In message , Owain
writes
Phil Addison wrote:
They could, of course, redeem themselves with a suitable post here ;-)

One incorporating a generous discount code you mean :-)

Or a contribution to the administrative costs - website maintenance or
whatever

but then that's watering down the principle if what's at stake

--
geoff

raden wrote:
And a written charter - do we have one?

No.


I know there are guidelines in the faq but does that constitute a charter ?

No - also, it's "a FAQ". There's nothing to stop anyone at all writing
their own.

In message . com,
robert AT avenuesupplies DOT co DOT uk
writes
Phil Addison wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:04:30 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Rob Morley" wrote in message
...
In article
ws.net,
LID says...
snip
Whether a newsgroup is accessed via NNTP or HTTP it is still a
newsgroup. If someone selects individual posts or threads and
puts
them
on a website they are creating a derivative work without
consent.

You mean like Google does when you use their commercial search
engine?...

Google Groups is an HTTP front end to Usenet - it isn't selective
of the
content of any particular group, so doesn't constitute a derivative
work.

Did you read what I said?
You are wrong in what you say above, or do you get answers about gas
installations when you search for answers about pitting up a
shelf?!...

If anything Google search is being a dammed sight more selective than
the site that started this thread and what's more, it's being a
dammed sight more commercial with it's targeted adverts that depend
on the search string used.

There is a huge difference between putting up ALL the posts with some
matched ads alongside as per google, and the opposite of putting up a
catalogue page of dozens of CH thermostats you have for sale with a
relevant ng post extracted from the feed and placed beneath them.

Even if that goes over head, it was obvious to Avenue Supplies once
pointed out to them and they have discontinued it. To be on the safe
side they have discontinued their partial newsfeed as well.

I won't be posting further on this so you can be as rude as you like in
reply.

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




Avenue Supplies at no time filtered news group posts. This is a
statement that has been used by Phil Addison throughout this thread
that is incorrect. There were a maximum of 8 products that were listed
above a news group thread related only to the subject of the thread
being viewed. The Thread was not manipulated or altered in any way.

The News feed was closed not as an admission rather an attempt to
reduce the slander and witch-hunt that ensued specifically addressed at
Avenue Supplies.

We make every reasonable attempt to correct issues the community may
have with our site. We state that
http://www.avenuesupplies.co.uk/disclaimer.php.

Nobody bothered to contact us showing concern about anything addressed
within this thread prior to letting loose on a public forum. What
gives?

I didn't notice you approaching uk.d-i-y asking if contributors were
happy to you using their posts either

Which would have been at least common courtesy and a positive way to
have approached the issue

--
geoff

On 27 Sep 2005 12:53:26 -0700, in uk.d-i-y "robert AT avenuesupplies DOT
co DOT uk" wrote:

Phil Addison wrote:

There is a huge difference between putting up ALL the posts with some
matched ads alongside as per google, and the opposite of putting up a
catalogue page of dozens of CH thermostats you have for sale with a
relevant ng post extracted from the feed and placed beneath them.

Even if that goes over head, it was obvious to Avenue Supplies once
pointed out to them and they have discontinued it. To be on the safe
side they have discontinued their partial newsfeed as well.

I won't be posting further on this so you can be as rude as you like in
reply.

"this" of course referred to the discussion of the meaning of copyright.

Avenue Supplies, having the courage to raise their heads over the
stockade here, deserve a response from me as I started this off in
message

Avenue Supplies at no time filtered news group posts. This is a
statement that has been used by Phil Addison throughout this thread
that is incorrect. There were a maximum of 8 products that were listed
above a news group thread related only to the subject of the thread
being viewed. The Thread was not manipulated or altered in any way.

The page most certainly did not have a thread on it, just the one post
praising the CM-67. I accept there may have been a link to the next
post, and hence a thread, but I did not notice it, nor was I looking for
it - I just read the page as presented.

