Tolls Rise?

[kfurbank]

The blog site in question is hosted by Google. Their T&Cs are fairly clear on the matter.

They comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). 

They also suggest that copyright owners may choose to sue for infringement. In the U.S., copyright infringement may result in statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed and, in some cases, criminal penalties.

[JanetAnne]

10 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Time to insist on the BA meeting its obligation.

Dr Packman assured me personally recently that they were 'aware' of the situation.

11 hours ago, Viking23 said:

If you decided not to pay the river toll on that basis, then what are the consequences?

Sadly the rangers launches draw very little and so they can still get up the dyke and stick their little notices on etc. Unfrtunately the attitude seems to be the same as potter Bridge... if you cant get under you bought the wrong boat!

This boat is an ex Herbert Woods Gay Lady. Been on the network for decades... One day during a flood tide we will make a run for it and move her south permanently.

[JennyMorgan]

8 minutes ago, kfurbank said:

The blog site in question is hosted by Google. Their T&Cs are fairly clear on the matter.

They comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). 

They also suggest that copyright owners may choose to sue for infringement. In the U.S., copyright infringement may result in statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed and, in some cases, criminal penalties.

Plagiarism, possibly; copyright, unlikely. Would the BA risk the legal route? I doubt it. Would they have a case? Maybe but I sincerely doubt it.

Got to say that on both of the bigger Broads forums there a small number of folk, two in particular that write in a similar style, that seem intent on devaluing well meaning folk's comment who genuinely believe that they have a wholly justifiable grievance, or grievances,  against what they sincerely believe to be a deeply flawed institution.

[kfurbank]

Peter, You've lost me a little there? In my post about three hours ago I named the photographer who owned the work, and queried, because I genuinely do not know, whether either of the two parties that have used it, did so with permission, or paid to use it, or even needed to. I didn't single out the BA. My comment about not wanting to see a copyright case paid for out of toll money would apply as equally to one bought by the BA against the imposter, or just as equally one bought by the owner of the picture against the BA. I have a little more hope, but not a lot that the BA are less likely to have broken copyright law, if indeed it has been broken by either party. The rest of my posts on copyright have really been in direct relation to Vaughan as a form of discussion. I hope that's allowed.

Edited to add that the post you have quoted of mine was in direct reply to Vaughan, who suggested it might be a Grey area then? I merely pointed out that Google probably wouldn't think so. I don't think it would matter whether it was the BA, or some fishy pseudonym from the South.

[Vaughan]

I was interested in this because a few months ago I wanted to start a thread about the old railways in Norfolk. This would have been of interest to us, as the holiday boating business was founded on the customers who came here by rail, and all the main centres on the Broads are by an old station. Problem was, I have no photos of my own so I would have had to use ones out of reference books.

I asked the mods if I could do this, so long as I attributed the photos to the book that I had scanned them from. After a long chat we decided it was better not to risk it, so an interesting thread was not possible.

The other reason was that I have a couple of friends in the IT business who, during the birth of the internet, registered hundreds of site names as an investment. I believe they are still selling them at a profit, even now. It just occurred to me that a simple name such as this might possibly be historically owned by some one else?

My personal opinion is that clever satire is an effective and incisive tool to use on an otherwise unaccountable Quango.

[JennyMorgan]

Vaughan, rest assured that that name is not owned by anyone else, surprisingly perhaps. Can't remember which way round now but Broads Authority.com and Broads Authority.net, one was owned, one was not, well, it is now!

Re the railways, perhaps you can find the pictures you want via google and then just use links?

[Timbo]

17 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I was interested in this because a few months ago I wanted to start a thread about the old railways in Norfolk. This would have been of interest to us, as the holiday boating business was founded on the customers who came here by rail, and all the main centres on the Broads are by an old station. Problem was, I have no photos of my own so I would have had to use ones out of reference books.

I asked the mods if I could do this, so long as I attributed the photos to the book that I had scanned them from. After a long chat we decided it was better not to risk it, so an interesting thread was not possible.

The other reason was that I have a couple of friends in the IT business who, during the birth of the internet, registered hundreds of site names as an investment. I believe they are still selling them at a profit, even now. It just occurred to me that a simple name such as this might possibly be historically owned by some one else?

My personal opinion is that clever satire is an effective and incisive tool to use on an otherwise unaccountable Quango.

More often than not Vaughan images in reference books come from image libraries such as this one www.maryevans.com . If it's an obscure branch of historical interest you will often find that that the author of the book is often happy to share images etc from their personal collection to a fellow devotee. I would fire off an email and ask...you never know!

