Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Grade-A lunacy. With your money.

78 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

  • Leigh Kennaway,

    Makes me wonder why Public Address doesn't have a policy that requires users to obtain written permission (within 1 to 5 working days) before commenting on the System?

    Please submit comments in typing, double-spaced on single sided A4 paper. Attach to a bottle of single malt whiskey (min 750ml), and post to R Brown Esq, Private Bag, Point Chevalier. Enclose a stamped, self addressed envelope if you require acknowledgement or a reply.

    sunny Pt Chevalier • Since Mar 2008 • 40 posts Report Reply

  • Mike Dickison,

    Until at least late 2007, Te Papa had a proscription on linking to their web pages without permission. (They've since dropped that, and now have quite reasonable T&C.) But seriously: Te Papa? Our Place? I guess it was a sign that someone didn't have a clue.

    When I enquired in 2007, Te Papa replied, “We are not aware of any legal obstacles to this approach. It affords us some level of protection against inappropriate linking that could be damaging to our various interests.” A marvellous piece of nonsense.

    Since Feb 2010 • 12 posts Report Reply

  • Sam F,

    Grade-A lunacy. With your money.

    You may regret having used this title now, should Banks' Supercity Olympics proposal get any traction in the real world...

    But yes, seems like a spectacularly stupid set of rules to provide for a website. And this:

    do not modify the information or make it available to third parties through a networked computer environment

    Does this mean I can't actually tell other people what the URL is for the Auckland Council website?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1609 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    It affords us some level of protection against inappropriate linking that could be damaging to our various interests.

    Says the museum that hosted a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    But seriously: Te Papa? Our Place? I guess it was a sign that someone didn't have a clue.

    To be fair, they're probably trying to protect people from using copyrighted images. Artists and estates may provide permission for a museum or gallery to put images up on a web site on the condition that it only appears on that web site.

    Obviously that's damn hard to make happen in the real world, but stringent terms and conditions may have been part of their attempt.

    Not everyone has the ability to work in ideal conditions around the internet.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Sam F,

    Interesting; I can't find the offending paragraph on the Manukau Libraries site anymore - have they nixed it since the blog post?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1609 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    Grade-A lunacy. With your money.

    You may regret having used this title now, should Banks' Supercity Olympics proposal get any traction in the real world...

    Nah. That would be Gold Medal Lunacy.

    You'd never make it as a subbie, being so blind to obvious puns =)

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3202 posts Report Reply

  • Ben Gracewood,

    Ben, can you check the amended post and see if I've missed anything about the Auckland Council T&Cs?

    Looks good. I think they're trying to cover scraping and re-using with the "do not [...] make it available to third parties through a networked computer environment". I presume that is designed to stop people writing an app over top of the library catalogs, bus timetables, etc..

    In any case, it's a load of scallops. You could read that clause as not allowing any data to go through a router!

    Orkland • Since Nov 2006 • 168 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Interesting; I can't find the offending paragraph on the Manukau Libraries site anymore - have they nixed it since the blog post?

    They have!

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22754 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    I presume that is designed to stop people writing an app over top of the library catalogs, bus timetables, etc..

    Which is still counter-productive and wrong.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22754 posts Report Reply

  • Ben Gracewood,

    Interesting; I can't find the offending paragraph on the Manukau Libraries site anymore - have they nixed it since the blog post?

    Yep goneburger. I sent them an email this morning asking what I should do if a friend asks me on Twitter if Manukau library has a certain book.

    Normally I'd give them a URL.

    Orkland • Since Nov 2006 • 168 posts Report Reply

  • Lyndon Hood,

    I mean, if they really wanted to, could they set up a whitelist of authorised referrers and block everyone else? Why are they asking US to do their relevance-minimising?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1115 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    To be fair, they're probably trying to protect people from using copyrighted images. Artists and estates may provide permission for a museum or gallery to put images up on a web site on the condition that it only appears on that web site.

