Oh, probably. I guess my point was less “think of the poor lawyers” and more “upper management does not get to deny knowledge of this because it was probably done at their behest”.
10 Likes
Flipping them.
6 Likes
“freedom from traffic” ?
1 Like
‘We’re sorry you called out our laughable little bluff; let’s now pretend we’re all cool, nothing happened and wave it off together, yeah?’
4 Likes
Sufficiently advanced carelessness is indistinguishable from malice. Not caring if their underpaid hirelings are doing their job properly is just as bad as sending fake C&D letters with deliberation or in the heat of passion, because the effect is the same however they are thinking about it.
4 Likes
I generally agree with your scenario except for the strong suspicion that the conversation was nothing like that long.
I suspect it was more like:
Exec: Some bozo on the net is telling people how they can rip off our rad scooters. Send a takedown letter to this BoingBoing person.
Legal: Hey, you - minion! Run off a standard takedown letter.
Igor (for it is he): Yeth, Mathter…
Yours is how it should go but that assumes the organisation thinks sending these letters is a big deal and that anyone outside of a bunch of leet crackers has heard of BoingBoing or Cory. I mean they haven’t so why would anyone else?
4 Likes
I dare say you are right. My experience is of UK legal practices, including secretarial. And I’m entirely with you on the intimidation aspect.
1 Like
“oops. Sorry, we didn’t know you had lawyers, and assumed you were poor. Our bad.”
3 Likes
What a dodo!
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
