Am I Pamalam being set up by the Daily Mail?

pamalam wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I take it that we are talking about someone who contributed a pro McCann comment on the website?

Whoever is behind this really needs to get out more!

No I was not a pro McCann comment this is what confused me. I would say more from Anti/ fence sitter

I was going to say the same, click ALL comments, it;s the one made at 1.39 by someone initialled GM, it's definitely not pro.

Ah, fence-sitter: Now where have I heard that alleged position espoused recently ???

Lillyofthevalley wrote:One has to ask what is about to come out, this is a bit desperate by a Pro McCann imo

It is not a pro McCann comment by GM (not Gerry McCann) but I can't understand why this person hasn't asked Daily Mail to remove it from their site or did DM refused so she asked Sarah Graham to get it removed from Pamalam's site as it appeared there also.

Still somewhat odd to complain now after nearly 14 months on the DM & Pamalam's sites.

Have taken a look at Mail onlines Privacy policy and also their Terms when you post a comment Have read it quickly cant see anything where it gives the poster the power not to be quoted..........if replying to a post you are able to quote a previous post and you dont have to ask permission to do that.

Perhaps someone here who is techy minded could copy and paste or post a link, I have tried but I am useless. It might just help Pamalam

Pamalam, it sounds to me like someone has been searching pretty hard to find some reason to get your site closed down. I'm wondering if it could be that certain originals you have copied cannot be edited while you have all of them on your site.

gillyspot wrote:

Lillyofthevalley wrote:One has to ask what is about to come out, this is a bit desperate by a Pro McCann imo

It is not a pro McCann comment by GM (not Gerry McCann) but I can't understand why this person hasn't asked Daily Mail to remove it from their site or did DM refused so she asked Sarah Graham to get it removed from Pamalam's site as it appeared there also.

Still somewhat odd to complain now after nearly 14 months on the DM & Pamalam's sites.

gillyspot just because it reads like an Anti McCann doesn't mean it wasn't from a Pro McCann supporter playing games

Strange how its raised its head now of all times

What is Gerry McCann "on"? Does he think he can shut down the WWW, Twitter, etc.? Surely Carter-Ruck can't support his latest project.

Lillyofthevalley wrote:

gillyspot wrote:

Lillyofthevalley wrote:One has to ask what is about to come out, this is a bit desperate by a Pro McCann imo

It is not a pro McCann comment by GM (not Gerry McCann) but I can't understand why this person hasn't asked Daily Mail to remove it from their site or did DM refused so she asked Sarah Graham to get it removed from Pamalam's site as it appeared there also.

Still somewhat odd to complain now after nearly 14 months on the DM & Pamalam's sites.

gillyspot just because it reads like an Anti McCann doesn't mean it wasn't from a Pro McCann supporter playing games

Strange how its raised its head now of all times

There is going to be a whole load of tricks going on while Leveson is on - plus of course their defensive tactics agianst Tony Bennett and Dr Amaral.

It's like the retreat from Stalingrad - they taste defeat (Dr Amaral - Lisbon Appeal Court0, counterattack and spew forth all the blessed propaganda your mouthpiece can come up with to tell the public the McCann version of the truth.

@ PALMALAM I reckon it could be a forerunner with a new NOT YET SOPA law.. THAT IS REALLY GOING TO KILL THE INTERNET......This person imo is trying to scare you big time and if this law is passed it really could be the end of the www.imo But then again I could be wrong. good luck anyway, YOU FIGHTER YOU XXX

steve1295 wrote:@ PALMALAM I reckon it could be a forerunner with a new NOT YET SOPA law.. THAT IS REALLY GOING TO KILL THE INTERNET......This person imo is trying to scare you big time and if this law is passed it really could be the end of the www.imo But then again I could be wrong. good luck anyway, YOU FIGHTER YOU XXX

ACTA has already been signed by Obama! Worse than SOPA, some folks are saying. A very long article. Read the full article here:

http://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-global-internet-treaty-worse-than-sopa/

White House bypasses Senate to ink agreement that could allow Chinese companies to demand ISPs remove web content in US with no legal oversight

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, January 26, 2012

Months before the debate about Internet censorship raged as SOPA and PIPA dominated the concerns of web users, President Obama signed an international treaty that would allow companies in China or any other country in the world to demand ISPs remove web content in the US with no legal oversight whatsoever.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement was signed by Obama on October 1 2011, yet is currently the subject of a White House petition demanding Senators be forced to ratify the treaty. The White House has circumvented the necessity to have the treaty confirmed by lawmakers by presenting it an as “executive agreement,” although legal scholars have highlighted the dubious nature of this characterization.

Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. Whereas ISPs normally are only forced to remove content after a court order, all legal oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply globally, rendering the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than SOPA or PIPA.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-global-internet-treaty-worse-than-sopa/

It's one thing passing a law like SOPA. It's another thing entirely policing it.

