Pat's Burnout

[Dior55]

Originally posted by creeper


Doir once again you are wrong. I did not threaten lawsuits.

Now look at the difference. Meat took one of my photos and altered it without permission and attempted to past if off as factual and violated the provision in copyright law that prevents intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation,. He infact removed the damage. I did not alter the photo or inherent nature of the materials as so stated in the copyright law. I can easliy remove captions and place them below if the author so wished. IF you look at the photo and the video you see that the content or inherent nature of the material of the photo are exactly the same. Dior stop trying to be Meat. It was you that arugued that Meat did not violate any copyright laws. So, which is it MR. wishy washy lawyer. On that forum you aruge one way and over here you argue another. Make up your mind.

Unfortunately, while trying to explain the rules of evidence to us "wishy washy lawyers" (interesting how you can get personally vindictive when someone catches your pious ass -- typical cop attitude my friends!) you forgot about the rule you'll never read about in any law books -- it's called the "sauce rule" -- "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". Why is it ok for you to alter a picture and post it on the web to prove a point, yet at the same time Meat is called a "law breaker" for doing the exact same thing? Your attempt to distinguish what you did from what Meat did is pathetic to say the least -- I wonder how long you pondered this great idea -- your comments on the picture added innuendo and attempted to unnaturally stress your point about lack of safety. To say this did not "alter" the inherent nature of the item is ridiculous. If you seriously claim that Meat affected your "honor or reputation" by adding the words "Meat Was Here" to a photo of your pipes, then, man-o-man you have some MAJOR psychological problems!

I never thought that Meat broke the law -- you did. I just point out how easy it can be for you to walk all over your own version of "right and wrong" as it suits you best.


PS -- any video is hearsay when in court - if it's being offered to prove the truth of its content. It gets in IF it meets one of the many EXCEPTIONS to the hearsay rule. Videos should be just as suspect as any other evidence, oral, written or otherwise. Your claim that Meat "altered" your picture only PROVES this point, especially in today's world of computers and software.