I had googled for one of my own posts and was surprised to find a link
returned to it residing on your site. The page can still be seen in
google's cache at
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache...site:.uk&hl=en

You notice that on the right of the page the single post appears with
some relevant product advertising appears above it. Looking at it again
I suppose the numbered links above might lead to other posts in the
tread, but that is far from obvious, and anyway irrelevant to my
complaint.

Those particular adverts are reasonably innocuous, but set me wondering
what posts would be attached to a more specific product, say the
Honeywell CM-67, so I searched your catalogue for CM-67 and was
presented with the page that I mentioned in my first post. That page is
no longer on your site, but the page I saw had a number of programmable
stats on it and a single post from uk.d-i-y which just happened to extol
the virtues of CM-67s. I accept now that may have been fortuitous, but
there were no other posts there.

Google does not have a cache of that page, but several other people went
to it and were concerned enough to write follow up posts here.

Had you followed the advice in the FAQ and read or googled the
newsgroup, or better still posted on it, you would easily have found
that we take our copyright seriously, having had previous disputes with
e.g. diyBanter.

John Cartmell's recent post above explains the situation quite well.

The News feed was closed not as an admission rather an attempt to
reduce the slander and witch-hunt that ensued specifically addressed at
Avenue Supplies.

That at least confirms you don't filter the posts in your newsfeed page.
It is primarily the posts that find their way to product pages that are
of concern to us.

We make every reasonable attempt to correct issues the community may
have with our site. We state that
http://www.avenuesupplies.co.uk/disclaimer.php.

That page includes the statement "Any Tips or suggestions are intended
for guidance only" which implies that the tips are yours. It may well
have been written with good intent, and had we known of your plan, I'm
sure someone would have advised on better wording.

Nobody bothered to contact us showing concern about anything addressed
within this thread prior to letting loose on a public forum. What
gives?

In copyright court cases the infringer is likely to find out that they
have been rumbled only when a civil summons drops through the
letter-box. The onus is on the copier to ask permission first. If you
are not clear on what the "rights" copyright gives to ANY work whether
or not the copyright is specifically claimed, the sites I mentioned
earlier are really very helpful.

You might even have got acceptance from us if you had the courtesy to
ask, or showed some signs of feeding something back to the group - you
still could. Examples of that are Cormiac's paving site, where he
frequently provides valuable answers to questions, and we recognise that
by linking back to them from the FAQ. Other's give us free hosting, and
such generosity warrants the only commercial displayed on the FAQ.

For those wishing to see the pages in question (non cached). The
following URL will remain for a couple of days and is not a public or
indexed url http://www.avenuesupplies.co.uk/news2/news.php

That page is not the one I complained about. That one is now gone (it
WAS at http://www.avenuesupplies.co.uk/news...x.php?id=39730).

It was very similar to this one
http://www.avenuesupplies.co.uk/inde...+Thermost ats
BUT with a post about Honeywell CM-67 embedded in it.

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

In article ws.net,
LID says...
snip
Did you read what I said?
You are wrong in what you say above,

No, you just didn't understand it.

or do you get answers about gas
installations when you search for answers about pitting up a
shelf?!...

I get posts containing whatever search terms I enter - it's all there,
and equally accessible.

If anything Google search is being a dammed sight more selective than
the site that started this thread and what's more, it's being a
dammed sight more commercial with it's targeted adverts that depend
on the search string used.

But Google doesn't decide which posts are available, there is no
"editing" of the material. The availability of the articles on the
Avenue site was clearly determined by their own commercial interests.

"Dave Fawthrop" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:39:00 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"

wrote:


| You know that the nntp source is open, if you don't like that
then
| don't post messages to it.

Please state the UK statute in which usenet is stated to be exempt
from UK
Copyright Law.


That's the f*cking point, there isn't one, so stop picking on just
those web sites etc. that you don't like, or are you going to start
complaining to people like Google.

