retired_2symonds

Whether it's copyrighted or not, common decency is to get permission from the people who created the things in the first place.

retired_genevievemonie

You see now because Ter knows probably what this guy is talking about he just gave 'the' proper and 'non favouring any side' answer.... Because thats how the law works Radestock unfortunately...The courts in England are bound by previous decisions...It doesnt matter what rules are stated in a website, it doesnt work like that... So go and open some books and get educated and READ the cases sent to you and anybody who still doubts what is being said by Ferrari2008 above then also get a copy of 'English Legal System' book and THEN my friends you will know that unfortunately you are not just misleading, you have no idea what you are talking about!!!! Simple....

Yes it indeed says that in a website of the government... But NO it is not that simple and YES you dont know how to read a thread Radestock..Previous courts decisions ARE binding in the UK... And when that is the case, all statutory provisions are overruled since previous cases (posted above which i can guarantee you havent read so you indeed have no clue what you are saying) so that any outcome does not lead to an absurdity.. And in our case SINCE YOU DONT KNOW LAW AT ALL as i observe, contract rulings will apply as posted above... In that respect you would lose completely for all the reasons stated above...What is law and courts you think really???? You think you would walk in and raise only your point and that is the only thing that is going to be heard by his Lordship.... Is that what you think????

MPUXAAXXAXAAXXAXAXA Let me tell you something then.... The case above of Apple v Microsoft decided that graphical user interfaces are not copyrightable... But since you are not educated let ME do that... That means that although they had the © symbol, although they offer contract upon usage and users communicate acceptance (things which you DID NOT do but you consider as irrelevant but trust a court wouldnt especially the offer of the contract rule because its a 'universal rule') etc, the court decided that 'graphical user interfaces are not copyrightable'...In that, and only, you lose straight away... Because what it means, is that this decision basically becomes law BECAUSE another court will not question a previous decision in order to confirm certainty in the law. THAT IS why previous decisions are binding...Let alone all the other aspects which are mentioned above and you havent fulfilled...

So before you just enter a website and read 2 sentences ONLY and PASTE them here, keep in mind that the internet is not so informing..Do you even understand what you are saying? is like saying that you created a program, put it on media (CDs etc) sold it to thousands of people without © symbols,trademarks,reserved rights and without terms of agreement upon usage which the user must accept...So somebody buys it and makes thousands of copies and then sells it....What do you think would happen in court OR let me just say what do you think actually happened in such cases??? You think because of these little things you said the claimant won right????Ohhhhh how naive are you???? The CLAIMANT LOST Radestock because although the court accepted that the claimant had the cration of the software and did belong to him, it would be an "ansurdity however to find FOR him because he had not declared or established that it belonged to the, within the product since absence of © symbols and exclusive rights statements resulted in the defendant being unaware that those rights existed. And by that, the court, under any circumstances, does not imply that the defendant did not know the software belonged to another party since he paid an amount for it; rather, he did not accept any agreement therefore the latter was unaware of the intentions of the intial distributor. As seen in previous cases....it would an absurdity thus to say or argue that the defendant must have known the intentions of the offeror, otherwise in the future constraints will arise. That is the general rule in law; if contract and acceptance are not present by the fault of the creator or by denial of the user, then such a contract binding on any parties does not exist. Conceive this example. If the court found in favor of 'common sense' here then lets argue about an individual who walks into a telecommunications shop and wants a to rent a line. The seller grants the buyer a product and forgets to give him the contract with the terms and conditions to sign. The buyer then leaves the shop and goes and sells the product to a person C for double the price per calendar month, and doesn't pay the telecomunications company at all. In this case either the company or the buyer will sue for non-payment and copyright infrgingemnt since the company is misused for profit genaration (seller) or for no obligation to pay (buyer) respectively. By 'common sense' it would mean that the court has to find for the seller and he would probably terminate the line rental after a reasonable period of unpaid usage. However, that is not the case since there was no contract concluded between them; thus the buyer did not conceptualize the intentions or the terms of the seller nor did he agree to them. Instead, the buyer would argue that since i left the premises without signing an agreement then i am not liable to any terms because the seller agreed to mine, those being to have 'exclusive usage' of the product, a term included in the statutory provisions, and who is to argue that that ain't the 'common sense' of the case? Similar to our case therefore, by fault of the offeror there exists no contract because the buyer, or the user here, has not communicated any acceptance to any terms whatsoever hence he had exclusive usage of that product. Who is to prove at present the intention of the seller? And as you are all informed perfectly well, intention is never proved upon statements within the court room in respect to agreement but by the evidence provided in a written form and distribution procedures. Otherwise, if the court was to apply 'common sense' because the seller claims to have intended otherwise, who can guarantee that his real intentions were not to cause this controversy and then sue for copyright infrigement with the thought that upon winning he could then go ahead and sue for damages and generate more profit? It is widely clear furthermore that if the court was to find for the claimant in this case, it could assist criminal proceedings in the kind that was just mentioned. The court therefore will dismiss this appeal and find for the defendant." (Lord Reid, Contract Law, McKendrick E. 2005)

