chinita
Well-known member
Lets face it, neither party are going to come out if this covered in glory.
I have certainly learned a few lessons.
I have certainly learned a few lessons.
I have just been Alan Mackie'd
- Thread starter dylanwinter
- Start date
- Status
Cliveshep
Well-known member
It should be obvious to all now that if you sup with the devil you need a long spoon, in this case translated as under no circumstances enter into any sort of business dealing with AM,
What a nasty little man he seems to be, and with a criminal past yet using the law to make money, I hope companies steer clear of him. Besides, camera drones are so cheap now with high res cameras that it is cheaper to take your own pics and cut this person out of it altogether.
What a nasty little man he seems to be, and with a criminal past yet using the law to make money, I hope companies steer clear of him. Besides, camera drones are so cheap now with high res cameras that it is cheaper to take your own pics and cut this person out of it altogether.
RichardS
N/A
I don't have a dog in this fight but I do think that is rather unfair to Alan Mackie.
It was Dylan who went onto the internet to denounce Alan Mackie in the most robust and unequivocal language (now deleted I believe).
I assume that you would not deprive Alan Mackie of the opportunity to put his side of the issue nor castigate him for doing so? It would be difficult for him to do that without denouncing theft, even if he might (or might not) have been guilty of the same at some point in the past.
Richard
steveeasy
Well-known member
Why do you possibly feel this will help Dylan Winter. Would you like to be referred to on a public forum in that way. The reason this has escalated is because someone was too happy to potentially defame someone's character with little regard for the other person. Mr Mackie could well feel he has a very strong case for liable especially if people try to impact his business for no good reason other than malice. Additionally the so called free lawyer should have told Mr Winter not to feed the fire with defamatory remarks towards him.
Steveeasy
chinita
Well-known member
If I was DW I would be asking YBW to pull this thread.
mainsail1
Well-known member
Yes, time gentlemen/ women please.
Pye_End
Well-known member
AM wanted DW to stop using his photos.
That has been achieved.
I can understand DW not wanting to reply immediately to AM as he may be concerned what effect it may have on possible legal action.
Why would AM want to take this any further? Surely this story ended a long time ago - unless AM wants to further his income as already has been muted, or perhaps he just enjoys it?
That has been achieved.
I can understand DW not wanting to reply immediately to AM as he may be concerned what effect it may have on possible legal action.
Why would AM want to take this any further? Surely this story ended a long time ago - unless AM wants to further his income as already has been muted, or perhaps he just enjoys it?
[163233]
...
Post 15 is still up I think.
Bru
Well-known member
I only mentioned the £450 because that war what Dylan told us Mr Mackie was demanding
Pagetslady
Active member
I very much enjoy watching Dylans videos and have contributed to his fund, but for the life of me I cannot understand why Dilan has chosen this way to settle his dislike of Alan, he obviously knew he was at fault by removing it on receipt of Alan's letter, so why not appoligise and ask Alan if he owes him anything for his blunder. All this rubbish about going to court etc, will only end up costing everybody money and possibly reputation, I have always thought of Dylan as an easy going sailor who makes good videos, Alan I have never heard of before but I think he has been rubbed up the wrong way and feel he would have fair reason to retaliate. It seems to me he spends considerable amounts of money to take pictures that are obviously in demand, if somebody uses one of his pictures for what ever reason without asking first, surely it is not a problem when he sends a letter notifying you that you have done so, ok a letter was received and the picture was taken down, surely the sensible thing to do would be answer the letter immediately in a friendly manner in order to come to some acceptable manner, no figure was mentioned in the letter, if Dylan wanted to use the picture then they could have negotiated a price to use it.
Mike
I would have thought there was a great deal to benefit both of them working together, Alan takes great pictures and Dylan has a great web site that could use great Ariel pictures.
Mike
I would have thought there was a great deal to benefit both of them working together, Alan takes great pictures and Dylan has a great web site that could use great Ariel pictures.
bitbaltic
Well-known member
I don't have a dog in it either. In terms of Alan's denouncements of theft and skullduggery, I was thinking more of the moralizing on his website page of court cases, which clearly predates either his encounter with this thread or with Dylan, so are the original case of him "going on the internet to denounce" acts against him.
This incident (between AM and DW) is of course the trigger that has got forumites asking of themselves the quite legitimate question "What sort of a man do I think Mr Mackie is?", but other than that what Dylan thinks or says about it- whether he denounces AM's character or not- is tangential. I doubt anyone here simply imports DW's opinion (or anybody else's for that matter) as a substitute for doing the work of forming their own. Indeed I would be sure the majority quickly looked up Mr Mackie's website and formed their (personal) opinion thus. I would also be sure the majority revised their opinion, one way or another, when the newspaper accounts of his past were brought to their attention. That is why his past is important- because the question of "what kind of a man he is" is one every member of society is entitled to ask themselves, and becuause such a revelation about any person is likely to be given weight by the vast majority in considering this question. I reiterate this is nothing to do with the legal side of things: it's to do with the ethical and moral questions that spin up as a consequence of society, and the internet, existing.
