Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Morrus" data-source="post: 5077700" data-attributes="member: 1">If you read the linked documents, it was a demand that they censor the conversation on their forums - accompanied by a 72 hour deadline pending legal action.&nbsp; There's no &quot;what was likely&quot; about it - the documents are plainly readable.&nbsp;It is wrong in two ways:&nbsp;1) Including a legal threat and deadline at the outset, without engaging Privateer in conversation.&nbsp;2) Attempting to regulate conversation about such products by the general public, as opposed to PP's own use of trademarked terms; and putting the onus on PP to defend LW's trademark to the general public.&nbsp;There are some fairly weak claims (but stated in definitive terms) that &quot;conversation on the internet&quot; equates to &quot;PP publishing materials in print&quot;. It's a very weak stance, and certainly not one to base definitive threats of legal action on.&nbsp;I've received similar legal threats in the past. Folks claiming that *I* am libelling them because someone used a comminication medium I provided to say something. This is akin to claiming a telephone company is liable for what is said on the communication medium they provide.&nbsp;Needless to say, 100% of these threats have amounted to nothing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Morrus, post: 5077700, member: 1"] If you read the linked documents, it was a demand that they censor the conversation on their forums - accompanied by a 72 hour deadline pending legal action. There's no "what was likely" about it - the documents are plainly readable. It is wrong in two ways: 1) Including a legal threat and deadline at the outset, without engaging Privateer in conversation. 2) Attempting to regulate conversation about such products by the general public, as opposed to PP's own use of trademarked terms; and putting the onus on PP to defend LW's trademark to the general public. There are some fairly weak claims (but stated in definitive terms) that "conversation on the internet" equates to "PP publishing materials in print". It's a very weak stance, and certainly not one to base definitive threats of legal action on. I've received similar legal threats in the past. Folks claiming that *I* am libelling them because someone used a comminication medium I provided to say something. This is akin to claiming a telephone company is liable for what is said on the communication medium [I]they[/I] provide. Needless to say, 100% of these threats have amounted to nothing. [/QUOTE]

Verification