The General Musings of Falkie2013 (George Senda, The Guy From Pittsburgh)

[area51drone]

[DanTSX]

I have blocked the video in which people think its so funny to make ME look like I am masturbating which is demeaning and insulting.

Bart Ell from using them. Legally, they are content owned by me and he has no right to use them without permission, but that's another issue.
Fuck him.

THATS NOT HOW THE INTERNET WORKS







P.S.

[DanTSX]

Can someone make me a Falkie .gif avatar?

[b_dubb]

I think as long as they aren't using your stuff to make money then there is no infringement of copyright.  If they were, Falkie could sue and at least get likeness royalties. 

I see a lot of shouting going on but I don't see a fire.

[Falkie2013]

I think we need a Falkie Telethon.   Falkie must go on camera dressed as Jerry Lewis, and do his schtick for 24 hours straight, accepting pledge donation calls via Skype, live for all to hear.    Falkie, are you up for it, or should we ask Bart Ell to fill in?



Falkie in his younger, tanner, less laid up years.

I saw how MDA screwed over Jerry. That was one Jew I never thought they'd fuck over in their ingratitude.
I'm nowhere in Jerry's league. He did comedic stuff that is/was classic.
Nor am I trying to be some kind of investigative reporter though I may do something like that at some time.
I just comment on things that strike me as amusing or really dumb.

[Mind Flayer Monk]

I think as long as they aren't using your stuff to make money then there is no infringement of copyright.  If they were, Falkie could sue and at least get likeness royalties. 

I see a lot of shouting going on but I don't see a fire.

Making money doesn't matter.

[Bart Ell]

Good morning Motherbleepers!



Like the cockroaches that surround my filth pile, I am still here and standing... ok, sitting strong! Take a good long look at your avatars, they are the reason I will sue most of you, even if I don't own the copyright to the vast majority of them and even if I have no grounds. Once my amendments to the current law are accepted and enforced, I will show all of you! While you are worried if someone will be taking away your guns I will be taking away your money!



Johnny Cash - A Boy Named Sue

Even though all the advisors in my head have been telling me to just ignore the trolls I want to mention them again. What is a troll and hater? Well, from what I can gather from the many books I have and have read on the topic I say they can be best described as trolls and haters. They spend their time pointing out negative things about their victim. They also make fun of their name - for example, lets say the victim is named Borje Snoorey they may change it to George Noory for comedic and hurtful effect. They make fun of the way their victim speaks, they make fun of books the victim may write and they are relentless.



The worst kind of hatertroll is the one who gets a mental ouchie if someone were to hatertroll them back. HOW DARE THEY! The world is under the false impression that if you can dish it you should also be able to take it. FALSE! That is why, in the male gay community there are those known as pitchers and others known as catchers. Some like to give and some like to get. SEE? Nobody should try to force a giver into getting. This is internet rape and is wrong! MY BODY MY CHOICE! As most of you should already know, this is now a criminal charge on top of the civil charges.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=catcher%20or%20pitcher

[Falkie2013]

I doubt I am the only one who feels that if someone uses this site as their own personal daily blog and website they'd better be prepared to face criticism or ridicule for their posts. Besides, Falkie himself makes it so damn easy to poke fun and provides plenty of material for it. Lately this place has been dying a slow death but Bart Ell's parodies are a fucking riot and have really livened things up!

People complained that I was self promoting myself. Then some people said I should have my own thread or website so that's why I started posting almost everything here.
There's no way to win when someone thinks speeding up excerpts of videos to have a Jew shown as making a NAZI salute or masturbating is seen as funny.
Of course, I could put all of this on my own blog or on my TheGuyFromPittsburgh.com website, once I get the site designed only to find that Kris has stolen it out from under me, couldn't I ?

[FallenSeraph]

I think as long as they aren't using your stuff to make money then there is no infringement of copyright.  If they were, Falkie could sue and at least get likeness royalties. 

I see a lot of shouting going on but I don't see a fire.

I think he can apply for a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which would allow people to share his stuff but not edit or alter it, as above. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Or actually, scratch that. YouTube only allows applications for the plain CC license. I don't think you can pick and choose. But this is in YouTube's TOS for videos without a Creative Commons license: "You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content." Doesn't that stop people from jacking around with his stuff? (no pun intended)

Maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about. But at least I tried. 

[b_dubb]

there's a "found art" clause to copyright law that allows someone to take something someone else made, modify it and use it in a 'new' piece. 

if i were smart, i would have refrained from posting here.  this thread is full blown insane/apoplectic

[Falkie2013]

Making money doesn't matter.

The law clearly states that copyright exists in LAW even though one has not formally registered one's material with the copyright office. You do that to ensure your ability to sue someone for using your content without permission.
Anything you create on the web, be it writing, lyrics, songs, poetry or audio and video content are protected under copyright. They don't have to be registered for the right to exist. Its effectively automatic and exsists under copyright provisions.

I already have gotten flagged for using old music or quoting from an editorial. I have to contact a publicist to get permission to use content from one magazine that I enjoy in my videos.

You must request permission first to use excerpts from videos and Bart Ell sure as hell hasn't done that.

