Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
jargon buster said:
I may set up a site offering Menards DVDs for $10 the lot as opposed to his $190.
I'm pretty sure he can't claim copyright as all the information is available freely on the web anyway.(So he says ;))
Click to expand...

You can only copyright original works.

Copyright laws do not cover gibberish you have borrowed from others.

Bottom line: Menard can not copyright his gibberish.
 
jargon buster said:
I may set up a site offering Menards DVDs for $10 the lot as opposed to his $190.
I'm pretty sure he can't claim copyright as all the information is available freely on the web anyway.(So he says ;))
Click to expand...

ComfySlippers said:
You can only copyright original works.

Copyright laws do not cover gibberish you have borrowed from others.

Bottom line: Menard can not copyright his gibberish.
Click to expand...


He can as long as it is his own gibberish.

Material that is freely available on the internet can still be copyright. While facts themselves cannot be copyrighted, if they are arranged into an original work that work can be copyright.
 
Mojo said:
He can as long as it is his own gibberish.

Material that is freely available on the internet can still be copyright. While facts themselves cannot be copyrighted, if they are arranged into an original work that work can be copyright.
Click to expand...

Hence, he cannot copyright his gibberish because it's word for word copied from other conmen.

This is what's so hilarious about Menard, Shrout, Clifford, Hayes and their ilk. They are all such under achievers they can only copy other conmen's scams. They haven't got an original bone in their bodies. Yet the gullible members of stupid-club lap it all up and actually believe it to be original "research":eek:

At least there is always somewhere to go to have a good old fashioned side splitting laugh when you need one.
 
So I could reproduce Menards work and add that it is total nonsense.
He can't then claim copyright because I haven't presented it in the same way.

simples
 
jargon buster said:
So I could reproduce Menards work and add that it is total nonsense.
He can't then claim copyright because I haven't presented it in the same way.
Click to expand...


You can reproduce small sections of it for the purposes of criticism under "fair dealing". You can't reproduce a "substantial part" of a copyright work.
 
jargon buster said:
So thats a yes then, he would have to provide proof it was his original work to claim copyright.
Click to expand...


I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that proving that he had published it would be sufficient unless you could prove that it wasn't his original work.
 
I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that proving that he had published it would be sufficient unless you could prove that it wasn't his original work.
Click to expand...
The university of youtube should have more than enough evidence for a judgement in my favour :)
 
...unless you could prove that it wasn't his original work.
Click to expand...

There is thirty years of evidence proving that the fiction Menard peddles has been copied from others. As all he has done is read the works of fiction published by others and copy it it's fairly safe to say he has no claim of copyright to the gibberish he sells.
 
Last edited:
ComfySlippers said:
There is thirty years of evidence proving that the fiction Menard peddles has been copied from others. As all he has done is read the works of fiction published by others and copy it it's fairly safe to say he has no claim of copyright to the gibberish he sells.
Click to expand...


I think he would have copyright if he has presented the arguments in his own words, even if others had previously presented the same arguments.
 
Mojo is right. Copyright doesn't protect ideas; it protects the expression of ideas. Although the ideas are not original, the expression is. Menard owns the copyrights on his crap.
 
Menard owns the copyrights on his crap.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but wouldn't he have to admit to being a "person" to enforce his claim of copyright?

As he alleges he has no SIN and as such has no connection to his "legal fiction" then by his own argument the court couldn't recognise him as it only deals with fictions.

:)
 
jargon buster said:
Maybe, but wouldn't he have to admit to being a "person" to enforce his claim of copyright?

As he alleges he has no SIN and as such has no connection to his "legal fiction" then by his own argument the court couldn't recognise him as it only deals with fictions.

:)
Click to expand...
Well, since he only pretends to believe that crap, he'll have no problem throwing his own teachings under the bus when he sniffs some benefit for himself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom