49 thoughts on “RSPCA?

  1. A sponsor is actually someone or some organization which knows you exist, and supports your efforts. Do we really think the sponsors listed on the website know they are sponsors?

  2. Cousin Bill’s new book is up at createspace -_Axis of Weasels_, subtitled “How Right Wing Extremists Exploit Self-Publishing Websites to Silence Opinion”. (No linkee-love from me.)

    The self-written description is laughable butthurtery.

    • I note he’s not doing a e-book version. I assume so it will take longer for folks to get copies and see if new copyright or privacy violations exist?

      • I should add that his description admits by implication to using a photograph without permission of the copyright holder or the living person it depicted, as well as using a blog post (of course omitting to mention the 107 comments he also copied), again by implication, without even attempting to get permission.

        Might it make a great piece of plaintiff’s evidence for anyone considering filing a copyright suit?

      • you know he might actually have a point if it wasn’t for the fact that he did NOT have the right to use the pieces that got the books dropped in the first place. The owners did, and did not give him permission (and he didn’t ask either), instead he just took what he wanted to take, used it the way he wanted and then got all pissy when the publishers weren’t willing to risk a court case to defend his supposed right to infringe…

        If he wants to make the point that it should take more than just a declaration to prove copyright infringement in order to keep books from being pulled for nothing then make that case, but don’t expect your own evidence of copy right infringement to back you up on it…


    • Do we know that Ott trademarked his title? Because you can’t (generally) copyright the title of a book. But you can trademark it.

      • https://www.createspace.com/4818752

        If you just go to the main Createspace page and type in the title or author you won’t get anything unless you’ve clicked the drop box at the beginning of the search entry line and made sure is says “STORE”.

        The blurb is laughable, and written in his not quite inimitable third-person style.

  3. Bill – you might want to take a quick peek at the security of the “staff login” widget…

    No point in inviting prankery, and the resulting butthurt, right?

    • Oh yeah he’ll definitely want to remove that link considering the body of the last post there…


  4. Based on the vapid taunting – no suit was filed – or going to be file – or in the fantasy world of liberlanduim – going anywhere if on the miracle it gets filed

    estimate frothing rage adjudicatable harassment – to commence within 6 to 18 hours

  5. So do you think if he, purely by accident and happenstance, a complete coincidence if you will, put up the NAMBLA logo, that NAMBLA would ask him to take it down to avoid being associated with him?

  6. And the lies continue “over being sued YET AGAIN for” Again? Our host has been sued twice. Both by the perjuring bomber. NO suit has been filed by the Cabin Boy. If it has, he should point out where it’s listed in PACER. Not in PACER? Then you haven’t sued anyone. It’s such a simple concept you’d think that even the Cabin Boy would grasp it.

  7. Holy sweet mother of Pearl!

    Somebody bought a copy of AoW!

    Now, when the takedown gets filed, be sure to point out that the author is a serial offender in this regard – he admits republishing the same infringing work under different titles, deliberately, to vex people.

    Soon, Cousin Bill will be as radioactive with self-publishers as he is with The Examiner, DailyKos, etc.

    He never learns…

      • Bill’s definition of “phony copyright claims” would I suspect be the subject of much laughter and scorn amongst lawyers who actually practice IP law.

        Even if, as in the past, you invent reasons to take the book off the shelves, I will just fix the reason you gave, resubmit the manuscript under a new cover, and publish it again.

        If he really thinks Hoge and the Lickspittles™ have just “invented” all these copyright claims, why did he bother “fixing” them? If he’s the one in the right, why not simply republish the manuscript unchanged? He must have proof that he has the right to use those photos and blog posts without even attribution, never mind permission, right? Or, perhaps, is he tacitly admitting that he did do some things which maybe he shouldn’t have?

      • indeed, if the copyright claims are phony, then there is no need to “fix” anything…
        one would think the admittance of needing to “fix” something to avoid a “phony” copyright claim merely affirms that the claims aren’t phony at all….


Leave a Reply