On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:44:25 GMT, Phil Addison
wrote:

| On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:29:37 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
| wrote:
|
| It's not quite the same, you are placing it (in effect) on a public
| bill board - you can't stop people copying it - especially if they
| have as much right to the bill boards content as anyone else.
|
| Morally, it's wrong what Avenue Supplies is doing and I'm certainly
| not trying to condone their activity, but it's not illegal as they
| are giving due credit and are not passing off the content as their
| own. What you and others are suggesting is a bit like trying to deign
| nntp access to a disliked ISP - or even Google archive....
|
| No, it's not illegal in the sense they can go to jail for it, but
| copyright is a civil offence which means you can sue them for any losses
| you incur or any profit they make from using your work without
| permission, plus expenses. It's the last bit that usually scares
| infringers off - lawyers are VERY expensive.

Far cheaper to drag Avenue Supplies name through the mud, till they find
using uk.d-i-y not worth a candle.

--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk
The London suicide bombers killed innocent commuters.
Animal rights terrorists and activists kill innocent patients.

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:37:39 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

|
| "Dave Fawthrop" wrote in
| message ...
| On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:49:17 +0100, Chris Bacon
|
| wrote:
|
| | Phil Addison wrote:
| |
| | Phil
| |
| | (c) Copyright 2005
| | This Usenet message is Copyright by the author. It may not be
| | re-published in any medium, including electronic, CD-ROM, or
| database,
| | packaged with any commercial product, or published in print,
| without the
| | explicit, written, permission of the author. The copyright of
| any
| | included material belongs to the original author.
| |
| | If you think that sort of rubbish is OK, you must believe in
| | "disclaimers", too. If it *was* true, which thankfully it is
| | not, then you'd have rendered the whole of Usenet unworkable.
|
| At limit Phil is *legally* totally correct, one can do whatever you
| like
| with your copyright work, which includes all usenet postings.
|
|
| If that is correct you have just killed Usenet and more importantly
| the nntp protocol...

It *is* correct, but usenet actually works because people do not enforce
their copyrights, because they put helpful information on uk.d-i-y Pro Bono
Publico, (for the public good).


--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk
The London suicide bombers killed innocent commuters.
Animal rights terrorists and activists kill innocent patients.

"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:29:37 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

It's not quite the same, you are placing it (in effect) on a
public
bill board - you can't stop people copying it - especially if
they
have as much right to the bill boards content as anyone else.

Morally, it's wrong what Avenue Supplies is doing and I'm
certainly
not trying to condone their activity, but it's not illegal as
they
are giving due credit and are not passing off the content as
their
own. What you and others are suggesting is a bit like trying to
deign
nntp access to a disliked ISP - or even Google archive....

No, it's not illegal in the sense they can go to jail for it, but
copyright is a civil offence which means you can sue them for any
losses
you incur or any profit they make from using your work without
permission, plus expenses. It's the last bit that usually scares
infringers off - lawyers are VERY expensive.


What don't you understand about nntp and Usenet etc.?... :~(

The fact is, they are NOT breaking copyright (as they acknowledge
copyright), they are just accessing a PUBLIC news feed - just as any
ISP, Google, or any 'Usenet server' does and what's more the first
and last often charge people...

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:11:18 +0100, Chris Bacon
wrote:

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
I have forbidden them to use my posts on their web site.

Why? They seem quite open about it. They've given their CORGIs
reg. no., they're afiliated to the BHF, they seem DIY orientated,
they give tips, teh are just offering one of those webby interfaces
to uk.d-i-y, which they specifically mention? What's the problem?


I wouldn't have a problem if they were willing to pay me!

Maybe I should include:

"This post is copyright sponix 2005. You are free to re-publish this
post for a fee. By doing this you are agreeing to pay me £50 per copy"

I'd then simply issue an invoice.

sponix

Dave Fawthrop wrote:

usenet actually works because people do not enforce
their copyrights, because they put helpful information on uk.d-i-y Pro Bono
Publico, (for the public good).

That is debatable in Dr Dribble's case ;-)


--

"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:32:35 +0100, in uk.d-i-y Chris Bacon
wrote:

snip

P.S. Do *you* believe in "disclaimers"?

Oh dear, you are confused. A copyright says 'this is mine and if
you
want to copy it you have to negotiate with me'.

But you have posted it to a PUBLIC news feed.... You have in effect
waved your rights to some degree, as long as someone doesn't try and
pass off your work as their own (which they are not) there is little
or nothing you can do short of not posting to a public newsfeed.

All Avenue Supplies are doing is taking that public news feed and
placing it within a HTML web page - just as Google etc. do.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:08:22 +0100, Matt
wrote:

That is debatable in Dr Dribble's case ;-)

It is astonishing he has not appeared in this thread. Do you think that
perhaps he lives in West London and works for a certain DIY distributor?
One with a large excess stock of Stainless DHW tanks, even? It would
account for the ready access to the sales blurb he posts in his tedious
sciolous manner.

John Schmitt

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 06:08:11 +0100, in uk.d-i-y Rob Morley
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Make that "... doesn't mean that people can republish it AT ALL without
your permission."

What I was getting at is that Usenet works by forwarding posts, and you
couldn't reasonably object to anyone anywhere carrying this newsgroup
unaltered on their server, but as soon as they transfer it to e.g. a web
page or a printed document they are effectively republishing it.

Even that could be OK. The criteria is that you can't touch them unless
they copy it "for gain", because if they don't gain (and you don't
loose) from it, you have nothing to sue them for. A plain web interface
to a newsgroup would fall into that category. OTOH, a web interface as
part of a commercial site that simply carries the newsfeed as a
'service' to its clients on a separate part of the site is probably
flying close to the wind, whilst a site that filters posts and diverts
relevant ones to a product page, as Avenue Supplies did, is IMO wide
open to a legal challenge for a share of their profits on at least those
items, plus legal expenses.

I assume that is why Avenue Supplies have taken the uk.d-i-y pages off
their site entirely, and all credit to them for a quick action there. I
doubt it is due to the slagging off of themselves that they
inadvertently displayed, though that will be what drew their attention
to this thread.

They could, of course, redeem themselves with a suitable post here ;-)

Phil
The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/
The Google uk.d-i-y archive is at http://tinyurl.com/65kwq
e-mai1: editor (a t) diyfaq (stop) o r g (stop) uk = make obvious corrections

Andy Dingley wrote:
There's no court in the world going to support a claim of "breach of
copyright" over a Usenet posting. You certainly do retain the copyright
and the moral rights, but the implied licence to redistribute anything
on Usenet is enormous. In no way can Avenue Supplies, or even the
accursed DIYBanter, be said to be infringing copyright on a posting
you've deliberately made to a worldwide distributed store-and-forward
system like Usenet.

Try telling the priggish Addlson that.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:59:50 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:29:37 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

It's not quite the same, you are placing it (in effect) on a
public
bill board - you can't stop people copying it - especially if
they
have as much right to the bill boards content as anyone else.

Morally, it's wrong what Avenue Supplies is doing and I'm
certainly
not trying to condone their activity, but it's not illegal as
they
are giving due credit and are not passing off the content as
their
own. What you and others are suggesting is a bit like trying to
deign
nntp access to a disliked ISP - or even Google archive....

No, it's not illegal in the sense they can go to jail for it, but
copyright is a civil offence which means you can sue them for any
losses
you incur or any profit they make from using your work without
permission, plus expenses. It's the last bit that usually scares
infringers off - lawyers are VERY expensive.


What don't you understand about nntp and Usenet etc.?... :~(

Not a lot.

The fact is, they are NOT breaking copyright (as they acknowledge
copyright), they are just accessing a PUBLIC news feed - just as any
ISP, Google, or any 'Usenet server' does and what's more the first
and last often charge people...

Oh I see. It's OK to make and sell DVD copies of a film so long as you
acknowledge that its a bootleg?? Do try to keep up with the
explanations that have been given here, and read the links I gave.

