Re: Am I Pamalam being set up by the Daily Mail?

pamalam Wed 1 Feb - 12:15

Just curious

Why would jatyk2.forumotion.co.uk

Have a link headed

[what-on-earth-is-pamalan-on-about].

That is tucked away in the secret section not available to the public.

http://jatyk2.forumotion.co.uk/t1101-what-on-earth-is-pamalan-on-about

In the words of David Bret. Not accusing just asking.

Guest Wed 1 Feb - 13:31

Going off at a bit of an angle (sorry) but is it only me (I have some sensory issues) who cannot read the JATYK forum? The dark blue background makes it virtually unreadable for me. From what I've heard of the site, it's probably best not to read it but, fair's fair, I would give it a chance if it was presented in a readable style.

**fred** Wed 1 Feb - 14:30

You have to be logged in and registered to read, can't you copy what was written?

Guest Wed 1 Feb - 14:44

I'm not sure what you mean Fred. It's the same as here, you can read what's there without being logged in or a member but, because of the colours used, I can't read it. Don't worry, I'm sure it's only me.

It's just that I didn't want to have to take other people's word for it that Bonnybraes is a hate-filled harpy!

Am I Pamalam being set up by the Daily Mail? - Page 3 294124

Am I Pamalam being set up by the Daily Mail? - Page 3 294124

**fred** Wed 1 Feb - 15:18

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I'm not sure what you mean Fred. It's the same as here, you can read what's there without being logged in or a member but, because of the colours used, I can't read it. Don't worry, I'm sure it's only me.

It's just that I didn't want to have to take other people's word for it that Bonnybraes is a hate-filled harpy!

When I click on the link it says you must be logged in. I'm not registered on there. (Might catch something! Am I Pamalam being set up by the Daily Mail? - Page 3 25346

Am I Pamalam being set up by the Daily Mail? - Page 3 25346

)

jeanmonroe Wed 1 Feb - 15:19

WHO has/owns the "copyright" when somebody gives a press conference or "pooled" interview in public?
i.e police appeal for witnesses, Cameron press conference at Downing street etc.
When all the media outlets are INVITED to attend such press conferences WHO/Which INDIVIDUAL out of the many journolists, tv companies assembled can claim EXCLUSIVE copyright to that material?
Hmmm.
If Cameron says "Brown is stupid" at a press conference and that is splashed across EVERY newspaper frontpage do ALL the papers claim exclusive copyright to that quote? not to be repeated or copied by anyone until they have exclusive permission to do so from every INDIVIDUAL paper that printed that.
I DON'T THINK SO!
Or ALL the newsgroups would be instantly suing each other, after each press conference, wouldn't they?

Sara_Rose_ Wed 1 Feb - 15:30

This article, from last weeks Daily Mail seems relevant to this thread. (sorry being a noob I can't post links).

Why do Britain and America have LESS press freedom than just a year ago? Countries which pride themselves on free speech slide down international league table

Britain slides from 19th to 28th place on back of phone hacking, Leveson Inquiry and 'libel tourists'
America falls from 20th to 47th after heavy-handed approach to Occupy demonstrators

**Panda** Wed 1 Feb - 15:46

I think Britain is less Democratic than America Sarah_Rose_ Whatever information you ask for is 9 times out of 10 denied under the freedom of Information act, it really is a disgrace.

**pennylane** Wed 1 Feb - 15:48

Panda wrote:I think Britain is less Democratic than America Sarah_Rose_ Whatever information you ask for is 9 times out of 10 denied under the freedom of Information act, it really is a disgrace.

I absolutely agree Panda, by a long shot.

Guest Wed 1 Feb - 15:55

I think there are many Countries that are not openly Democratic that work better than the alleged free West.

Probably because of the massive imbalance between Rights and Responsibilities (anyone remember those?).

**Panda** Wed 1 Feb - 16:33

The End Is Nigh wrote:I think there are many Countries that are not openly Democratic that work better than the alleged free West.

Probably because of the massive imbalance between Rights and Responsibilities (anyone remember those?).