-END-

So read and get educated...Because YOU just cause more disapproval upon yourself...You are that naive after all...You try to prove you know everything but you know nothing stop insulting yourself Radestock....

Mpuxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxa

Stick to skinning and let educated and knowledgable people comment on matters you dont really know...And if I WAS YOU i would re-enroll to school and learn how to read articles and what their overall meaning is... (ie that the one brings the other in law as stated in the post above)... But you try to present yourself as an educated individual who however has no knowledge on the actual topic whatsoever and you Google, find a sentence you like and paste it here... Your post really amused me though i give you that You try and talk in a way that is convicing about a subject you dont even have a clue... Thats what makes the Web a bad place nowadays, people who have nothing to do and get into forums, hide behind the CPU because they have no life and they are even scared to go out there and do all of this they are doing in here, google everything up because they think the search engine is everything nowadays, and then pretend to know everything while they have no clue.... Jesus kiddos let older people offer you some knowledge... DONT TALK WHEN YOU SHOULD LISTEN....Feel sorry for yourself and stop insulting him, stick to the things you know...

Mpuxxaaaaaxaxaxaaxxaaxxa

And you know you sent this because Ferrari would get banned for making multiple accounts in order to try and educate you people...Thats why you said because you thought it wouldnt happen and you would seem right.... And Ter, when you ban a creator of a thread since they refer to him you should close the thread as well not MISLEAD the user with wrong statements... Aint going to bother coming again here trying to educate people,because not only they dont want to, they just cant!!!!

Ciao

retired_lindseymonson

Wow, for someone so obviously learned and educated, you don't half act like a 12 year old.

retired_baby_girl_leah

CaptainFerret i think we shouldnt get involved where we dont have to... But that is all you guys do here anyway....I would like to inform you that Ter decided to ban this user even though there was no liable reason to do so. Everytime he creates another account and comes in here only to answer the questions and give true education with respect to law provisions and he still gets banned. Now, make no mistake if he acted like a child he would come in here after getting banned and moan and swear and all of that rubbish dont you think?? So 'he has' proved in my opinion that he does not act like a child and that he really has the intention to prohibit anyone firing misleading statements because they know that they have relations within this forum and will get supported. Why do you think Ter keeps banning him? And he does come back and give liable answers because thats his only intention. Well Ter will say 'he broke the rules' but what rules are those Ter? Mate, in such a case he is doing good to everyone but i think is obvious why you keep banning him and in my opinion thats a cover up.

So CaptainFerret mate think again...

retired_lindseymonson

You know, if I were a more suspicious person, I'd swear that you were all the same person. Naaah, nobody would be stupid enough to think that'd fool anyone.

retired_2symonds

Stop creating new accounts. It's clear in the House Rules that alias accounts are not permitted. Look here.

You were put on post moderation (for whatever reason I don't know, it wasn't me who did it) and have continually ignored the forum rules and came back with several alias accounts. You leave me with little choice but to ban your IP address from using these forums as no doubt you will just ignore the rules and correct channels of communication and create a new account anyway.

If you wish to discuss this through the proper channels then the e-mail address that will be displayed when you are banned is the correct place to contact.