Interesting. Lots of craziness here, but the plaintiff used a DCMA to strike the defendant’s videos because of “likeness”. Just for that, I’m pro-defendant, will be interesting to see what happens.
I was pro-defendant before the end of the first paragraph. Someone suing someone else for ‘stealing’ their ‘minimalist aesthetic’ deserves to lose and get a lesson from the ol’ clue by four.
Interesting. Lots of craziness here, but the plaintiff used a DCMA to strike the defendant’s videos because of “likeness”. Just for that, I’m pro-defendant, will be interesting to see what happens.
I was pro-defendant before the end of the first paragraph. Someone suing someone else for ‘stealing’ their ‘minimalist aesthetic’ deserves to lose and get a lesson from the ol’ clue by four.
Wait… Sounds like you are still pro-defendant?
Yes. “I was pro-defendant before the end of the first paragraph.” = “I agreed with this position before the end of the first section of words”
Without something to negate that statement, the statement’s meaning is exactly what it says.