Johnjo
New member
If it was me,I'd move to Iraq, Must be safer than being taken to task here.
October PBO. Learning from experience
- Thread starter Joe_Cole
- Start date
vyv_cox
Well-known member
Also, see YM August \"experience\" article
My August YM went adrift and didn't arrive until last week, so catching up now.
The "experience" article concerned someone who sailed from Ramsgate to Dover (direction SW) in a NE wind and ran aground part way. Having sailed out of Ramsgate a few times myself I found some difficulty in understanding how this could happen. However, on reading the article and studying the chart with it, I found that the casualty had sailed the inshore route, maximum depth about 3 metres, and failed to find the B2 mark. The chart shows the whole of the area containing this route coloured blue, something I try to avoid as much as possible. The alternative would have been to sail straight out from the harbour, along the very well marked channel, then turn to starboard in deep water and follow the very well marked Gull channel almost all the way to Dover. Distance is almost identical.
It seems he also left too early, running aground at 1500, the time he told us the tide turned. I often push the tide for an hour or two myself, but not for such a short trip.
I just couldn't help asking "Why did he do that?"
My August YM went adrift and didn't arrive until last week, so catching up now.
The "experience" article concerned someone who sailed from Ramsgate to Dover (direction SW) in a NE wind and ran aground part way. Having sailed out of Ramsgate a few times myself I found some difficulty in understanding how this could happen. However, on reading the article and studying the chart with it, I found that the casualty had sailed the inshore route, maximum depth about 3 metres, and failed to find the B2 mark. The chart shows the whole of the area containing this route coloured blue, something I try to avoid as much as possible. The alternative would have been to sail straight out from the harbour, along the very well marked channel, then turn to starboard in deep water and follow the very well marked Gull channel almost all the way to Dover. Distance is almost identical.
It seems he also left too early, running aground at 1500, the time he told us the tide turned. I often push the tide for an hour or two myself, but not for such a short trip.
I just couldn't help asking "Why did he do that?"
G
Guest
Guest
Re: We believe WE are right ...
when we do these things ...... others have different views.
Many people get on the water and then consider themselves good enough to attempt all-sorts. Even old-hands like myself have got it wrong .... we try NOT to advertise it though !!!!!
But in the end Human thinking is That - I am right .... all others don't understand why I want to do it this way !
when we do these things ...... others have different views.
Many people get on the water and then consider themselves good enough to attempt all-sorts. Even old-hands like myself have got it wrong .... we try NOT to advertise it though !!!!!
But in the end Human thinking is That - I am right .... all others don't understand why I want to do it this way !
Joe_Cole
New member
Re: Some answers
You're absolutely right. The learning from experience articles are normally excellent and I read them so that I can learn from other peoples experiences.
The trouble with this one is that I couldn't understand it and. I must admit I did react a bit to the writer telling us that he got through due to his good seamanship; arguably poor seamanship got him into a difficult situation in the first place. Above all I want to understand what happened so that I can sail into Salcombe and not experience 20ft seas on the way out!
I hope nobody thinks that I'm trying to hammer the PBO editorial team. They do an excellent job.
Regards
Joe Cole
You're absolutely right. The learning from experience articles are normally excellent and I read them so that I can learn from other peoples experiences.
The trouble with this one is that I couldn't understand it and. I must admit I did react a bit to the writer telling us that he got through due to his good seamanship; arguably poor seamanship got him into a difficult situation in the first place. Above all I want to understand what happened so that I can sail into Salcombe and not experience 20ft seas on the way out!
I hope nobody thinks that I'm trying to hammer the PBO editorial team. They do an excellent job.
Regards
Joe Cole
Chris_Robb
Well-known member
Re: Some answers
Your right to treat Salcome bar seriously. We left there on Easter day with a force six southerly 2 hours after High water to go to Plymouth with the biggest spring tides I believe of the century, we were swept end to end by about 10 sequential waves. We rarely take any water over the bows! However we knew what it would be like and went anyway. most exillarating.
Your right to treat Salcome bar seriously. We left there on Easter day with a force six southerly 2 hours after High water to go to Plymouth with the biggest spring tides I believe of the century, we were swept end to end by about 10 sequential waves. We rarely take any water over the bows! However we knew what it would be like and went anyway. most exillarating.
tcm
...
Re: ooh, get him!
I am sorry to puncture your high principles, but the editor/publisher can print whatever s/he likes. Your contribution is merely a suggested arrangements of words, not a copyrighted and inviolate work of high art. Even here, for example, the text is owned by others, and a moderator would be entirely within their rights to lift great chunks and print it, or change it about, and print that too.
If their "publishing under your name" bothers you - use another name- a nom de plume. This protects your good name if the article is changed or cut against your personal wishes, or indeed if the text is is evidently selfrighteous rubbish from a transient newcomer and is published verbatim...
I am sorry to puncture your high principles, but the editor/publisher can print whatever s/he likes. Your contribution is merely a suggested arrangements of words, not a copyrighted and inviolate work of high art. Even here, for example, the text is owned by others, and a moderator would be entirely within their rights to lift great chunks and print it, or change it about, and print that too.
