|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6409
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 18:44:00 -
[1] - Quote
you do not need the ownership of the IP, you need a non-revocable licence to the IP
you need better lawyers Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6417
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 18:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
incidentally you probably don't actually own the copyright to any user-submitted logos under american copyright law because you didn't get a signed instrument of conveyance, note or memorandum of the transfer signed by the current copyright holder under 17 usc 204(a)
stuff created in-game, you can probably swing under the eula: logos created outside the game and submitted, nope
fortunately for you i believe a failed attempt to transfer a copyright (like your eula) gives you instead the non-revocable royalty-free unlimited licence to do whatever you choose with it that you actually need Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6419
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 19:13:00 -
[3] - Quote
oh i see what you did there:
Quote:3.3. Licensee shall not: 3.3.1. challenge the validity of CCPGÇÖs rights to the Licensed Property or CCP Marks or any registration thereof; 3.3.2. contest the fact that its rights under this Agreement are solely those of a licensee; 3.3.3. attempt to register the Licensed Property or any of the CCP Marks absent of or contrary to direction from CCP; 3.3.4. use the Licensed Property or CCP Marks in any manner that would jeopardize CCPGÇÖs rights therein; or 3.3.5. knowingly do any act that would invalidate or be likely to invalidate the CCPGÇÖs copyright and/or trademark registrations.
your lawyers know your attempt to assert the eula transfers copyright is bunk so you basically make people promise they will not point out the emperor has no clothes
basically "sure we don't own it, but you agree you won't point that out to the court"
that actually might be enforceable, but your licence is clearly a trojan horse to cover up the faulty transfer of copyright to ccp and get 3.3.3.1 in there and not a friendly sure you guys can use your own alliance logo
i retract my comment you need better lawyers that's pretty cunning Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6421
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 19:18:00 -
[4] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote: That wouldn't hold up either, for the same reason the original version wouldn't.
They'd have no legal recourse. The most threatening thing CCP could would be to remove your logo from EVE.
it probably would
i can agree not to raise valid defenses or valid claims by contract, so if i doodle an alliance logo and submit it to ccp, i still own it but I've contractually agreed not to ever file a lawsuit on that basis or raise it as a defense if ccp sues me
also you contractually agree to sign any document they shove at you to get the mark registered in their name:
Quote:3.4. CCP shall be responsible for copyright and trademark registration and maintenance. Licensee shall cooperate with CCP and shall execute any documents reasonably required by CCP or supply CCP with any samples or other materials reasonably necessary to maintain the Licensed Property. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6421
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 19:24:00 -
[5] - Quote
so really the question is what CCP is going to do when existing copyright owners of alliance logos decline this kind offer:
Quote:Over time, we will be offering our existing Alliances the new license. We believe this will help with any inadvertent or accidental restrictions on the sale of Alliance products, and avoid any disruption to funding server and other GÇ£real worldGÇ¥ costs of maintaining your Alliance.
since it's the existing logos they need to get their mitts on
no alliance should accept that licence because it's signing away a lot of rights for absolutely nothing: ccp can compel new alliances to agree to it as a condition of being added to the game, but that doesn't cover the logos of every current alliance so they'll have to find some tricksy way to get existing alliances to sign onto it, probably by adding something where you automatically agree to it by performing some routine task and you don't read the fine print Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6424
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 19:36:00 -
[6] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:I highly doubt CCP would ever let it escalate that far, it would be horrible for publicity and they would lose anyways.
You could still sue, and if CCP pointed to the lines where it said you "agreed not to" the judge would laugh.
It's kind of like per-marital agreements. They almost never hold up in court.