******************
Search BitLaw:


Rights Granted Under Copyright Law

Executive summary:

The U.S. Copyright Act grants certain exclusive rights to the owner of a copyright in a work. These exclusive rights are different from the rights given to a person who merely owns a copy of the work. For example, when a person purchases a book at a bookstore, they have received a property right in a copy of a copyrighted work (namely, the book). The book owner may then resell the book, or even destroy it, since they own the book. However, the book's owner did not receive any copyright rights when they purchased the book. All copyright rights are held by the book's author until the author specifically transfers them. Consequently, the book owner may not make any copies of the book, since the right to copy a work is one of the exclusive rights granted under the Copyright Act. This distinction allows a copyright owner to sell copies of a work, or even the original work itself (such as a sculpture), without forfeiting her rights under the Copyright Act.

The Copyright Act grants five rights to a copyright owner, which are described in more detail below.

the right to reproduce the copyrighted work;
the right to prepare derivative works based upon the work;
the right to distribute copies of the work to the public;
the right to perform the copyrighted work publicly; and
the right to display the copyrighted work publicly.
The rights are not without limit, however, as they are specifically limited by "fair use" and several other specific limitations set forth in the Copyright Act (see the BitLaw discussion on Fair Use for more information on these limitations).
       
reproduction:

The reproduction right is perhaps the most important right granted by the Copyright Act. Under this right, no one other than the copyright owner may make any reproductions or copies of the work. Examples of unauthorized acts which are prohibited under this right include photocopying a book, copying a computer software program, using a cartoon character on a t-shirt, and incorporating a portion of another's song into a new song.

It is not necessary that the entire original work be copied for an infringement of the reproduction right to occur. All that is necessary is that the copying be "substantial and material."

       
Derivative Works:

The right to make a derivative work overlaps somewhat with the reproduction right. According to the Copyright Act, a derivative work is

a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.
A derivative work usually involves a type of transformation, such as the transformation of a novel into a motion picture. In the computer industry, a second version of a software program is generally considered a derivative work based upon the earlier version.
       
Distribution:

The distribution right grants to the copyright holder the exclusive right to make a work available to the public by sale, rental, lease, or lending. This right allows the copyright holder to prevent the distribution of unauthorized copies of a work. In addition, the right allows the copyright holder to control the first distribution of a particular authorized copy. However, the distribution right is limited by the "first sale doctrine", which states that after the first sale or distribution of a copy, the copyright holder can no longer control what happens to that copy. Thus, after a book has been purchased at a book store (the first sale of a copy), the copyright holder has no say over how that copy is further distributed. Thus, the book could be rented or resold without the permission of the copyright holder.

Congress has enacted several limitations to the first sale doctrine, including a prohibition on the rental of software and phonorecords.

       
Public Performance:

The public performance right allows the copyright holder to control the public performance of certain copyrighted works. The scope of the performance right is limited to the following types of works:

literary works,
musical works,
dramatic works,
choreographic works,
pantomimes,
motion pictures, and
audio visual works.
Under the public performance right, a copyright holder is allowed to control when the work is performed "publicly." A performance is considered "public" when the work is performed in a "place open to the public or at a place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances are gathered." A performance is also considered to be public if it is transmitted to multiple locations, such as through television and radio. Thus, it would be a violation of the public performance right in a motion picture to rent a video and to show it in a public park or theater without obtaining a license from the copyright holder. In contrast, the performance of the video on a home TV where friends and family are gathered would not be considered a "public" performance and would not be prohibited under the Copyright Act.

The public performance right is generally held to cover computer software, since software is considered a literary work under the Copyright Act. In addition, many software programs fall under the definition of an audio visual work. The application of the public performance right to software has not be fully developed, except that it is clear that a publicly available video game is controlled by this right.

       
Public Display :

The public display right is similar to the public performance right, except that this right controls the public "display" of a work. This right is limited to the following types of works:

literary works;
musical works;
dramatic works;
choreographic works;
pantomimes;
pictorial works;
graphical works;
sculptural works; and
stills (individual images) from motion pictures and other audio visual works.
The definition of when a work is displayed "publicly" is the same as that described above in connection with the right of public performance.

       

[FallenSeraph]

Suddenly I feel like I'm in a bad "Catfish" episode.

Let's change topics.

Here's a current picture of Billy Zabka from "The Karate Kid."

[attachimg=1]
ETA: ©Billy Zabka's Mom

[Bart Ell]

[Yorkshire pud]

The law clearly states that copyright exists in LAW...

And if it's similar to English/ welsh law (Scots have differences in their's) it's civil and not criminal law. Therefore no-one is likely to be arrested. It's up to the plaintive to serve a writ on the respondent(s). After that, the lawyers (if any wish to take on the case) will sharpen their pencils, and await the deposit of lots of money if you're stupid enough to pursue an adventure.


You'll get poorer and very little else.

[Mind Flayer Monk]

What do you think of the AFC playoff picture Falkie?
Looks like Colts are underdogs given 7.5 pts.
Chargers underdogs given 10 points.