If their "publishing under your name" bothers you - use another name- a nom de plume. This protects your good name if the article is changed or cut against your personal wishes, or indeed if the text is is evidently selfrighteous rubbish from a transient newcomer and is published verbatim...
Gunfleet
New member
Re: ooh, get him!
<<but the editor/publisher can print whatever s/he likes. Your contribution is merely a suggested arrangements of words, not a copyrighted and inviolate work of high art.>>
You couldn't be more wrong. Copyright and intellectual rights (droits d'auteur) belong to the originator of a form of words until legally assigned to someone else in the form of a contract, confimed in both UK and EU law. I've made my living as a writer for 20 years so you can presume I have an interest in this matter. The publisher or broadcaster can agree changes with you, or if you have assigned the copyright to them may make whatever changes they wish. But that's not quite the same thing as you describe. Of course you'd be a fool if you were unreasonable in exercising you rights, because people would get fed up with you and go and buy from someone else. Interestingly, youth and inexperience are often what cause arrogant behaviour from editors, as the earlier correspondent hinted.
<<but the editor/publisher can print whatever s/he likes. Your contribution is merely a suggested arrangements of words, not a copyrighted and inviolate work of high art.>>
You couldn't be more wrong. Copyright and intellectual rights (droits d'auteur) belong to the originator of a form of words until legally assigned to someone else in the form of a contract, confimed in both UK and EU law. I've made my living as a writer for 20 years so you can presume I have an interest in this matter. The publisher or broadcaster can agree changes with you, or if you have assigned the copyright to them may make whatever changes they wish. But that's not quite the same thing as you describe. Of course you'd be a fool if you were unreasonable in exercising you rights, because people would get fed up with you and go and buy from someone else. Interestingly, youth and inexperience are often what cause arrogant behaviour from editors, as the earlier correspondent hinted.
tcm
...
Copyright
Not so!
Section 90 of the Copyright Designs and Patents act 1988 does indeed state that "an assignment of copyright is not effective unlessit is in writing or signed by or on behalf of the assignor".
But in 1999 the Court of Appeal (case number PTA A 1999/7282/1) ruled that "this does not apply to an *agreement* to assign copyright, which may be be an express oral agreement or an agreement implied from conduct".
So, if one behaves in a manner which assumes copyright has passed to a third party and derive benefit from the process then the copyright has passed to that third party - you couldn't reclaim your copyright later on account of "not formally assigning in writing".
Your witness.
Not so!
Section 90 of the Copyright Designs and Patents act 1988 does indeed state that "an assignment of copyright is not effective unlessit is in writing or signed by or on behalf of the assignor".
But in 1999 the Court of Appeal (case number PTA A 1999/7282/1) ruled that "this does not apply to an *agreement* to assign copyright, which may be be an express oral agreement or an agreement implied from conduct".
So, if one behaves in a manner which assumes copyright has passed to a third party and derive benefit from the process then the copyright has passed to that third party - you couldn't reclaim your copyright later on account of "not formally assigning in writing".
Your witness.
Gunfleet
New member
Re: Copyright
Stick to conveyancing. What you wrote is I trust correct, but it doesn't answer the earlier writer's point. Submitting an article for publication is not in itself to assign the copyright. And I notice your example avoids the circumstances he described and instead introduces others. You draw an unwarranted extrapolations on the basis of re-defining his arguement. He had as yet derived no benefit, there was as yet no assignment. He most certainly didn't 'behave in a manner which assumes copyright has passed to a third party'. That was his point. The editor was not entitled to treat the copy as if it was their own work. Nice try. You may be a lawyer but you're definitely not a judge and I wouldn't expect one to be convinced by this 'all buses are red, all post boxes are red, all buses are post boxes' style of arguement! You'd better PM me if you want to continue this conversation or we'll bore everyone else to tears! JM
Stick to conveyancing. What you wrote is I trust correct, but it doesn't answer the earlier writer's point. Submitting an article for publication is not in itself to assign the copyright. And I notice your example avoids the circumstances he described and instead introduces others. You draw an unwarranted extrapolations on the basis of re-defining his arguement. He had as yet derived no benefit, there was as yet no assignment. He most certainly didn't 'behave in a manner which assumes copyright has passed to a third party'. That was his point. The editor was not entitled to treat the copy as if it was their own work. Nice try. You may be a lawyer but you're definitely not a judge and I wouldn't expect one to be convinced by this 'all buses are red, all post boxes are red, all buses are post boxes' style of arguement! You'd better PM me if you want to continue this conversation or we'll bore everyone else to tears! JM
Joe_Cole
New member
Re: Copyright
Hey guys! This is getting a bit heavy.
What about the sailing?
Regards
Joe
Hey guys! This is getting a bit heavy.
What about the sailing?
Regards
Joe
Steve101
N/A
Re: Copyright
If anyone decided to print the b*****ks I put on here they'd probably get the sack anyway!
