Topic: Blokbro plagiarised Content , Roadmap and Whitepaper from LockNess.io - page 2. (Read 1027 times)

Congratulations .. nice evidence based on fantasy, from you who do not even show your identity (turning a bit in this platform it seems that no one shows the true identity .. but what fear are you?! I thought this platform was on another level ) ... I'm not here to discredit you, indeed it's nice to accuse a project without evidence as in the case you are citing. So I'm a scammer, shady, deceitful, I just miss being a multiple murderer and I win the jackpot ... in fantasy anything can happen.

No, it is not a strange way of thinking. You think people here are stupid?

There is no question that these accounts were created solely for the purpose of shilling for your project. Regardless of whether they are your alts or you hired them, you clearly tried to game the system and mislead the community. The use of alt accounts to give positive trust and oppose the flag against you is called trust abuse and clearly violates the established community standards.

As logfiles said, this is another reason not to trust you and your shady project.

The whole debate for the term "plagiarism" is clear to me. What you are saying is not clear to me. metalcecco is my private and personal account (opened 3 years ago to seek help with the theft of BTC that I suffered through the support of Bittrex ...) The Blokbro registration is done on the project (I don't see where the problem is to have a 'private and public accout ... I also have them for both private and commercial social networks) This thing has already been said in the previous comments. the others should be users who follow me to whom I talked about this fact .. with your thoughts if they write other 5 or 10 people you will attribute these accounts to me .. Strange way of thinking.
To be precise, I am not deceiving anyone and I have explained everything clearly, this way of discrediting and continuing to say that a shady project is rather childish.

igeble07
Date Registered:    August 04, 2022, 03:57:56 PM
Last Active:    August 04, 2022, 04:30:17 PM

Ylli
Date Registered:    August 03, 2022, 07:50:15 AM
Last Active:    August 04, 2022, 07:54:12 AM

metalcecco
Date Registered:    March 07, 2017, 04:42:27 AM
Last Active:    August 04, 2022, 04:36:00 PM

Even a blind man can see that these are Blokbro's sockpuppet shill accounts

He's trying to game the trust system, too. More reason not to trust Blokbro and his shady project

@Stalker22 and @holydarkness

Thanks for explaining the whole thing in this case on a different way and more understandable for him.
I dont consider to raise a defamation case against him even he turning things around.
There is and never was a defamation from my side to him or to his project .
Really appreciate the work here of you both , thank you.

@BlokBro

I also have never spoken bad of you or have written something , also i havnt written that you scammed somebody or that it is your intention.
The purpose of this board is that you write here things , that normaly others have not seen or know about a project when there are some signs.
Also the rules of the Forum are to write such things here in this board and not somewhere else.
If you looking at other cases and threads and there titles i havnt insert the word Scam.
About the copyright thing it is as holydarkness have written , and in this case we dont talking about a copyright registrations.
And i know that your project and Lockness are different services projects , and this dosnt matter here.

Its stil the Fact that you used a Work from a other person and project without permission to use it , you even dont have mentioned a source link where you got it.
It was your one fault that you forgot to change the copied HTML text or file from Lockness, you have admitted that and approved that you have used some things from Lockness.
And this is plagiarism you made maybe accidentally , but it stil is it.

holydarkness, although you wasted a lot of perfectly good words on this case, I think you nailed it! 

I just wanted to add my thoughts on this:

Last time I checked, Italy was still a member of the European Union, so for all intents and purposes, I believe this applies:


You seem to be shifting your arguments a bit here, don't you? The common sense in this case is that you cannot just take someone else's work and present it as your own. But I bet that you knew this all along, so all this discussion was unnecessary.