[FallenSeraph]

LOL yeah, otherwise George could have sued ALL of us by now for the many, many humorous violations of his photos. Fortunately, he hasn't even threatened it because he is a good and kind-hearted man.

JBW too, for that matter, although hopefully he'd be nothing but flattered since mine all look like this:

[attachimg=1]
©Seraphim's JBW Porn Collection

[Bart Ell]

[Falkie2013]

LOL yeah, otherwise George could have sued ALL of us by now for the many, many humorous violations of his photos. Fortunately, he hasn't even threatened it because he is a good and kind-hearted man.

JBW too, for that matter, although hopefully he'd be nothing but flattered since mine all look like this:

[attachimg=1]
©Seraphim's JBW Porn Collection

Actually, I got flagged by You Tube just for having a picture of Noory as Mr. Potatohead in one of my videos.

And ... I went on the other board I used to post on and saw what was probably yet another of the many handles my stalker on there uses. He sent me a link where one of the libs on there posted that I told people on here I was sick and coughing, etc.

That poster is named Kalell on that board.

Bart Ell on this one.

And the usual detractors fill that thread as well, so I suspect Bart is actually from the other board.

[Bart Ell]

[Falkie2013]

What do you think of the AFC playoff picture Falkie?
Looks like Colts are underdogs given 7.5 pts.
Chargers underdogs given 10 points.

New England and Denver.

49ers and Seattle.

[area51drone]

I saw how MDA screwed over Jerry. That was one Jew I never thought they'd fuck over in their ingratitude.

[FallenSeraph]

OOOOPSIES!

Wow, a SHOCKING revelation that a guy likes boobs, blondes and professional blow jobs. 

[attachimg=1]
©Timmy the Tiny Unicorn Kitten

[MV/Liberace!]

Wow, a SHOCKING revelation that a guy likes boobs, blondes and professional blow jobs. 

additionally, posting information from another forum for the purpose of shaming someone on this forum is somewhat lame and not allowed.  don't do it again.

[DanTSX]

I have copywriter box fans.pay up falko

[West of the Rockies]

additionally, posting information from another forum for the purpose of shaming someone on this forum is somewhat lame and not allowed.  don't do it again.

Oh, snap, Bart/Ell/Barto et al, that sounds like a direct challenge to your manhood!  You better show MV who's boss!  No, really, you totally should.  In fact, PLEASE do.  Put all of us out of the misery of watching you continue to embarrass yourself.

[MV/Liberace!]

Oh, snap, Bart/Ell/Barto et al, that sounds like a direct challenge to your manhood!  You better show MV who's boss!  No, really, you totally should.  In fact, PLEASE do.  Put all of us out of the misery of watching you continue to embarrass yourself.

to clarify, i didn't "admonish" him publicly for the purpose of showing who is in charge or some such silliness.  i just think it's sometimes efficient for everyone to learn at the same time what's allowed and what's not.  i think protecting anonymity is pretty important (where possible).

[Bart Ell]

Put all of us out of the misery of watching you continue to embarrass yourself.

By "all of us" you must be referring to all the voices in your silly head. You couldn't be so arrogant to be speaking for all the members here, could you? You would be amazed at who you aren't speaking for, sunshine.

[area51drone]

And ... I went on the other board I used to post on and saw what was probably yet another of the many handles my stalker on there uses.

With all this high strangeness going on, I'll leave it to you Falkie, to tell us about this "other board" yourself.   Do enlighten us!

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

And ... I went on the other board I used to post on and saw what was probably yet another of the many handles my stalker on there uses. He sent me a link where one of the libs on there posted that I told people on here I was sick and coughing, etc.

Well, since you brought it up, I had a look at that site and found some interesting stuff.  In order:

1)  "One of the libs" quoted a post you made here on Bellgab, where you said you shat in your pants three times due to the severity of your coughing.  Your words, not his, and I don't know why you chose to misrepresent that.

2)  There's a political forum there where you were apparently an active poster.  It seems that you had a habit of posting up to two dozen cartoons per post, mostly anti-Obama stuff.  These were not links, but rather you cutting and pasting the picture files into your posts.  None of this fell under fair use or satirical exceptions to copyright, and you didn't credit the artists or the web sites from which you copied the cartoons.  So my question is this:  Isn't it hypocritical to complain about copyright infringement when you blatantly and shamelessly engage in it yourself when it suits you?  By the way you were apparently asked repeatedly by your friends and moderators to stop posting the cartoons but went ahead with it anyway.

3)  I'm not sure that you have thought through your plans to be a media star.  If you acquired any substantial level of fame, however fleeting, the media gossip sites will be on your past writings on the Internet like a pack of vultures on a gut wagon.  It only took me a few minutes to find some real doozies on that "other" site...stuff you wrote, not from haters and trolls, and all of it (like the stuff on this site) publicly accessible for anyone that cares to look.  It would make what you have been enduring on this thread seem like an all-you-can-eat picnic by comparison.  As Harry Truman used to say, "If you can't stay in, then get the hell out."  Word to the wise.

[Pope Francis]

"Van Halen at the garden was totally gnarly. Eddie was all like WHEEDELIE WHEEDELIE WHEEDELIE '