huff - someone has taken my website info...

[Mrs Magpie]

Here's what wikipedia says about UK GCSE qualifications. The course starts in Year 10 (14 year olds) and they take exams after two years. They then either leave school, go to college for vocational courses or do A Levels.

At the end of the two-year GCSE course, candidates receive a grade for each subject that they have sat. The pass grades, from highest to lowest, are: A* (pronounced 'A-star'), A, B, C, D, E, F and G. However, only grades A* to C are given much credence by most employers.

GCSEs are part of the National Qualifications Framework. A GCSE at grades D–G is a Level 1 qualification, while a GCSE at grades A*–C is a Level 2 qualification.

Those who fail a course are given a U (unclassified) and the subject is not included on their certificates. Students can also receive an X grade which signifies that they have only completed part of the course or key elements such as coursework are missing and so an appropriate mark cannot be given.

 

[Pingu]

can see why you are miffed (and i think they have totaly ripped your text off) but...

i feel you are going to struggle to get them to agree that saying stuff like "move your toes" and other things that anyone could find out and is the correct advice to give is breaching your copyright.

 

[Space Girl]

No one visits their site anyway but it is annoying that they would do this - lazy sods

I have sent them a Cease and Desist email, sent their ISP a DMCA Notice to Host email and the search engines have been sent a DMCA notification - that's all I can do and I am sure nothing will come of it but nothing ventured nothing gained

 

[Badgers]

I have had this a fair bit.
Website, copy and also by phone to some extent.
Forces me to have to act like a bastard a lot of the time.

 

[grit]

The ISP isint going to give a shit, sorry.

 

[laptop]

The ISP isint going to give a shit, sorry.

If they're US-based, and get a properly-formatted DMCA notice, they have to.

 

[grit]

Eh yeah but you think the OP is going to try and pull that off, sure the site isint even generating income.

 

[Space Girl]

Eh yeah but you think the OP is going to try and pull that off, sure the site isint even generating income.

why wouldn't I be able to?

and so what if my site is not generating any income, where does it state only income based websites are protected?

I have sent them a properly formatted DMCA notice so I am hoping that they will act accordingly

 

[grit]

If they're US-based, and get a properly-formatted DMCA notice, they have to.

The site resolves to IP 66.43.58.79 which is in canada.

 

[grit]

why wouldn't I be able to?

and so what if my site is not generating any income, where does it state only income based websites are protected?

I have sent them a properly formatted DMCA notice so I am hoping that they will act accordingly

It just seems to me a bit over the top to be honest.

 

[Space Girl]

why?

I put a long time and effort into my site and for someone to just come and take my info without asking pisses me off so I am going to do something about it

 

[grit]

I just treat stuff I put online with an attitude that I'm posting it to the world and accept I dont really have any control over the content once I put it up without any viewing restrictions.

But even if you leave that aside copyright on the net is still a massive grey area with a lot of people arguing over the concept of intellectual proprty and what it means. The content while does appear to be extremely similar, but it isint an exact copy by your own admission.

So where do you draw the line? To decide if something is infringing do you set it at only one word being different in the sentence? Essentially all information/research is somebody taking content from other places re arranging it as they like (if at all) and rewriting it.

I cant remember the details and its total anecdotal evidence but I think remembering hearing about a court case where some musician claimed that his track was sampled in another tune without his permission. The other band obviously did from the sound of the sample. There was one thing though, they had changed one note in the melody. According to that judge that was enough to make it different and threw it out.

That story might be total bollocks im not sure, but its a good way of illustrating the point, I think.

 

[laptop]

I just treat stuff I put online with an attitude that I'm posting it to the world and accept I dont really have any control over the content once I put it up without any viewing restrictions.

You can choose to do that because it's your stuff.

And I bet that if your least-favourite political party used your stuff in an ad, or your least-favourite corporation made loadsamoney out of your stuff, you'd want some control back.

But even if you leave that aside copyright on the net is still a massive grey area with a lot of people arguing over the concept of intellectual proprty and what it means.

Mostly the better-informed argument is over what it should be.

Mostly the argument is ill-informed, like the people who think "free software" is anti-copyright and don't realise it's an application of copyright - the author insisting on setting a price, which shall be zero (and if Mr Gates tries another price I'll sue).

Mostly what copyright is is clear, except at the margins...

The content while does appear to be extremely similar, but it isint an exact copy by your own admission.

So where do you draw the line? ...
I cant remember the details and its total anecdotal evidence but I think remembering hearing about a court case where some musician claimed that his track was sampled in another tune without his permission. The other band obviously did from the sound of the sample. There was one thing though, they had changed one note in the melody. According to that judge that was enough to make it different and threw it out.

That story might be total bollocks im not sure, but its a good way of illustrating the point, I think.

Indeed it might. The record small fragment that I know if is Van Morrison getting the entire revenue from a track that sampled four notes of his.

The judge applied UK law, which says that it's an infringement if the court holds that it materially affects the original author's right to exploit their own work.

 

[grit]

And I bet that if your least-favourite political party used your stuff in an ad, or your least-favourite corporation made loadsamoney out of your stuff, you'd want some control back.



Mostly the better-informed argument is over what it should be.

Mostly the argument is ill-informed, like the people who think "free software" is anti-copyright and don't realise it's an application of copyright - the author insisting on setting a price, which shall be zero (and if Mr Gates tries another price I'll sue).

Mostly what copyright is is clear, except at the margins...




Indeed it might. The record small fragment that I know if is Van Morrison getting the entire revenue from a track that sampled four notes of his.

The judge applied UK law, which says that it's an infringement if the court holds that it materially affects the original author's right to exploit their own work.

parsing fail, whats your point?

 

[grit]

Seems the ISP gave as much of a shit as I thought they would, did you even get a response?