I hope I didn’t appear to be trying to win any third party support. I’m not, I don’t really care how the issue gets resolved, or who gets pissed off in the process. I was just questioning the call for some sort of licensing agreement because it seems that several people think it’s a reasonable alternative. While the Chicago Reader is certainly welcome to enter into such an agreement if they see fit, I don’t think that a failure to do so is in any way unreasonable.
Rich
I agree with you, VegForLife. Many posters do not seem to realize that the CR legal department’s primary responsiblity is protecting the interests of the Chicago Reader, not kissing the asses of this board’s members.
Armed, dangerous…
and off my medication.
Well, at this point let’s just say that I have no intention of linking to this site or mentioning it or supporting it in any way from the TM homepage, and hell would have to freeze over before I would PAY them for the opportunity to do so. At this point, the Straight Dope is shit in my book, and I only stay on the message boards because I like the people here.
–
O p a l C a t
www.opalcat.com
The difference, of course, is that the DFC used actual strips from the FC and simply posted alternate captions. I think if they had written an entirely new strip, they would have been legally in the clear.
–
O p a l C a t
www.opalcat.com
Well, it’s looking like my “amicable settlement based on mutual good will” scenario is becoming more and more remote. This is the point at my job where we’d start issuing batons and helmets.
. . . and I start issuing subpeonas!
[Note: the foregoing was a joke, for the humor-impaired.]
-Melin
If someone can get the two together in a locked room, I’ll provide enough Tullimore Dew to solve the problem. 