For clarification The term accusation is known to me but the term "scam" is a scam for profit ... alchè I'm not doing a scam to earn. as said the day after the publication, I apologized to Lafu both privately and publicly, also premising that there was an error in the publication of the files. With Lockness I had already apologized and in that case I asked for the copyright document without having any answer. Given that my lawyer did not tell me to continue but to clarify how I am, it is I who want to understand the right ... and rightly so if I find myself with a person who tells me one thing and you what about another I believe that it is interesting to understand what the right point of view is. In my case I had to file the copyright with the patent office because the system underlying the application that I created I wanted it to be patented, and I honestly thought that the copyright was based on this and that if it had not been filed (as fact from me) this right could not be applied (and here I thought that the word "Plagiarism" was not correct because it was connected to it). I have noticed that this thing varies from country to country, and it is true as you say in this case it is automatically protected by the copyright laws of the United States. (your explanation is exemplary to the detriment of others)

That said, clarifying the aforementioned word "plagiarism" whether or not it is correct in its use is not at all discrediting Lafu. I explicitly told Lafu that from my point of view he did not investigate and that in my opinion if he had analyzed the 2 projects he would have noticed that they are completely different and that therefore there was something strange. If he had then asked me why the similarity of certain things, which are not fully part of my project, I would have analyzed and confirmed the mistake without causing such chaos. I'm a beginner). but I understand this is the way we work here and I'm not here to dictate laws. As for Lockness, as mentioned before, I had already given the excuses and reasons for this fact and then fixed all the errors.

If Lafu claims he was discredited, that wasn't my intention ... and in your opinion, my project and I have not been offended, humiliated and discredited in public ?! Why is it that if a person claims otherwise she must be humiliated and offended? here too it is defamation ..

I like your argument and congratulate you on your work, but I would like people to understand that common sense often prevails over many things.

Uhh... sorry, what? Oh, yeah, sure. Always glad to be polite whenever I can. May I use this occasion to compliment your comprehension skill too?

Moving to the topic, let me answer your in-between-the-topic question first, as this is the easiest and the most obvious:


Please read the board title carefully, several times if needed. The board called, in case you still failed to realize, scam accusations. Keyword: "accusations". If I may use the broad term given by wikipedia --as you seems to love this encyclopedia so much:


Let's summarize the situation based on your point of view: Lafu accuses you of plagiarism, which you consider equal to a copyright infringement, and thus --in your opinion-- is not correct, borderline wrongful, because you've contacted the original author, LockNess, and they couldn't provide you the depository of the copyright for said document and/or written content, thus the said work is not copyrighted, and thus you should be free to copy them. Ultimately, these series of events, according to your lawyer, it is not correct and deserve a lawsuit for defamation.

Am I correct so far?

Lets continue, if we may further condense the situation, it goes to: LockNess did not register their work, so there's no copyright infringement, anything that or anyone who said otherwise --you plagiarize/stole copyrighted property-- is wrong.

I have to be the bringer of bad news, but allow me to let you familiarize yourself with the fact that there is this rule that said upon being published, a content owner automatically get their work protected by copyright. I am not sure with how it goes in Italy, but I know a lot of --if not most, or even every-- countries apply this rule.



And no, it is not limited to published papers, a website content are also automatically protected once it is published, and that nice "©" symbol is just a nail to the coffin, the unequivocal proof that the plagiat --that's you-- are completely aware that the material they're about to copy is protected --automatically.


Honestly, I'm curious how your lawyer didn't know or didn't explain these matters to you; worse, they suggested and encouraged you the exact opposite. This rule is pretty much known and drilled to students of higher education --during associate, bachelor, master, and doctorate-- to help them wrote a good and "legal" paper.

Now, one question is still left unanswered: wheth Lafu should sue you for defamation, based on your accusation that he didn't check facts before publishing this accusation, which leads to a case where you tainted his reputation. And another question seems to raise: whether Lock.Ness should sue you as well, for a blatant proof of copyright infringement.

Please share us your lawyer's insight regarding this.

Finally someone who speaks politely. Regarding point 1: I argue that plagiarism is a work reproduced in whole or in part and its authorship (authorship indicates the appropriation of the work and this is sustainable through copyright) is erroneously attributed to others and not to the author and therefore having violated the copyright, the term Plagio can be used (source: https://www.sba.unimi.it/Strumenti/17608.html#:~:text=In%20base%20to%20regulatory%20current,Settimio%20Paolo%20Cavalli%2C%20Alberto%20Pojaghi). In my case I have not violated copyright because it does not exist, so point 1 would be sustainable
Regulatory requirements: "
Plagiarism is a case considered in the context of copyright, although it is not explicitly mentioned in Law 633/1941 (PDF document Law on copyright) "source: https://www.sba.unimi.it/Tools/17608.html#:~:text=In%20base%20to%20regulatory%20registration,Settimio%20Paolo%20Cavalli%2C%20Alberto%20Pojaghi.
In my case I have not violated anything because from my investigations the copyright of Lockness.io does not exist and therefore the term plagiarism is not correct.

