Rum_Pirate
Well-known member
Is this element of the sale legal?
Is this element of the sale legal?
- Thread starter Rum_Pirate
- Start date
Is this element of the sale legal?
nrbx
New member
They can own the data on a website they bought, thats as simple as a hard drive. Clearly what they do with it matters more than who owns it.
prv
Well-known member
Not, however, if the seller didn't own it either.
The forum rules and privacy statement provide the terms under which the data is provided. Those terms didn't transfer copyright ownership, so each contributor still owns their own contributions. The terms do provide a license for YBW to do various things with the data, such as publish it via the forums, or print it (possibly in edited form) in a magazine. If that license also provided for sale or transfer, everything would be fine and there'd be no problem. But, whether through oversight or whatever, IPC didn't put such a term in the license. That means that IPC don't have any right in law to sell the data to a third party. Since they don't own it, they also can't grant any further rights to Chelsea, so even if Chelsea get a copy they would be infringing on the copyright by publishing it unless they can obtain a license from each individual copyright owner, ie us.
It's almost a pity that it's not worth pursuing the case (and it isn't, unless you're a massive copyright pedant with money to burn) because it's about as open-and-shut as it gets.
(Note that this is entirely separate from the names-and-email addresses question that Madhatter is getting aerated about.)
Pete
KINGFISHER 8
Well-known member
Do it matter?
prv
Well-known member
Captain Coochie
Active member
As PRV said they have sold something they didnt own . Photodog also laid out the law and to be honest i am quite suprised that the deal was done when both parties know that law very well .
I think the main point is this ...........
That says no more classic section on YBW right ?
Now we all like to look in here even if we dont post . Dont we ?
It seems to me that Chelsea and IPC are battling over something they dont own . IPC are giving in and saying yes you own it but they cant as IPC never owned it to sell . It was just on loan to IPC under an IPC contract .
My only mission in this whole thing is to keep the classic section on YBW with all of its posts . I really cannot see why this would be a problem as all of the posts cannot be sold under IPC contract as the do not own them .
I think the main point is this ...........
That says no more classic section on YBW right ?
Now we all like to look in here even if we dont post . Dont we ?
It seems to me that Chelsea and IPC are battling over something they dont own . IPC are giving in and saying yes you own it but they cant as IPC never owned it to sell . It was just on loan to IPC under an IPC contract .
My only mission in this whole thing is to keep the classic section on YBW with all of its posts . I really cannot see why this would be a problem as all of the posts cannot be sold under IPC contract as the do not own them .
prv
Well-known member
I don't think there's any battling going on. IPC wanted to sell the magazine, and it seems only natural that the associated forum goes with it. They're not trying to keep it.
If the terms we had signed up to said something along the lines of "IPC may decide to transfer the operation of the forum to another company, in which case you agree to grant the above rights to that other company", there would be no issue. Unfortunately, they foresaw acquisition and merger, but not divestiture, so didn't write any such term into the agreement. Therefore it appears that they now don't have the right to transfer the forum content to Chelsea even though both of them want that to happen.
This is exactly the sort of thing that crops up with source code in my line of work, and in that arena it can prevent actions that on the face of it seem perfectly sensible and uncontroversial, and to which nobody is now or will ever object, but our lawyers will not let us do because the license (or more usually, combination of licenses) cannot allow it.
Pete
photodog
Lord High Commander of Upper Broughton and Gunthor
So, basically the Terms and conditions under which we post, as laid down by IPC, are no longer valid, as they have frustrated them.
photodog
Lord High Commander of Upper Broughton and Gunthor
I do find it bizarre that employees of IPC are willing to personally commit criminal acts on behalf of their employer.... I wonder if this is down to lack of knowledge?
Section 107;
107 Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing articles, &c.E+W+S+N.I..
(1)A person commits an offence who, without the licence of the copyright owner—.
(a)makes for sale or hire, or.
(b)imports into the United Kingdom otherwise than for his private and domestic use, or.
(c)possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright, or.
(d)in the course of a business —.
(i)sells or lets for hire, or.
(ii)offers or exposes for sale or hire, or.
(iii)exhibits in public, or.
(iv)distributes, or.
(e)distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,.
an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work.
.
Its intersting to note that this applies to the officers and employees of a company..... they are not absolved of criminal responsibility...
4)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(a), (b), (d)(iv) or (e) is liable—.
(a)on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;.
(b)on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding [F3ten] years, or both..
I fail to understand why people do not realise just how serious a crime this is in the eyes of the law.... on conviction you can get 10 years....
Section 107;
107 Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing articles, &c.E+W+S+N.I..
(1)A person commits an offence who, without the licence of the copyright owner—.
(a)makes for sale or hire, or.
(b)imports into the United Kingdom otherwise than for his private and domestic use, or.
(c)possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright, or.
(d)in the course of a business —.
(i)sells or lets for hire, or.
(ii)offers or exposes for sale or hire, or.
(iii)exhibits in public, or.
(iv)distributes, or.
(e)distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,.
an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work.
.
Its intersting to note that this applies to the officers and employees of a company..... they are not absolved of criminal responsibility...
4)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(a), (b), (d)(iv) or (e) is liable—.
(a)on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;.
(b)on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding [F3ten] years, or both..
I fail to understand why people do not realise just how serious a crime this is in the eyes of the law.... on conviction you can get 10 years....
