Bad Subject header -- couldn't condense this issue into something that
short that made sense. Sorry.

A few years ago I installed a little PHP script at blinkynet for contact
emailing. It was a freebie, but required a visual plug for the
company/author appear with the form (and on the mail-send-confirmed
page).

Now whois shows a new creation date in Nov 2006 for the domain, and it
seems to have nothing to do with whomever I got the script from.

Here's the old apparently one-page site from which I got the script, as
it appears at the way-back archive from Jan 1 '04.

http://tinyurl.com/yr2vzv

Here's the new outfit that has the same name.

http://scriptsthatwork.com/

Looks like some kind of whatever you call sites that are nothing but
links to other sites. And not at all focused: essays for college
students, health, vacation, blah blah blah.

Opinions, please. Do I owe *these* guys the mentions and links?


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org <----------- New Site Aug 28

"Blinky the Shark" <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnfdi1dp.6d8.no.spam@thurston.blinkynet.net ...
<snip>
> A few years ago I installed a little PHP script at blinkynet for contact
> emailing. It was a freebie, but required a visual plug for the
> company/author appear with the form (and on the mail-send-confirmed
> page).
>
> Now whois shows a new creation date in Nov 2006 for the domain, and it
> seems to have nothing to do with whomever I got the script from.
>
> Here's the old apparently one-page site from which I got the script, as
> it appears at the way-back archive from Jan 1 '04.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yr2vzv
>
> Here's the new outfit that has the same name.
>
> http://scriptsthatwork.com/
>
> Looks like some kind of whatever you call sites that are nothing but
> links to other sites. And not at all focused: essays for college
> students, health, vacation, blah blah blah.
>
> Opinions, please. Do I owe *these* guys the mentions and links?

Firstly, I'm not a lawyer ...

This is a tricky one, and I think all I'm able to do is summarise the issues
as I see it.

1. The domain has clearly changed hands or been abandoned. What is there now
is really just a fancy holding page. Following the links I think its owned
now by "enom.com", who are clearly just domain name resellers. So whoever
owns the copyright it clearly isn't with this domain any more.

2. The conditions of use of the script are that you keep the copyright
notice and do not remove any references to ScriptsThatWork.com.

So, on point 1 I would have throught you would be free to drop the link but
on point 2 you are clearly bound to keep it. Shame.

If it were me I'd abandon the script (thereby side stepping the issue) and
replace it with either someone elses or write my own. Since you're capable,
I'd suggest going the route of putting your own together. That way you could
also get rid of those pesky <font> tags (grin).
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian

"Blinky the Shark" <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnfdi1dp.6d8.no.spam@thurston.blinkynet.net ...
>
> Looks like some kind of whatever you call sites that are nothing but
> links to other sites. And not at all focused: essays for college
> students, health, vacation, blah blah blah.
>

Copyright doesn't expire just because the site is gone or sold.

But a contact/email form is pretty much one of the most basic things for any
server side scripting language... you can't just recreate that bit of code
yourself and then just forget about those guys?

On 1 Sep 2007 06:24:05 GMT, Blinky the Shark put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>Bad Subject header -- couldn't condense this issue into something that
>short that made sense. Sorry.
>
>A few years ago I installed a little PHP script at blinkynet for contact
>emailing. It was a freebie, but required a visual plug for the
>company/author appear with the form (and on the mail-send-confirmed
>page).
>
>Now whois shows a new creation date in Nov 2006 for the domain, and it
>seems to have nothing to do with whomever I got the script from.
>
>Here's the old apparently one-page site from which I got the script, as
>it appears at the way-back archive from Jan 1 '04.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/yr2vzv
>
>Here's the new outfit that has the same name.
>
>http://scriptsthatwork.com/
>
>Looks like some kind of whatever you call sites that are nothing but
>links to other sites. And not at all focused: essays for college
>students, health, vacation, blah blah blah.
>
>Opinions, please. Do I owe *these* guys the mentions and links?