I am also waiting for an answer to the article section:
Why am I in the scam section? if you don't show the facts that it's a scam, that's wrong too.

So if I can, even from my point of view there are many things that are not right and are unjustly thrown against my project .. or am I wrong?
I understand the work that Lafu has done and in part it is to be admired (I never said that he has not done any work), but I think his research was light and not thorough .. I believe (this is my point of view) that he used a software that determined the same words in another site, when he saw that certain writings were the same as now he has made the statement. also from my point of view, she did not check that the projects were the same (and they are not) and she did not check the copyrights. That said, I never said Lafu didn't do any work. The Blokbro project and application is completely different from Lockneess.io and what was reported in certain parts of the Whitepaper and the roadmap could not be attributed to Blokbro because they are completely different, the next day I apologized both privately with him that publicly and I admitted that I encountered an error posting parts of HTML files (precise the lockness formats are in .Jpeg or .png format for the roadmap and in .PDF for the whitepaper ... I created the HTML + css + javascript files and to get an idea of the layout, error my leaving a draft part in the final code). do you really believe that for small pieces of text, mistakenly left, they helped me on the development of the project ?! The whole data identification and security application, that's very complicated, and the whole system I created was very complex. Certainly not 2 written in HTML. Lafu did not check the functionality of the project, he instead (I believe) took parts of my site and subjected them to a control with a software or with microsoft Edge which in turn gave him the same contents of Lockness .. when he saw this then he analyzed the page without investigating whether the sites in question had the copyright deposited and that the projects were the same (in my case it is and I also gave him the access credentials without him asking me beforehand If he had understood these things he would have also understood that I have nothing to hide. if I wanted to be "shady" as they defined me, do you really think that I would put the data of the project and my data associated with it in the profile? I think a little common sense would have made everything less complex.
Moreover, as they defined me with the term "shady", if I were really shady I would not put my data and the whole website in the profile that shows all the associated data and in this case I have nothing to hide. while (it is not a criticism because this site allows it) the users who are discussing with me do not report their data. why?! I repeat the Bitcointalk site allows it and that's fine ... but from my point of view if you want to be more credible and support your motivations, showing who you are makes you more credible.

I have never spoken badly of Lafu and other users, while they have reputed me with many adjectives both me and the project .. and from this point of view they come out much more brilliant while I sink .. I'm not here to determine this. discussing, as in these cases, does not cloud Lafu but rather makes people grow.
So if I support my thinking about "plagiarism" and you support yours, who is right? it's not a question of compensation or anything, but what's the right point ?!. Having a lawyer in the company I asked him and quickly explained all this and his answer and as mentioned above and I rely on what he told me. you define plagiarism when the work is associated with someone else and not the author (the author is defined as the one who has copyright) I believe that informing the public in the correct way, and not because you are a legendary or master user, appreciated by the Bitcointalk audience. So how do we solve all of this? what I asked was to simply remove this page.

A little late to join as I get into this tread and have been wanting to comment on it since you posted this, but I got some on my plates that needs to be done. Apology for the delay, but without furter ado, may I suggest you to perhaps reconsider your "lawyer"? I don't think they know exactly what to do or what basis they can use, so instead they just throw random things at you... of course, I am assuming these lawyers are real people and firms and not just you googling some things.

I've nicely highlighted some critical point you raised as the basis of your threat to file a defamation complaint.

