To: massmike
Misleading headline. This was a copyright infringement case.
11 posted on
02/26/2014 10:27:03 AM PST by
Borges
To: Borges
Misleading headline. This was a copyright infringement case.
Then the plaintiff has a case against the producers of the film, not Google.
16 posted on
02/26/2014 10:32:57 AM PST by
slumber1
(Moderation is overrated)
To: Borges
+1 ... not getting hoodwinked.
17 posted on
02/26/2014 10:33:17 AM PST by
Usagi_yo
(Standardization is an Evolutionary dead end.)
To: Borges
“Misleading headline. This was a copyright infringement case.”
Yes.
To: Borges
Misleading headline. This was a copyright infringement case.Not really.
The woman does not own the movie copyright.
It's the Obama/Soros/propaganda machine, desperately trying to rewrite history.
Clumsily, I might add. They couldn't find a muslim Obamabot to do it for them, instead of a wetback?
27 posted on
02/26/2014 10:36:48 AM PST by
publius911
( At least Nixon had the good g race to resign!)
To: Borges
This is media propaganda disguised as a news article. Notice it’s all to support the administration’s narrative of the film causing the embassy attack.
55 posted on
02/26/2014 11:25:15 AM PST by
headstamp 2
(What would Scooby do?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson