Why moderator intervention?

[mikedeason]

Originally posted by Billy Griffin
My video clip is now up on my page. I guess I'm stealing that too?

Hey David, isn't that your white van driving away as I'm driving in to it?

Many other chasers were topping the hill to get better views while I was driving in to it. Also, let the video play... the wedge is pretty much clear in the latter part as we were parked alongside most all of you.

This is silly. I can't wait for the first reponse on how I stole the video clip and other stuff.

Sorry guys, I don't need photos - I HAVE THE VIDEO TO PROVE IT !!!

I am done responding to these allegations.

Nice attempt at a red herring, but the issue is not whether you were chasing but whether the images you presented on your page as your own were actually yours or not. With your sudden change of the topic on the issue, are we to take this as an admission of guilt?

Regards,

Mike

 

[Chris Allington]

Originally posted by Billy Griffin
Hey David, isn't that your white van driving away as I'm driving in to it?

Many other chasers were topping the hill to get better views while I was driving in to it. Also, let the video play... the wedge is pretty much clear in the latter part as we were parked alongside most all of you.

Than how come your images are so similar if you are in a different position when those other chasers are on top of the hill as your driving into it?

 

[Darin Brunin]

Here is the image property file of the picture that Billy claims to be his. Notice he claims it to be taken from a still camera. That has me wondering why a Canon Optura 20 is a CAMCORDER. On the phone Billy explained to me that he takes his pictures with an HP camera. This is a video still. It's time to own up to what you did. If you really want to prove yourself post the same thing that I did because I can guarantee you that it will be the same as mine and who has the Canon Optura 20. Why that would be me. Billy I guess that you must have forgotten that all images have a tag embedded in them.

Billy's Picture with a supposed HP camera.

My video grab taken with the Canon Optura 20

It's time for you to fess up Billy. This tells the absolute truth. here is the video one more time shot with the Optura 20 by ME.
http://www.kschaser.com/March21.mpg

 

[David Drummond]

Originally posted by Chris Allington+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chris Allington)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Billy Griffin

Hey David, isn't that your white van driving away as I'm driving in to it?

Many other chasers were topping the hill to get better views while I was driving in to it. Also, let the video play... the wedge is pretty much clear in the latter part as we were parked alongside most all of you.

Than how come your images are so similar if you are in a different position when those other chasers are on top of the hill as your driving into it?[/b]

Not similar Chris.... IDENTICAL! minus the cropping. IDENTICAL in every detail.

 

[Chris Allington]

Originally posted by David Drummond
Not similar Chris.... IDENTICAL! minus the cropping. IDENTICAL in every detail.

YUP!!!

It is obvious... I dont think he'll be able to pull a Michael Jackson on this one...lol

 

[Scott Blair]

Aaron, you obviously missed the point of the importance of discussion. If you don’t want to observe 50 posts comparing pixels, then you don’t have to read them. However, those that would like to discuss this serious subject without vulgar comments would like to do so. Is that ok? You ask what else can be done. Well, when is Billy Griffin’s membership review going to be completed? I’m sure many of us are quite curious whether a Stormtrack member stealing other Stormtrack member photos is tolerated. I guess this will be a real interesting sign of what this forum stands for.

To note… my Albany, MO image is from video shot 5/24/04, not from a digital camera. The video has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office in Washington D.C. filed in October 2004. Billy, you really don’t want to continue on the road you’re on.

Scott Blair
http://www.targetarea.net

 

[Mike Peregrine]

This has got to be the single most unbelievable issue I have EVER seen come up in Stormtrack, and that is saying a lot. I do not anger easily - and in fact usually can maintain diplomacy when everyone else is losing their heads - but I have to say that I am just LIVID about your conduct today, Billy. The responsible thing for you to do at this point is apologize, take your page down, resign from this site and move on.

I can see Aaron's fine points, and admire you for the desire to keep things in check ... but in this case I have to agree with Scott that this issue goes beyond the norm and requires group intervention. The words are strong, but the choices Billy made were in the full view of the PUBLIC, and the public has the full right to get to the bottom of this one.

Billy - I'm afraid that no matter what, you can NEVER be taken seriously here again. The responsible thing to do is leave.