And yes, Pamalam, given the track record of the media in this country, I would think it would be safe to assume that you are being set up by the Daily Mail.

pamalam - I'm really sorry you're getting all this hassle. I could stamp my feet and say "it's not fair" but then nothing in this whole charade is fair or sensible. Good luck and I hope they don't manage to silence all us disbelievers.

Chris wrote:I wouldn't be too concerned about the comment it is not now the real issue. The letter from the Mail is a different matter. Unfortunately by reproducing their articles wholesale their copyright is infringed if they wish to take issue. It might be worth a conciliatory response explaining that the purpose of the site is to provide a resource of materials on the case and is not for profit. It is also worth pointing out that all articles are properly credited and linked back to the original. They might be prepared to allow you fair usage.

Chris - you seem to have some knowledge here - are you saying copyright can be considered `infringed` if an article is copied in total? What if its not ALL of it? Text books are written with massive bibliographies (as is Wiki) and I`m sure the authors of the textbooks don`t ask every single one for their permission.

AnnaEsse wrote:Pamalam, it sounds to me like someone has been searching pretty hard to find some reason to get your site closed down. I'm wondering if it could be that certain originals you have copied cannot be edited while you have all of them on your site.

For that reason Pamalam, please make sure everything is backed up and stored under lock and key NOT on your premises (even the key).

thats a point there Pamalan, you have articles which can no longer be accessed at their source, so theres stuff there that some dont want listed anywhere. Keep safe. jimo

AnnaEsse wrote:Pamalam, it sounds to me like someone has been searching pretty hard to find some reason to get your site closed down. I'm wondering if it could be that certain originals you have copied cannot be edited while you have all of them on your site.

That hits the nail on the head for me. Just like in Orwell's 1984 - they want all prior knowledge & truth to go down the memory hole.

I do try to actually print off certain info I suspect will get deleted or drastically altered, updated, or censored but there's an awful lot that I didn't save & print that's since been whooshed. :-(

Sorry that you're being subjected to this tyranny Pamalam because one way or another, whoever is stirring the sh*t it still it comes down to tyranny. Shame on them!

So "somebody" is trying to get the news articles deleted on blogs and forums, who's next?

This is the reason that Wikipedia had their one day blackout last week. They can see what is happening if SOPA come in. It will kill the internet as we know it and halt all discussion and just become a media selling space.

As regards the Daily Fail I note that Sarah Graham has said

"There are no plans for MailOnline to go behind a paywall. People will always find news free elsewhere and so MailOnline will continue to be free for the foreseeable future. MailOnline’s twitter account has more than 33,000 followers and is used mainly to push out content but the Facebook page is moving forward to increase engagement with readers."

http://www.gorkanapr.com/news/article?news_articles_id=10158

I see the original article was by Vanessa Allen (experienced McCann journalist) - perhaps GM wrote to her originally and it is her that is pushing this.

IMO - GM has been used as a stalking horse so it looks like someone else has raised this with the Dm and make it look as if its not them thhat's shutting down Freedom of Speech.

It might be worth asking the question where thier copywright statement is on their internet page - is it clear and obvious for all to see - does it prevent emailing any link to any of their pages or making links to them on web-site/in bloggs etc or is it just out and out copy and pasting they object to. It would be interesting to know if thhis is also the policy of the other papers, Sky, the BBC etc etc or are the DM going out on a limb. If electronic reference in emails, bloggs etc etc is to be prevented then I would imagine the number of hits these 'news' agencies would get will be greatly reduced.

It is also woth bearing in mind that some papers use material first printed by others and providing crediit is given to theoriginal source then this seems acceptable.

Finally, the big issue here is of course Freedom of Speech! If you can read something inn a newspaper but are not allowed to pass that on without permission - verbally or electronically - whats the poiint in having any news at all. Of course the obvious reaction to a serious suppression of information is that - in some form or other - as in Russia and China and some Arabs states - things will go 'underground' and I am not just talking about the things some people dont want you to discuss - I mean the whole gambit and with it any remaining vestigages of democracy. Note - it started here!!

Oldartform wrote:

Chris wrote:I wouldn't be too concerned about the comment it is not now the real issue. The letter from the Mail is a different matter. Unfortunately by reproducing their articles wholesale their copyright is infringed if they wish to take issue. It might be worth a conciliatory response explaining that the purpose of the site is to provide a resource of materials on the case and is not for profit. It is also worth pointing out that all articles are properly credited and linked back to the original. They might be prepared to allow you fair usage.

Chris - you seem to have some knowledge here - are you saying copyright can be considered `infringed` if an article is copied in total? What if its not ALL of it? Text books are written with massive bibliographies (as is Wiki) and I`m sure the authors of the textbooks don`t ask every single one for their permission.

