Thanks for posting, Cory.
As previously mentioned, @doctorow and @waxpancake have been at the center of some very enlightening conversations about the complex nuances of this case.
That said, I reiterate my humble request that Doctorow’s original posting be updated or amended to reflect the fact that the BBoys did not send a copyright threat. Cory’s endorsement of Andy’s post seems to accede that - as it’s the first myth that Andy rebuts. I admit that we won’t know whether Cory’s initial framing is correct until we all see what correspondence the BBoys might have sent to GB prior to GB’s filing for declaratory relief (surely, they might have sent a chilling effects letter, and I will join in shaming them for it). But, until that is proven, I believe it’s right to amend the initial report to reflect recent events. Because SEO. Because it’s a more accurate version of the public record. And because there’s already enough confusion about this complex case circulating the web that we don’t need more heat than light shared. Again, paging the managing editor, @beschizza, in this regard.
(if it matters, I think my record of postings prove that I’m both a huge beastie boys nerd and am inclined to believe that the law doesn’t support their laudable moral anti-ad position on this matter).