Phil

Phil Addison wrote:
Rob Morley wrote:
You own the copyright on anything that you post to Usenet - just because
it's widely distributed and easy to copy and paste doesn't mean that
people can republish it in a different format without your permission.


Make that "... doesn't mean that people can republish it AT ALL without
your permission."

snort Well, you should give your express permission to the thousands
of organisations supplying News of one sort or another, then.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:14:18 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:32:35 +0100, in uk.d-i-y Chris Bacon
wrote:

snip

P.S. Do *you* believe in "disclaimers"?

Oh dear, you are confused. A copyright says 'this is mine and if
you
want to copy it you have to negotiate with me'.

But you have posted it to a PUBLIC news feed.... You have in effect
waved your rights to some degree, as long as someone doesn't try and
pass off your work as their own (which they are not) there is little
or nothing you can do short of not posting to a public newsfeed.

All Avenue Supplies are doing is taking that public news feed and
placing it within a HTML web page - just as Google etc. do.

So just as you haven't bothered to follow up the links I gave that would
tell you exactly which copyright myth you believe in, you didn't even
look at the first page on Avenue Supplies I complained about. Had you
done that you would have seen Dave's post about a Honeywell CM-67
embedded right in a page normally arrived at by searching their
catalogue for thermostats, and listing some dozen that they sell.

Rather different from google.

Phil

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:34:44 +0100, in uk.d-i-y Chris Bacon
wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:
There's no court in the world going to support a claim of "breach of
copyright" over a Usenet posting. You certainly do retain the copyright
and the moral rights, but the implied licence to redistribute anything
on Usenet is enormous. In no way can Avenue Supplies, or even the
accursed DIYBanter, be said to be infringing copyright on a posting
you've deliberately made to a worldwide distributed store-and-forward
system like Usenet.

Try telling the priggish Addlson that.

Have you tried posting your usenet articles via
http://www.avenuesupplies.co.uk/ ?

You would not have been able to. They are not part of usenet so the
above argument is irrelevant, as well as inaccurate.

Phil

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:36:47 +0100, in uk.d-i-y Chris Bacon
wrote:

Phil Addison wrote:
Rob Morley wrote:
You own the copyright on anything that you post to Usenet - just because
it's widely distributed and easy to copy and paste doesn't mean that
people can republish it in a different format without your permission.


Make that "... doesn't mean that people can republish it AT ALL without
your permission."

snort Well, you should give your express permission to the thousands
of organisations supplying News of one sort or another, then.

So you too are too lazy to read the explanatory links I posted. Try
again when have engaged brain.

Phil

Phil Addison wrote:
Rob Morley wrote:
What I was getting at is that Usenet works by forwarding posts, and you
couldn't reasonably object to anyone anywhere carrying this newsgroup
unaltered on their server, but as soon as they transfer it to e.g. a web
page or a printed document they are effectively republishing it.


Even that could be OK. The criteria is that you can't touch them unless
they copy it "for gain"

What, like all the companies that charge for access to Usenet, eh?

Phil Addison wrote:
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
The fact is, they are NOT breaking copyright (as they acknowledge
copyright), they are just accessing a PUBLIC news feed - just as any
ISP, Google, or any 'Usenet server' does and what's more the first
and last often charge people...


Oh I see. It's OK to make and sell DVD copies of a film so long as you
acknowledge that its a bootleg??

Oh dear, phil, you are confused if you think that's the same thing.


Do try to keep up with the
explanations that have been given here

Try to do that yourself.

In article ws.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:32:35 +0100, in uk.d-i-y Chris Bacon
wrote:

snip

P.S. Do *you* believe in "disclaimers"?

Oh dear, you are confused. A copyright says 'this is mine and if you want
to copy it you have to negotiate with me'.

But you have posted it to a PUBLIC news feed.... You have in effect waved
your rights to some degree, as long as someone doesn't try and pass off
your work as their own (which they are not) there is little or nothing you
can do short of not posting to a public newsfeed.

Not in this bit of the universe. Every published book is available publicly -
but that doesn't mean that you give everyone the right to re-print or
re-publish.