    If you link to an image, it doesn't mean it appears on your website.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Grace Dalley,

    How does that anecdote go about a certain prominent former MP asking a staffer to "print out" the internet for him so he could read it over the weekend? In the MP's defence, that was many years ago; it would be nice to think most people now had a grasp of what teh internets is, and how it works.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2008 • 138 posts Report Reply

  • Ben Gracewood,

    Which is still counter-productive and wrong.

    Oh absolutely. It's just one of the many scenarios that tend to get risk-averse corporate bunnies all lathered up.

    "But but! What if a screen scraping iPhone app gives someone the wrong bus time and they miss their bus and they freeze to death and we get sued!?"

    Orkland • Since Nov 2006 • 168 posts Report Reply

  • Mike Dickison,

    To be fair, they're probably trying to protect people from using copyrighted images.

    No, Te Papa already had a very clear and separate image copyright policy on the site (which incidentally claimed Te Papa owned copyright on scanned public domain images, something else I took them to task for, but that's another story). This was a blanket prohibition on linking to web pages in general.

    Since Feb 2010 • 12 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    which incidentally claimed Te Papa owned copyright on scanned public domain image

    Copyright in the images, or copyright in the reproductions that appear on their website? Because that's quite a vexed issue. I understand they are allowed to claim the latter.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Dave Patrick,

    Christchurch City Council's only restriction:

    If you wish to provide a link to our site from your website, you must do so in such a way that it is clear to users that the pages are part of the Christchurch City Council website. You must not represent any page on this website in a subframe.

    I guess, given the level of council fuckedupedness in general down here, it's nice they appear to have got one thing right.

    Rangiora, Te Wai Pounamu • Since Nov 2006 • 261 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Campbell,

    the Dunedin City Council's web site handles all this quite cleanly, they explicitly allow linking:

    Links to our pages must clearly reveal that they belong to our site. Representing our pages in subframes is prohibited.

    The subframes thing is so that they don't get misrepresented which I think is fair.

    My main issues with the DCC pages is the content (or lack there of)

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 2606 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen,

    because that would create a problem that ,well I can't actually define the problem at the moment

    You guys (and Emma of course) a making fun of this and it's damn serious. If websites are used the way they were intended the end result would be the wanton (thinking of you when I say this Emma) dissemination of knowledge.

    Good grief, it's a slippery slope to having people building entire websites dedicated to spreading knowledge. If that sort of thing spread to local government or even worse national government people might discover what their representatives are doing!

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4451 posts Report Reply

  • MikeE,

    wait... people still use subframes?

    Kingsland • Since Nov 2006 • 138 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Campbell,

    sadly yes

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 2606 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    Copyright in the images, or copyright in the reproductions that appear on their website? Because that's quite a vexed issue. I understand they are allowed to claim the latter.

    Its been argued that photographic reproductions of public domain art, contain no creative merit. And is there for unable to be protected by copyrighted law.

    However, digitally reproducing, digital reproductions of non public domain art, is what we all do when we look at Mickey mouse over the Internet, requiring prior permission from the artist or there agents.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4316 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    Its been argued that photographic reproductions of public domain art, contain no creative merit. And is there for unable to be copyrighted.

    I'm talking about a right in law, as per the opinion of a copyright lawyer friend regarding my scanning of public domain artworks from an out of print but still quite recent catalogue.

    (I know, I'm making this thread about copyright - the Godwin law of PAS strikes again.)

    I agree with you on the (lack of) actual merit of these claims.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • ScottY,

    I think we had a debate on one of those previous copyright threads about whether copyright exists in a digital reproduction of an out of copyright work.

    Without regurgutating too much of what was previously discussed, the law is unclear in this area, but it'd be a brave company or organisation that sued for copyright infringement on the strength of a digital reproduction where the original was out of copyright.

    As for the link thing, I can't see how an organisation could ever enforce a condition like that. It might be possible, if all elements of a contract between the parties concerned could be established (consideration? offer and acceptance? etc etc). And I imagine the organisation would have a challenge establishing any kind of loss when all the person is doing is linking to publicly available material.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.