> I named both the Pixsy employee who threatened me and their supervisor, who apologized but refused to answer my questions about how these threats came to be sent, and whether Pixsy was a company that made a practice out of copyleft trolling.
They did apologize and his demands were rejected because, really, it was more like a fishing expedition. He then escalated the situation because he couldn't accept their apology and thought it was part of a wider conspiracy. They responded in kind. So much drama over nothing.
Replying with additional legal threats isn't what I would call "responding in kind".
But to quote the original article:
"I am happy to report I have removed the names of your employees from my article. I don’t do this because you threatened me, but because I am an ethical person, and ethical people do not deliberately seek to cause distress in others (for example, by sending thousands upon thousands of unethical legal threats)."
Fishing for people's money by sending out a large number of potentially fraudulent legal threats in order to obtain a minority of payments out of fearful people isn't much different morally than a scammer sending out thousands of fraudulent threats to cut off people's power in order to get a minority to pay up.
A criminal protection racket that is rarely on the side of right on any more than the most technical terms and often not even that isn't owed a nice response to their threats any more than a burglar is owed a fresh cup of coffee and a pleasant work environment while he loads your stuff into a moving van.
They did apologize and his demands were rejected because, really, it was more like a fishing expedition. He then escalated the situation because he couldn't accept their apology and thought it was part of a wider conspiracy. They responded in kind. So much drama over nothing.
reply