Tabberone's Hall of Shame - Indie Critics Page 1

Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!

Tabberone Logo

The latest Hartsel weather.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Edmund Burke

Tabberone.com does not accept any advertising or contributions nor does Tabberone.com use cookies of any type.
It is our aim to have web pages load quickly and cleanly so the layout is kept simple.

Page added -November 15, 2017

Indie Law Fabric Crash Course Critics Page 1

Needless to say, shortly after the following exchanges the threads were deleted by Indie Law and Joey Vitale.

This screen shot is from September 25, 2017. Joey Vitale's response to "Jeo No" was dismissive and we consider it to be highly questionable.
"We have consulted with attorneys and business owners..." How many attorneys and what were their area of expertise? And why business owners? What was their legal background?
"We know of no U. S. Supreme Court case that addresses this issue head-on." Which issue as you are off-base on many issues. Let us address your advice that if the wording on the selvedge of fabric says, "For non-commercial home use only", or some variation of that restriction, it cannot be used to make something to sell. WRONG. That notice is not legally binding on the purchaser. It is established law.
U. S. Supreme Court in Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, (1908), in affirming a court of appeals decision, stated:
[page 350]
In this case the stipulated facts show that the books sold by the appellant were sold at wholesale, and purchased by those who made no agreement as to the control of future sales of the book, and took upon themselves no obligation to enforce the notice printed in the book, undertaking to restrict retail sales to a price of $1 per copy.
[page 350]
In our view the copyright statutes, while protecting the owner of the copyright in his right to multiply and sell his production, do not create the right to impose, by notice, such as is disclosed in this case, a limitation at which the book shall be sold at retail by future purchasers, with whom there is no privity of contract. This conclusion is reached in view of the language of the statute, read in the light of its main purpose.
There has been no need for further litigation on this issue as it was firmly established in 1908. And while the case was about a book being resold, the decision addressed the rights of a copyright owner, not the rights of a book seller.

Click here for page 2 to see and read further exchanges
Click here to read the Supreme Court decision, Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus.
Click here to return to Indie Law main page.

Rebuttals
In an effort to provide a balanced view, we make the following offer to anyone who feels they have been wrongly accused on this web site.
If you, or your company, have been referenced on these pages, and you would like the chance to post a rebuttal, we will post your rebuttal (provided it is in good taste) so others can read it. The rebuttal must be submitted in a format that can easily be converted into HTML. We reserve the right to alter the rebuttal to make it more readable. However, we will not alter the content (unless there is offensive material to be removed). We also reserve the right to comment on any rebuttal received. Emails protesting the content of this web site may be treated as rebuttals by us at our discretion.

---->