You are here


4 posts / 0 new
Last post



Dear Web Host,

This is to notify you that the website at the below listed URL(s), hosted by Online (“the Unauthorized Site”), infringes upon the intellectual property rights of Thomson Reuters (“Thomson Reuters”). We request that the site be immediately disabled and hosting terminated.

The Unauthorized Site infringes copyrights and trademark rights held by Thomson Reuters in its site located at The Unauthorized Site is not authorized by the copyright or intellectual property right owner, Thomson Reuters its agents, or the law.

I have a good faith belief that use of the trademark(s) described above in connection with the domain and URL(s) described above is not authorized by the trademark owner, and such use is not otherwise permissible under applicable law.

Under penalty of perjury, I hereby declare that this Notice is accurate and that I am authorized to act on behalf of Thomson Reuters.

Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this notice or need any additional information in order to disable the content and terminate hosting.


Jeff Patrias
Vice President, Brand Protection and Marketing Operations
Thomson Reuters Trademark Enforcement

Ignorance Arrogance and Power make a nasty combination

This was sent to the company which hosts, despite my compliance with their earlier takedown request. This Jeff Patrias clown was looking at a page with nothing more than an incomplete list of contents of "blacks-law-dictionary-9th-edition" and calling that a copyright violation. Not even a link to a bittorrent file, just a list. Under his definition, Google would be guilty of millions of copyright violations. Millions.

Isn't it creepy how there are people out there who would copyright a dictionary of THE LAW, and then aggressively enforce it to the point of absurdity? Yes, I know, the subject of the takedown request is legitimate because a dictionary of the law is not the law itself, so that's why I honoured their request the first time. Still, it strikes me as odd that the people who seem to be the most aggressive about copyright also seem to be the slimiest. These aren't people who want to make the world a better place.

There are plenty of creeps who put up pay walls around public property like case law, research papers, government statistics, etc. Most of these walls are designed to extract as much money as they can. Statistics Canada for instance, won't even let you look at their data sets unless you pay an annual subscription fee of thousands of dollars. This is data the public paid for, but only corporations can afford to look at.

We're letting them get away with this. Disgusting!


shitty approach to try to piss off the host with regards to us...
I hope his next shit is a porcupine...backwards.. the dog wanking fuckstick

and this...

is what a dog wanking fuckstick looks like.....

in case you were wondering LOL

Log in to post comments