Finally someone who speaks politely.
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:
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.
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:
An accusation is a statement by one person asserting that another person or entity has done something improper. [...]
An accusation can be made in private or in public, to the accused person alone, or to other people with or without the knowledge of the accused person. An accuser can make an accusation with or without evidence; the accusation can be entirely speculative, and can even be a false accusation, made out of malice, for the purpose of harming the reputation of the accused.
And that, my
Bro, is the purpose of this board: to get a better grip of the situation, to assess the case, whether the accusation is baseless and out of malice or it's based on findings and facts. People here are working side by side to dig the truth, to find who actually did wrong and who tell the truth. Bear in mind that if you ventured to other threads on this board, you'll find several case where the thread creator are found to be the one who wrong and the accused got a lot of support because they're the one being wronged. Unfortunately, I don't think that the same situation applied to you. Why? Well, this brings us to the lengthy explanation below:
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.
People often use the terms "author rights" and "literary rights" to mean copyrights. Copyrights are legal rights that attach to certain types of intellectual property. Copyrights are granted under federal law to authors of creative works at the time of the work's creation in a fixed, tangible form. Authors do not have to apply for or file a copyright. [...]
Copyright is a type of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship as soon as an author fixes the work in a tangible form of expression. In copyright law, there are a lot of different types of works, including paintings, photographs, illustrations, musical compositions, sound recordings, computer programs, books, poems, blog posts, movies, architectural works, plays, and so much more!
[...]
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.
Remember, any piece of writing or artwork is automatically protected under U.S. copyright law, regardless of whether it is formally registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, the federal agency charged with overseeing copyright registration. However, placing the "©" conspicuously on the footer of the website provides a clear signal to Internet users that you are aware of your rights and intend to enforce them.
Should you ever need to sue an infringer, the existence of the copyright notice will help to establish that the defendant had actual notice of your rights. Put differently, he or she will not be able to claim ignorance.
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.
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.