All Avenue Supplies are doing is taking that public news feed and placing
it within a HTML web page - just as Google etc. do.

Re-publishing. They can certainly use extracts as quotes as long as they
acknowledge source and author. How would you feel if I published a (printed)
magazine full of advice culled directly from your comments? As it happens I do
publish a magazine (RISC OS computers - not diy) and occasionally ask people
to re-state a good news group comment for the magazine. I wouldn't dream of
just taking the original - much less taking it without permission.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"Phil Addison" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:59:50 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

snip

The fact is, they are NOT breaking copyright (as they acknowledge
copyright), they are just accessing a PUBLIC news feed - just as
any
ISP, Google, or any 'Usenet server' does and what's more the
first
and last often charge people...

Oh I see. It's OK to make and sell DVD copies of a film so long as
you
acknowledge that its a bootleg?? Do try to keep up with the
explanations that have been given here, and read the links I gave.


WTF are you whittering on about!

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Matt wrote:

Dave Fawthrop wrote:

usenet actually works because people do not enforce
their copyrights, because they put helpful information on uk.d-i-y
Pro Bono Publico, (for the public good).

That is debatable in Dr Dribble's case ;-)


Oh I don't know - I think a certain amount of entertainment is for the
public good. g
--
Cheers,
Set Square
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:34:44 +0100, in uk.d-i-y Chris Bacon
wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:
There's no court in the world going to support a claim of
"breach of
copyright" over a Usenet posting. You certainly do retain the
copyright
and the moral rights, but the implied licence to redistribute
anything
on Usenet is enormous. In no way can Avenue Supplies, or even
the
accursed DIYBanter, be said to be infringing copyright on a
posting
you've deliberately made to a worldwide distributed
store-and-forward
system like Usenet.

Try telling the priggish Addlson that.

Have you tried posting your usenet articles via
http://www.avenuesupplies.co.uk/ ?

You would not have been able to. They are not part of usenet so the
above argument is irrelevant, as well as inaccurate.


Well on that score nor are any NNTP servers that don't allow
'posting'...

In article ,
Phil Addison wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 06:08:11 +0100, in uk.d-i-y Rob Morley
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Make that "... doesn't mean that people can republish it AT ALL without
your permission."

What I was getting at is that Usenet works by forwarding posts, and you
couldn't reasonably object to anyone anywhere carrying this newsgroup
unaltered on their server, but as soon as they transfer it to e.g. a web
page or a printed document they are effectively republishing it.

Even that could be OK. The criteria is that you can't touch them unless
they copy it "for gain", because if they don't gain (and you don't
loose) from it, you have nothing to sue them for.

Don't you believe it!

If you photocopy an issue of Qercus for yourself (no gain) I can sue you for
the loss of the sale of one copy of the magazine. That won't cost you much -
but the lawyers' fees (my side as well as yours) will cripple you! ;-)

Whilst you may have a harder job showing the loss from a ng comment that
doesn't mean that it's impossible.

[Snip]

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:14:18 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:32:35 +0100, in uk.d-i-y Chris Bacon
wrote:

snip

P.S. Do *you* believe in "disclaimers"?

Oh dear, you are confused. A copyright says 'this is mine and
if
you
want to copy it you have to negotiate with me'.

But you have posted it to a PUBLIC news feed.... You have in
effect
waved your rights to some degree, as long as someone doesn't try
and
pass off your work as their own (which they are not) there is
little
or nothing you can do short of not posting to a public newsfeed.

All Avenue Supplies are doing is taking that public news feed and
placing it within a HTML web page - just as Google etc. do.

So just as you haven't bothered to follow up the links I gave that
would
tell you exactly which copyright myth you believe in,

I would be happy to follow a link to the relevant section in the
official online version of the relevant UK or international Copyright
Act - in other words, to the Act it's self, I can then verify that
you are not just linking to opinions.

you didn't even
look at the first page on Avenue Supplies I complained about. Had
you
done that you would have seen Dave's post about a Honeywell CM-67
embedded right in a page normally arrived at by searching their
catalogue for thermostats, and listing some dozen that they sell.

