he does have a point though
still, I like to rebel against little things for no particular reason, so I'll just be joining this side of the argument
( ,
Tue 24 Feb 2004, 10:29,
archived)
Which side?
the one were we get to use no hands?
Or the one where we dont?
( ,
Tue 24 Feb 2004, 10:31,
archived)
Or the one where we dont?
Well
Why did the twat not do it to start with?
could have saved a bit of aggro
but he would have got rid of some of the world fluffyness.
I need to get some sleep...
( ,
Tue 24 Feb 2004, 10:37,
archived)
could have saved a bit of aggro
but he would have got rid of some of the world fluffyness.
I need to get some sleep...
To give him the benefit of the doubt*
he could well have put a copyright notice on the original image when it first slipped onto the web. That doesn't stop somebody else from copying it and posting it somewhere like ratemykitten.
(I think nohands is overrated anyway - clive is far superior)
(* = to drag this argument out until it drops into the archives)
( ,
Tue 24 Feb 2004, 10:45,
archived)
(I think nohands is overrated anyway - clive is far superior)
(* = to drag this argument out until it drops into the archives)
Except that's not how copyright works
You don't have to put a copyright notice on something for it to be copyrighted. See www.bitlaw.com/copyright/obtaining.html for more information, particularly the "Automatic Creation" paragraph. Since 1978, a copyright notice has only been a formality, not actually required.
( ,
Tue 24 Feb 2004, 19:23,
archived)