Rwingett, Cribs, Nemesio and No1 ......

Originally posted by pcaspian


As RHP actually hosts his information, should they do nothing to protect a users intelectual property, indeed they can be liable.

This is nonsense. Read the ToS. RHP has no such obligation.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
One man's tough is another man's amusement. I'd stick around if I could.

Sure you are amusing yourself. As usual at the expense of others, just like in the good old pre-ban times, Cribs. You were a shit stirrer then and you still are one now.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If Ivanhoe believes his little tantrum is "intellectual property" (I would say it's neither; nevermind both), he can take the following steps according to the TOS:

If you believe that your work has been copied in a way that ...[text shortened]... e been on this "banning" kick for a few days. Hop to it, Ratboy!

I hate to tell you, no1, but your analysis only applies to copyrighted material ripped from somewhere else and posted into the RHP forums, not the other way around.

RHP has no obligation to protect Ivanhoe's material that he creates here.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I hate to tell you, no1, but your analysis only applies to copyrighted material ripped from somewhere else and posted into the RHP forums, not the other way around.

RHP has no obligation to protect Ivanhoe's material that he creates here.

Well it doesn't specifically say that, but that's because material posted here is not copyrighted or intellectual property. But if Ivanhoe and his attorney Pcaspian want to make such an absurd claim, that's the procedure they would have to follow. Know what I'm saying?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Well it doesn't specifically say that

But it does:

"A description of where the material that you claim is infringing [not infringed] is located on the site; "

The procedure they would have to follow would be a similar one, but directed toward the FW administrator, who would likely ignore it or post it for public ridicule.

The portion of the ToS that you cited could have been duly invoked during the Exposure incident, when Ivanhoe posted material from FW here without the permission of those FW users.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
But it does:

"A description of where the material that you claim is infringing [not infringed] is located on the site; "

The procedure they would have to follow would be a similar one, but directed toward the FW administrator, who would likely ignore it or post it for public ridicule.

The portion of the ToS that you cited cou ...[text shortened]... incident, when Ivanhoe posted material from FW here without the permission of those FW users.

HMMMM, missed that. Perhaps he can include his claim of "infringment on the intellectual property of my tantrum and/or raving" in with his request for mass bannings in his PM to Russ.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Perhaps he can include his claim of "infringment on the intellectual property of my tantrum and/or raving" in with his request for mass bannings in his PM to Russ.

He may as well.

Originally posted by Darfius
I just had my world turned upside down.

You should use your own judgment to evaluate those claims before accepting them as truths.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You should use your own judgment to evaluate those claims before accepting them as truths.

If pcaspian said it, then it's good enough for me. I don't even have do to a google search.