Rather different from google.


No different than putting "Honeywell CM-67" into a Google search and
accepting the newest message.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:57:55 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

Not in this bit of the universe. Every published book is available
publicly -

Really? So I can just swan over to the MI5 building and buy their internal
publications? Perhaps the one listing the positions of the surviving
nuclear bunkers and the route the PM will be taking?

John Schmitt

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

In article , Dave Fawthrop wrote:
Far cheaper to drag Avenue Supplies name through the mud, till they
find using uk.d-i-y not worth a candle.

I stick by my earlier post that the real villains here are their web design
company "Computer Consulting People"

There's more than one place that draws from uk.d-i-y, for instance

http://laminateflooring.oncloud8.com..._uk.d-i-y.html

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
snip

If you photocopy an issue of Qercus for yourself (no gain) I can
sue you for
the loss of the sale of one copy of the magazine. That won't cost
you much -
but the lawyers' fees (my side as well as yours) will cripple you!
;-)

Whilst you may have a harder job showing the loss from a ng comment
that
doesn't mean that it's impossible.


I would suggest that it would be all but impossible for a
*contributor* to do that, an ISP / NNTP host (that charges for NNTP /
Usenet access) might well be able to show it, but then they would
have already been able to close down all the free nntp servers... As
far as the contributor is concerned there hasn't been and will never
be any financial loss.

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article
ws.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:32:35 +0100, in uk.d-i-y Chris Bacon
wrote:

snip

P.S. Do *you* believe in "disclaimers"?

Oh dear, you are confused. A copyright says 'this is mine and
if you want
to copy it you have to negotiate with me'.

But you have posted it to a PUBLIC news feed.... You have in
effect waved
your rights to some degree, as long as someone doesn't try and
pass off
your work as their own (which they are not) there is little or
nothing you
can do short of not posting to a public newsfeed.

Not in this bit of the universe. Every published book is available
publicly -
but that doesn't mean that you give everyone the right to re-print
or
re-publish.

Books (etc.) are written or published for financial gain, people
posting to Usenet are not doing for financial gain. Usenet and the
nntp protocol only work due to ability to 're-publish' peoples
contributions.

Are you seriously suggesting that is someone writes a story (for
example) and then posts it to a Usenet group they could legally
prevent it being 're-published' by other servers?...


All Avenue Supplies are doing is taking that public news feed and
placing
it within a HTML web page - just as Google etc. do.

Re-publishing. They can certainly use extracts as quotes as long as
they
acknowledge source and author. How would you feel if I published a
(printed)
magazine full of advice culled directly from your comments? As it
happens I do
publish a magazine (RISC OS computers - not diy) and occasionally
ask people
to re-state a good news group comment for the magazine. I wouldn't
dream of
just taking the original - much less taking it without permission.


So, you want Google to shut down their nntp web interface server
and archive ?

"John Schmitt" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:57:55 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

Not in this bit of the universe. Every published book is
available
publicly -

Really? So I can just swan over to the MI5 building and buy their
internal
publications? Perhaps the one listing the positions of the
surviving
nuclear bunkers and the route the PM will be taking?


Those *printed* works have never been *published*.

For example, the public railway timetable is published but the
working timetable is an internal printed document and is marked "NOT
for PUBLICATION"

Printed and published are not the same.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:40:16 +0100, :::Jerry::::
wrote:


Really? So I can just swan over to the MI5 building and buy their
internal
publications?

Those *printed* works have never been *published*.

Of course they have. What part of "internal publication" are you having
trouble with?

Printed and published are not the same.

Correct, but published does not necessarily imply to the general public.

John Schmitt

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

In article ws.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
... snip

If you photocopy an issue of Qercus for yourself (no gain) I can sue you
for the loss of the sale of one copy of the magazine. That won't cost you
much - but the lawyers' fees (my side as well as yours) will cripple you!
;-)

Whilst you may have a harder job showing the loss from a ng comment that
doesn't mean that it's impossible.