Last edited:
Rum_Pirate
Well-known member
Oh dear, what have I started with this thread?
prv
Well-known member
Might want to hold back on such accusations. I've asked in a more knowledgeable group, and so far one answer has mentioned an angle I hadn't thought of.
It's not uncommon for answers in that group to come back diametrically opposed to each other though
- will have to see what anyone else adds.Pete
AndrewB
Well-known member
This really bugs me too. How are YBW distinguishing Classics Forum regulars from the rest of registered YBW forum members?
I'm not normally interested in Classics Forum but happened in here by chance, horrified to discover that YBW seem to be selling my personal information without even letting me know, regardless of undertakings by the new proprietors to observe the Data Protection Act.
IPC need to have a word with their lawyers here, it is very likely this is illegal.
I'm not normally interested in Classics Forum but happened in here by chance, horrified to discover that YBW seem to be selling my personal information without even letting me know, regardless of undertakings by the new proprietors to observe the Data Protection Act.
IPC need to have a word with their lawyers here, it is very likely this is illegal.
Sixpence
Active member
It is, they just haven't admitted it yet, thinking they're dealing with idiots. They seem to have no idea how illegal what they're planning to do, is
BrendanS
Well-known member
Based on your reading of the fine print, how have you come to this conclusion?
prv
Well-known member
BrendanS
Well-known member
Sixpence, who I responded to.
Sixpence
Active member
That would be me then
You get all sorts of customers in this line of work Brenda, one or two happen to know a bit about legal stuff where this sort of thing applies
Two began to sign up so they could see the T&C's, then backed out when they read the thread in question
Says it all really
duncanmack
Well-known member
Quote:
"IPC Media sold the magazine Classic Boat and the associated Classic Boat website and forum as a going concern to Chelsea Publishing late 2010. Chelsea Publishing now own all Classic Boat trademarks, content and associated data including forum names and email addresses of people who have posted to the Classic Boat forum
Is this element of the sale legal?"
I refer you to the bottom of the page.
Privacy Statement
What will we disclose to third parties?
If you consent we may sell, rent or trade your personal information to third parties for their marketing purposes. Such third parties will be carefully selected and registered with the Information Commissioner.
We may also pass your personal information to third parties to enable them to process a request, order or service; or to supply you with a prize in the event you win a competition or in order to obtain professional advice.
We may provide anonymous, non-personally identifiable aggregate information to advertisers and our business partners, including information relating to sales and web-usage, to enable us to sell advertising and monitor the efficacy of our business partnerships. We may also pass such statistical information onto reputable third parties for onward sale.
It is possible that IPC Media could merge or be acquired by another business. If this happens we may share the information that relates to you. You will be sent notice of such an event.
IPC Media reserves the right to disclose personally identifiable information in order to comply with the law, applicable regulations and government requests. We also reserve the right to use such information in order to protect our operating systems and integrity as well as other users.
Any third parties employed by us to process your data on our behalf are subject to contractual obligations to protect the security of your data in accordance with the terms of this Privacy Policy.
---------------------------------------
But you probably knew this.
Has there been a change in this statement in the last few weeks/days?
"IPC Media sold the magazine Classic Boat and the associated Classic Boat website and forum as a going concern to Chelsea Publishing late 2010. Chelsea Publishing now own all Classic Boat trademarks, content and associated data including forum names and email addresses of people who have posted to the Classic Boat forum
Is this element of the sale legal?"
I refer you to the bottom of the page.
Privacy Statement
What will we disclose to third parties?
If you consent we may sell, rent or trade your personal information to third parties for their marketing purposes. Such third parties will be carefully selected and registered with the Information Commissioner.
We may also pass your personal information to third parties to enable them to process a request, order or service; or to supply you with a prize in the event you win a competition or in order to obtain professional advice.
We may provide anonymous, non-personally identifiable aggregate information to advertisers and our business partners, including information relating to sales and web-usage, to enable us to sell advertising and monitor the efficacy of our business partnerships. We may also pass such statistical information onto reputable third parties for onward sale.
It is possible that IPC Media could merge or be acquired by another business. If this happens we may share the information that relates to you. You will be sent notice of such an event.
IPC Media reserves the right to disclose personally identifiable information in order to comply with the law, applicable regulations and government requests. We also reserve the right to use such information in order to protect our operating systems and integrity as well as other users.
Any third parties employed by us to process your data on our behalf are subject to contractual obligations to protect the security of your data in accordance with the terms of this Privacy Policy.
---------------------------------------
But you probably knew this.
Has there been a change in this statement in the last few weeks/days?
BrendanS
Well-known member
Who are the two who began to sign up and read T&C'sThat would be me then
You get all sorts of customers in this line of work Brenda, one or two happen to know a bit about legal stuff where this sort of thing applies
Two began to sign up so they could see the T&C's, then backed out when they read the thread in question
Says it all really
prv
Well-known member
IPC has neither been bought by, merged with, or indeed bought Chelsea Publishing, so that doesn't apply.
I believe the mechanism being used is not anything set down explicitly in the terms, but rather the general principle that rights in content can be bought and sold separately from the content. That's the extra leap that was missing from my earlier assessment. So IPC can't sell our contributions, but they can sell their right to publish them. The terms could prohibit that (you often see the phrase "you grant us a non-exclusive, non-transferrable license to...") but I don't think these ones (haven't bothered to re-read) do.
So that's that covered. I'm happy now, I think.
Pete