OT pinching and re-using data of the net

No, that's because they're stupid and ignored the "Ford" signs.

Beats me why people take what their SatNav says as gospel. If mine
looks like it's taking me somewhere stupid, I carry on driving and
wait for it to recalculate the route.

 

If people get that data and post-it on hare, they can't complain when
that person starts saying bad things about that poster and the victim
can only assuming the worse when the poster starts snooping around. I
they will don't have a chance in hell of taking any sort of legal
action because they posted plenty of stuff that have been officially
complained about and removed from the archives. Any sort of legal
action will only be followed be canter canter legal action. I can even
porve that he have been insighting racism because he offered my details
to a person who hold racist views(and can be jailed if found guilty).

Tough shit I will say what I bloody well like about that person now,
because he is a total **** and he will soon experience how it feels
like.

 

So you're saying that you're already a ****. Nice admission Tone.

 

" A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to
secure access to any program or data held in any computer;"

Looks like we're all breaking the law all day long then.

Every time I use a web-browser to click on a hyperlink for example, I'm
intemding to access the data held on a web page in another computer. The
law doesn't make explicit whether it excludes data which the owner intends
to make publicly accessible. Of course, the act came in before Tim Berners
Lee brought us the world wide web.

As I said near the start of the thread, I can buy the data I need at a
price which makes scraping it off the web look like hard work. I'm just
interested where the borderline lies between public domain info and
protected info.

Copyright and database right exist whether or not the author asserts the
existence of those rights through publishing T&C's on a website. Against
this, public domain info falls outside copyright.

As The Old Git has now admitted, it's a grey area.

 

There's a cost incurred in collating, ordering, laying out and
publishing of a list of publically available information, and this is
what the law is protecting.

 

I think the law is much more twisted than you suggest and has a great
deal to do with protecting minority vested interest and **** all to do
with public interest.

I suggest the counter argumemnt:
"It's all just fine as long as you don't get caught"

 

tallbloke wrote

Read it again and this time do it sitting down so that minor organ of
yours doesn't suffer blood lost and you will see right at the very
beginning of the act it wibbles on about "unauthorised". Publishing a
web addy is an invitation to go and look so your browsing is the
complete reverse of authorised.


Careful how you stand up.

 

And yet not 24 hours ago tog made this reponse to my raising of this very
issue thusly:

+> Big difference between (say) a document fulls of paragraphs of
technical
+> information about borlotti beans and a bunch of names and addresses
which
+> are available at companies house.
+>
+> I really don't think this is hard to understand either.
+
+Copyright law says otherwise. Just try copying someone's list and see
what happens.
+
+Here's a clue: don't try arguing on subjects you know nothing about.


Oh dear TOG, it' doesn't take you long to go from losing an argument, to
frothing at the mouth and making a prick of yourself these days does it?

You really shouldn't dish it out, as your blood pressure obviously can't
stand taking it back, and your memory obviously isn't up to the job any
more.

 

LOL.

 

Ta Steve.
<wobbles off for coffee>

 

how what feels like, Tony?

Watch the skies! Keep watching!

 

@individual.net:

Seems to be the way the minority vested interest has always worked anyway ;-)

The string vested majority should take a leaf from their book.

 

You've ordered a tactical air strike? Cool!

--
Krusty.

http://www.muddystuff.co.uk
http://www.muddystuff.us
Off-road classifieds

'02 MV Senna '03 Tiger (FOYRNB) '96 Tiger '79 Fantic 250

 

tallbloke wrote

unauthorised, my bad.

 

Hi Darsy.

I'm amazed this window steamer still frequents UKRM

 

I've looked into the legal repurcussions of online defamation, and
basically it's too complex, unclear, and costly (no legal aid for
libel cases). And Tony has no money, so what would be the point of
suing him anyway? There are some clearer options (see: Godfrey versus
Demon Internet for example) involving a court of law, but they're
somewhat time consuming.

 

darsy wrote

Bolts from the blue? Isn't that just a tad foreign?

 

he's been a little bit naughty recently, so I'm considering having him
whacked ;-)

 

Coffee?

 

Just thump the mouthy ****. You know you'll feel better afterwards.
Haven't we got his address somewhere from when he registered that domain?