, that is a reasonable assumption. In some ways, I can't blame them!

I'd be interested to know the accuracy of that information as well.

However, from what I've seen so far, especially in regards to copyright laws and such discussed here, I'd be fairly confident that it at least has some modicum of accuracy to it, as well.

This is further enhanced by David's comment on the split messages that appear on "Abandon All Hope":

Quote:
Forget all this 'copyright theft' stuff, Overseer. Give the comic some credit for the true facts it portrayed. Actually, I thought it was a very good likeness of you (metaphorically speaking, of course!).
~ #51

Either way, thanks for the response. I'm not sure if any further actions will be taken at this point.
The Overseer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2007, 10:53 AM   #1062
The Overseer
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 137
More on the Toons

It's not likely many are reading this thread now......but here's a bit of an update (of sorts) that I came across, in regards to the cartoons, on the former Secretary of the Highgate Vampire Society's blog.
The Overseer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2007, 08:27 PM   #1063
Marcus
Illuminator
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,061
Originally Posted by The Overseer View Post
It's not likely many are reading this thread now......but here's a bit of an update (of sorts) that I came across, in regards to the cartoons, on the former Secretary of the Highgate Vampire Society's blog.
I will admit to being confused as to which portions Cathrine thinks are " a load of crap", she seems to agree with some of them. Perhaps if David is still subscribed to this thread he would care to comment.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2007, 07:27 AM   #1064
The Overseer
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 137
To Marcus

Quote:
I will admit to being confused as to which portions Cathrine thinks are " a load of crap", she seems to agree with some of them. Perhaps if David is still subscribed to this thread he would care to comment.
You'll find that he's a bit occupied at the moment .

Last edited by chillzero; 28th November 2007 at 07:31 AM. Reason: adding nsfw tags
The Overseer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2007, 10:39 AM   #1065
Paul
Illuminator
 
Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3,070
It's just weird now, Catherine defending notarealBishop 'No this isn't me, I never post on the internet' Manchester, and everyone arguing over which vampires are real.
Paul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2007, 12:31 PM   #1066
Wheezebucket
Master Cylinder
 
Wheezebucket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,491
Cause it wasn't weird (and a little sad) before.

Vampires! Oh no!
Wheezebucket is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2007, 07:56 PM   #1067
garyg
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8
Mr. Farrant,hopefully after I become the first paranormalist to be proven scientifically to have paranormal skills you and I could get together for some serious investigating of psychic phenomena. I describe myself as "psychic investigator", and "psychic who investigates",and investigator of psychic phenomena!
thank you for your time,
GGG
garyg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2008, 09:45 AM   #1068
The Overseer
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 137
Update on Link Featured in Previous Post

Originally Posted by The Overseer View Post
You'll find that he's a bit occupied at the moment .
The above link - which featured a clip from a documentary involving Manchester - is now defunct, thanks to complaints made to YouTube, involving a breach of copyright.
The Overseer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2008, 12:21 PM   #1069
Kilgore Trout
Wuse
 
Kilgore Trout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,441
Originally Posted by The Overseer View Post
The above link - which featured a clip from a documentary involving Manchester - is now defunct, thanks to complaints made to YouTube, involving a breach of copyright.
Considering how this thread keeps rising from the dead, I'm starting to change my opinion of vampires. I always did like Count Chocula, too..

In any event, a simple email by the original poster will have the video returned. Anyone can claim any video violates copyright and have it taken down. (Though, it may mean perjury, if they are not the copyright holder.) That is, unless this video in question has reached the final stage, that stage being that a lawsuit has been filed.

I don't know, or really care for that matter, what the video was, but this seems like no big deal. Either the person that filed the takedown is right, in which case copyright was violated, or the poster doesn't have the guts to stand up and tell YouTube it's legal to host that video. Sounds like typical feud stone throwing. (That is, unless a lawsuit has actually been filed but either vampy hunters, which might be fun to watch..)
__________________
“I don't even know how to count.” -- Sylvia BrowneThis is invisible.“We're playing for blood, the stake is EARTH.” -- L. Ron HubbardThis is invisible.“I don't feel strong.” -- Uri Geller
Kilgore Trout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2008, 03:20 AM   #1070
The Overseer
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 137
For Kilgore

Quote:
Considering how this thread keeps rising from the dead, I'm starting to change my opinion of vampires. I always did like Count Chocula, too..
Do you mean "rising" by people contributing further to it? Like your own post as well?

Never had Count Chocula, but hear it's good stuff.

Quote:
In any event, a simple email by the original poster will have the video returned. Anyone can claim any video violates copyright and have it taken down. (Though, it may mean perjury, if they are not the copyright holder.) That is, unless this video in question has reached the final stage, that stage being that a lawsuit has been filed.
Here's the "official" word on what happened with the video, courtesy of a comment left on my blog page, by someone identified as "no name":

Quote:
The link was not "censored" (what a strange term to describe the removal of a violation) for "profanity." The uploaded material (by someone who is a member of the "Highgate Vampire Society" [sic] known as sherbetbizarre aka Jason Pike) infringed copyright law; so that when the film production company's lawyers did their twice annual sweep of the internet Real Vampires was caught in the net and YouTube were obliged to remove the extract of Bishop Manchester. It is really that simple and straightforward. Deleting stolen material from the internet is not censorship, whichever way you look at it.
There you have it.