First, let's refer to this article published by a well-known law firm, just to make sure all of us here are on the same page, given recently, there are a lot of caught plagiat and scammers trying to get back by throwing these "we will sue you" threat, I think we need to be sure --well, at least I need to be sure-- if it is really applicable


Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but although you meet the other three condition to file a defamation complain, the first and foremost point to build the case is not met, and thus everything became obsolete. In order to prove a first look of defamation, it is need to be proven that the accusation is wrong, --e.g. Lafu spread false and baseless information that I stole 1M BTC from him while I actually never did, for this case, I might have a chance to build a defamatory case against him. In your case though, everything he said is true, namely you copied and plagiarize a content from someone else, so, all he said is fact and not a false statement. Again, as Stalker22 repetitively pointed out, the case is not a copyright infringement, it is a simple plagiarism. I don't think I need to join his effort to explain to you what the differences are, he explained good enough, and how you still persist that it is exclusively synonymous is well, beyond my comprehension. Lafu accuses you of plagiarizing someone's work, and indeed you are, how is it a defamation if what he said is true?

Second, let's assume for a sec that you somehow had a chance to build a case, on which country shall you build and have your court? In your country, Italy? Or is it on Lafu's --I assume Germany--? Are you sure the law on said country complies with what you build? And to what address shall the summoning order be addressed to? The court needs to made it known to the defendant that there is a case against them, and far as I know, you're the one who need to supply the details of the suspect. You somehow have Lafu's home address in your pocket? Please don't tell me your lawyer suggest you to address "Lafu, a member of bitcointalk, wherever he actually stays".

And the very last, the mundane thing, Lafu actually did some work of checking the information, how else do you think he knew you plagiarized a content if he didn't check past works of someone else? How you failed to see this simple thing and "accuse" him of not doing any work is beyond me. Perhaps Lafu should consider to raise a defamation case against you as you wrongfully made fake statement that he didn't di any work, made the said statement public, and you caused him a tarnished reputation as people will now think he didn't do enough work. Oh look at that, he actually has all the four points against you.

First, show me where I called you an idiot?
I called you a dumbass, dumbass! There is a difference. Idiot is a person of low general intelligence (a medical condition) while dumbass is slang for a stupid or foolish person. [source] Although, you are exhibiting some symptoms of moral idiocy.


No, you are wrong! For the nth time, plagiarism IS NOT the same as copyright infringement. You are accused of plagiarism, not copyright infringement. You took parts of someone else's work and published it as your own without attributing the original author. This is plagiarism by definition.


Take another look at this quote (which, by the way, you took without citing the source, so it is plagiarism again) and apply it to your case. Or, better yet, ask someone to translate it for you, because you obviously have difficulty understanding English words. Dumbass!

Thanks for the heads-up. I am going to tag and flag all his alts, and we see how he will try to trick newbies into believing his fake project that's created by plagiarizing content from other projects. BlokBro is one of the dumbest people I have come across lately.

Imagine stealing content from another project and continuing to claim that it's not plagiarism after being exposed.

First, be careful with the words "idiot", I have never offended anyone. I repeat metalcecco is my private account, Blokbro represents the project and the whole community (I don't understand where the concept is not clear to you and I don't understand the problem) The word "plagiarism" is referred to in conjunction with the violation of the Copyrhigt ... precisely we are talking that I have not committed copyright infringement and therefore this word "Plagiarism" cannot be used because it is related to copyright infringement. "Plagiarism - plagiarism occurs when a work is reproduced in whole or in part and its authorship is wrongly attributed to others and not to the author". So you are accusing it of plagiarism that it is not, and you are publicly defaming it causing a lot of damage .. also whoever exposed this article has inserted it in "accusation of scam" and here is another problem because the Blokbro project is not a scam ( if it is a scam you have to prove it by being concrete).
source : https://www.sba.unimi.it/Strumenti/17608.html#:~:text=In%20base%20alla%20normativa%20vigente,Settimio%20Paolo%20Cavalli%2C%20Alberto%20Pojaghi.

It is still pretty clear that you do not understand what plagiarism is, and even with Wikipedia you cannot comprehend the concept.
As I said before, plagiarism is not the same as copyright infringement, and since you like to quote wikipedia, here is a quote for you:


Dumbass! 

