هيدي هيي الحقيقة - This is the TRUTH!

[mike-ramma]

Guys, I am really waiting eagerly for the out-standing,hilarious,and extraordinary speech Caghlos eiddeh is going to perform on the 14th of Febuary.The anxiety is controlling me and the tension is stirring up commotion all over the country.The most charismatic leader will be speaking out in a couple of days and all the globe is standing by to see the most eloquent barnstormer.People fasten the seat belts!!!

[†.)]

now بينت الحقيقةonce a lier always a lier!!

[joseph_lubnan]

Originally Posted by shevchenco

regardless of the message behind the Feb. 14th gathering ad, I have to say it was compiled in a pretty smart way and I think it has attracted the attention of the audience. BUT WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a thief will always be a thief and a liar will always be a liar.

Copyright infringement is a serious offense.

What you are claiming here is incorrect. This is not copyright infringement, and the method was copied by many, but the content is obviously different. Many advertisement methods are recycled for multiple topics and in multiple contexts. Your claims of thief, liar, and copyright infringement are baseless and have nothing to do with this ad. You are really exaggerating and overreaching and this is really childish. The only lie here is your post!

[Dark Angel]

Originally Posted by joseph_lubnan

What you are claiming here is incorrect. This is not copyright infringement, and the method was copied by many, but the content is obviously different. Many advertisement methods are recycled for multiple topics and in multiple contexts. Your claims of thief, liar, and copyright infringement are baseless and have nothing to do with this ad. You are really exaggerating and overreaching and this is really childish. The only lie here is your post!

have you ever heard of intellectual properties? you cannot pick a book from a store, change a few words and republish it as your own. Feb14 is in violation of the simplest rules of intellectual property.

ironically enough, they break the law to claim they are seeking justice.

[joseph_lubnan]

Originally Posted by Dark Angel

have you ever heard of intellectual properties? you cannot pick a book from a store, change a few words and republish it as your own. Feb14 is in violation of the simplest rules of intellectual property.

ironically enough, they break the law to claim they are seeking justice.

First someone posts a lie about copyright infringement, and now you want to say that there is an intellectual property infringement... Based on what? do you believe that someone actually patented the method of this ad :). For intellectual property to be intellectual property and then be infringed upon there has to be a patent on it. Changing a few words is related to copyright infringement and clearly this ad has its own words... You guys are funny!!

[Dark Angel]

Originally Posted by joseph_lubnan

First someone posts a lie about copyright infringement, and now you want to say that there is an intellectual property infringement... Based on what? do you believe that someone actually patented the method of this ad :). For intellectual property to be intellectual property and then be infringed upon there has to be a patent on it.
Changing a few words is related to copyright and not to intellectual property infringement and clearly this ad has its own words... You guys are funny!!

you are very wrong. software and creative arts do not require patents. they are implicitly protected by copyright laws. ask me how i know that :)


the ad copies the form, the idea, the first sentence and the whole concept.

[joseph_lubnan]

Originally Posted by Dark Angel

you are very wrong. software and creative arts do not require patents. they are implicitly protected by copyright laws. ask me how i know that :)


the ad copies the form, the idea, the first sentence and the whole concept.

Someone has to have a patent on the method, otherwise it is not infringement. If the text was the same we could discuss copyright but it isn't. Software does require patents, and methods do require patents, they are not implicitly covered under copyright laws, and we have clearly established that the text was not copied or plagiarized. I will ask you instead, how come you didnt know that? :)

[Dark Angel]

Originally Posted by joseph_lubnan

Someone has to have a patent on the method, otherwise it is not infringement. If the text was the same we could discuss copyright but it isn't. Software does require patents, and methods do require patents, they are not implicitly covered under copyright laws, and we have clearly established that the text was not copied or plagiarized. I will ask you instead, how come you didnt know that? :)

seriously abu el zouz, why does everything have to be a fight with you? sometimes you're wrong, you have to just accept that. here is what i suggest though, look at the positive side, you learned something new today :)

Intellectual property rights are a bundle of exclusive rights over creations of the mind, both artistic and commercial. The former is covered by copyright laws, which protect creative works, such as books, movies, music, paintings, photographs, and software, and gives the copyright holder exclusive right to control reproduction or adaptation of such works for a certain period of time

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
Main article: Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
The 1886 Berne Convention first established recognition of copyrights among sovereign nations, rather than merely bilaterally. Under the Berne Convention, copyrights for creative works do not have to be asserted or declared, as they are automatically in force at creation. In these countries, there is no requirement for an author to "register" or "apply for" a copyright, or to mark his or her works with a copyright symbol or other legend. As soon as a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work, and to any derivative works unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them, or until the copyright expires. The Berne Convention also resulted in foreign authors being treated equivalently to domestic authors, in any country signed onto the Convention. The UK signed the Berne Convention in 1887 but did not implement large parts of it until 100 years later with the passage of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988. The USA did not sign the Berne Convention until 1989.[citation needed]

[sarhay]

Originally Posted by joseph_lubnan

Someone has to have a patent on the method, otherwise it is not infringement. If the text was the same we could discuss copyright but it isn't. Software does require patents, and methods do require patents, they are not implicitly covered under copyright laws, and we have clearly established that the text was not copied or plagiarized. I will ask you instead, how come you didnt know that? :)

Joesph, what DA said is absolutely correct. In my work we do lab. and algorithm development and we can only copyright the algorithm and patent only lab. work if we have a novel method. this case it is infringement becuase you used already published idea and method. No peer-review journal will even consider reviewing your work if they are aware of pre-existing similar work, no genuine attempt to improvised.

[hhhh23]

Originally Posted by joseph_lubnan

What you are claiming here is incorrect. This is not copyright infringement, and the method was copied by many, but the content is obviously different. Many advertisement methods are recycled for multiple topics and in multiple contexts. Your claims of thief, liar, and copyright infringement are baseless and have nothing to do with this ad. You are really exaggerating and overreaching and this is really childish. The only lie here is your post!

This method is not copyrighted anywhere. It has existed since the dawn of light and is by no means novel. For those who claim it is copyrighted, can they please point out what was the FIRST person who used it, and who is entitled to it? We really need to know who is the inventor of this method and who is the one that must file the copyright lawsuit.

In 1993, I got an email using this method for 2-3 jokes, should the guy who sent me the email be put in jail?