The copyright is still the property of the author; that didn't
transfer to new owners of the domain (unless they explicitly bought it
from him, which is extremely unlikely). So the copyright notice in the
script is now incorrect, and, from a pedantic point of view,
continuing to credit the domain is actually now a breach of copyright
(although the fact that the notice was wrongly worded to begin with
would absolve you from any responsibility in the unlikely event that
anyone was to sue you). So you certainly do not owe the new owners of
the domain anything. You do, however, owe the original author a credit
at his currently contactable address, provided you are able to
ascertain that with reasonable effort.

The legally and morally correct solution, therefore, is to try and
find the owner's current website and check that for any updates. And,
in fact, Google comes to the rescue with this:

http://formtoemail.com/

which is clearly the same script and therefore where your credits
should now be pointing.

Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"Wouldn't you love somebody to love?"

Brian Cryer wrote:
> "Blinky the Shark" <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrnfdi1dp.6d8.no.spam@thurston.blinkynet.net ...
><snip>
>> A few years ago I installed a little PHP script at blinkynet for
>> contact emailing. It was a freebie, but required a visual plug for
>> the company/author appear with the form (and on the
>> mail-send-confirmed page).
>>
>> Now whois shows a new creation date in Nov 2006 for the domain, and
>> it seems to have nothing to do with whomever I got the script from.
>>
>> Here's the old apparently one-page site from which I got the script,
>> as it appears at the way-back archive from Jan 1 '04.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yr2vzv
>>
>> Here's the new outfit that has the same name.
>>
>> http://scriptsthatwork.com/
>>
>> Looks like some kind of whatever you call sites that are nothing but
>> links to other sites. And not at all focused: essays for college
>> students, health, vacation, blah blah blah.
>>
>> Opinions, please. Do I owe *these* guys the mentions and links?
>
> Firstly, I'm not a lawyer ...
>
> This is a tricky one, and I think all I'm able to do is summarise the
> issues as I see it.
>
> 1. The domain has clearly changed hands or been abandoned. What is
> there now is really just a fancy holding page. Following the links I
> think its owned now by "enom.com", who are clearly just domain name
> resellers. So whoever owns the copyright it clearly isn't with this
> domain any more.
>
> 2. The conditions of use of the script are that you keep the copyright
> notice and do not remove any references to ScriptsThatWork.com.
>
> So, on point 1 I would have throught you would be free to drop the
> link but on point 2 you are clearly bound to keep it. Shame.
>
> If it were me I'd abandon the script (thereby side stepping the issue)
> and replace it with either someone elses or write my own. Since you're
> capable, I'd suggest going the route of putting your own together.
> That way you could also get rid of those pesky <font> tags (grin).

Thanks for your input, Brian.

Re font tags, I looked for stuff like that before publishing the code.
I dont' see any in the two pages (form and confirmation) for the email.

http://improve-usenet.org/feedback.html

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org <----------- New Site Aug 28

Auggie wrote:
>
> "Blinky the Shark" <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrnfdi1dp.6d8.no.spam@thurston.blinkynet.net ...
>>
>> Looks like some kind of whatever you call sites that are nothing but
>> links to other sites. And not at all focused: essays for college
>> students, health, vacation, blah blah blah.
>>
>
> Copyright doesn't expire just because the site is gone or sold.
>
> But a contact/email form is pretty much one of the most basic things for any
> server side scripting language... you can't just recreate that bit of code
> yourself and then just forget about those guys?

I probably will.


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org <----------- New Site Aug 28

