The logo is a far cry from the content or even the directory structure. Additionally, they can claim anything they like. That doesn't mean a court will uphold their claims.
Spot on, anyone can claim copyright, ODP do, anyone can ignore that copyright until if/when AOL take someone to court. Before that anyone can use anything they like without any attribution, but they just might be the test case that AOL chose to establish copyright or not. So go one use it, ignore the copyright, just hope you are not faced with some legal bills to fight AOL.
Even if AOL lawyers are known for not being the smartest of the bunch, they can not be soooooo stupid to believe that they will have a chance in hell to win a copyright case for a group of non original short texts by unknown writers or a copied category structure.
How can it be corrupt not to uphold something that doesn't exist? It is quite obvious that you have nothing to say about the subject which just confirms my point that there is no copyright.
Cool. Now that I have definitive legal opinion on intellectual properties from one webmaster and one shrink, all I need is a clinical blood analysis by a supermarket clerk and a stock prediction from a homeless guy and I win the scavenger hunt. Darn helpful of you guys.
Soooo...what you are saying here is that he is right in his assessment and that a clown knows the law as well as any webmaster. Or was that clown bit only a prerequisite of stock prediction? According to your replies to me a book of quotes is not protected, so it's no wonder you think that clowns are a good judge of laws. Now go on, give me your "You don't know what you are talking about little girl" reply...but after that get someone that actually understands the law to give a reply in the thread (and I'm not talking about Clowns). Till then its your logic against everyone else's, and your stock reply is really doing little more then increasing your post count.
Do you feel neglected again because you are not involved in discussions? I have links in my different posts to government web sites about copyright laws, how about you click on it, read it and when you actually HAVE an opinion about these questions then we can discuss it.
See, told ya you'd say it... We can not discuss it until you actually acknowledge the points brought up rather then just saying you have. You see in order to have a discussion there needs to be two sides, and for the better part, you posted a link, and then have referred to it in nearly every post after it without once talking about the points brought up in those posts. So I guess, just carry on *shrug* Its obvious you are not here to discuss, but to troll and flame. If you are not, then feel free to scroll back and start actually discussing things rather then going as you have.
Your posts truly speak for themselves... And as you MUST be correct in your assessment of whether or not DMOZ can claim any type of copyright, I'll assume your lack of answering me is a NO when I ask about whether or not a book of quotes can be copyrighted...as they are both basically the same thing... a collection of names and short phrases. I'll be sure to let all the publishers know that they don't know what they are talking about in the first few pages of all of their books that claim such false copyrights. Thank you for bringing this to all of our attentions. I am sure that the world is a better place by you merely being born. And I know I for one am just awe struck by your brilliance within this thread of threads which quotes bits of the copyright laws to back up your claims. It is just simply astounding! Again, your posts have spoken volumes
Please just run along and pretend to be some kind of ex-editor DMOZ statesman that is trying to bring DMOZ and the webmaster community together because of your vast experience in these questions as a result of being editor for couple of days and 5 edits somewhere else. I am not buying it but I wish you the best of luck in your new role as DMOZ expert where every time people ask you why their site is not listed, you can reword DMOZ text and post it.
Again you have opted at personal jabs rather then actually discussing the topic at hand. And again, you have neglected anything I've said that was on topic to the thread... So again, your posts speak volumes.
If anytime in near future you actually have anything to say, I promise you that I will not neglect it, so far I have seen none.
You have failed to show how a book of quotes can be copyrighted (which is nothing more then a list of names and short phrases), but DMOZ can not get copyrighted (which is little more then a list of names and short phrases). In fact, in the last several posts I've brought it up several times and each time you've opted to completely ignore the fact that if one can have a copyright, then the other should as well. In fact, you keep saying I'm not saying anything, but what you are neglecting to tell people is that if you actually reply to one of my posts about this that you'll have to admit that you are wrong. Or you can just say I am clueless again and hope that the others reading the thread will believe you.