If anyone decided to print the b*****ks I put on here they'd probably get the sack anyway!
tcm
...
Re: Copyright
JohnM has PM'd me and withdrawn the awful accusation that I might be a lawyer. We've decided to call a public inquiry, and so the argument will resume in three years or so.
JohnM has PM'd me and withdrawn the awful accusation that I might be a lawyer. We've decided to call a public inquiry, and so the argument will resume in three years or so.
jimi
Well-known member
Re: Copyright
Thank goodness for that ... are you a taxman?
Jim
Thank goodness for that ... are you a taxman?
Jim
Steve101
N/A
Re: Copyright
I would never suggest such a thing, you have a personality and seem to be human.
Q. Guys in a lift with a man eating lion, a serial murderer and a lawyer. He has a gun with two bullets, what should he do?
A. Shoot the lawyer twice!
A lawyer and his friend are in the bank waiting to pay in, suddenly a masked raider runs in shoves a gun in the cashiers face and demands all the money. Turning around he tells everyone else to empty their pocket. The lawyer turns to his friend and says "Here's that fifty I owe you!"
Sorry tcm, if you are a lawyer of some sort. I studied law myself, but got put off when it made me realise how many laws I was fracturing!
I would never suggest such a thing, you have a personality and seem to be human.
Q. Guys in a lift with a man eating lion, a serial murderer and a lawyer. He has a gun with two bullets, what should he do?
A. Shoot the lawyer twice!
A lawyer and his friend are in the bank waiting to pay in, suddenly a masked raider runs in shoves a gun in the cashiers face and demands all the money. Turning around he tells everyone else to empty their pocket. The lawyer turns to his friend and says "Here's that fifty I owe you!"
Sorry tcm, if you are a lawyer of some sort. I studied law myself, but got put off when it made me realise how many laws I was fracturing!
Jeremy_W
New member
Re: ooh, get him!
Remember the famous line ( I think it comes from Adlai Stevenson) "The job of an editor is to separate the wheat from the chaff".
Remember the famous line ( I think it comes from Adlai Stevenson) "The job of an editor is to separate the wheat from the chaff".
Steve101
N/A
Re: Copyright
Customs and excise!
Customs and excise!
jimi
Well-known member
Re: Copyright
Oh S##t, I'm off! I feel a non EC country beckoning!
Jim
Oh S##t, I'm off! I feel a non EC country beckoning!
Jim
Gunfleet
New member
Re: Copyright
Oh you're right. I wrote it and then thought, nah, that's bollix, then the wretched machine wouldn't let me delete, which is why I PM'd tcm. As for accusing him of being an Inland Revenue or VAT man (see below), come off it chaps. We have standards! (only kidding if the IR or VAT man is reading)
Oh you're right. I wrote it and then thought, nah, that's bollix, then the wretched machine wouldn't let me delete, which is why I PM'd tcm. As for accusing him of being an Inland Revenue or VAT man (see below), come off it chaps. We have standards! (only kidding if the IR or VAT man is reading)
hlb
RIP
Re: Copyright
So does this mean that the Kimotallah can alter our words at will or not. Can we bash him up for it Can we thump him, black and blue. Only asking!!!
<font color=red> No one can force me to come here-----------
----- I'm a Volunteer! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
Haydn
So does this mean that the Kimotallah can alter our words at will or not. Can we bash him up for it Can we thump him, black and blue. Only asking!!!
<font color=red> No one can force me to come here-----------
----- I'm a Volunteer! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
Haydn
tyger
New member
Re: Copyright
It seems they think they own any thing you post. The terms and conditions state:
Quote
You agree that any material (including any Intellectual Property Rights in such material), including but not limited to material sent via chat services, feedback, bulletin boards or articles or any other material submitted for publication on the Web Site or in using any of the Web Site Services ("User Generated Content") may be retained as the property of IPC.
Unquote
They then state that you are responsible for what you write.
Quote
IPC shall have no obligations with regard to the User Generated Content to monitor the User Generated Content to ensure that it complies with applicable laws or regulations. You remain solely responsible for the User Generated Content in accordance with Clause 6.
Uquote
IMHO if they hold you responsible for what you write then they should not (must not?) change this in such a way as to change the fundemental meaning.
It seems they think they own any thing you post. The terms and conditions state:
Quote
You agree that any material (including any Intellectual Property Rights in such material), including but not limited to material sent via chat services, feedback, bulletin boards or articles or any other material submitted for publication on the Web Site or in using any of the Web Site Services ("User Generated Content") may be retained as the property of IPC.
Unquote
They then state that you are responsible for what you write.
Quote
IPC shall have no obligations with regard to the User Generated Content to monitor the User Generated Content to ensure that it complies with applicable laws or regulations. You remain solely responsible for the User Generated Content in accordance with Clause 6.
Uquote
IMHO if they hold you responsible for what you write then they should not (must not?) change this in such a way as to change the fundemental meaning.