 

[David Drummond]

§ 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits

Release date: 2004-04-30

(a) In General.— Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either—
(1) the copyright owner’s actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (B); or
(2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection ©.
(B) Actual Damages and Profits.— The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer’s profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer’s gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.
© Statutory Damages.—
(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.
(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was:
(i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or
(ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.
(d) Additional Damages in Certain Cases.— In any case in which the court finds that a defendant proprietor of an establishment who claims as a defense that its activities were exempt under section 110 (5) did not have reasonable grounds to believe that its use of a copyrighted work was exempt under such section, the plaintiff shall be entitled to, in addition to any award of damages under this section, an additional award of two times the amount of the license fee that the proprietor of the establishment concerned should have paid the plaintiff for such use during the preceding period of up to 3 years.

 

[David Drummond]

§ 506. Criminal offenses

Release date: 2004-04-30

(a) Criminal Infringement.— Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either—
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
(B) Forfeiture and Destruction.— When any person is convicted of any violation of subsection (a), the court in its judgment of conviction shall, in addition to the penalty therein prescribed, order the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all infringing copies or phonorecords and all implements, devices, or equipment used in the manufacture of such infringing copies or phonorecords.
© Fraudulent Copyright Notice.— Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.
(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice.— Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500.
(e) False Representation.— Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.
(f) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.— Nothing in this section applies to infringement of the rights conferred by section 106A (a).

 

[nickgrillo]

ROFL, LMAO... WINDOWS MOVIE MAKER!! LOOK AT THE PROPERTIES!!

(thank you Doug Mitchell)

I will be contacting a lawyer about this matter by tomorrow afternoon. I am currently in Norman (and live Detroit), I planned on going back this weekend, but will likely be down here until the case is closed. You are through, dude...

 

[Bryan Burkholder]

I understand that the burden of proof is pretty substantial, from what I have seen, that Billy committed the infringements from the details of the pictures posted. However, I think Aaron did the right thing by closing down the thread. Continuing to threaten to sue someone over and over again may not be threatening physically or vulgar, but I know I wouldn't want to be incessantly told I was going to be sued. The threats are much more damaging financially; as David Drummond so nicely pointed out, just in case we did not have the exact US Copyright Infringement Law in our home library. And I know I can't afford $150K, I'd be homeless!

It seems that many people on here were infringed upon, and the next logical step is to take legal action, not to "vent" their anger. Only bad things can happen by continually voicing one's opinion of a person before suing them (especially if they are choice words). That's why Miranda rights are read, "anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law." If you want to sue, sue, stop pointing out all these pictures when you already seemed to have proven the case to the board. Billy's membership is going to be under consideration of being revoked already, so not much more to do from a Stormtrack point of view (except to get the banning approved).

Just my $0.02

 

[David Drummond]

Originally posted by Billy Griffin
I am posting the video on my page now...

I suppose you guys will say I stole that too?

If you listen closely to the audio, you'll hear my \"shutter sound\" off my digital camera and also hear me complain to my son about my HP camera messing up.

Sorry you guys didn't get as close, but I was right there too down in the canyon taking those shots.

What is so absolutely IRONIC about your video is that it PROVES you weren't even in the same place as me when you were shooting the wedge! OMG ROFLMAO! Never mind that the pics are IDENTICAL, it's right there on your own freakin' video! HOLY COW how blantant can you get?

 

[Billy Griffin]

It wasn't a "wedge" at the time I was in the canyon. Did you even watch the video clip or are you just still acting out of rage?

You'll see as we turn around, my son is videotaping when we come back out of the canyon and pull up alongside the fence. My son was videotaping the wedge while I took the digital stills. The camera was giving me a "not in focus" indicator and that's when you hear me comment to him that the camera was messed up.

You guys are pathetic the way you go on and on picking at someone. I don't even sell my photos - I do this for enjoyment, not money or profit.

If you all would stop acting like high-school "clicks" and stop harassing people or especially sending these little threatening emails, perhaps this would all be a much easier place to chat.

By all means, if it makes you feel more of a man, call OU, call the Postal Training Center, call KOCO. Will that give you some sort of resolve in the fact that you can't accept someone else having photos like yours?

