BEWARE: This John Titor Impersonator is CA$HING in with Disinformation!

Ren

Ren

Senior Member
Messages
1,088
Samstwitch said:
You know, I highly doubt that this Impersonator's Top Secret Manual is Copyrighted. After all, he did steal the cover symbol from the photo in John Titor's original published and Copyrighted book. But he said in his Darkness Radio Interview (7 minutes into it) that he is not affiliated with the book or the John Titor Foundation, so he has violated the Copyright by his own admission.
Click to expand...

Looks like he made a mistake in his scam. He doesn't think using the "John Titor" copyrighted name to make money is wrong as long as he says he is not affiliated. Wrong. The name "John Titor" is copyrighted. If any impersonator intends to make money from that, it is punishable by legal action. Furthermore, he printed a fake document with the "Department of Defense" listed at the top. That is a federal crime punishable by jail time.
 
Samstwitch

Samstwitch

Senior Member
Messages
5,111
Ren said:
Looks like he made a mistake in his scam. He doesn't think using the "John Titor" copyrighted name to make money is wrong as long as he says he is not affiliated. Wrong. The name "John Titor" is copyrighted. If any impersonator intends to make money from that, it is punishable by legal action. Furthermore, he printed a fake document with the "Department of Defense" listed at the top. That is a federal crime punishable by jail time.
Click to expand...


On this point, I added a lot more to my Post #11 on Page 1, if you want to check it out. And I made some additions to my Opening Post.


Ren said:
Furthermore, he printed a fake document with the "Department of Defense" listed at the top. That is a federal crime punishable by jail time.
Click to expand...


Actually, if the Manual doesn't say United States on it somewhere (which it wouldn't), then it would not be an offense against the DOD. But it does Violate Copyright Laws as stated earlier.
 
PaulaJedi

PaulaJedi

Survivor
Zenith
Messages
8,837
Ren said:
Samstwitch said:
You know, I highly doubt that this Impersonator's Top Secret Manual is Copyrighted. After all, he did steal the cover symbol from the photo in John Titor's original published and Copyrighted book. But he said in his Darkness Radio Interview (7 minutes into it) that he is not affiliated with the book or the John Titor Foundation, so he has violated the Copyright by his own admission.
Click to expand...

Looks like he made a mistake in his scam. He doesn't think using the "John Titor" copyrighted name to make money is wrong as long as he says he is not affiliated. Wrong. The name "John Titor" is copyrighted. If any impersonator intends to make money from that, it is punishable by legal action. Furthermore, he printed a fake document with the "Department of Defense" listed at the top. That is a federal crime punishable by jail time.
Click to expand...


Yes. It is all wrong, and I don't care who views my comments. We are doing nothing wrong by exposing a fake. Can we make a citizens arrest? ;)
 
PaulaJedi

PaulaJedi

Survivor
Zenith
Messages
8,837
Don't contact the man, folks. Let him marinate in his own poor choices.

And Sam, I believe we have intellectual copyright laws that are automatic.
 
Samstwitch

Samstwitch

Senior Member
Messages
5,111
How to report a Violation on Facebook if you don't have an Account

GOOD NEWS! You can report a Facebook user even if you don't have an Account.
Go to the link below. It will give you multiple choices to choose from.
Report a Violation of the Facebook Terms | Facebook

Select the last option. "Other abuse or harassment"
Fill in the questions and enter the links.
At the bottom of the form there is a Comment Box.
That's where you can describe the Violation and complaint.

Anyone who reports this Imposter to Facebook, your efforts are appreciated.
 
PaulaJedi

PaulaJedi

Survivor
Zenith
Messages
8,837
Top Secret Document Manual, 50, 75.jpg

NOTE: The John Titor logo that is displayed on this impostor's so called "manual" still has the 2013 copyright information on it. It's small, but it's there. Not that it matters, a copyright is a copyright, but why would a document from 2036 have this?
 

Top