Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

mr moose

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


This user doesn't have any awards

About mr moose

  • Title
    I own a unicorn.

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    On a prison island hidden in the summer for a million years.
  • Interests
    Social science, special needs integration/education. human development and personal information adoption and problem solving. In short I like to watch people be people.
  • Biography
    jobs: EE, pc tech, ITC consultant, Production/manufacturing training supervisor, Heritage building restoration consultant, human services, special education/integration specialist. Hobbies: backyard mechanic, music, electronics, 4x4 and camping.
  • Occupation


  • CPU
    Ryzen 3600
  • Motherboard
    prime 350
  • RAM
    16 Corsair vegance
  • GPU
    Asus RX 570
  • Case
    rotanium hardened glass monstrosity
  • Storage
    WD Black 250G NVME, 3TB and 2TB cuda hdd's
  • PSU
    Seasonic 650gold
  • Display(s)
    BenQ 22.3" + Viewsonic 17" + 2x 17" think visions
  • Cooling
    All stock
  • Keyboard
    Cougar 600K
  • Mouse
    Corsair bog stock thing
  • Sound
    cheap arse USB thing.
  • Operating System
    win 10

Recent Profile Visitors

8,392 profile views
  1. What I meant was that in context with getting a product from china and putting your own brand on it for the purpose of reselling. On that note though, I just heard about auctions here in AUs where you can get the little 1000KVA geny's for $30 brand new. Apparently there are shipping containers full of them where the business has gone broke or didn't pay the proper import duties.
  2. The milk has curdled, there are demons present...
  3. He still has the right to decide who can use his videos for ads and who can't. The fact he refuses to let pitaka use his video doesn't actually mean anything. I certainly don't think that rejection is unfair given pitakas public accusations. The problem here is people are trying to claim guilt where there isn't anything to suggest guilt. He took a case from aliexpress and put his name on. the worst thing he did was lie about the material and manufacture process (I'm pretty confident it's not handmade), which has nothing to do with pitaka beyond the fact they likely also got their case from aliexpress. I know I can get generators from china that are made for Honda but have them rebranded with MR Moose on the side and sell them as unique products, this is not ripping of honda because they didn't design it, the company that designed it is selling to me legitimately. If Pitaka, honda or any company want exclusive rights to sell a design then they need to design it themselves, otherwise it's not their IP. And accusing others of stealing IP that was manufactured legitimately form the actual owner (if they even care) is unethical. So where do we stop? Without any other evidence all we have is one company being unethical and defaming another person because they decided to sell the same shit that they reviewed a while back. If this is all there is to it then the only thing that will stop it is if they introduce a law that says you aren't allowed to sell products you reviewed before. I can see lots of problems with that, a few solutions to unethical advertising I'll grant, but problems none the less.
  4. I definitely know there are data centers around where I live, even Melbourne is only 45Km away and I am technically rural. I guess the chances that my data is going via sydney are slim to none and why the average ping (as measured from home game servers) I get from anywhere in Victoria is usually 9ms.
  5. I couldn't agree more on this one. I hate UT, I refuse to watch him because I find him arrogant.
  6. True, they can litigate, but so far with all we know they'll very likely lose opening themselves up for defamation with very little hope of winning.
  7. I know our poi is 15Km down the road. From there I think it can go directly back to my neighbor or of to another poi. No idea how that really works though beyond it being where my ISP legitimizes my connection to the (NBN) internet.
  8. They made it, I know they did because they said so. That's not how evidence works. Even in this thread people have posted pictures of that case from other manufacturers from years earlier? It really isn't enough to stand up in court, let alone in this thread. That's right, he did claim that. That's false advertising, not IP infringement. There is a very large difference between the two. That's not allowed. Not under fair use and not under copyright law. This truth you think exists is an assumption in your head. Just because you think it's true doesn't make it true. There is sufficient evidence to suggest neither of them designed the case, therefore neither of them have copied anyone. Again no Legal action and no evidence of stolen IP.
  9. The last thing most people want to do is maintain a business relationship with someone who is trying to ruin their business. Remember when caselabs did this to thermaltake. The resemblance of those cases was pretty good, however caselabs retracted and apologized to thermal take for the accusations because they realized they wouldn't win the case and they were open to defamation after that. Same thing in this situation, If pitaka push this (especially in a court) they have to prove they designed the case (which they didn't, not enough to win a court case), which leaves them open to defamation. I deeply suspect there is a reason pitaka didn't go through the legal system and instead used social media as a weapon. In all of this, a legal case would have done nothing more than highlight the fact UT bought a case from a generic manufacturer and made some unethical claims about it's origin and construction.
  10. You do realize that UT buying a generic case from china and claiming he designed it himself is not the same as Pitaka designing the thing and him copying pitakas design. In fact the evidence we have suggest that Pitaka didn't even design it themselves, which suggest that Pitaka are just trying to stop UT from doing what they did. If UT stole IP from Pitaka then Pitaka needs to take it to court, Not publicly defame someone to the point everyone just believes it. If he doesn't give Pitaka license to use his content then that is not a false claim for copyright strike, he is well within all legal rights to disallow someone from using his content for their advertising. Especially when said person is defaming him. Advertising does not even come under fair use policy, there is just no argument to made here. It's clear that after those allegations were made he didn't want to associate with them any more, that does not indicate guilt, it is a natural and acceptable reaction and business decision.
  11. So until you do dig it out, stop assuming guilt. I'm not too sure what other youtuber's have to do with this, but making a copyright claim for content you own is not a problem unless some sort of contract or agreement was signed stating pitaka could use the content indefinitely. Again, you are assuming guilt without having any evidence. Apart from the fact your timeline here is missing critical events, like UT didn't just copyright claim Pitakas content, he did that after they accused him of copying (something for which we have no evidence) and after they tried to use his content against him. This is not abuse of any system. It seems the concept of innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply anymore.
  12. The truth is yet to be established. Again was this a DMCA or a youtube CC claim? they are different. I would do the same if I had to protect my business from bad PR due to claims made by another business. Again, thjere is no evidence of anything yet, just claims from Pitaka who seems to have already convinced everyone that UT is in the wrong. This is not abuse of a system, this is just defending oneself from something we don't even know is legitimate. You are basing all this of the assumption that everything pitaka says is true and UT are guilty of everything. There is a reas0on libel and defamation cases take a long time to go through the courts, It's not just a case of who feels the most hard done by, you need actual evidence that UT intentionally copied anything. Buying a cheap case from a generic Chinese manufacturer (which there is just as much evidence for) does not amount to copying. EDIT: also deciding who gets to upload your content is not abuse of any process, It is the intrinsic right of the CR owner. Pitaka is more than welcome to make a video about it, they can even use snipets from UT video if it is an unbiased review of the his video, however they are not allowed to use his (or anyone's) content for the purpose of defamation of that person, it misses all the criteria for fair use and it is illegal. Therefore it is not abuse of the system.
  13. I don't know how that works with NBN and ISP's, if at all. Some business are on NBN instead of commercial grade connections because it's significantly cheaper. All I know is that it doesn't matter what plan I or my mates are on, we all get that speed or the fastest our physical connection can handle all the time regardless of the content type.
  14. And the wires in transformers are linked with a solid chunk of iron to direct the Field around the second winding. And even those are significantly less efficient than switch mode supplies. (and yes I realize SM supplies use transformers too, just in a different way).
  15. the only place wireless charging makes any sense to me is in restaurants etc where you can just put your phone down and top it up a bit while you eat.