Metalcecco belongs to me personally while Blokbro is from the company that I am CEO and I also represent my community ... the other authors can be parts of my community that I spoke to. When I wrote in German it is because first the form was in the German section, then they moved it and I didn't notice it. Plagiarism is the violation of copyrhigt. A work or website is required to specify whether it is copyrighted and if it is copyrighted, anyone can ask for access to the document that must be deposited. "With the term plagiarism (or piracy), IN COPYRIGHT, we refer to the appropriation, through total or partial copying, of the authorship of a work of the genius of others. The term derives from the Latin plagium (reduction into slavery or theft of someone else's slave) [1] and in this meaning it is reflected in the English plagiarism and in the French and German Plagiat. " (source: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagio_(diritto_d%27author) in this case the copyright is not deposited, anyone can use information and photos of the site and no one can say that it is plagiarism. Defamation, on the other hand , occurs when someone publicly comments on untrue facts or offends or causes damage to the company or person. In this case Lafu, without checking this information and without listening to my reason for error, points to the fact of plagiarism by writing it publicly, also causing damage to my project. I am not here to ask for damages on the project (although I could) but I am here to make you think about this fact and I ask for the removal of the article. I have 3 months to file a complaint and have the authorities intervene, but I believe that the matter can be resolved without this.Thank you for your attention

paglioccio? Is that Italian for clown? Yes, I would say the word fits the description.
By the way, why were you pretending to speak German before? It is obvious that German is not your native language.


Incorrect. No work is in the public domain unless the owner explicitly declares it to be in the public domain. Explicitly! By the way, plagiarism is not the same as copyright infringement. Do some research before you write such nonsense.


Hahahaha! Thats a joke right? Good luck with that.  

---

EDIT:
User metalcecco woke up after 3 years of inactivity to post this in the BlokBro ANN thread but deleted the post shortly after. It is worth mentioning that he was active mostly in the Italian local before. Two other members opposing the flag (besides BlokBro and his alt metalcecco) registered today and have zero forum activity. Quite clever, I must say.  

---

EDIT 2:


BlokBro's name is also Francesco as can be seen from his screenshot here and also, @Framcesco83 is the CEO of BlockBro and owner of the telegram group https://t.me/BLKB_Blokbro. Coincidence?

you see that you do not understand ... you can write that I am a paglioccio, that the project is senseless and other things ... but you cannot write "Blokbro plagiarized some Content, nearly the same Roadmap and few things from the Whitepaper from LockNess" because precisely the copyright is not there (I also reiterate the mistake made when creating my HTML draft files as already explained above). Like it or not, this is defamation against me and my project because you published that I plagiarized another website that does not hold copyright and you would be punishable by the law article 595 of the criminal code (simple defamation can be punished with a maximum of one fine, aggravated defamation is punished with imprisonment from six months to three years or with a fine of not less than 516 euros.
Social defamation is particularly serious because the offense can be read by an indefinite number of people. The same fate would happen for the editor-in-chief and the author of a defamatory article published in an online newspaper. Outraging someone on social media is like doing it in a public place, in front of everyone.) First you had to make sure that the Lockness site had a copyright. I don't want to get to this, I have already asked moderator Cyrus to delete the page for the good of both of us. but currently I have not yet received an answer from him. I will wait until 08/08/2022 after this deadline if the page is still online I will go to the police station and file a complaint with the authorities. I believe you now have a big picture of the whole thing.

I guess you both dont get it.
I dont care or it dosnt matter if the copyright is or was deposited or not .
Its a fact that you used the work from somebody else without an source link to it , even you made a misstake with HTML files.
So i think its useless to explain that its plagiarism for using others work as yours , its not my fault what you have done .

The Copiright must be deposited. Lockness entered the word in the Food .. they did not deposit anything. The code I used was to get an idea for the page leyaut .. that said, you can check the whole site .. it's genuine.

Add: If you take a good look at things you will notice that Lockeness's Whiterpaper is in PDF. so stop talking nonsense, I have not copied and pasted the HTML files .. those I created and used as a draft of the Layout while I was creating the site .. accidentally there are parts left as already explained above
Conversation with Lockness, see photos
https://i.imgur.com/2tI97J6.jpg

There is too much fury towards Blokbro. Blokbro confirmed the error due to bad handling of HTML files .. evaluating the facts his site is completely different and is operating with the utmost transparency. I also received copyright access and it is deposited. His intentions are good.