View Single Post
Old 07-09-2007, 05:35 AM   #21
rlauzon
Wizard
rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.
 
rlauzon's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,018
Karma: 67827
Join Date: Jan 2005
Device: PocketBook Era
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
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.
rlauzon is offline   Reply With Quote