"Dave Fawthrop" wrote in
message ...
On 27 Sep 2005 12:53:26 -0700, "robert AT avenuesupplies DOT co DOT
uk"
wrote:

snip

| What
| gives?

Your actions were illegal.


No more than, for example, the Google groups feed is...

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:53:26 UTC, "robert AT avenuesupplies DOT co
DOT
uk" wrote:

Avenue Supplies at no time filtered news group posts. This is a
statement that has been used by Phil Addison throughout this
thread
that is incorrect. There were a maximum of 8 products that were
listed
above a news group thread related only to the subject of the
thread
being viewed. The Thread was not manipulated or altered in any
way.

So you were using people's posts to increase your profits? And you
wonder why you were slagged off?


No more, and probably less than, Google (groups newsfeed) do...

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
robert AT avenuesupplies DOT co DOT uk
wrote:
Nobody bothered to contact us showing concern about anything
addressed
within this thread prior to letting loose on a public forum. What
gives?

Nobody from the company appears to have bothered asking in the
group if anyone
here minded being used in that way. What gives?

snip the rest of the ignorant rant

Has anyone at Google done so?...

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message . com,
robert AT avenuesupplies DOT co DOT uk

writes
snip

What gives?

I didn't notice you approaching uk.d-i-y asking if contributors
were
happy to you using their posts either


I haven't seen Google groups doing so either, me thinks there are
double standards working here....

Which would have been at least common courtesy and a positive way
to
have approached the issue


They don't need *your* permission to supply a nntp to web interface
(even if it is read only).

"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...
On 27 Sep 2005 12:53:26 -0700, in uk.d-i-y "robert AT
avenuesupplies DOT
co DOT uk" wrote:

snip
Avenue Supplies at no time filtered news group posts. This is a
statement that has been used by Phil Addison throughout this
thread
that is incorrect. There were a maximum of 8 products that were
listed
above a news group thread related only to the subject of the
thread
being viewed. The Thread was not manipulated or altered in any
way.

The page most certainly did not have a thread on it, just the one
post
praising the CM-67.

The page I looked at, from the posted URL, most certainly did have
the threads showing. OTOH, if there were messages missing, so what -
it happens all the time with some nntp servers....

I accept there may have been a link to the next
post, and hence a thread, but I did not notice it, nor was I
looking for
it - I just read the page as presented.

So, in essence it's not much different to Google groups (were someone
posts a URL to just one message) whilst your witch-hunt rants were
down to nothing but your inability to use your web browser...


I had googled for one of my own posts and was surprised to find a
link
returned to it residing on your site. The page can still be seen in
google's cache at

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache...site:.uk&hl=en

You notice that on the right of the page the single post appears
with
some relevant product advertising appears above it. Looking at it
again
I suppose the numbered links above might lead to other posts in the
tread, but that is far from obvious, and anyway irrelevant to my
complaint.

Those particular adverts are reasonably innocuous, but set me
wondering
what posts would be attached to a more specific product, say the
Honeywell CM-67, so I searched your catalogue for CM-67 and was
presented with the page that I mentioned in my first post. That
page is
no longer on your site, but the page I saw had a number of
programmable
stats on it and a single post from uk.d-i-y which just happened to
extol
the virtues of CM-67s. I accept now that may have been fortuitous,
but
there were no other posts there.

Google does not have a cache of that page, but several other people
went
to it and were concerned enough to write follow up posts here.

Had you followed the advice in the FAQ and read or googled the
newsgroup, or better still posted on it, you would easily have
found
that we take our copyright seriously, having had previous disputes
with
e.g. diyBanter.

John Cartmell's recent post above explains the situation quite
well.

The News feed was closed not as an admission rather an attempt to
reduce the slander and witch-hunt that ensued specifically
addressed at
Avenue Supplies.

That at least confirms you don't filter the posts in your newsfeed
page.
It is primarily the posts that find their way to product pages that
are
of concern to us.

We make every reasonable attempt to correct issues the community
may
have with our site. We state that
http://www.avenuesupplies.co.uk/disclaimer.php.

