Fezmid Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 This article was written in a Boston paper yesterday, only they did it better... Original: http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...bledsoe?pg=full Copy: http://www.tonawanda-news.com/story.asp?id=1116 CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 This article was written in a Boston paper yesterday, only they did it better... Original: http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...bledsoe?pg=full Copy: http://www.tonawanda-news.com/story.asp?id=1116 CW 120429[/snapback] I noticed that to, kinda weird Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guffalo Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 I noticed that to, kinda weird 120436[/snapback] I think they are just drawing the Bledsoe comparison to Holyfield as tired warriors past their prime, not actual plagerism. In the same weekend you had what should be Holyfields last fight, and what we all hope is Bledsoes last start, because in both cases the participants were completely overwhelmed by thier opponents that the comparisons were drawn. It was an easy analogy to look at Bledsoe as a tired old boxer, underscored by Holyfields' latest comeback failure If you really want to see plagerism, look at the main board here, 49 distinct threads asking for Bledsoes head, 37 asking for Donahoes dismissal, 19 raking Mularky over the coals and 2 or 3 asking for Mr. Wilson to step down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye Eric Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 There is nothing legaly wrong with what Pat Murray did. He did not copy the text so he is not involation of any intellectual property laws. Ideas or concepts are not protected by copyright, so the Bledsoe/Holyfield comparsion as a concept is not protected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 17, 2004 Author Share Posted November 17, 2004 There is nothing legaly wrong with what Pat Murray did. He did not copy the text so he is not involation of any intellectual property laws. Ideas or concepts are not protected by copyright, so the Bledsoe/Holyfield comparsion as a concept is not protected. 120516[/snapback] Didn't say it was legally wrong; ethically, it might be since I can almost guarantee that he read the first article from the Boston paper. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts