Murr Rhame wrote, | You have no way of knowing if the email you got was | in fact from the author's representative. Could be a forgery. Yes, it was interesting that the check was to be made payable to the law firm, not to the author. As several people have said, service by email has no standing. In Jeff's position, after deleting the poem from my site (and any references and links to it on other pages on my site), I'd be sorely tempted to write back to the lawyers claiming no such thing was on my site and that someone must have misinformed them. (If it turns out that their cached copies of pages from my site include the poem, I'd say they edited it into them.) Not sure whether I'd go ahead and do that. More likely I'd delete it, read the riot act to whoever had posted it, and not respond to the attorneys.
- copyright law vs. mailing list archives Jeff Wasilko
- Re: copyright law vs. mailing list archives Cyndi Norman
- Re: copyright law vs. mailing list archives murr rhame
- Re: copyright law vs. mailing list archives Bernie Cosell
- Re: copyright law vs. mailing list archives John R Levine
- Re: copyright law vs. mailing list archives Bernie Cosell
- Re: copyright law vs. mailing list archives Chuq Von Rospach
- Re: copyright law vs. mailing list archives David W. Tamkin
- Re: copyright law vs. mailing list archives John R Levine
- Re: copyright law vs. mailing list archives Bernie Cosell
- Re: copyright law vs. mailing list archives Bernie Cosell
- Re: copyright law vs. mailing list archives Jack Teems
- Copyright law vs. mailing list archives David W. Vaughan
- Copyright law vs. mailing list archives Mike Nolan
- Re: Copyright law vs. mailing list archives Berg
- Copyright FAQ's murr rhame
