,
magazine yet
rag...
Certainly no one
rights that I
You know that the nntp source is open, if you don't like that then don't post messages to it. OTOH, if you really do think you have a case I suggest you try and close Google down, they are doing what the original site in question did on a much grander scale - and most certainty making money out of their targeted adverts.
Nice argument, it almost convinced me. Are you related to Dr Drivel?
Phil The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at
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
Drivel?
No, but I'm starting to think you might be.
still a
search
selective
derivative
depend
No there is not, both are selectively copying, the whys and wherefores of each web site would not make any difference to any copyright infringement.
safe
I suspect they pulled the feed due to all the "Avenue Supplies are crap" type subject lines and thread content, nothing to do with the rights or wrong of the feed.
like in
In other words, "I'm loosing the argument so I'll bow out before I loose all my credibility"...
Ditto, Phil, old bean. Great argument of yours, too. Are you related to Dr. Drivel, or are you Dr. Drivel, incogneto?
What, so it's OK for some organisations do what you are objecting to, as long as they only do it a bit? ROFL!
Ah, backing out already. If he's being rude, you continued it. You make me laugh.
| 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.
I'm neither deaf nor foreign. Shouting isn't going to make you any more understandable.
Owain
| Nobody bothered to contact us showing concern about anything addressed | within this thread prior to letting loose on a public forum.
I pointed out the problem via your contact us page.
| What | gives?
Your actions were illegal.
prior to letting loose on a public forum.
So you were using people's posts to increase your profits? And you wonder why you were slagged off?
Nobody from the company appears to have bothered asking in the group if anyone here minded being used in that way. What gives?
Whilst we might be pleased, even flattered, to be asked it's an insult to be taken for granted. When people post to the group and do nothing but take ideas and offer nothing in return we can deal with that ourselves and - if we feel that it's a bit much - respond (or fail to respond) appropriately. That frequently happens in newsgroups where kids ask questions in order to get their homework answered for free.
But you're doing it underhand. That rankles. If we get the feeling that posters to the group are getting a free ride (free homework) we reserve the right to insert 'apprentice jokes' in our replies and tell them they will need to go for a long stand. But you're doing it underhand - and you noticed the way we dealt with that.
I don't know how the group will deal with it if you now ask permission to do what you have already done. I do know that, unless you do approach it in that way, future posts may well include rude comments about your company and its products. If you think that's unfair then think how much it would cost to commission the information that you display on your site.
Starting from scratch? Try this:
"We have been reading uk.d-i-y and think that many of the posts here offer excellent advice. We run a company that sells diy goods and would like to give the news group an airing on our site. If you agree to that then we'd be very happy to offer uk.d-i-y readers a 20% discount on our goods."
Of course you'd have to be prepared for bolshie people to say "bog off" or similar! ;-)
Verbal diarrhoea, bad manners, double standards, and hysteria. Most unfortunate. I hope you do well with your business.
Please do not use the inclusive "we".
What, like the "very-close-to-advertising" Direct Decorating firm did a while back, that wasn't complained about? Perhaps if robert AT avenuesupplies DOT co DOT uk contributes articles saying which products would be suitable in reply to questions than that'd be OK?
I have no doubt.
I see that the claim that A.S. "filtered" the posts has been denied, and that that denial has already been ignored or disregarded.
Why not? Read it again and see if there is anything that I've said that is wrong. I haven't committed you (or we) to anything or assumed anything on your behalf.
[Snip]
"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 snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com
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:4D_ZZluoBzQJ:
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.
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.
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.
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.
WAS at
Phil The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at
No, you just didn't understand it.
I get posts containing whatever search terms I enter - it's all there, and equally accessible.
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.
then
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.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.