Re: Shitstorm
I might have had a bit more sympathy if the OP hadn't offered as the alternative view, it’s HIS website ... - surely he can do what he likes with it.
You don't need any knowledge of the law, just some critical thinking skills to subsitute for X in it’s HIS X - surely he can do what he likes with it in ways that rather undermine the basic premise. For example:
X = Currency Printing Press
X = Rocket-propelled grenade launcher
X = Child bride
X = Collection of flimsily bottled Ebola samples
X = Portal to Galactic Doom
It's not mere ignorance at play here, it's the kind of entitled ignorance that seems, unfortunately, to have become the norm in "legal" discussions on social media: the law does not now, and never has, operated on the basis that it's mine so I can do what I like. And in this case we're in even more complex commercial litigation over contractual issues and whether commercial contracts have been broken.
However, the judgment is linked from the article. It's a lengthy, but straightforward read. The conclusions are set out very clearly. If anyone actually wants to understand, and not simply fire off a random expression of their beliefs about the sovereignty of property rights, it's all there and it's self-explanatory. You do, however, have to do the work and not expect that other people will heal your reality gap.