Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: patrickrobin.co.uk

Stories and comments across the archive that link to patrickrobin.co.uk.

Comments · 6

  1. Re:Maybe they should be investigated som more by Chiaro+Meratilo · · Score: 5, Informative · on MPAA Violates Another Software License

    If you see his latest post, here, you'd see the MPAA's response.

  2. Its sorta legit.... by Em+Ellel · · Score: 4, Interesting · on MPAA Violates Another Software License
    The article needs update

    short of it is:

    MPAA Response:

    The material has been removed from our Web server.

            * No Web links were ever provided to the blog.
            * The blog was never assigned a domain name.
            * The blog was never advertised to the public in any way.
            * The material on the server was a proof of concept awaiting approval to move into production.
            * The blog was only ever used for testing purposes.
            * Should we have decided to make the move to production, then we would have paid the 25 Pounds that would have authorized us to run a version of the blog without the logos and links.


  3. True, but not exactly true - follow up needed by Em+Ellel · · Score: 4, Informative · on MPAA Violates Another Software License

    After doing some similar research, I came to the conclusion it is either a clever marketing ploy by blog author, or more likely some hidden prototype site their web development team was using and as it was never linked from main page, it was never found by any spiders (yet referrers to authors site showed up in his logs, which is exactly how he found out about it), Turns out the latter is the case

    -Em

  4. Read the update as well by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Funny · on MPAA Violates Another Software License

    The material has been removed from our Web server.
    • No Web links were ever provided to the blog.
    • The blog was never assigned a domain name.
    • The blog was never advertised to the public in any way.
    • The material on the server was a proof of concept awaiting approval to move into production.
    • The blog was only ever used for testing purposes.
    • Should we have decided to make the move to production, then we would have paid the 25 Pounds that would have authorized us to run a version of the blog without the logos and links.

    ORLY? Note the lack of anything resembling an apology. Also, I must remember that defence when I get a P2P Tax demand from them: "Oh, sure, I copied your memebers' work, but only for testing purposes, and now that I've been caught, I can totally assure you that I intended to buy licensed versions."

  5. Update on his site by creativeHavoc · · Score: 5, Insightful · on MPAA Violates Another Software License

    http://www.patrickrobin.co.uk/default.asp?Display= 5 The MPAA claim that it was in use only privatly and they had no advertising. Good to know. If they ever come knocking, I will tell them I watched the movies and home and never sold them to anyone.

  6. Here's the MPAA response: by All_One_Mind · · Score: 5, Informative · on MPAA Violates Another Software License
    From the next blog post on the authors site:

    Well, I must say I'm surprised;to after getting no response to my previous emails to the MPAA about their use of Forest Blog at the tail end of last year I got a result within five hours this time, unless they were just replying to the original email?

    Anyway, thanks to Paul Egge and Richard Kroon the situation has now been resolved and they've removed Forest Blog from their web server.