The following account recently came into my possession. I do not know who wrote it, but believe it to be a genuine memoir. The quality of the writing is superb and will provide an antidote to the rubbish that has lately been contributed by Dot.



done edit because of copywrit

carl and mats

 

Simon,

We have had some disingenuous contributors to this forum, but you are the lowest of the low.

Death to the disingenuous!

I don’t understand why you are so upset, Peter.

I received the Boarding School piece by email at the office. Many of my colleagues are fans of this forum, and I thought this would be the ideal place to post it.

Steffosama used to be one of the friendliest people here. Now all she wants to do is kill people. Why?

What on earth has happened here>

Why edit the text?

This must have been done by a panicky Yank - scared of his own shadow.

How on earth "copywrit" [I assume he means "copyright"]
would be a problem, I'm not entirely sure.

Extracts from texts are OFTEN put on the web, usually with an acknowledgment to the author, or [as in this case] saying something along the lines of "author unknown"].

I'm afraid that "Larry", whoever he may be, has over-reacted in the way I am afraid all Yanks seem to do - "PANIC!" first.

Ian,

You are right to suggest that limited extracts (e.g. quotes) from literary works are often published without the consent of the copyright holder and that such publication does not normally attract an action for violation of copyright.

To publish a limited extract is usually permissible but I'm sure you'll agree that if you possessed a copy of the latest Harry Potter novel, it would not be permissible to photocopy it and sell the copies at a car boot sale.

However, what many people fail to understand is that you would also be in breach of the law if you gave those copies away.

Likewise, if you are in lawful possession possession of a copy of a literary work on your PC, you may not without the copyright holder's permission publish that work or send a copy of that work to any other person as in doing so you are copying and publishing the work.

Likewise, if you receive (via email or any other medium) a copy of a protected work you may not publish it - even with modifications - without the copyright holder's permission.

Another aspect of copyright law is that everyone in the chain of publication is liable for breach of copyright even if they didnt know they were breaching copyright .

It is no defence to claim that you didn't know the work was protected by copyright and/or that you don't understand the law and/or that you had no intention of breaching that copyright and/or that there was no financial gain.

Carl and his mats were right to delete the posting: not only because they were in breach of the law by letting it remain but more importantly because they realised their website had been used by others to perpetrate a breach of etiquette.

Our moderators, Carl and his mats, may be incompetent, pig-ignorant, holiday-makers in Worthing that one would not wish to meet on a dark night – or indeed at any time – but they are certainly not Colonials. They are residents of fashionable Camberwell.

C. Nickel is right, of course. The moderators preserved the integrity of the forum in the way that we have come to expect. Well done, men!