What is the diyprojects.info forum for?

[Phil Addison]

What is the purpose diyprojects.info? As far as I can see it has no original DIY material at all.

Am I being uncharitable in thinking it is simply taking a feed from here (i.e. on the actual uk.d-i-y Usenet Newsgroup) and rec.woodworking in order to draw visitors who might click on their adverts, or is it a useful service? Is it OK to clone a newsgroup onto a website as a 'forum' like that? To give credit, they do say their forums are 'synchronized with Usenet'.

Who is it run by - the site seems anonymous?

To be fair, the ads are pretty innocuous, and probably useful for DIY and Woodworking, I just wondered what this is all about and what people here think about it.

Phil The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at

NOSPAM from address to email me

[Andy Wade]

- hmm, ISWYM.

I suppose it could be useful to people who haven't discovered Usenet or Google Groups.

Good question. Dunno, but I'd be interested in what others think.

A whois lookup reveals /inter alia/:

Domain ID:D295418-LRMS Domain Name:DIYPROJECTS.INFO Created On:13-Sep-2001 06:07:50 UTC Last Updated On:13-Sep-2004 15:42:22 UTC Expiration Date:13-Sep-2005 06:07:50 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:R139-LRMS Status:ACTIVE Status:OK Registrant ID:C5755079-LRMS Registrant Name:The Hostmaster Registrant Organization:Web-S-Sense Pty. Ltd. Registrant Street1:P.O. Box 110 Registrant City:Surrey Downs Registrant State/Province:SA Registrant Postal Code:5126 Registrant Country:AU Registrant Phone:[phone] Registrant Email: [e-mail]

"Ads by Google" seems to be the clue - click on it...

< quote from " When you join the AdSense programme, you can: * Make money when visitors click on ads associated with your site. * Enhance your visitors' online experience with ads that are relevant to what they see on your pages. * Increase repeat visits by adding a Google search box to your site. * Manage your account and track earnings online with easy-to-use tools. * Get started fast and pay nothing to participate. Once approved, you start serving ads in minutes.

So we do all the work and Web-S-Sense Pty. Ltd. rakes in the dosh.

[Dave Liquorice]

Just another slow an clunky interface for those who haven't found a proper newsreader yet?

Only if people click on the ads...

Now I wonder how clever its quote detection is?

-> quote?

DL> Is this?

[raden]

Err what people?

"Users browsing this forum: None"

Whatever, Maybe a complaint should be sent to the ISP, not quite sure what the best grounds would be.

If people put a disclaimer that their postings are not to be used by

there would be grounds to stop them

Cheeky buggers

[raden]

How about

"The information contained in this post may not be published in, or used by

"

[Phil Addison]

That was my initial reaction, and still is, but then I thought 'what about google?', google re-posts newsgroups and we like google. The difference is that google gives a huge benefit in return by way of archiving, indexing and searching.

Phil The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at

NOSPAM from address to email me

[Phil Addison]

have, something like: "© Copyright 2004. All parts of this Usenet posting are Copyright by the author. It may not be sold in any medium, including electronic, CD-ROM, or database, packaged with any commercial product, or published in print or electronic form without the explicit written permission of the author. The copyright of included material belongs to the original author."

Phil The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at

NOSPAM from address to email me

© Copyright 2004.

All parts of this Usenet posting are Copyright by the author. It may not be sold in any medium, including electronic, CD-ROM, or database, packaged with any commercial product, or published in print or electronic form without the explicit written permission of the author. The copyright of included material belongs to the original author.

[raden]

But a specific disclaimer such as I've written means that they are in direct contravention of the poster's wishes and there can be no "I didn't see it" excuse

copy my disclaimer or come up with a better one, but let's stop this.

The information contained in this post may not be published in, or used by

[Mark Spice]

Just thought you might likr to know that all of this thread, including Geoff's last one, has appeared on the forum. So it would appear that the copyrights are being ignored.

Anyone for netcopping?

Cheers

Mark Spice

[Richard]

Am I right in thinking that only sequential replies are copied onto DIY wotsit? My reply to Hugo's thread about Poterton hasn't been copied (yet?)

Richard

[mike ring]

raden wrote in news: [e-mail]:

I'm a bit miffed - I was there, don't I count as people?

They are buggers, though, should certainly be stopped.

mike

[Bob Eager]

Indeed...now, what is the best way?

[Capitol]

24hr helpdesk found that putting a major collection of foul language into the replies caused the ISP to pull the plug. Not at all keen, but a thought.

Regards Capitol

[Phil Addison]

Nope - see Myth number 3 of "10 Big Myths about copyright explained"

uk.d-i-y FAQ is at NOSPAM from address to email me

[Phil Addison]

Doh! I thought I did.

However, I've looked at

I posted and it seems that you don't *have* to mark your stuff as copyright at all for it still to be copyright, but it does help to put the standard notice on it, namely "Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]".

Essentially everything you publish is automatically your copyright. The big question is, what do you do if its violated? Answer is, sue 'em. Problem is, you need to sue for some demonstratable amount of monetary damages, and I think there is not much chance unless we all were to be in the process of publishing it ourselves as say a book, and have now lost the chance of selling m/any copies.

Don't know what, if any, difference the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (USA) will make, nor what effect international jurisdiction has. Definitely a case of IANAL.

Phil The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at

NOSPAM from address to email me

[Grunff]

I think a key argument would be that fact that (as already mentioned) Google (and before it Deja) does the same thing.

I have to say, while I think it's a little cheeky, I'm not really bothered by it at all. They aren't going to make their fortune selling Adwords on that site. If it becomes more successful, it's likely to cost them more in hosting than it will make them anyway. So who cares?

[John Rumm]

Would they not be able to argue however, that your post was already in the public domain and hence they can not be held liable for simply repeating it?

[IMM]

If you post on the web site, does it appear here? It appears they have some software that automatically sends the post from here to the web site.

[John Rumm]

What about the "you don't seem to mind google archiving it" angle?

I expect if people object to their posts being reproduced, the first thing to do would be to request the site maintainers delete exisiting posts and then not archive new ones.

[Dave Liquorice]

All those it sees as a single quote.

Those aren't quotes according to the site, time to change my quote prefix. B-)

Got 9 "members" wow...

Oh and with google you have the option of using the X-No-Archive header or tag in the posting body.