Whatever came of the Blackmask/Conde Nast Saga? - Page 2

Mikou · 07-08-2007, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

...but I'm not sure of the text myself... it might say that the real Shadow swept in and frightened Conde Nast from lowering the final boom, I'm not really sure.

Little help?

Ha! That would be awesome.

Thanks for the summary. You got more out of it than I was able to decipher. I don't know if CN was within their legal rights or not (see post below about experts and bargain hunting) but it sounds like they took advantage of Gibson's widow.

rjnagle · 07-08-2007, 05:25 PM

my cursory thoughts here http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblo...er/?p=83399512

apparently even after he agreed to remove the Doc Savage books, Conde-Nast prevented him from accessing his database and server. Really really bad.

HarryT · 07-09-2007, 03:05 AM

Sorry, but IMHO Mr. Moynihan brought everything that happened down on his own head by refusing to take down the infringing material when initially asked to. Everything else followed on from that. It would have been far more sensible to take the books down, and THEN discuss the situation with the copyright holders. Conde-Nast are not the "bad guys" here - it was Mr. Moynihan who was breaking the law, not them.

rlauzon · 07-09-2007, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry, but IMHO Mr. Moynihan brought everything that happened down on his own head by refusing to take down the infringing material when initially asked to.

This presumes guilt on Moynihan's part. He did his homework and didn't find any evidence that the works were still under copyright.

The onus was on Conde Nast to show that they were. Too often companies assert rights that they do not have in order to get what they want.

At least here in the U.S., you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

HarryT · 07-09-2007, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlauzon

The onus was on Conde Nast to show that they were. Too often companies assert rights that they do not have in order to get what they want.

At least here in the U.S., you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

But they were under copyright protection, and Mr Moynihan was proven guilty. IMHO he was unwise to let it go as far as a court case, when he could have easily avoided all the unpleasantness which resulted, but that's just a personal opinion.

rlauzon · 07-09-2007, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

But they were under copyright protection, and Mr Moynihan was proven guilty. IMHO he was unwise to let it go as far as a court case, when he could have easily avoided all the unpleasantness which resulted, but that's just a personal opinion.

He was correct to let it go to court.

As I said, too many companies assert rights that they do not have. Mr Moynihan's research showed no copyright. So Conde Nast needed to prove that they were under copyright.

Also, my understanding (so I could be wrong) was that there was no "please take down this material in a reasonable amount of time" notice. One day, everything's fine - content has been there for years in some cases. The next day, site taken down because of copyright complaint.

HarryT · 07-09-2007, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Also, my understanding (so I could be wrong) was that there was no "please take down this material in a reasonable amount of time" notice. One day, everything's fine - content has been there for years in some cases. The next day, site taken down because of copyright complaint.

From what I have read, the reason it went to court is that he was requested to remove the material from the site, but declined to do so. That too, however, is from my reading about the case and could be incorrect.

Steven Lyle Jordan · 07-09-2007, 07:48 AM

I seem to remember Mr Moynihan mentioning somewhere (on blackmask, or elsewhere, long ago) that he was notified once by CN and did not immediately respond, though I don't know the nature of the initial contact... whether it was "please contact us regarding" or "remove our property at once," or what. This is what prompted CN to unilaterally act to shut his server down. This has been accepted procedure for dealing with questionable material on web servers (except in extreme cases, like child porn), so in this light, CN was justified in their initial actions.

However, dragging the case out as they did without letting Moynihan settle left them open to public scrutiny, which brings us to "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." CN ended up with too much of their dirty laundry aired in public, and in the interest if not looking any worse to others, or compromising any other business deals, finally let the whole thing end as quietly as possible.

So, sure, CN was in the right. But they were still a$$holes about it, and backed down only after Moynihan exposed their less-than-stellar practices.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Did you see that Blackmask is back?	Dr. Drib	Sony Reader	9	03-22-2007 09:14 PM
Blackmask	kenbaldwin	Sony Reader	2	10-23-2006 01:24 PM
Blackmask goes mobile	Colin Dunstan	Deals and Resources (No Self-Promotion or Affiliate Links)	0	09-09-2005 01:52 PM
Blackmask.com	gvtexas	Deals and Resources (No Self-Promotion or Affiliate Links)	4	08-01-2004 07:02 PM

07-08-2007, 05:25 PM	#17
rjnagle Zealot Posts: 126 Karma: 2167 Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Houston, Texas Device: ipad 1, Nook Simple Touch, Kindle 3, ebookwise 1150	my cursory thoughts here http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblo...er/?p=83399512 apparently even after he agreed to remove the Doc Savage books, Conde-Nast prevented him from accessing his database and server. Really really bad.

07-09-2007, 03:05 AM	#18
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383099 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	Sorry, but IMHO Mr. Moynihan brought everything that happened down on his own head by refusing to take down the infringing material when initially asked to. Everything else followed on from that. It would have been far more sensible to take the books down, and THEN discuss the situation with the copyright holders. Conde-Nast are not the "bad guys" here - it was Mr. Moynihan who was breaking the law, not them.

07-09-2007, 07:48 AM	#23
Steven Lyle Jordan Grand Sorcerer Posts: 8,478 Karma: 5171130 Join Date: Jan 2006 Device: none	I seem to remember Mr Moynihan mentioning somewhere (on blackmask, or elsewhere, long ago) that he was notified once by CN and did not immediately respond, though I don't know the nature of the initial contact... whether it was "please contact us regarding" or "remove our property at once," or what. This is what prompted CN to unilaterally act to shut his server down. This has been accepted procedure for dealing with questionable material on web servers (except in extreme cases, like child porn), so in this light, CN was justified in their initial actions. However, dragging the case out as they did without letting Moynihan settle left them open to public scrutiny, which brings us to "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." CN ended up with too much of their dirty laundry aired in public, and in the interest if not looking any worse to others, or compromising any other business deals, finally let the whole thing end as quietly as possible. So, sure, CN was in the right. But they were still a$$holes about it, and backed down only after Moynihan exposed their less-than-stellar practices.