Quote:
I don't know, or really care for that matter, what the video was, but this seems like no big deal. Either the person that filed the takedown is right, in which case copyright was violated, or the poster doesn't have the guts to stand up and tell YouTube it's legal to host that video. Sounds like typical feud stone throwing. (That is, unless a lawsuit has actually been filed but either vampy hunters, which might be fun to watch..)
I find the idea of the film production company's lawyers randomly finding the video clip, a tad suspect, to say the least.

Also, it really opens up a can of worms: what does it say for the majority of content on YouTube?
The Overseer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2008, 07:22 AM   #1071
John_Geeshu
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 70
This is painful to read. Rhetorical question: Is it possible that Randi's Forum has one of the greatest collection of certifiable crackpots on the Internet?
John_Geeshu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2008, 08:44 AM   #1072
imjohn
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 340
LOL.

Those two women switched over to Manchester's side of the feud again?

imjohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2008, 10:28 AM   #1073
Kilgore Trout
Wuse
 
Kilgore Trout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,441
Originally Posted by The Overseer View Post
Do you mean "rising" by people contributing further to it? Like your own post as well?
I mean people trying to revive a long dead thread that has no interest to anyone anymore. My response was merely pointing out how pointless this seems. That and Count Chocula is full of chocolatey goodness, something I can't say about Sean of the Dead, and/or Davey.

Quote:



There you have it.



I find the idea of the film production company's lawyers randomly finding the video clip, a tad suspect, to say the least.
This seems no more unusual than Viacom racking up some 100,000 accounts of copyright infringement that led to a $1 billion lawsuit. If you want to look at conspiracy, with respect to YouTube, perhaps look at the situation of James Randi, Rational Response Squad, and Uri Geller.

Quote:
Also, it really opens up a can of worms: what does it say for the majority of content on YouTube?
I fail to see the connection. The majority of YouTube is a bunch of idiots hitting themselves with pointed sticks. Actually, wait, I do see the connection.
__________________
“I don't even know how to count.” -- Sylvia BrowneThis is invisible.“We're playing for blood, the stake is EARTH.” -- L. Ron HubbardThis is invisible.“I don't feel strong.” -- Uri Geller
Kilgore Trout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2008, 11:05 AM   #1074
Paul
Illuminator
 
Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3,070
Originally Posted by John_Geeshu View Post
Is it possible that Randi's Forum has one of the greatest collection of certifiable crackpots on the Internet?
Excuse me? I hope you're not implying that someone else has a bigger or more cracked collection than we do.
Paul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2010, 10:44 AM   #1075
The Overseer
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 137
Don't Think There'll Be Any Doubt Left...

Hi folks!

Just in case anyone had any doubt left that I'm not the Bishop or a Bishop sympathiser, check this out.
The Overseer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2010, 10:56 AM   #1076
Rrose Selavy
Stranded in Sub-Atomica
 
Rrose Selavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,395
Originally Posted by The Overseer View Post
Hi folks!

Just in case anyone had any doubt left that I'm not the Bishop or a Bishop sympathiser, check this out.
Jeez! Two years on and the 40 year old Manchester/Farrant/Highgate "vampire" feud rears its ugly head yet again...now...where did I leave that wooden stake?


Last edited by Rrose Selavy; 7th February 2010 at 11:19 AM.
Rrose Selavy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2010, 11:13 AM   #1077
Kilgore Trout
Wuse
 
Kilgore Trout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,441
Wow a blast from the past.

I read the blog entry. Am I wrong in thinking nothing has really changed? The feud over a fictional vampire in London continues and only a few people care?
__________________
“I don't even know how to count.” -- Sylvia BrowneThis is invisible.“We're playing for blood, the stake is EARTH.” -- L. Ron HubbardThis is invisible.“I don't feel strong.” -- Uri Geller
Kilgore Trout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2010, 12:02 PM   #1078
FSM
god
 
FSM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,267
Wow. Thank you for bumping. I missed this the first time around. This thread has all of the stuff I find most entertaining about the JREF Forum.

It's like someone gave me a present! Thank you!
__________________
Woman.
FSM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2010, 01:42 AM   #1079
The Overseer
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 137
Hi Rose

Quote:
Jeez! Two years on and the 40 year old Manchester/Farrant/Highgate "vampire" feud rears its ugly head yet again...now...where did I leave that wooden stake?
It's been two years (roughly) since it manifested on here, but it certainly hasn't died elsewhere!

But I'm happy you were interested enough to response and take the time to add that ripping picture to your post.

Kilgore,

Quote:
Wow a blast from the past.

I read the blog entry. Am I wrong in thinking nothing has really changed? The feud over a fictional vampire in London continues and only a few people care?
Well spoken for someone who used to correspond with me about it. And later turned on me.

No, nothing's really changed. The feud rages on. Mind you, both I and JBC have tried reconciling the two parties, but both have dodged such attempts.

FSM,

Quote:
Wow. Thank you for bumping. I missed this the first time around. This thread has all of the stuff I find most entertaining about the JREF Forum.

It's like someone gave me a present! Thank you!
Well, in that case, happy birthday!
The Overseer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2010, 05:15 AM   #1080
Marcus
Illuminator
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,061
This thread was very entertaining. By all means get David Farrant back, we were still trying to get him to collect some data on his ghost seeking adventures when the thread died.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:46 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.