So this dude shows up on another art website, launching a new book about that website. And what’s he doing? He’s researching on that website’s forum. Hmmm. Owning several forums myself, running dozens more, and owning an ISSN to boot, I’m rather familiar with the DMCA, its addendums, and US Copyright laws, including the all-but-defunct “Fair Use” clause.
So I mentioned this to this individual in a private PM, avoiding his method which was to challenge me on the forum proper about the FCC, FTC, and major SE rules about advertising on websites, something I’m also rather familiar with because of the coding team’s work. (That wound up with me asking HIM why that information was so critical to him since his book isn’t about that at all. His reply was interesting. The truth is, he’s using the exact techniques on his websites that these rules are designed to forfeit.)
So this guy gets all flustered and indignant when I do mention the copyright laws concerning content not expressly released by its author/owner to Public Domain. What does that tell you? It tells me that, were he ignorant, he would have thanked me; were he savvy, he would have agreed and moaned about the work involved with securing the permissions. Instead, he showed true colors. Only those guilty of purloining (or who are planning on it) get hostile and defensive.
TaDAAAAAA! Bingo! Gotcha!
Yep, our “Success with C___P____” boy thought he’d just lift the whole kit and kaboodle right out of the forum, slam his copyright on it, and there ya go. Not. At least not if you and the company who owns the forum don’t want some litigation in your lap.
But then, look at the source: He wears a black beret, dark glasses that hide his eyes, is a self-pronounced “entrepreneur,” and is a WarCraft junky. Speaks for itself, don’t you think?