Copyright law trumps cute statements in EULA. this post has no relationship to reality and nobody should assume that this is an accurate statement of the law anywhere in the world Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6424
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 19:43:00 -
[7] - Quote
Klyith wrote:[How does that work for third parties then? the contract wouldn't bind third parties and they'd be able to point out ccp didn't actually own the ip if sued
but there would be no parties who would be able to sue ccp (presuming they got the holder of the copyright tagged with that licence) or anyone CCP licenced the IP to for money and that's what they're worried about, not so much going on the offensive Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6424
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 19:57:00 -
[8] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Weaselior wrote:Klyith wrote:[How does that work for third parties then? the contract wouldn't bind third parties and they'd be able to point out ccp didn't actually own the ip if sued but there would be no parties who would be able to sue ccp (presuming they got the holder of the copyright tagged with that licence) or anyone CCP licenced the IP to for money and that's what they're worried about, not so much going on the offensive What are you talking about? That is exactly what happened in the last few months. CCP sent a cease and desist to a company producing alliance logo material without a licence. This new agreement does nothing to change that. The third party printer and distributor needs a licence. cafepress doesn't give a **** what the actual legal rights are they just don't want to get sued, so ccp sent them a cease and desist letter regarding CCP's IP (stuff like the eve logo and such) and cafepress just pulled everything to be on the safe side to make ccp go away so they didn't have to pay lawyers. this is ccp's reaction to that - they didn't intend to make cafepress pull the alliance logo stuff, but don't want to admit they don't own the IP for the alliance logos
the actual owner of the alliance logos (whoever created it) had the full power to licence cafepress to make stuff with the logo on it, but cafepress doesn't care about who is legally in the right: they just want to not spend money on lawyers Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6424
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 20:05:00 -
[9] - Quote
Nairb Hig wrote:Weaselior wrote: i can agree not to raise valid defenses or valid claims by contract, so if i doodle an alliance logo and submit it to ccp, i still own it but I've contractually agreed not to ever file a lawsuit on that basis or raise it as a defense if ccp sues me
Would an EULA as one sided as this one really be upheld in court? Sure you can sign away material rights but at some point the court steps in to state that the contract is unconscionable. Being able to effectuate a transfer of rights without registering the assignment seems like something a court would be very reluctant to allow as enforceable. you can raise the argument the licence terms themselves are unenforcable yes and courts will sometimes void portions of contracts as against public policy
that's certainly a possibility but it's probably an expensive one to raise because you're going to have to litigate it, and way more expensive than your previous option, pointing out ccp could not have obtained the IP and asking for summary judgment, and that means you're going to be much more likely to knuckle under and settle even if the court will later rule in your favor that those provisions of the licencing agreement are unenforcable Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6424
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 20:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Portraying logos in fiction (for instance - EVE Online) is not considered infringement.
For example, Alice creates a logo, and a group.
Bob takes this logo and uploads it to EVE Online.
Bob is now in violation of the EULA between him and CCP (he did not have the rights to transfer ownership to CCP). Alice does not care about the relationship between Bob and CCP.
Alice is aware that her logo is portrayed within the fiction of EVE Online, and considers that fair use.
If CCP were to start monetizing the logo Bob uploaded (by say - selling a T-shirt with the logo on it), Alice would now be in a position to sue CCP. Bob might also have legal troubles with perhaps both CCP and Alice. i repeat once again this has no relationship with reality and anything pinky hops says about the law should never be considered to have any connection with any real law except through sheer luck
(example: if bob creates Official Coca-Cola Alliance in eve online with the coca-cola logo and CCP adds it to the game they will get the bejesus sued out of them if they don't take it out the instant Coke contacts them demanding its removal. ccp will hold Bob liable under the terms of the licence agreement because he indemnified CCP, but he's pinky hops and is poor as dirt so CCP is out the money and pinky bob remains poor as dirt, with a little less dirt and ccp may not even bother) Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6424
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 20:18:00 -
[11] - Quote
Zappity wrote: I'm not interested in an argument about ownership. The only way that can be resolved is through an expensive suit which I doubt will happen. The fact that YOU disagree with CCP's statement of ownership does nothing to limit a third party's exposure to CCP.
So the issue is ensuring that third parties are comfortable with the licence arrangements and will produce stuff for us. The current licence does not allow that.
I don't care what you're interested in, I care what's correct and that's what I was explaining. I am correct, at least with respect to American law and your initial post was wrong.
The point you're making now is however correct, in that litigation costs matter, and that's precisely what the post of mine you're quoting discusses. One of the significant problems with IP law currently is the extreme expense of asserting your rights in some cases (which ironically is probably the reason CCP's lawyers are getting so grabby). Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6424
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 20:27:00 -
[12] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote: ...This is a contortion of the original argument.
It's just suggesting Alice might be in a position to sue immediately - but she doesn't need to because it can legally be considered fair use.
...For much the same reason making a fictional movie and having the Coca-Cola logo come up inside it is fair use.
as everyone probably has figured out by now: under no circumstances should you rely on pinky's idea of what fair use is Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6424
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 20:32:00 -
[13] - Quote
Don Aubaris wrote: It would be alot nicer to read : "CCP will not use uploaded Alliance logos for any out-of-game purpose without consent of the Alliance directors or the uploader when the Alliance no longer exists. If those Alliance logos will be used for commercial reasons the Alliance or creator will recieve a payment of a number of PLEX in accordance with CCP's reward-scheme"
Tthe reward scheme to be thought out upfront ofc.
