Avenue Supplies using uk.d-i-y posts in their advertising

[Chris Bacon]

Righto, so where does that leave Usenet , then?

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

[:::Jerry::::]

If that is correct you have just killed Usenet and more importantly the nntp protocol...

[Owain]

Moreover, even if you have waived your copyright, you have *not* waived your moral rights.

Owain

(c) All rights of the author including moral rights reserved. (This message appears in the headers of all my posts)

[Steve Firth]

Jings, that'll have them breathing a sigh of relief.

[Phil Addison]

You clearly have never looked into copyright law and it's implications on the net. Disclaimers are an entirely different matter. Here's a few links to get you started if you want to avoid making yourself look a fool next time.

Especially the first two.

10 Big Myths about copyright explained brief intro to copyright then you'd have rendered the whole of Usenet unworkable.

Wow - I never knew I had such power.

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.

Avenue Supplies, Plumbing and Central Heating Professionals, of Ealing, London W13 are expressly forbidden to re-publish this message.

Archiving by Google is permitted.

[RichardS]

How so?

[Suz]

So much for the 'friendly' in their disclaimer:

** Parts of this website contain information gathered from the UK.D-I-Y newsgroup. Whilst we make our best effort to sanitise the content from this group of which we consider to be one of the most informative and friendly groups on UUNET its very hard to provide a "catch all" when your dealing with the building trade ;-)

[Phil Addison]

Alive and very well thank you.

Oh dear, you are confused. A copyright says 'this is mine and if you want to copy it you have to negotiate with me'. A disclaimer says 'even if I did write this - and I might not have - you can't touch me for any consequences to you if you act on it'.

I take it you are referring to blanket disclaimers, appended by company servers to their staff email. In all probability they are valueless, but that has yet to be tested in law.

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.

Avenue Supplies, Plumbing and Central Heating Professionals, of Ealing, London W13 are expressly forbidden to re-publish this message.

Archiving by Google is permitted.

[Phil Addison]

Morally, it looks as if they have taken our little protest to heart and switched that bit of the site off, while they think about it.

Perhaps they haven't realised that they've frozen their feed with the top post still displayed right in the middle of their home page saying "AVENUE SUPPLIES IS CRAP!".

Phil

(c) Avenue Supplies have my permission to publish this message :-)

[Phil Addison]

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

Phil

[Phil Addison]

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.

Phil

[Phil Addison]

You should see us when we're really annoyed :)

Phil

[Phil Addison]

Indeed, and in so doing Google made a commercial coup second only to eBay. There was a good documentary about eBay last night.

Phil

[Andy Dingley]

Which under UK copyright law are barely visible anyway.

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.

[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.

[Dave Fawthrop]

| 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 Fawthrop" wrote in | message news: [e-mail]... | > 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).

[:::Jerry::::]

public

they

certainly

they

their

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...

[s--p--o--n--i--x]

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

[Matt]

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