Admission of guilt? I have nothing to admit. You all jumped on me over the comment about the OUN forecaster a week ago, and it hasn't stopped since. Now you're "chapped" at me for having photos and documentation of a successful chase?

It's amazing that some of you would resort to sending me emails telling me you're going to "take my home" or be sure to "catch me and my family out in public and ensure I we won't be able to walk again." What kind of comments are those?

I will guarantee one thing... I will NEVER post on this forum again. It's too much of a shame and I don't want to be associated with people who make threats of physical harm to wives and children or property damage.

I'll also guarantee you that you guys who did make those threats better hope and pray that something doesn't happen to my family or my property, or I'll utilize my resources, such as the U.S. Inspector General, U.S. Postmaster General Copyright and Patent Office, along with the legal offices for Faculty/Staff of the University of Oklahoma.

As far as I am concerned, this matter is closed and you will never hear from me again. For those of you who wish to pursue this, have at it.
My family, my job, my home and property, etc. has no interest in my "hobby" chasing storms and this incident, and it should be left alone.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

Billy ... there is no room for any pity or empathy of any kind from me on this one. This remains a blatant and egregious breach of ethical conduct. On the other issues, I'm always willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt - not this time.

The fact remains that you stole, you lied about it and now you are even more pathetically attempting to cover it up and justify your misguided actions. I no longer get involved in flame wars online, but you have simply begged for anything that anyone can think to hurl at you on this one. You ask for more and more with every pathetic post. Your denial of these established facts is nothing short of ludicrous.

I for one will not feel one ounce of regret for any consequence you now see as a result.

 

[Anthony Silver]

Originally posted by Billy Griffin
It wasn't a \"wedge\" at the time I was in the canyon. Did you even watch the video clip or are you just still acting out of rage?

You'll see as we turn around, my son is videotaping when we come back out of the canyon and pull up alongside the fence. My son was videotaping the wedge while I took the digital stills. The camera was giving me a \"not in focus\" indicator and that's when you hear me comment to him that the camera was messed up.

You guys are pathetic the way you go on and on picking at someone. I don't even sell my photos - I do this for enjoyment, not money or profit.

If you all would stop acting like high-school \"clicks\" and stop harassing people or especially sending these little threatening emails, perhaps this would all be a much easier place to chat.

By all means, if it makes you feel more of a man, call OU, call the Postal Training Center, call KOCO. Will that give you some sort of resolve in the fact that you can't accept someone else having photos like yours?

Admission of guilt? I have nothing to admit. You all jumped on me over the comment about the OUN forecaster a week ago, and it hasn't stopped since. Now you're \"chapped\" at me for having photos and documentation of a successful chase?

It's amazing that some of you would resort to sending me emails telling me you're going to \"take my home\" or be sure to \"catch me and my family out in public and ensure I we won't be able to walk again.\" What kind of comments are those?

I will guarantee one thing... I will NEVER post on this forum again. It's too much of a shame and I don't want to be associated with people who make threats of physical harm to wives and children or property damage.

I'll also guarantee you that you guys who did make those threats better hope and pray that something doesn't happen to my family or my property, or I'll utilize my resources, such as the U.S. Inspector General, U.S. Postmaster General Copyright and Patent Office, along with the legal offices for Faculty/Staff of the University of Oklahoma.

As far as I am concerned, this matter is closed and you will never hear from me again. For those of you who wish to pursue this, have at it.
My family, my job, my home and property, etc. has no interest in my \"hobby\" chasing storms and this incident, and it should be left alone.

Billy, the bottom line is you stole other people's work. I dont care what your BS excuses are, in my opinion they're invalid, and bluntly put, you're a liar. There's no point in trying to cover your a** on this one dude, you've been caught, and LEGALLY you will pay if the victims decide to take this to the next level. I agree with you on one thing though, the threats against you and you're family arent cool by any means, and I think that's going way too far, but seriously dude you've ticked off a lot of members. Like I told you before, the best thing you can do is remove the stolen photos, fess up and/or apologize to the victims, then remove yourself from the forum. You've started a major s**tstorm here, and people wont be able to trust you anymore after this. SEE YA, DON"T LET THE DOOR HIT YA WHERE THE GOOD LORD SPLIT YA'!!!!