Or something like that. I must say that this reminds me alot of the ingame-store launch...Some wild ideas and then greed, greed, greed. I suppose the massive upload of black squares can begin?
that's dumb and what ccp should be asking for (the non-revocable royalty free licence to make derivative works re-licence etc etc, basically everything ownership entails except the ability to restrict the actual owner) is legit and they probably have that already as a result of their failed attempt to get ownership through the logo submission process, there's no problem with CCP wanting to be able to make an eve movie or comic book about the actually interesting parts of eve (the player empires) without having to go through a legal morass or paying people
it's just the actual attempted grab of the IP that is the problem because they're suddenly trying to restrict what the alliances can do with their logos, not just giving ccp free reign to create their own stuff Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6425
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 20:37:00 -
[14] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:And this is just one of several pieces that could easily be adapted to the Alice/Bob scenario. this should be self-evident to everyone who read the quote and noted how narrow the decision was (and that it clearly doesn't apply to any of pinky's examples) but under no circumstances should you rely on pinky's interpretation of that principle Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6425
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 20:38:00 -
[15] - Quote
Darius JOHNSON wrote: We went so far as to incorporate in order to have a place to store funds for legal issues and such. Solo can say with certainty but I'm quite certain that's the owner of the license here. I thought we exclusively owned the original artwork but I could be wrong.
M87 was the creator of the logo iirc.
i wasn't around at the time but I assume the licence to fatbee included the right to create derivative works, and by adding the hat and cigar we made a derivative work (the goonswarm fatbee) to which goonswarm inc. holds the copyright Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6425
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 20:53:00 -
[16] - Quote
Darius JOHNSON wrote:Except that CCP here is claiming ownership of the Goonswarm logo, which they absolutely do NOT have, therefore we need their PERMISSION to sell our own shirts. (in magical CCP land where making a post on a forum insisting you own something that you don't makes it yours) well you'd have to check exactly what the terms were when the logo was submitted the first and second time and i suspect nobody paid great attention to the fine print there
but even if it said ccp owned fatbee in that fine print it didn't work Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6428
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 20:59:00 -
[17] - Quote
i am starting to discover a love for my new favorite ccpism, the Clarification(TM) Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6429
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 21:33:00 -
[18] - Quote
Zappity wrote: Uh huh. So why did the company cease and desist when they received the cease and desist? This is not a metaphysical discussion about rights but a discussion about how to enable production and distribution in the real world.
It was absolutely a "metaphysical discussion about rights" that you jumped into the middle of. Next time be more careful about distinguishing between a discussion of legal rights, and the application in the real world (both were occuring) and we won't need to waste time clarifying the discussion for you. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6431
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 21:48:00 -
[19] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Right, so what about third party rights as per my first post? The response has so far been 'they don't need rights because we own it anyway' which is not useful. the question you're asking in this post is not the question you're interested in per your other posts
the answer to the question you're asking in your other posts is that the reality is a cafepress or any other third party will desist any time they get a C&D regardless of its legal merit because your tshirt business is not worth the effort and expense of dealing with even an obviously meritless C&D Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6432
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 22:04:00 -
[20] - Quote
interestingly the licence agreement doesn't purport to give you the right to use (your own) IP out of game for things like your alliance's website or killboard, just the merch
so you'd have to ask nicely to have your own logo on your own killboard or internal forums Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6432
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 22:18:00 -
[21] - Quote
Darius JOHNSON wrote: No need. CCP is the one who would need to defend it by asserting their rights to someone else's property. Best of luck to them in that regard.
:edit: There are so many things that make that paragraph completely unenforceable it's pretty hilariously dumb. There are rights you just can't give up. What if I upload a coke logo? What if I use my real name? What if I send a friend a file? They cannot blanket lay claim to other's property merely because it passed through their servers. If that were the case you'd see this paragraph in the EULA of every ISP on the planet and they'd own everything.
This paragraph is just plainly dumb.
the coke thing isn't a problem because the clause only purports to have you assign rights you have
your name isn't a problem because you don't have an intellectual property right in your name
as for sending a friend a file, or things you type, it's covered in the next paragraph under "user content" where you just grant them a licence to the ascii **** you posted in local instead of the copyright
Darius JOHNSON wrote: :edit2: As is the idea that if you can't assign the rights you somehow have the power to grant a license instead. UGH MY HEAD IS BREAKING FROM THIS
that is true though: you can't convey IP by the EULA because it violates laws on requiring a writing to transfer ip, but there's no similar requirement for a licence
it's not you have no power to convey the copyright if you jump through the right legal hoops, it's that the EULA's attempt to do so fails Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6434
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 22:31:00 -
[22] - Quote
Darius JOHNSON wrote: You can't arbitrarily decide I've granted you a license merely by virtue of data passing through your server though is what I'm getting at. That was written before I saw the license grant.