Substantial or wholesale reproduction is an infringement except in very limited circumstances (for example a single copy for personal research). Limited copying of a part (which is not substantial) for say a critique or review may be allowable provided due reference is made to the copyrighted work. Taking your example of a textbook or Wiki, if it is a limited quote and an acknowledgement it would most likely pass the test. There is a fuller explanation here:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy.htm

NoStone wrote:IMO - GM has been used as a stalking horse so it looks like someone else has raised this with the Dm and make it look as if its not them thhat's shutting down Freedom of Speech.

It might be worth asking the question where thier copywright statement is on their internet page - is it clear and obvious for all to see - does it prevent emailing any link to any of their pages or making links to them on web-site/in bloggs etc or is it just out and out copy and pasting they object to. It would be interesting to know if thhis is also the policy of the other papers, Sky, the BBC etc etc or are the DM going out on a limb. If electronic reference in emails, bloggs etc etc is to be prevented then I would imagine the number of hits these 'news' agencies would get will be greatly reduced.

It is also woth bearing in mind that some papers use material first printed by others and providing crediit is given to theoriginal source then this seems acceptable.

Finally, the big issue here is of course Freedom of Speech! If you can read something inn a newspaper but are not allowed to pass that on without permission - verbally or electronically - whats the poiint in having any news at all. Of course the obvious reaction to a serious suppression of information is that - in some form or other - as in Russia and China and some Arabs states - things will go 'underground' and I am not just talking about the things some people dont want you to discuss - I mean the whole gambit and with it any remaining vestigages of democracy. Note - it started here!!

The Mail's copyright statement is in their terms and conditions. Having said that copyright of original work is an automatic right you don't have to claim it. The Mail's terms and conditions also specifically allow "sharing" by links, in fact they usually have a share button on each article allowing you to do it. I haven't looked at other papers but I would be very surprised if they don't carry similar copyright statements.

I would have thought whatever any Newspaper prints is in the public domain and as long as the reproduction is sourced, what harm does it do? If,
as Pamalam says, it is not GM, who is it making the complaint......it has to be him, who else would want to be so petty.

Chris wrote:

Oldartform wrote:

Chris wrote:I wouldn't be too concerned about the comment it is not now the real issue. The letter from the Mail is a different matter. Unfortunately by reproducing their articles wholesale their copyright is infringed if they wish to take issue. It might be worth a conciliatory response explaining that the purpose of the site is to provide a resource of materials on the case and is not for profit. It is also worth pointing out that all articles are properly credited and linked back to the original. They might be prepared to allow you fair usage.

Chris - you seem to have some knowledge here - are you saying copyright can be considered `infringed` if an article is copied in total? What if its not ALL of it? Text books are written with massive bibliographies (as is Wiki) and I`m sure the authors of the textbooks don`t ask every single one for their permission.

Substantial or wholesale reproduction is an infringement except in very limited circumstances (for example a single copy for personal research). Limited copying of a part (which is not substantial) for say a critique or review may be allowable provided due reference is made to the copyrighted work. Taking your example of a textbook or Wiki, if it is a limited quote and an acknowledgement it would most likely pass the test. There is a fuller explanation here:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy.htm

Thanks Chris - that clarifies things

Chris wrote:

NoStone wrote:IMO - GM has been used as a stalking horse so it looks like someone else has raised this with the Dm and make it look as if its not them thhat's shutting down Freedom of Speech.

It might be worth asking the question where thier copywright statement is on their internet page - is it clear and obvious for all to see - does it prevent emailing any link to any of their pages or making links to them on web-site/in bloggs etc or is it just out and out copy and pasting they object to. It would be interesting to know if thhis is also the policy of the other papers, Sky, the BBC etc etc or are the DM going out on a limb. If electronic reference in emails, bloggs etc etc is to be prevented then I would imagine the number of hits these 'news' agencies would get will be greatly reduced.

It is also woth bearing in mind that some papers use material first printed by others and providing crediit is given to theoriginal source then this seems acceptable.

Finally, the big issue here is of course Freedom of Speech! If you can read something inn a newspaper but are not allowed to pass that on without permission - verbally or electronically - whats the poiint in having any news at all. Of course the obvious reaction to a serious suppression of information is that - in some form or other - as in Russia and China and some Arabs states - things will go 'underground' and I am not just talking about the things some people dont want you to discuss - I mean the whole gambit and with it any remaining vestigages of democracy. Note - it started here!!

The Mail's copyright statement is in their terms and conditions. Having said that copyright of original work is an automatic right you don't have to claim it. The Mail's terms and conditions also specifically allow "sharing" by links, in fact they usually have a share button on each article allowing you to do it. I haven't looked at other papers but I would be very surprised if they don't carry similar copyright statements.

Thanks Chris I found it! It seems to me that we might be straying more into the realm of Web-Archiving? If the original item has been removed from the web I could understand someone getting annoyed if it was stored on a web-site with open access - but if in fact the article is still effectively archived on the web - where is the copywright issue as it seems the only issue is the portal through which it is accessed???