
nor can visualise how it would ever end up in court
( ,
Thu 12 Jan 2012, 11:12,
archived)

imagine Blackadder in court contesting the copyright infringement of WW1 haha now there's a compo entry ;)
( ,
Thu 12 Jan 2012, 11:14,
archived)

and Baldrick in the witness stand
Edit: Just seen your reply to me last night about the b3tards uploader. Thanks!
( ,
Thu 12 Jan 2012, 11:18,
archived)
Edit: Just seen your reply to me last night about the b3tards uploader. Thanks!

the url to your uploads wasn't to b3tards - but even b3tards doesn't have a working delete button as yet :(
( ,
Thu 12 Jan 2012, 11:21,
archived)


wasn't able to do that and we couldn't work out why then after seeing that I was using b3tards and she wasn't it made sense.
( ,
Thu 12 Jan 2012, 11:55,
archived)

the Church would be outraged if such a film was ever made
( ,
Thu 12 Jan 2012, 11:18,
archived)

"This Brian bloke is obviously a copyright infringement of Jesus!" :D
( ,
Thu 12 Jan 2012, 11:20,
archived)

who want to ensure our right to parody isn't untarnished, as if it ever was anyway. The whole point of parody is that you're poking fun at something, governments have been toppled by parodies and in some way the fact that often it can be legally borderline makes it funnier to the nth degree. Imagine V for Vendetta where the corrupt Government can't take any action against the Stephen Fry Tv comedian character - rather pointless I would say. But if this bill goes through we can have an open day on The Artist Former Known as Squiggle who wouldn't be able to do a thing about it because it's "parody"
( ,
Thu 12 Jan 2012, 11:32,
archived)

companies will try to leverage their intellectual property rights (copyright, trademarks, etc.) to attempt to take down stuff they don't like from the Internet.
As most web hosting providers are either a) feeble and gutless b) can't be bothered checked whether material is genuinely infringing,
they will take down material without much of a fight. After all, as a hosting provider which will you care more about -
a single customer paying £3.50 a year for cheapo hosting or the potential cost of court proceedings?
So companies simply use IP law and the chilling effect of a cease & desist letter to attack stuff they don't like.
( ,
Thu 12 Jan 2012, 11:47,
archived)
As most web hosting providers are either a) feeble and gutless b) can't be bothered checked whether material is genuinely infringing,
they will take down material without much of a fight. After all, as a hosting provider which will you care more about -
a single customer paying £3.50 a year for cheapo hosting or the potential cost of court proceedings?
So companies simply use IP law and the chilling effect of a cease & desist letter to attack stuff they don't like.