"Rights and Responsibilities"......no, TEIN, refresh my memory. Am I Pamalam being set up by the Daily Mail? - Page 3 294124

I think it is to America's credit that two Reporters were able to force a President to resign, this would never have happened in Britain.

Guest Wed 1 Feb - 16:40

Sorry, not well phrased: What I was trying to get across is that our "freedom" now seems to comprise only of Rights. People seem to have forgotten the price of Rights is Responsibility.

A rant for another Thread/Forum, though.

**Panda** Wed 1 Feb - 16:45

The End Is Nigh wrote:Sorry, not well phrased: What I was trying to get across is that our "freedom" now seems to comprise only of Rights. People seem to have forgotten the price of Rights is Responsibility.

A rant for another Thread/Forum, though.

Britain has a poor voting record for General Elections, about 45%, Is there one Politician you can think of who would make a good Leader???

**pennylane** Wed 1 Feb - 16:48

Panda wrote:
The End Is Nigh wrote:Sorry, not well phrased: What I was trying to get across is that our "freedom" now seems to comprise only of Rights. People seem to have forgotten the price of Rights is Responsibility.

A rant for another Thread/Forum, though.

Britain has a poor voting record for General Elections, about 45%, Is there one Politician you can think of who would make a good Leader???

Too incestuous the whole bloody lot of them!

Guest Wed 1 Feb - 17:02

Panda wrote:
The End Is Nigh wrote:Sorry, not well phrased: What I was trying to get across is that our "freedom" now seems to comprise only of Rights. People seem to have forgotten the price of Rights is Responsibility.

A rant for another Thread/Forum, though.

Britain has a poor voting record for General Elections, about 45%, Is there one Politician you can think of who would make a good Leader???

Hmm. I don't really go for classifications - any one of us can stand for Election.

But this is going way off Pamalam's predicament, so time to call a halt (Must avoid accidental Trolling!) Am I Pamalam being set up by the Daily Mail? - Page 3 25346

mollydog Wed 1 Feb - 18:00

Just got De Ja Vue moment..... Hasnt this situation happened Before on "3 As" site- yes a long while ago. Newspaper forums to do wth maddie Shut Down and 3As had Copies/info?? not sure. But things got a bit worrying on that site to do with Things from The Past NEEDING to be Hidden/Destroyed. Anyone else remember ?

**Chris** Wed 1 Feb - 21:34

NoStone wrote:
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???

I am not sure archiving would be the issue. After all original articles are probably stored by libraries which provide open access even if it might be as hard copy. The copyright legislation is fairly black and white in protecting original work even if in practical terms it might seem to make little difference in reality. Of course it is also possible there is a commercial cost as well. The newspaper website carries advertising the cost of which may well be "hit" driven so arguably reading the article outside of the website could have an impact on revenue streams even if relatively small. There may also be other considerations of online content. Take for example the recent case of the Guardian saying NOTW journalists deleted Millie Dowlers voicemails. That was later shown to be incorrect (or at least there was no evidence it was the case). The Guardian apologised and agreed to amend its online article. If the original was copied and stored, the retraction might not be.

**Chris** Wed 1 Feb - 21:43

jeanmonroe wrote:WHO has/owns the "copyright" when somebody gives a press conference or "pooled" interview in public?
i.e police appeal for witnesses, Cameron press conference at Downing street etc.
When all the media outlets are INVITED to attend such press conferences WHO/Which INDIVIDUAL out of the many journolists, tv companies assembled can claim EXCLUSIVE copyright to that material?
Hmmm.
If Cameron says "Brown is stupid" at a press conference and that is splashed across EVERY newspaper frontpage do ALL the papers claim exclusive copyright to that quote? not to be repeated or copied by anyone until they have exclusive permission to do so from every INDIVIDUAL paper that printed that.
I DON'T THINK SO!
Or ALL the newsgroups would be instantly suing each other, after each press conference, wouldn't they?

It is not the press conference which is subject to copyright it is what a media organisation produces as a result that is. They may all be using the same source material but what is actually written or broadcast by each would constitute "original work" subject to copyright. The fact it is not an exclusive is not relevant.

Sponsored content