Timeline for Is it legal to post content from overclock.net, if it is against their TOS?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:04 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Dec 15, 2011 at 8:46 | comment | added | studiohack Mod | Thanks @JeffAtwood. | |
| Dec 15, 2011 at 1:24 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @EvanCarroll it's still fair use to quote parts of the content, but I agree in this case perhaps I quoted too much, and I'll fix it. | |
| Dec 15, 2011 at 0:17 | comment | added | studiohack Mod | @EvanCarroll SimonSheehan was correct to reject your edit, it is invalid and an incorrect attempt to take matters into your own hands. | |
| Dec 14, 2011 at 23:56 | comment | added | Simon Sheehan | @EvanCarroll You are specifically targeting Jeff Atwood at this point, looking at your choice of tags. You're taking this to an extreme, and its ridiculous. | |
| Dec 14, 2011 at 23:55 | comment | added | Evan Carroll | Giving credit to the authors is defense against allegations of plagiarism. It has nothing to do with piracy. When kids steal MP3s, do you think it becomes OK when they have the name of the act that performed them in the filename? And, because SuperUser.com has other pirates does not make it ok, nor does it mean we should ignore the issue. What is illegal, is illegal. Nemo est supra legis. | |
| Dec 14, 2011 at 23:53 | history | edited | Simon Sheehan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 75 characters in body
|
| Dec 14, 2011 at 23:53 | history | edited | slhck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added link to edit in question
|
| Dec 14, 2011 at 23:50 | history | answered | Simon Sheehan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |