Rhetorical question of the week: Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand the issue?
It is illegal to "assume" copyright for the sole purpose of filing lawsuits... which is what Righthaven does.
I've noticed your comments in other threads and am beginning to wonder what ulterior motives you have in supporting every instance of corporate criminality you stumble across?
Your newspeak makes not a lick of sense and although it may work for you in Teabagistan, this is the wrong forum to attempt a Palinesque word salad.
Re: Re: Willful ignorance?
My reply was intended for Anonymous Coward (apt) re: "disagreement" with Judge Kane's ruling.
P.S. I hate the way comments are sequenced on this site, but that's just me.
Re: Willful ignorance?
Rhetorical question of the week: Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand the issue?
It is illegal to "assume" copyright for the sole purpose of filing lawsuits... which is what Righthaven does.
I've noticed your comments in other threads and am beginning to wonder what ulterior motives you have in supporting every instance of corporate criminality you stumble across?
Your newspeak makes not a lick of sense and although it may work for you in Teabagistan, this is the wrong forum to attempt a Palinesque word salad.
Re:
and let's not forget AT&T's blatant ripoff of artists Cristo and Jean Claude... to hawk cell phones on T.V.
Re:
Not to mention stealing Sleeping Beauty and Snow White from the brothers Grimm...
Re: Re: Re:
Concensus is building? If you consider a aorporation and a politician fondling each other, then okay.