Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    A tiny Island, Caribbean
    Posts
    16,978

    Question Is this element of the sale legal?

    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?
    RELAX, Rum may not be the answer, but nor is water or juice. Now what is your Question?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    154

    Default

    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.
    Neil

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    35,609

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nrbx View Post
    They can own the data on a website they bought.
    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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    South of France.
    Posts
    4,147

    Default

    Do it matter?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    35,609

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frankthompson View Post
    Do it matter?
    Not hugely

    Pete

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London
    Posts
    13,579

    Default

    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 ...........



    Furthermore, if you choose to stay a member of the YBW forums your log-in details, password etc will remain unchanged although we will no longer be hosting a specific classic boat/craft forum area.

    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 .
    Blame it on the boogie .

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    35,609

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cuchilo View Post
    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
    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

  8. #8
    photodog is offline Lord High Commander of Upper Broughton and Gunthorpe
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    35,530

    Default

    So, basically the Terms and conditions under which we post, as laid down by IPC, are no longer valid, as they have frustrated them.

  9. #9
    photodog is offline Lord High Commander of Upper Broughton and Gunthorpe
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    35,530

    Default

    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....
    Last edited by photodog; 14-04-11 at 21:22.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    A tiny Island, Caribbean
    Posts
    16,978

    Default

    Oh dear, what have I started with this thread?
    RELAX, Rum may not be the answer, but nor is water or juice. Now what is your Question?

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Latest YBW News

Find Boats For Sale

to
to