I would suggest that it would be all but impossible for a *contributor* to
do that, an ISP / NNTP host (that charges for NNTP / Usenet access) might
well be able to show it, but then they would have already been able to
close down all the free nntp servers... As far as the contributor is
concerned there hasn't been and will never be any financial loss.

Dear me. So you haven't met a lawyer? ;-)

"M'lud, my client had full expectation of being able to publish a collection
of his thoughts until XYZ Ltd made them available to a much wider public than
those few souls who read the specialist news group uk.d-i-y. Through their
turpitude he now has no means of obtaining the pension to see him through the
remaining winters of his later years."

pass the hanky ;-)

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
John Schmitt wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:40:16 +0100, :::Jerry::::
wrote:


Really? So I can just swan over to the MI5 building and buy their
internal
publications?

Those *printed* works have never been *published*.

Of course they have. What part of "internal publication" are you having
trouble with?

Printed and published are not the same.

Correct, but published does not necessarily imply to the general public.

Have you read the Oxford English Dictionary recently?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:02:22 +0100, in uk.d-i-y John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Phil Addison wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 06:08:11 +0100, in uk.d-i-y Rob Morley

What I was getting at is that Usenet works by forwarding posts, and you
couldn't reasonably object to anyone anywhere carrying this newsgroup
unaltered on their server, but as soon as they transfer it to e.g. a web
page or a printed document they are effectively republishing it.

Even that could be OK. The criteria is that you can't touch them unless
they copy it "for gain", because if they don't gain (and you don't
loose) from it, you have nothing to sue them for.

Don't you believe it!

If you photocopy an issue of Qercus for yourself (no gain) I can sue you for
the loss of the sale of one copy of the magazine. That won't cost you much -
but the lawyers' fees (my side as well as yours) will cripple you! ;-)

So glad you agree with me :-).

Whilst you may have a harder job showing the loss from a ng comment that
doesn't mean that it's impossible.

We seem to be in total agreement.

Phil

--
Phil Addison | Please do not duplicate usenet follow-ups by email.
Bristol, England | Check my address for Anti-Spam measures.

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article
ws.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
... snip

If you photocopy an issue of Qercus for yourself (no gain) I
can sue you
for the loss of the sale of one copy of the magazine. That
won't cost you
much - but the lawyers' fees (my side as well as yours) will
cripple you!
;-)

Whilst you may have a harder job showing the loss from a ng
comment that
doesn't mean that it's impossible.


I would suggest that it would be all but impossible for a
*contributor* to
do that, an ISP / NNTP host (that charges for NNTP / Usenet
access) might
well be able to show it, but then they would have already been
able to
close down all the free nntp servers... As far as the contributor
is
concerned there hasn't been and will never be any financial loss.

Dear me. So you haven't met a lawyer? ;-)

"M'lud, my client had full expectation of being able to publish a
collection
of his thoughts until XYZ Ltd made them available to a much wider
public than
those few souls who read the specialist news group uk.d-i-y.
Through their
turpitude he now has no means of obtaining the pension to see him
through the
remaining winters of his later years."

pass the hanky ;-)


But *every* NNTP server is doing the self same thing, with the
knowledge of the contributor! No doubt that a silkily spoken lawyer
could convince a punter that they could make a case, heck that
happens in just about each and every court case, but that doesn't
mean they will win and that costs could well be awarded against the
complainant...

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:28:59 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...

Dear me. So you haven't met a lawyer? ;-)

"M'lud, my client had full expectation of being able to publish a
collection
of his thoughts until XYZ Ltd made them available to a much wider
public than
those few souls who read the specialist news group uk.d-i-y.
Through their
turpitude he now has no means of obtaining the pension to see him
through the
remaining winters of his later years."

pass the hanky ;-)


But *every* NNTP server is doing the self same thing, with the
knowledge of the contributor! No doubt that a silkily spoken lawyer
could convince a punter that they could make a case, heck that
happens in just about each and every court case, but that doesn't
mean they will win and that costs could well be awarded against the
complainant...

