"Lobster" wrote in message
...
Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:38:12 UTC, raden wrote:

Maybe you miss the reason behind my post

DIYbanter feed UK.D-I-Y posts to it's commercial site

i.e. they are making money from your contribution freely made

Exactly. Hence the sig!

And does it (the sig) work?

David

I've just looked and no the sig doesn't work as Bob's post is shown on DIY
Banter.

Cheers

Mark

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 10:09:55 -0000, "Mark Spice"
wrote:

|
|"Lobster" wrote in message
...
| Bob Eager wrote:
| On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:38:12 UTC, raden wrote:
|
| Maybe you miss the reason behind my post
|
| DIYbanter feed UK.D-I-Y posts to it's commercial site
|
| i.e. they are making money from your contribution freely made
|
| Exactly. Hence the sig!
|
| And does it (the sig) work?
|
| David
|
|I've just looked and no the sig doesn't work as Bob's post is shown on DIY
|Banter.

Then Bob can complain to the advertisers who use the site, probably on
payment per click basis.

Dear Sirs,
Do you appreciate that you are advertising on a site which deliberately
ignores the Copyright Laws. pointer to problem post

My new sig is set up as a persona in Agent and advertises uk.d-i-y in
addition to the copyright sig by Bob. Anyone can use their own version if
they wish


Dave Fawthrop The above was posted
to usenet newsgroup uk.d-i-y not diybanter. The information contained
in this post is copyright the poster, and specifically may not be
published in, or used by http://www.diybanter.com.

On 23 Dec 2006 11:35:56 GMT, Huge wrote:

|On 2006-12-23, wrote:
| Al Reynolds wrote:
| "raden" wrote:
|
| Maybe you miss the reason behind my post
|
| DIYbanter feed UK.D-I-Y posts to it's commercial site
|
| i.e. they are making money from your contribution freely made
|
| True, but oddly enough I don't mind. They are just more enterprising
| than me. If I did mind, I would be less likely to use usenet, which
| would be a shame.
|
| Anyway, do diybanter claim copyright over their (usenet-sourced)
| content? If they did then they would be violating my copyleft licence.
|
| Al
|
| Google groups marks usenet pages copyright Google. The bits Google adds
| will be copyright, but I cant see them ever having a prayer on the
| content.
|
|They haven't (got a prayer.) Your Usenet postings are automatically
|copyright to the author.

Everything anyone writes in the UK and most of the rest of the world is
automatically copyright to the Author. It does not *need* a copyright
notice.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Doctor Drivel"
saying something like:

copyright automatically exists on
everything you write

Check again.

If you know better, please elucidate.
--

Dave

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Huge
saying something like:

copyright automatically exists on
everything you write
Check again.
If you know better, please elucidate.
Glad to see that Drivel's knowledge extends beyond plumbing
and heating to copyright law.

I'm waiting to see what he comes up with.

Wild guess: eff off you plantpot?

Owain wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" writes:
When it comes to the world-wide web legally just about anything goes. That
Well, if that doesn't give Grunff the willies, nothing will.
That will be the nail firmly in the coffin for any free-for-all
editing rights (just in case it wasn't already;-)

All Grunff has to do is explicitly tell Dr Drivel he isn't authorised to
use the wiki, and then if DD does he will be committing a criminal
offence under the Computer Misuse Act.

And who do you believe will prosecute him for this alleged breach of
the CMA ?

I'd be interested if you could supply any case law where the CMA has
being used successfully without the defendant pleading guilty.

Steve

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Huge
saying something like:

copyright automatically exists on
everything you write
Check again.
If you know better, please elucidate.
Glad to see that Drivel's knowledge extends beyond plumbing
and heating to copyright law.

I'm waiting to see what he comes up with.

Wild guess: eff off you plantpot?

This is very true. Many plantpots should eff off.