|1||Discussion board help and admin topics / Help to access this discussion board / Re: off OU topic distractions||on: November 14, 2010, 01:32:50 PM|
ANOTHER OPEN LETTER TO HARTIBERLINIn case you missed this open letter. Please read this Harti. I think you are making an enormous error in deleting when locking would more than serve your purposes.
Guys, I have messaged Harti, yet again. I am not defending the mismanagement of that thread. I am simply asking that he don't delete it. If any of you feel strongly enough about this perhaps you could add to my request here in a pm to him. Thank you.
This in reply to the following private message that was circulated to us
And this is the email that has been posted to Scribd and still awaiting a reply. It appears that the paper has, yet again, been removed by Scribd resulting from the direct or indirect interventions of the complainant quoted in that correspondence.
From: Rosemary Ainslie <email@example.com>
Date: 12 November 2010 5:37:16 PM
To: Scribd Support Desk <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: (id: 26240411) Document published under Aetherevarising
Attn: Jason Bentley, Copyright Agent
539 Bryant St, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94107
Dear Mr. Bentley:
This letter is a formal response to a claim of copyright infringement against two copies of the one document that I’ve uploaded and published on Scribd.com. I believe the claims of copyright infringement are inaccurate and should be rejected because of the following reasons.
I do not know who the complainant is. I require details. Glen Lettenmaier has advised us all on a public forum that the complainant is someone within the IEEE.
The complainant does not hold the copyright to the material in question, is not the designated representative of the copyright holder, and therefore lacks standing to assert that my use of the material is a violation of any of the owner's rights.
I am first author of that document and the paper itself was the result of a collaboration between myself and 6 others only one of whom was Glen Lettenmaier. In terms of the copyright law any author in a collaboration may publish anywhere they require. If they are in receipt of payments for that publication then that money must be shared. Otherwise we are all free to publishs our work wherever it is required. I have not been paid for my publication by Scribd. Therefore, whoever the complainant, if they are simply one of the authors, then they are also simply one of 6 others who have inalienable rights to our own work. He has complained before and was unable to produce any proof of sole copyright ownership. If he has registered sole copyright then it is illegal. So. My use of the material is legally protected because it falls within the "fair use" provision of the copyright regulations, as defined in 17 USC 107. If he is the complainant and he disagrees that this is fair use, he must work directly with me, through legally viable channels, to resolve the dispute. Scribd and its employees under no obligation to settle this dispute, or to take any action to restrict my speech at the behest of this complainant.
This communication to you is a DMCA counter notification letter as defined in 17 USC 512(g)(3):
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the complaint of copyright violation is based on mistaken information, misidentification
I ask that Scribd, upon receipt of this counter-notification, restore the material in dispute, unless the complainant files suit against me within ten (10) days, pursuant to 17 USC 512(g)(2)(B).
My name, address, and telephone number are:
these details here hidden for obvious reasons.
HERE IS THE ANSWER FROM SCRIBD.
Ticket #88015: Fwd: (id: 26240411) Document published under Aetherevarising
Your request (#88015) has been deemed solved.
To review, comment and reopen the request, follow the link below:
Jason, Nov 16 02:19 pm (PST):
As we've previously indicated, we are no longer getting involved with your continued dispute with Mr. Lettenmeier. This matter is closed.
This rather puts paid to Glen Lettenmaier's post where he showed that the objection to the publication was from the IEEE and indicates that the complainant is exclusively himself. I trust that this subject has now been put to bed and that you, dear Reader, have all the evidence required to show the level and extent of intervention that Glen Lettenmaier indulges to separate me from my work.
This is the link to something that Glen showed as 'evidence' that the document was withdrawn by the IEEE. I am yet to hear from them but - thus far - there is no record of this paper having been withdrawn by Scribd at the behest of the IEEE. But reference has only been made by Scribd that withdrawal of this document was the direct result of Glen's own interventions in this regard. When and if I do hear from the IEEE I will then post their reply here. Dear Reader, I only offer this as the kind of misinformation that we become vulnerable to being at the mercy of this kind of slanderous disinformation. For those of you who are interested enough - look to the full discussion here. Glen is moving heaven and earth to separate me from my hard work both in initiating the first tests, then initiating the replication, the equipment required for measuring this replication and then for initiating and writing the paper detailing the work related to that replication.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
just for the record
This is the open letter to hartiberlin at http://www.overunity.com/ Where my work is about to be deleted.