Mark Goodge wrote:
> On 1 Sep 2007 06:24:05 GMT, Blinky the Shark put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
>>Bad Subject header -- couldn't condense this issue into something that
>>short that made sense. Sorry.
>>
>>A few years ago I installed a little PHP script at blinkynet for contact
>>emailing. It was a freebie, but required a visual plug for the
>>company/author appear with the form (and on the mail-send-confirmed
>>page).
>>
>>Now whois shows a new creation date in Nov 2006 for the domain, and it
>>seems to have nothing to do with whomever I got the script from.
>>
>>Here's the old apparently one-page site from which I got the script, as
>>it appears at the way-back archive from Jan 1 '04.
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/yr2vzv
>>
>>Here's the new outfit that has the same name.
>>
>>http://scriptsthatwork.com/
>>
>>Looks like some kind of whatever you call sites that are nothing but
>>links to other sites. And not at all focused: essays for college
>>students, health, vacation, blah blah blah.
>>
>>Opinions, please. Do I owe *these* guys the mentions and links?
>
> The copyright is still the property of the author; that didn't
> transfer to new owners of the domain (unless they explicitly bought it
> from him, which is extremely unlikely). So the copyright notice in the
> script is now incorrect, and, from a pedantic point of view,
> continuing to credit the domain is actually now a breach of copyright
> (although the fact that the notice was wrongly worded to begin with
> would absolve you from any responsibility in the unlikely event that
> anyone was to sue you). So you certainly do not owe the new owners of
> the domain anything. You do, however, owe the original author a credit
> at his currently contactable address, provided you are able to
> ascertain that with reasonable effort.
>
> The legally and morally correct solution, therefore, is to try and
> find the owner's current website and check that for any updates. And,
> in fact, Google comes to the rescue with this:
>
> http://formtoemail.com/

I'm embarrassed that I didn't think to look for a current place for the
author.

> which is clearly the same script and therefore where your credits
> should now be pointing.

Actually, that script is several times as long as the simple one that I
got from the former website. But yes, it's clearly derived from that
one, so I'm not saying it's not from the same author.

Thanks, Mark.

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org <----------- New Site Aug 28

Mark Goodge wrote:
> On 1 Sep 2007 06:24:05 GMT, Blinky the Shark put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
>>Bad Subject header -- couldn't condense this issue into something that
>>short that made sense. Sorry.
>>
>>A few years ago I installed a little PHP script at blinkynet for contact
>>emailing. It was a freebie, but required a visual plug for the
>>company/author appear with the form (and on the mail-send-confirmed
>>page).
>>
>>Now whois shows a new creation date in Nov 2006 for the domain, and it
>>seems to have nothing to do with whomever I got the script from.
>>
>>Here's the old apparently one-page site from which I got the script, as
>>it appears at the way-back archive from Jan 1 '04.
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/yr2vzv
>>
>>Here's the new outfit that has the same name.
>>
>>http://scriptsthatwork.com/
>>
>>Looks like some kind of whatever you call sites that are nothing but
>>links to other sites. And not at all focused: essays for college
>>students, health, vacation, blah blah blah.
>>
>>Opinions, please. Do I owe *these* guys the mentions and links?
>
> The copyright is still the property of the author; that didn't
> transfer to new owners of the domain (unless they explicitly bought it
> from him, which is extremely unlikely). So the copyright notice in the
> script is now incorrect, and, from a pedantic point of view,
> continuing to credit the domain is actually now a breach of copyright
> (although the fact that the notice was wrongly worded to begin with
> would absolve you from any responsibility in the unlikely event that
> anyone was to sue you). So you certainly do not owe the new owners of
> the domain anything. You do, however, owe the original author a credit
> at his currently contactable address, provided you are able to
> ascertain that with reasonable effort.
>
> The legally and morally correct solution, therefore, is to try and
> find the owner's current website and check that for any updates. And,
> in fact, Google comes to the rescue with this:
>
> http://formtoemail.com/

I'm embarrassed that I didn't think to look for a current place for the
author.

> which is clearly the same script and therefore where your credits
> should now be pointing.

Actually, that script is several times as long as the simple one that I
got from the former website. But yes, it's clearly derived from that
one, so I'm not saying it's not from the same author.

Thanks, Mark.

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org <----------- New Site Aug 28

Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Brian Cryer wrote:
>> "Blinky the Shark" <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:slrnfdi1dp.6d8.no.spam@thurston.blinkynet.net ...
>><snip>
>>> A few years ago I installed a little PHP script at blinkynet for
>>> contact emailing. It was a freebie, but required a visual plug for
>>> the company/author appear with the form (and on the
>>> mail-send-confirmed page).
>>>
>>> Now whois shows a new creation date in Nov 2006 for the domain, and
>>> it seems to have nothing to do with whomever I got the script from.
>>>
>>> Here's the old apparently one-page site from which I got the script,
>>> as it appears at the way-back archive from Jan 1 '04.
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yr2vzv
>>>
>>> Here's the new outfit that has the same name.
>>>
>>> http://scriptsthatwork.com/
>>>
>>> Looks like some kind of whatever you call sites that are nothing but
>>> links to other sites. And not at all focused: essays for college
>>> students, health, vacation, blah blah blah.
>>>
>>> Opinions, please. Do I owe *these* guys the mentions and links?
>>
>> Firstly, I'm not a lawyer ...
>>
>> This is a tricky one, and I think all I'm able to do is summarise the
>> issues as I see it.
>>
>> 1. The domain has clearly changed hands or been abandoned. What is
>> there now is really just a fancy holding page. Following the links I
>> think its owned now by "enom.com", who are clearly just domain name
>> resellers. So whoever owns the copyright it clearly isn't with this
>> domain any more.
>>
>> 2. The conditions of use of the script are that you keep the
>> copyright notice and do not remove any references to
>> ScriptsThatWork.com.
>>
>> So, on point 1 I would have throught you would be free to drop the
>> link but on point 2 you are clearly bound to keep it. Shame.
>>
>> If it were me I'd abandon the script (thereby side stepping the
>> issue) and replace it with either someone elses or write my own.
>> Since you're capable, I'd suggest going the route of putting your own
>> together. That way you could also get rid of those pesky <font> tags
>> (grin).
>
> Thanks for your input, Brian.
>
> Re font tags, I looked for stuff like that before publishing the code.
> I dont' see any in the two pages (form and confirmation) for the
> email.
>
> http://improve-usenet.org/feedback.html

Actually, come to think of it, since I just cribbed the code from
blinkynet, I probably removed those tags when I installed the script
there a few years ago.

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org <----------- New Site Aug 28

"Blinky the Shark" <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnfdj4ln.j6n.no.spam@thurston.blinkynet.net ...
> Brian Cryer wrote:
>> "Blinky the Shark" <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:slrnfdi1dp.6d8.no.spam@thurston.blinkynet.net ...
<snip>
>> If it were me I'd abandon the script (thereby side stepping the issue)
>> and replace it with either someone elses or write my own. Since you're
>> capable, I'd suggest going the route of putting your own together.
>> That way you could also get rid of those pesky <font> tags (grin).
>
> Thanks for your input, Brian.
>
> Re font tags, I looked for stuff like that before publishing the code.
> I dont' see any in the two pages (form and confirmation) for the email.

Well, if there aren't any font tags in the original then my appologies. I
was looking at
http://web.archive.org/web/200401010...sthatwork.com/ and
then followed the link to "Click here to see the code", and its there under
"Step 1".

Glad that you screen your pages. Unfortunatly if you look hard at mine I
think there might still be a font tag or three lurking there somewhere.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian

Brian Cryer wrote:
> "Blinky the Shark" <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrnfdj4ln.j6n.no.spam@thurston.blinkynet.net ...
>> Brian Cryer wrote:
>>> "Blinky the Shark" <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnfdi1dp.6d8.no.spam@thurston.blinkynet.net ...
><snip>
>>> If it were me I'd abandon the script (thereby side stepping the issue)
>>> and replace it with either someone elses or write my own. Since you're
>>> capable, I'd suggest going the route of putting your own together.
>>> That way you could also get rid of those pesky <font> tags (grin).
>>
>> Thanks for your input, Brian.
>>
>> Re font tags, I looked for stuff like that before publishing the code.
>> I dont' see any in the two pages (form and confirmation) for the email.
>
> Well, if there aren't any font tags in the original then my appologies. I

Oh, no prob, Brian. I didn't take that as a dig.

> was looking at
> http://web.archive.org/web/200401010...sthatwork.com/ and
> then followed the link to "Click here to see the code", and its there under
> "Step 1".

I get the bullshit new page for scriptsthatwork.com when I click that
link at the old page you link for the wayback machine.

> Glad that you screen your pages. Unfortunatly if you look hard at mine I
> think there might still be a font tag or three lurking there somewhere.

Tell you what: I won't, then. 'Kay?

But yeah, they're small.


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org <----------- New Site Aug 28