What's fascinating to me is comparing the impression you get from the lawyers letter (wow, they really ripped off the warby parker website!) with the response (we're using off the shelf privacy policy, and industry terms.)
It shows just how deceptive selective phrasing can be. "Substantially identical" implies that the text was a copy of copyrighted material, but the selectivity is the bias- they never show that the text was copyrighted or copyrightable, for instance.
You see this a lot when people want to spin something and they are very careful about what they say to give a false impression. I can think of lots of examples, but probably the best is every evenings nightly news. Whatever the story they are covering, political or not, they are putting spin on it. Even if the spin is just to heighten ratings or make the station itself look prestigious, its always there. Yet people live in a perception of reality where they think this is objective information, many times.
Imagine if that lawyers letter had been a blog post about how some YC startups website was ripped off? (much like the complaint 37 signals had about being ripped off...) that article would be the top post, and the rebuttals would be spread out thru the comments, and missed by most people.
From what I can see it says "substantially similar" not "substantially identical."[1] I am not a lawyer but it is my understanding that the relevant issue is "substantially similar."[2]
What do you mean "they never show that the text was copyrighted"? Do you know what is required to copyright content? There is no office where you file a copyright application. Using a (c) and/or other types of copyright notices is optional in a post-Berne American court.
[1] Is there a way to download the pdf of an embedded scribd asset? Reading the document is painful...
>There is no office where you file a copyright application. Using a (c) and/or other types of copyright notices is optional in a post-Berne American court.
Copyright is given de facto, but there is in fact an office where you file for a registered copyright.
In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration...[1]
The office in question is the US Copyright office. Registering gives you benefits such as damages and attorney's fees in the event of a court action.
True. I apologize for coming off like a jerk. I should have provided more context, i was trying to highlight that contrary to what the OP wrote that is was irrelevant "they never show that the text was copyrighted."
I didn't disagree with the, "they never show that the text was copyrighted." But I did think it reasonable to point out that there is--in fact--a place to register your works for a registered copyright. You don't have to, but it does give you nice benefits.
I think it might just be bad wording. One of the requirements of notification for copyright infringement is to identify the specific instances of infringement.
It also needs to be your creative work. I can't cut-n-paste a few paragraphs from Wikipedia (or some public domain text) onto my site, then claim you're infringing my copyright if your site has the same, or "substantially similar" words. (Though I _can_ get my lawyer to write you a carefully worded accusation of having something "substantially similar" without quite going over the line into fraudulently claiming copyright on the words in question).
I'm not really sure what this means? The lawyer's letter was a list of allegations. Maybe you are not used to the writing style of legal documents? This is how they are written...
1) The original comment you replied to noted that the lawyers making the allegations did not show that the text was copyrightable. This is a reference to the article pointing out that some of the text in question consists of mere statements of fact.
2) You replied with a sarcastic rhetorical question about whether the commentor knew what was required to be protected by copyright.
3) I replied to you that the content can't be mere statement of fact. This is the relevant characteristic in determining whether that content could be protected by copyright, not whether it was registered with the copyright office.
4) You got confused and started talking about the style of legal letters.
It shows just how deceptive selective phrasing can be. "Substantially identical" implies that the text was a copy of copyrighted material, but the selectivity is the bias- they never show that the text was copyrighted or copyrightable, for instance.
You see this a lot when people want to spin something and they are very careful about what they say to give a false impression. I can think of lots of examples, but probably the best is every evenings nightly news. Whatever the story they are covering, political or not, they are putting spin on it. Even if the spin is just to heighten ratings or make the station itself look prestigious, its always there. Yet people live in a perception of reality where they think this is objective information, many times.
Imagine if that lawyers letter had been a blog post about how some YC startups website was ripped off? (much like the complaint 37 signals had about being ripped off...) that article would be the top post, and the rebuttals would be spread out thru the comments, and missed by most people.