Basically what they're saying is that if Paul Mcartney sends his buddy in eve a copy of an MP3 file of the most famous Beetles song he still owns CCP has a license to use that forever however they like or it becomes theirs since he owns it. That's how flat out stupid this paragraph is.
the issue they're trying to avoid is anyone making IP claims because they released a video of gameplay with "goonswarm" in the name or something like that, or a screenshot of a tcu with rotating fatbee
for the user-generated content part, same thing, really, it's trying to avoid even the hint of a lawsuit. all of these clauses are probably standard eula boilerplate added by lawyers who are thinking nobody ever got fired or sued for malpractice by having the eula too broad
but there's simply no good reason for trying to grab the actual ownership right instead of the licencing right that's everything ownership has except the ability to prevent the owner from doing things Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6436
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 22:40:00 -
[23] - Quote
to be honest the EULA clauses don't bother me. the attempt to grab ownership simply fails and the rest of the stuff is reasonable for ccp's protection from IP litigation
the licencing agreement though, nobody should ever sign that, that's a hilariously viciously stacked contract that goes out of its way to **** you as hard as it can and really tries to scrape of every possible legal right you could have to use your own alliance's logo instead of just protecting CCP from malicious IP claims Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6443
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 23:27:00 -
[24] - Quote
Logix42 wrote:Is there an international copyright law? or does CCP have to abide by Icelandic copyright law? or by the users' home country's copyright law?
Also, what about Legal stuff in general that we have to abide by for EVE? what country's laws are we following? i'm actually a little fuzzy on this point but I don't believe a copyright I hold under US law can be transferred in violation of US law by icelandic contracts even if those can transfer an icelandic copyright and I believe icelandic law doesn't purport to govern foreign copyrights
so i'm pretty sure that they're governed by the law of the country it was created in Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6443
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 23:59:00 -
[25] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Darius JOHNSON wrote:CCP has no ownership stake. Posts on forums aren't valid transfers of ownership. Registration with copyright offices is defining ownership. CCP is not a position to sublicense anything. This is clearly not true. You agreed to the contract when you uploaded the graphic or accepted the EULA. Of course ownership and licences can be transferred by contract. We do it all the time. 17 usc 204(a), wrong
us law places specific restrictions on what constitutes a valid transfer of a us copyright, specifically to discourage situations like this Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6502
|
Posted - 2014.02.14 15:39:00 -
[26] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote: This is part of why we need to have ownership of the logos. Our legal team are currently reading over this thread, and will be giving some responses as soon as possible.
No it's not (and you don't have legal ownership of the logos, except the rare few created under copyright regimes without a requirement for a signed writing to transfer the copyright and/or trademark): non-revocable licences that are everything ownership is except the ability to stop the owner from doing things are a thing and that's what you actually need. Trying to get ownership is just being grabby (mostly because your legal team probably figures no lawyer ever got fired or in trouble for getting their client too much).
The licence in the EULA that it gets you when your attempt to grab ownership is what you actually need for the sort of defense against IP litigation you're looking for. The only distinction between that and ownership for CCP is ownership gives you the ability to try to block alliances from using their own logo as they see fit, which is completely unnecessary if CCP's interest here is defensive instead of offensive. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6502
|
Posted - 2014.02.14 16:29:00 -
[27] - Quote
ZergRushJohnny wrote:I'm amazed at how many lawyers are in Eve Online! I had no idea it was the majority of the player base! who would have thought a game best known for its byzantine mechanics that require years to learn fully and that really rewards sociopathy would get a disproportionate number of lawyers Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6507
|
Posted - 2014.02.14 18:40:00 -
[28] - Quote
Xindi Kraid wrote:You're right I don't know who is a lawyer, but I can be sure most of the people who post on these forums aren't, but are just blowing smoke out their ass. In fact one of the people I was referring to specifically state they weren't a lawyer, and I wasn't referring to your posts at all, and, again the posts I was referring to don't mention internationally recognized, just "Well I don't really know legalese but this one paragraph in my one country seems legit"
You could just read what I posted before stepping up to stroke your own self importance. If you wanna get mad why don't you get mad at ALL the ignorant posts. you are dumb because icelandic copyright law covers only copyrights created under icelandic law (e.g. in iceland), while copyrights created under US or UK or german law are covered by the laws of those nations, and you did exactly what you're claiming others did (knew nothing about the actual subject and just picked a random line and ran with it)
everyone else was right and you were wrong so you should go back into your shame hole and never emerge again Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6526
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 11:11:00 -
[29] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: unnecessary
read the blog the blog is wrong, idiot Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7046
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 13:20:00 -
[30] - Quote
remind your lawyers that plagiarism in the law is not only allowed, it is encouraged and usually the right answer: you should not be paying your lawyers by the hour to hem and haw over what legal terms you should be using when the correct answer is to just plagiarize one of the bazillion user agreements that do this properly Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
|
|
|
|