My Photo

Contact me:

  • Email
  • Phone
    07788 973733

About me:

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2003

August 2012

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

« Rise of the articles about the rise of the eco river gipsy | Main | Two types of PR for BW, two Parliamentary answers »

Thursday, 27 November 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Does it matter who he is? He's still talking rubbish.

Andrew Denny

I'm confused, 'Jack May'. You provided a false email address (my emails to it bounced twice) and I have no evidence of who you are, and your real name.

Am I supposed to be apologising to you or to '2cvbloke'? Are you one and the same? And if so, who are you?

I'll gladly apologise to real people, it costs nothing. But I won't apologise to anonymous, pseudonymous or fictitious people.

You don't have to provide a real email address - it can be fake, as you've already found, and you still get to 'have your say'.

However, if you also provide a web URL (almost any URL), then any email address is only visible to me, and not shown publicly.

Jack May

Oh, you bet I'm real, remember that you insist on an email address when commenting whether I want to leave one or not, so you got the usual convincing one I give in such circumstances.

It was worth it, of course, as you appear to have very nearly apologised, too. ;-)

If this is what the internet is about, then it's not for me.

And I know where to come when I need a new pole!


I always think of it as analogous to academic citation (well, I would, wouldn't I). Linking is like giving a reference, telling someone where they can find material if they want to. Embedding is like a long quote. Both are perfectly legitimate. What would be totally out of order is passing it off as your own - which you go out of your way not to do, and which is pretty hard anyway with either of the above methods. It's only that which would be stealing. I don't understand people who put stuff into the public domain and then object to other people referring to it or passing it on. Hint: if you want to keep it to yourself, don't post it on the internet.

Steve Parkin

2cvbloke should have been pleased, as I was that somebody with a very popular web-site had bothered embedding his video.

You didn't ask my permission to use my video on locking techniques and I didn't expect it. However, you were generous enough to give us credit.

I go with Steve's comment - "that's what the internet is about". One wonders why it was posted on You Tube in the first place.


I just realised I replied to the original blog entry about the Terms of Use for YouTube which puts you totally in the right.

I've no problems with you linking to anything in my blogs and I know Nick has no problems with you linking over to Canalplan. Thats what the internet is all about.

Iain smith

I did not think there was a problem with what you did and to explain the methodology of protecting his piece of film was useful.I would be as pleased as punch if one of my photographs appeared on your site.It was correctly ascribed to him and was a showcase for his film which is presumably why he put it on U tube in the first place.

Bruce Napier

I'm with you all the way, Andrew. I have no probs with folk quoting me or linking to my stuff, as you know. My main website does have a copyright statement, but only because very occasionally I sell the odd photo to people like that nice Mr Fairhurst.

Richard Fairhurst

You know when you sign up for a website account, it asks you to "click here to confirm you have read, and agree to, the terms and conditions"? It, er, does actually mean it.

In YouTube's case, the relevant bit is part 10.1. It's pretty unequivocal.

2cvbloke was polite (and, besides, as a fellow 2cv enthusiast I think he should naturally be given a bit of slack), but Jack May has managed a winning combination of arrogance, rudeness, being totally wrong, and ability to keep digging when in a hole. Pretty impressive.

For the stuff on your own blog, Andrew, it would be sensible to codify it with a well-known licence, as many bloggers do. CC-By-NC (Creative Commons, Attribution, Non-Commercial) is exactly what you describe above.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan

  • Follow me on Twitter

Canal blogs and other feeds