How can they be threatened with legal action for sharing a link?
No total over 400 in 17 innings, the most sixes ever scored against you in an Ashes innings, the worst Ashes collapse in over 50 years, the second heaviest defeat in Ashes history...sometimes, the patterns are connected, unfortunately.
Not in the case of the link though, I don't think...it seems a lot more likely that a "polite request" has been made, EG "do it or we won't be as co-operative with you, which would be a shame given your new, neutral/neutered stance now, wouldn't it?".
Does anyone else find that when imagining Fisher speaking they hear the same voice as David Cameron?
Any way, we need a statement from the Trust to clear this up.
I dont believe that the trust have been threatened with legal action (although I wouldn't be surprised), however it would just be nice if they could just confirm that.
As has been seen with the way sisu run the club, if you dont give the people all the facts, you cant blame them when they fill the gaps in themselves.
The only law that comes to mind with a few seconds thought is the DCMA which is American and I think only the copyright holder or their agent can request a takedown. However I'm not a lawyer so there might be one.
I've had a few of those DCMA warnings on my blog.
Yep, I have had some too and it has only really been for copyright issues or content published on that site. Rather than links.
Well, on my blog I rip my own LPs and upload them to Mega, etc so the DCMA warnings I have had in the past have been the usual "cease and desist" thing, "collapse the link, copyright, blah blah blah". Odd really as the music I post is old and obscure.
Maybe it's more to do with your taste in music, mate!!! Only joking! Top of the LOLs!!!
Something isn't right
Was it the fact the Trust were emailing it out to people to say "look at this" and actively promoting it? Did the trust take anything from the article that possibly wasn't true and use it in a newsletter or anything?
Surely if the article is 100% factually correct SISU can't do anything can they?
I think it might be true, some of the people who have posted about it are in the trust.
what a pointless post, either say it or keep your mouth shut. Don't give it the usual "i know more than you" crap.Wish I could say what I know about this.
Surely if the article is 100% factually correct SISU can't do anything can they?
what a pointless post, either say it or keep your mouth shut. Don't give it the usual "i know more than you" crap.
That is if it is what has happened though. In the past when I have had dealings like that they have never really been that harsh or forceful, it has literally been the disgusting stuff that they have requested to be taken down and it has never been "do this or we will sue you". Unless things have changed now.
What is the user name they use Nick? :thinking about:
The real point is that the Trust operate in a complete knee jerk way with their communications, there is no planned campaign, just a spewing out of any random stuff that appears at face value to be interesting. The Conn article (like the Private Eye ones) is no more than a retelling of the situation for a non Coventry audience and adds nothing new to our understanding or debate.
aside from exposing the latest rent offer.
which has not been acknowledged by the club so how do you know its true?
It hasn't being denied either so it obviously is.
"obviously" ... sorry, of course I didnt realise facts were now optional depending on your predjudice.
"obviously" ... sorry, of course I didnt realise facts were now optional depending on your predjudice.
what a pointless post, either say it or keep your mouth shut. Don't give it the usual "i know more than you" crap.
Why would a indepandant reputable broadsheet publish a report about a failing lower division club and include the rent offer if it wasn't true? Doesn't it make you think that there may be something in it. And what wrong with the rest of the article frasing awarenss to our plight?
"obviously" ... sorry, of course I didnt realise facts were now optional depending on your predjudice.
So what has happened to the obligatory court threat or denial on the offal?
We got the denial that an offer wasn't made "directly" to them. This tells us it was made indirectly to them. And we also know that the offer was made through the FL.
TF – What does the Sky Blue Trust (SBT) statement of 2nd August mean? We beseech the football league not to give the golden share to Otium. Club comes first and always has. We had to save the club on 2nd August. As said before, the FL were prepared to have 71 teams for one year so we had to act and move the club to ensure that we could fulfil our fixtures. Indeed by making such irresponsible statements as that of 2nd August then the fans are being totally mislead. I am angry and sorry for Coventry fans. I travel by train where possible to try and speak to and engage with as many fans as I can. The fans in the SBT are lions led by donkeys. The SBT needs leadership.
SB – We cannot control the fans in the SBT – there are extreme factions. But we are making changes eg John Fletcher leaving
you forgot the quote marks
Something isn't right
Was it the fact the Trust were emailing it out to people to say "look at this" and actively promoting it? Did the trust take anything from the article that possibly wasn't true and use it in a newsletter or anything?
Surely if the article is 100% factually correct SISU can't do anything can they?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?