3 ms·

"linking to this website without written permission is prohibited." - http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/disclaimer.html http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/disclaim

by hop 17y ago

"linking to this website without written permission is prohibited." - http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/disclaimer.html http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/disclaimer.html

jrockway 17y ago
Reading this text without written permission is prohibited. (What I mean to say is that the word "prohibited" has no meaning. The use of the passive voice does not make something a legal requirement.)
- kevindication 17y ago
  I don't think that's an example of passive voice.
dc2k08 17y ago
This legalese seems to be common: http://www.google.com/search?q=linking+to+this+website+without+written+permission+is+prohibited&pws=0&gl=US http://www.google.com/search?q=linking+to+this+website+witho...
- voidpointer 17y ago
  What are these people thinking? Some of them put language there like "please read these terms and conditions carefully before using this web site...". How detached from reality can you become? If they find themselves in a lawsuit and want to argue that the other party should have read the T&C. Wouldn't any court throw out that argument immediately because there is now way to expect a normal person to read some terms and conditions linked in a footer of a webpage before reading/using it?
  - pyre 17y ago
    It's a way to cover their asses. "We put it in the Terms & Conditions! It was just that stupid judge that wouldn't let us exercise them!"
gry 17y ago
Copyright 2003. It stands the test of time. :) And their design does too... http://web.archive.org/web/19970530212007/http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/19970530212007/http://www.berkshi...
- 9oliYQjP 17y ago
  Actually one of my pet peeves is that websites continually update their copyright notices. I've always felt that's not how copyright should work. If you update a website, the copyright should take effect when the content, say an article, was first published. Just because the page gets served up in 2009 doesn't mean you get to slap a copyright 2009 on there if the article is from 2003. Alas, I bet the lawyerly interpretation is that each downloaded HTML file is it's own licensed copy and perhaps copyright comes into being at the point of the successful HTTP request.
afiske 17y ago
Hmmm... at least the OP could say they didn't know about the policy. Your post, however...

by hop 17y ago

"linking to this website without written permission is prohibited." - http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/disclaimer.html http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/disclaimer.html

jrockway 17y ago

Reading this text without written permission is prohibited. (What I mean to say is that the word "prohibited" has no meaning. The use of the passive voice does not make something a legal requirement.)

kevindication 17y ago
I don't think that's an example of passive voice.

dc2k08 17y ago

This legalese seems to be common: http://www.google.com/search?q=linking+to+this+website+without+written+permission+is+prohibited&pws=0&gl=US http://www.google.com/search?q=linking+to+this+website+witho...

voidpointer 17y ago
What are these people thinking? Some of them put language there like "please read these terms and conditions carefully before using this web site...". How detached from reality can you become? If they find themselves in a lawsuit and want to argue that the other party should have read the T&C. Wouldn't any court throw out that argument immediately because there is now way to expect a normal person to read some terms and conditions linked in a footer of a webpage before reading/using it?
- pyre 17y ago
  It's a way to cover their asses. "We put it in the Terms & Conditions! It was just that stupid judge that wouldn't let us exercise them!"

gry 17y ago

Copyright 2003. It stands the test of time. :) And their design does too... http://web.archive.org/web/19970530212007/http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/19970530212007/http://www.berkshi...

9oliYQjP 17y ago
Actually one of my pet peeves is that websites continually update their copyright notices. I've always felt that's not how copyright should work. If you update a website, the copyright should take effect when the content, say an article, was first published. Just because the page gets served up in 2009 doesn't mean you get to slap a copyright 2009 on there if the article is from 2003. Alas, I bet the lawyerly interpretation is that each downloaded HTML file is it's own licensed copy and perhaps copyright comes into being at the point of the successful HTTP request.

afiske 17y ago

Hmmm... at least the OP could say they didn't know about the policy. Your post, however...