That page includes the statement "Any Tips or suggestions are
intended
for guidance only" which implies that the tips are yours. It may
well
have been written with good intent, and had we known of your plan,
I'm
sure someone would have advised on better wording.

Nobody bothered to contact us showing concern about anything
addressed
within this thread prior to letting loose on a public forum. What
gives?

In copyright court cases the infringer is likely to find out that
they
have been rumbled only when a civil summons drops through the
letter-box. The onus is on the copier to ask permission first. If
you
are not clear on what the "rights" copyright gives to ANY work
whether
or not the copyright is specifically claimed, the sites I mentioned
earlier are really very helpful.

You might even have got acceptance from us if you had the courtesy
to
ask, or showed some signs of feeding something back to the group -
you
still could. Examples of that are Cormiac's paving site, where he
frequently provides valuable answers to questions, and we recognise
that
by linking back to them from the FAQ. Other's give us free hosting,
and
such generosity warrants the only commercial displayed on the FAQ.

For those wishing to see the pages in question (non cached). The
following URL will remain for a couple of days and is not a
public or
indexed url http://www.avenuesupplies.co.uk/news2/news.php

That page is not the one I complained about. That one is now gone
(it
WAS at http://www.avenuesupplies.co.uk/news...x.php?id=39730).

It was very similar to this one

http://www.avenuesupplies.co.uk/inde...+Thermost ats
BUT with a post about Honeywell CM-67 embedded in it.

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

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
t...
snip

But Google doesn't decide which posts are available, there is no
"editing" of the material. The availability of the articles on the
Avenue site was clearly determined by their own commercial
interests.

Which has been shown as being wrong.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:00:10 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

Nobody from the company appears to have bothered asking in the group if anyone
here minded being used in that way. What gives?

It would have been so simple for them to say "Sorry all, we messed up,
it won't happen again".

However, they haven't. That says an awful lot to me.

sponix

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:47:02 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

So point out which definition of the word 'publish' includes the concept
of
not being public or open. It certainly doesn't appear in the (non-pocket)
2-volume, Shorter OED. Have you managed to find an arch. or sl.
definition in
the full OED?

No, it is asubsidiary definition

And Chambers agrees that 'publish' requires that it be made public.

What about Merriam-Webster? while it is not UK English, you might be
surprised how unchanged usages are more stable in US English than UK
English. "Gotten" is regarded as a horrible neologism by the ignorant. In
fact the Pilgrim Fathers were aware of the word.

NB Why choose to argue the matter with a publisher? ;-)

I *am* a publisher both of internal documents and on our intranet. Got
another word?

John Schmitt

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

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:19:16 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

This thread is really nothing but an ignorant witch hunt /
lynching....

So...let's say that you posted a clever idea or technique to this
newsgroup and I took the info, turned it into an e-book and sold it
for profit on ebay.

Would you honestly be happy with this? Would you protest that I had
stolen your idea and was profiting from it?

sponix

In article ws.net,
LID says...

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
t...
snip

But Google doesn't decide which posts are available, there is no
"editing" of the material. The availability of the articles on the
Avenue site was clearly determined by their own commercial
interests.

Which has been shown as being wrong.

I don't think so.

In article , John Schmitt
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:47:02 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

So point out which definition of the word 'publish' includes the concept
of not being public or open. It certainly doesn't appear in the
(non-pocket) 2-volume, Shorter OED. Have you managed to find an arch. or
sl. definition in the full OED?

No, it is asubsidiary definition

If it's in the full OED as a subsidiary definition and not in the Shorter or
Chambers then you can be sure it's not a definition that you can use with
expectations of clarity.

And Chambers agrees that 'publish' requires that it be made public.

What about Merriam-Webster? while it is not UK English, you might be
surprised how unchanged usages are more stable in US English than UK
English. "Gotten" is regarded as a horrible neologism by the ignorant. In
fact the Pilgrim Fathers were aware of the word.