Think about the analogy between telephone exchanges and nntp servers.

Phil

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:19:45 +0100, in uk.d-i-y Tony Bryer
wrote:

In article , Dave Fawthrop wrote:
Far cheaper to drag Avenue Supplies name through the mud, till they
find using uk.d-i-y not worth a candle.

I stick by my earlier post that the real villains here are their web design
company "Computer Consulting People"

I tend to agree. No doubt they are getting stick right now from AS.

There's more than one place that draws from uk.d-i-y, for instance

http://laminateflooring.oncloud8.com..._uk.d-i-y.html

That one does not seem to be in the same category - it looks like a
complete feed, though it is going so slow I can't be sure. It does not
filter out specific posts to embed in catalogue pages as did AS.

Ads that pop up around a 'complete' newsfeed are the opposite of what AS
(or CCP) did, and are reasonably innocuous.

NB. I am referring to the catalogue pages of AS that I first pointed
out, not the (ex) feed on their front page.

Phil

"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:28:59 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...

Dear me. So you haven't met a lawyer? ;-)

"M'lud, my client had full expectation of being able to publish
a
collection
of his thoughts until XYZ Ltd made them available to a much
wider
public than
those few souls who read the specialist news group uk.d-i-y.
Through their
turpitude he now has no means of obtaining the pension to see
him
through the
remaining winters of his later years."

pass the hanky ;-)


But *every* NNTP server is doing the self same thing, with the
knowledge of the contributor! No doubt that a silkily spoken
lawyer
could convince a punter that they could make a case, heck that
happens in just about each and every court case, but that doesn't
mean they will win and that costs could well be awarded against
the
complainant...

Think about the analogy between telephone exchanges and nntp
servers.


Oh, right, so telephone exchanges store the conversations that pass
through them and then pass those self same conversations onto any
telephone exchange that asks for a feed from them - I think not!

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:07:04 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

Printed and published are not the same.

Correct, but published does not necessarily imply to the general public.

Have you read the Oxford English Dictionary recently?

Yes. It seems to be in broad agreement with most of it's peers. Perhaps
you need the advanced version, not the pocket one.

John Schmitt

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:59:50 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


|
| What don't you understand about nntp and Usenet etc.?... :~(
|
| The fact is, they are NOT breaking copyright (as they acknowledge
| copyright), they are just accessing a PUBLIC news feed - just as any
| ISP, Google, or any 'Usenet server' does and what's more the first
| and last often charge people...

The fact that I have posted this on uk.d-i-y does not invalidate my
copyright. I may choose not to enforce that copyright against
newsservers which act reasonably, but using posts for commercial purposes
is a different ball game.

--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk
The London suicide bombers killed innocent commuters.
Animal rights terrorists and activists kill innocent patients.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:14:18 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


| All Avenue Supplies are doing is taking that public news feed and
| placing it within a HTML web page - just as Google etc. do.

But I post from Google groups on occasion. Last Saturday was the last
time.

--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk
The London suicide bombers killed innocent commuters.
Animal rights terrorists and activists kill innocent patients.

In article ws.net,
LID says...
snip
Are you seriously suggesting that is someone writes a story (for
example) and then posts it to a Usenet group they could legally
prevent it being 're-published' by other servers?...

They publish it in a newsgroup - as long as it stays in that newsgroup
it hasn't been republished, regardless of which server it is made
available from. Or are you going to say that bookshops republish books
because they have different copies in different places?

In article ws.net,
LID says...

"Phil Addison" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:59:50 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

snip

The fact is, they are NOT breaking copyright (as they acknowledge
copyright), they are just accessing a PUBLIC news feed - just as
any
ISP, Google, or any 'Usenet server' does and what's more the
first
and last often charge people...

Oh I see. It's OK to make and sell DVD copies of a film so long as
you
acknowledge that its a bootleg?? Do try to keep up with the
explanations that have been given here, and read the links I gave.


WTF are you whittering on about!

You said it's OK to copy something as long as you acknowledge the
copyright holder - this is nonsense, of course.