Of course not. It's a natural part of the "bargaining" in society, that Alan is absolutely entitled to come along and show himself in the best light to try and get people to revise their opinions once more. Looking at the way the thread has evolved I think he has been quite successful in doing that. But his right to defend his character is, in my opinion, exactly equal to the right of others to question it. "Free Society", and all that
Which, of course, is exactly the point the whole question of his character turns on. How he chooses to square that circle says much about his true morality and ethics. The text on his website appears, to me, to be his most unadulterated (by outside interference, such as answering repeated questions on an internet forum) attempt to do so.
Edited to add: I have to agree with those calling time on the thread. It is much less interesting than sailing.!
Last edited:
steveeasy
Well-known member
I don't understand why its even questioned. why would Mr Mackie leave it, He probally feels hes been slandered by a few big mouths who given their age should have known better than to slander someone specifically. Everyone knows about Mr Mackies past now, no one knew of him before. Id be absolutely delighted if it were me, Copyright is not the issue now.
steveeasy
greggron
Well-known member
It strikes me that a great opportunity for both has been lost here if it had only been handled better.
Dylan posts a link, Alan is informed that Dylan has posted a link. Alan asks Dylan if he wouldn't mind advertising Alan's site and services in return for free use of the link. Dylan links to Alan's site from his and mentions it in his YouTube posts and both generate traffic and increased revenue for Alan. Happy days.
It does beg the question around the motive for getting heavy and litigious from the outset
Dylan posts a link, Alan is informed that Dylan has posted a link. Alan asks Dylan if he wouldn't mind advertising Alan's site and services in return for free use of the link. Dylan links to Alan's site from his and mentions it in his YouTube posts and both generate traffic and increased revenue for Alan. Happy days.
It does beg the question around the motive for getting heavy and litigious from the outset
Seajet
...
My first and last post on this.
I fully understand, when AMs past came to light, and Dylan was very likely feeling threatened, it must have seemed a ' Euereka ' moment and brilliant ammo.
However, we all have judicial systems and AW has paid his debt to society, as decided by a judge.
He may well be a top guy trying to go straight, maybe not - but he can't be punished for past misdeamenours again and again, otherwise anyone charged with anything would find they may as well take their own lives.
The bit about Dylan's house details stank as well; surely both of you Gents can shake hands and forget it - and be publicly photographed for free while doing so !
It would do well for both of you.
I fully understand, when AMs past came to light, and Dylan was very likely feeling threatened, it must have seemed a ' Euereka ' moment and brilliant ammo.
However, we all have judicial systems and AW has paid his debt to society, as decided by a judge.
He may well be a top guy trying to go straight, maybe not - but he can't be punished for past misdeamenours again and again, otherwise anyone charged with anything would find they may as well take their own lives.
The bit about Dylan's house details stank as well; surely both of you Gents can shake hands and forget it - and be publicly photographed for free while doing so !
It would do well for both of you.
Last edited:
197aerial
New member
> The bit about Dylan's house details stank as well;
I agree. Most inappropriate. Besides, I now have no mailing address to contact him at. Especially as he still trades from a fake domain name address.
I agree. Most inappropriate. Besides, I now have no mailing address to contact him at. Especially as he still trades from a fake domain name address.
197aerial
New member
Two snags. Firstly, would I chose to do business with a character who has been caught nicking images from me and others and claiming to own them? Could he be trusted to play fair?
Secondly, would I, looking back at Dylan Winter's past actions as commented on in here, want to be associated with him? Especially in connection with his off-grid YouTube/Google opinions?
A resounding no to both seems sensible.
I often get asked to swap links with people. I always refuse. I can't see the point of having a website full of links to other people's pages. It's a bit like M & S having a sign in the shop direction people to Littlewoods.
Hey, potential customers! Look! More intersting places to go - Hurry, Hurry!
197aerial
New member
Point 1 - Don't post abuse in forums. It costs money in the end.
Point 3 - What happened to Point 2?
Point 2 - Fill the rest in yourself, thanks.
Giving yourself good advice there, methinks.
sailaboutvic
Well-known member
Can't wait for the next posting ,
It's great being a nomad .
It's great being a nomad .
greggron
Well-known member
Have it your own way. 85% of my company's business comes from referrals. I tend to find if you trust people, they trust you back. People use our IP in their own work, we ask them to cite us which they do. Now we have expanded into India, Tanzania, South Africa, Brazil and last week Switzerland. Meanwhile you have spent a good amount of your time and effort over very little. Your time must be very cheap and your sight very short.
197aerial
New member
Me too. I've had only three hot-linking cases over the last 20 years and they were all settled before a summons, on legal advice.
I'll check with Skone James on Copyright and see if they have anything helpful.
- Status