|
I did address your entire point: Like I said, "words are cheap." They didn't actually DO anything, even when people (led by logos, incidentally) offered to chip in for lawyer fees.
As I understand it, the pledged amount was LOTS more than you would need to file a DMCA notice with Vryces' ISP and get the mud yanked off of the internet.
In the lack of knowledge, you prefer to assume consent. I prefer to regard lack of permission sitting in my hand as not having it. We'll have to disagree here, it seems.
In the face of apparent apathy by the IP holders vs known objections by them, you draw a distinction. Morally, I agree that there is a distinction. Legally, I do not.
The other interpretation is that they really don't particularly like it, because of the potential devaluation of their property, but that they also don't want to start hauling their fans into court because of the negative publicity that would result.
People like Traithe put authors in very awkward situations in this regard.
I fail to see how our positions here differ (yours being taken pretty much verbatim from the website you linked to), except that I am quite clear about stating that the "conduct of the parties" has to be actual actions on both their parts, not inactions like failure to respond to an email.
Stilton
|