[JennyMorgan]

Re railways, typed in Whitlingham railway and this popped up:

As did this one:

[smellyloo]

Image copyright is something that is often mis-understood a frequent assumption is that if it is in the public domain it can be used.

Only pictures that you have taken, have permission to use from the owner or have been purchased from an image bank can be used.

If you use any other image then you may be persued for infringement of copyright.

Vaughan your railway tread would have been very interesting, it would be worthwhile asking for permission to scan/post the imagery, with correctly formatted accreditation they might be happy to grant it.

[kfurbank]

34 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

The other reason was that I have a couple of friends in the IT business who, during the birth of the internet, registered hundreds of site names as an investment. I believe they are still selling them at a profit, even now. It just occurred to me that a simple name such as this might possibly be historically owned by some one else?

Domain names are only registered, not owned, and only for a period of time with the option of renewal. The practise you describe did and still does take place by speculators, but once a name is registered the mechanics of DNS mean that only the current registrant is able to make use of a domain name. When domain names expire they are then freely up for grabs to be registered by anyone else, providing the existing user hasn't already re-registered before it expired. You queried earlier on in this thread, "Ah, but whose copyright? Suppose the original "user" had not checked to ensure this name was not already registered? " I'm assuming questioning whether the BA actually had the right to use the domain name they are using for their blog? The simple answer is as only one person or company can be registered to a particular domain at any one time, then as the current registrant yes they do. If it had been previously registered then the previous registrant must have let it expire else the BA wouldn't be able to register it.

A slightly different practise to the speculating described above, is cyber squatting where someone looks for a high profile domain name to expire where the original registrant through an oversight has forgotten to re-register in time. The new registrant then offers to sell the domain for a high fee, or may try and embarrass the company by hosting their own rather dubious website at the address. There are now laws against cyber squatting and many international bodies work together to quickly resolve such cases.

An example of speculation is when someone registered during the early 90s the domain for 21st century fox because it was available and knowing that at the turn of the century 20th century fox would more than likely want it, and be willing to pay large amounts for it.

 

[kfurbank]

11 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Plagiarism, possibly; copyright, unlikely. Would the BA risk the legal route? I doubt it. Would they have a case? Maybe but I sincerely doubt it.

Got to say that on both of the bigger Broads forums there a small number of folk, two in particular that write in a similar style, that seem intent on devaluing well meaning folk's comment who genuinely believe that they have a wholly justifiable grievance, or grievances,  against what they sincerely believe to be a deeply flawed institution.

Since the background wallpaper on that blog has now been changed I think we have our answer. Perhaps James needs to stand back and concentrate on his business, rather than making hurried rash decisions?

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

 

I remember catching trains to Yarmouth from there when they were still hauled by steam tank engines. It closed in 1959.

Most of Hearts customers alighted there as well, as they were mostly groups of single adults from the London area. Hence all of Hearts boats were built with lots of single bunk beds.

So groups of young lads are nothing new either!

[BroadScot]

12 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Hence all of Hearts boats were built with lots of single bunk beds.

So groups of young lads are nothing new either!

Many of the larger Aston boats were also single berth, good thinking i'd say

[JennyMorgan]

Perhaps the single bunks were to prevent hanky-panky, nudge- nudge, yer know wot I mean, Jon!

[Vaughan]

Actually, the problem was when a group of young lads on one boat met up with a group of young girls on a boat from a different yard. So when the boat was handed back it had all sorts of strange crockery, cutlery and bed linen on board.

[BroadScot]

7 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

So when the boat was handed back it had all sorts of strange crockery, cutlery and bed linen on board.

So a smashing time was had by all !!! 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

Actually, the problem was when a group of young lads on one boat met up with a group of young girls on a boat from a different yard. So when the boat was handed back it had all sorts of strange crockery, cutlery and bed linen on board.

And sometimes quite strange underwear from under the bunks, some garments being rather less clean than others. Those that were complete with 'skid marks' being greatly prized and paraded for all to see by some of the more coarse members of staff!  A collection of such garments would be found on a workshop wall in most Broads hire yards, . 

Another reason for single bunks was that it was a darn sight easier to cram singles into a hull when building it than it was doubles. An eight berther of singles was a smaller boat than an eight of four doubles so cost was a factor, both for hirer and builder.

 

[vanessan]

When on one of the houseboats (not static) on the River Murray in Australia, I found a loaded shotgun under the bed. I don't think we ever did find out if it belonged to a previous hirer or the boat owner but I would imagine a few kangaroos dived for cover at some point!