Difference between revisions of "Sysop talk:Talk/Archive 1"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Rob Pommer (talk | contribs) (New page: Aschlafly spake thusly:'''I don't think this is the first time anyone has thought of this. I would expect Google's search engines to recognize this scam and filter it f...) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Given that the [[Conservapedia:Copyright| copyright]] is as it is, the offensive redirect may not violate anything? They are not using the name '''Conservapedia''' at all, no?--[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]</sub> 00:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT) | :Given that the [[Conservapedia:Copyright| copyright]] is as it is, the offensive redirect may not violate anything? They are not using the name '''Conservapedia''' at all, no?--[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]</sub> 00:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: Oh, I thought they were, but maybe I'm mistaken.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:11, 16 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 05:11, April 16, 2007
Aschlafly spake thusly:I don't think this is the first time anyone has thought of this. I would expect Google's search engines to recognize this scam and filter it fairly soon. But if not, the perpetrators are using our name without our permission and I think that violates our intellectual property. We'll have them explain themselves to a judge if they want to persist in this. Also, we can tell their ISP and it will stop intellectual property violations that use its machines. -- 19:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
- Given that the copyright is as it is, the offensive redirect may not violate anything? They are not using the name Conservapedia at all, no?-- Rob Pommertalk 00:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- Oh, I thought they were, but maybe I'm mistaken.--Aschlafly 01:11, 16 April 2007 (EDT)