3 ms·

You're putting words in his mouth with this comment. I think he understands the legal situation just fine. He's accusing them of being "pretty fucking rude", no

• TheMagicHorsey 12y ago
  I don't think I am. He mentioned Copyright, and he seems to think he has some sort of claim over a sequence of words, outside of his domain rights. He may have a proprietary claim in the area he practices his arts. He has no other claims. If he actually understood this, he would not be moaning to us today in this post, which is obviously trying to name and shame the conference. Well, I'm not cool with this BS name and shame game, that is why I wrote my comment. And I think the comment was pretty level-headed given this guys complete lack of thought into how such accusations might play out in a court of public opinion, where people don't actually think about the consequences of automatic IP rights for "first speaking" names.
  • danielweber 12y ago
    Maybe the post has been edited but I don't see anything about Copyright at the page.
    • TheMagicHorsey 12y ago
      Check out this image from his article: http://futurestack.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Screen-shot-2014-07-22-at-9.40.45-PM.png http://futurestack.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Scree...
      • scintill76 12y ago
        Seems a bit tenuous, to say that must mean he thinks of this as a copyright issue. It's a joke about a hypothetical presentation on 2 related but distinct topics. Maybe he's only saying "branding ethics" have been violated, not a supposed "copyright" to the name infringed.