Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="evilref" data-source="post: 5369247" data-attributes="member: 73517">1) I highly doubt they'd claim ownership given, in the US for example, there are specific steps in place regarding the transfer of copyright.&nbsp;A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; or such owner's duly authorized agent.&nbsp;2) Hundreds if not thousands of companies use the same boilerplate writing (you grant us the right to use...). For three off the top of my head, Sony, Apple and Paizo. To date there is not a single example of one exercising it as anything other than a defence against frivolous law suits.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 3) I can claim ownership over everything you write, that doesn't mean it's going to be held up in court. There is no precedent to support the boilerplate text used on websites to actually grant the owner of the forum the right to use your copyright for itself. Quite the opposite given how copyright trends have been going.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 4) The boilerplate specifically falls down because many individuals simply cannot grant such a right to anyone else.&nbsp; 5) The negative PR to such would be huge. As in Hasbro-stock affecting huge. Corporations do not like lawsuits they are likely to lose or that have a negative PR attached. Particularly when, in this example, they'd actually have positive PR from, you know, buying the supposed writing (assuming anything is ever put up that's worth publishing...and that it was seen by someone at the company who felt such).etc. etc. etc.This is uninformed fearmongering and is no more justifiable than political attack addsSenator Bob did not deny today that he stole money from the union pension fund.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="evilref, post: 5369247, member: 73517"] 1) I highly doubt they'd claim ownership given, in the US for example, there are specific steps in place regarding the transfer of copyright. [I]A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent.[/I] 2) Hundreds if not thousands of companies use the same boilerplate writing (you grant us the right to use...). For three off the top of my head, Sony, Apple and Paizo. To date there is not a single example of one exercising it as anything other than a defence against frivolous law suits. 3) I can claim ownership over everything you write, that doesn't mean it's going to be held up in court. There is no precedent to support the boilerplate text used on websites to actually grant the owner of the forum the right to use your copyright for itself. Quite the opposite given how copyright trends have been going. 4) The boilerplate specifically falls down because many individuals simply cannot grant such a right to anyone else. 5) The negative PR to such would be huge. As in Hasbro-stock affecting huge. Corporations do not like lawsuits they are likely to lose or that have a negative PR attached. Particularly when, in this example, they'd actually have positive PR from, you know, buying the supposed writing (assuming anything is ever put up that's worth publishing...and that it was seen by someone at the company who felt such). etc. etc. etc. This is uninformed fearmongering and is no more justifiable than political attack adds Senator Bob did not deny today that he stole money from the union pension fund. [/QUOTE]

Verification