That's OK with words that don't exist elsehow. Words that do otherwise have a
clear meaning are something else.

NB Why choose to argue the matter with a publisher? ;-)

I *am* a publisher both of internal documents and on our intranet. Got
another word?

Over 300,000 in Chambers. That will do for starters. ;-)

--
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

"s--p--o--n--i--x" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:00:10 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

Nobody from the company appears to have bothered asking in the
group if anyone
here minded being used in that way. What gives?

It would have been so simple for them to say "Sorry all, we messed
up,
it won't happen again".

However, they haven't. That says an awful lot to me.


Have Google ever said sorry for copying messages and displaying then
on their web page?...

I suggest you get a clue and then find a life!

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
t...
In article
ws.net,
LID says...

snip

Which has been shown as being wrong.

I don't think so.

You think wrong then. And even if they were doing as you suggest they
were doing no more than Google does when you enter a search string,
they place targeted adverts on the search results pages!

"s--p--o--n--i--x" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:19:16 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

This thread is really nothing but an ignorant witch hunt /
lynching....

So...let's say that you posted a clever idea or technique to this
newsgroup and I took the info, turned it into an e-book and sold it
for profit on ebay.

But that is not what they were doing.


Would you honestly be happy with this? Would you protest that I had
stolen your idea and was profiting from it?


So what would stop them just reading about your idea and then writing
about it in their own words, why do you think companies don't write
about their research and use non disclosure clauses in contracts?....

In article ws.net,
LID says...

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
t...
In article
ws.net,
LID says...

snip

Which has been shown as being wrong.

I don't think so.

You think wrong then.

Make a good case for your opinion and I might believe you ...

And even if they were doing as you suggest they
were doing no more than Google does when you enter a search string,
they place targeted adverts on the search results pages!

Actually they were doing it the other way around - they chose the
newsgroup content to suit their advertising purposes. But you
apparently don't appreciate the difference.

:::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...

Copyright law does not allow you to copy a work in its entirity just
because you acknowledge the copyright (unless you do so with the
copyright holders permission). All you are allowed to do without the
copyright holders permission is to use reasonable quotations (I don't
know the exact terminology) from a copyright work in your own work. You
still have to acknowledge the work. Thus, to take someone else'
example, you cannot simply republish, say, a Harry Potter novel but you
could quote extracts in the course of reviewing the novel. What would
be reasonable, I leave to the lawyers.

If a work is entirely factual information in the public domain then you
can freely copy the information but the presentation becomes copyright.
For example, you cannot copyright phone numbers but a particular style
of presenting phone numbers in a directory is copyright.

MBQ

:::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...


Copyright law does not allow you to copy a work in its entirity just
because you acknowledge the copyright (unless you do so with the
copyright holders permission). All you are allowed to do without the
copyright holders permission is to use reasonable quotations (I don't
know the exact terminology) from a copyright work in your own work. You
still have to acknowledge the work. Thus, to take someone else'
example, you cannot simply republish, say, a Harry Potter novel but you
could quote extracts in the course of reviewing the novel. What would
be reasonable, I leave to the lawyers.

If a work is entirely factual information in the public domain then you
can freely copy the information but the presentation becomes copyright.
For example, you cannot copyright phone numbers but a particular style
of presenting phone numbers in a directory is copyright.

MBQ

:::Jerry:::: wrote:
So what would stop them just reading about your idea and then writing
about it in their own words, why do you think companies don't write
about their research and use non disclosure clauses in contracts?....

Companies keep stum about research because making public disclosures
can have detrimental consequences for any future patent assertions.

MBQ

:::Jerry:::: wrote:
I won't be posting further on this so you can be as rude as you
like in
reply.


In other words, "I'm loosing the argument so I'll bow out before I
loose all my credibility"...

LOL! Better than "I'm losing the argument so I'll just tell him to
FOAD, moron" as you did in an earlier post, Jerry.

MBQ