At 11:38 PM 8/20/2012, Kelley Trezise wrote:
Nicely done. The most likely conclusion to the Papp Engine story is
that there is nothing there. Papp retired after tinkering with toys
and then luring in investors and the Rohner bro's took up the
thread. Nothing will ever come of the Papp engine other than
unrequited expectations. It has been said before, and is worth
repeating, "A sucker is born every minute." Rather inspiring, I must
say, as it suggests there is a plentitude of fools that I too might
bilk. Should a fool and his money necessarily be parted for their,
and society's own good?
I highly favor prosecution of fraud, where there is sound evidence of
it, and I mean criminal fraud. Often investors don't have the
resources to pursue civil fraud. Criminal prosecution should be done
to protect the public.
I also favor civil pursuit of defamation charges, where a business is
damaged by allegations that they are engaged in fraud.
By the way, amusing detail:
John Rohner -- and Stirling Allen of PESN -- have complained about
Bob Rohner's getting youtube to take down all of John's videos, even
those he shot himself.
I'm surprised to see that Stirling Allen doesn't know about DCMA
takedown notices. Youtube cannot hire lawyers to research copyright!
Rather, they follow the DCMA procedure. If you think someone is
infringing on your copyright, you can send a takedown notice to
Youtube. They are obligated to take down the video, and will only
refuse if they have *strong reason to believe* that your claim is
bogus. Essentially, Stirling's comment about "innocent until proven
guilty" is misplaced.
The sender of the takedown notice is presumed innocent. They will
normally take down the video. If they do that, they are not,
themselves, liable for copyright violation! It's a safe harbor.
Absent such a notice, they have little responsibility. Can you
imagine them having to investigate all the videos they host?
However, filing a false DCMA takedown notice can have some legal consequences.
More to the point here, John, could file a counter-claim, that, yes,
he has the legal right to post those videos, and he can do this for
any video he thinks is his. He could actually do it for any video,
but ... I wouldn't recommend that. He'd be entering a seriously
hazardous territory, legally.
If a counterclaim is filed, Youtube will generally put the video back up.
And then they will wait for a court order. Bob would have to get one,
and John could defend. The law actually does provide for "innocent
until proven guilty," but you have to use due process.
John makes a big deal out of Bob violating the TeslaTech copyright,
but, in fact, if TeslaTech doesn't object, there is no violation.
People get nuts about this, and it looks like John loves to find
stuff to toss at his brother. I wonder what they were like as kids.
Big brother: Look, a cowpie! Next you know it's all over the brother,
one or the other. Or both, with the parents trying to figure out
whose fault it is, a lost cause. Sisters can do this, too....
