Re: Dodgy software sites
- From: Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:58:25 +0100
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:01:57 +0100, XLTrading
<XLTrading.51258d1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Good Morning People :)
OK.. let me explain WHY we are targetting this site I am posting on
now.
LegalBanter.co.uk is showing the uk.Legal threads about us, be it a
usergroup or not.. it is still going to be removed.
We have contacted the individual who runs LegalBanter.co.uk called
Kevin and are awaiting his reply. We will have this thread cut from
this area and then proceed to go with the usergroup as well it is that
simple.
If you think it could be remotely "simple", then you have no idea
whatsoever of how usenet works.
You can probably get it removed from any given server, but it is on
*thousands* of servers around the world, and you would have to request
it be taken down from each one of them individually.
Legalbanter is effectively just another server, although there may be
some doubt about where they stand from a copyright point of view,
since they are not actually an NNTP server.
In regards to pirate products... we have had a lovely email back from
FAST this morning which reads.
However we do appreciate your comments and explanation around why your
service may be perceived to facilitate in the cycle of piracy. We are
interested in learning more in brief so that we can educate our members
on any queries or concerns that they might have about the service that
you offer. We would also like to discuss any action that you would be
in a position to take should material that is infringing found to be on
your site.
Note the word 'SERVICE' kids.
They are NOT going to do anything, neither will FACT because is it just
that.. a service.
So what?
The fact it is a SERVICE has zero relevance as to whether it is legal
or not.
We are now getting hold of the complainants details as FAST and FACT
are legally obliged to produce as we are preparing private prosecutions
for defamation of the site.
If short, people are ****ed.
And its not us.
We may not be able to kill the usenet posts, but we are damn sure we
can have Google then either killed from search engines or have them
labelled as spam.
Rubbish.
You are unlikely to manage either.
You might want to read this if you think UseNet protects you as well:
http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/it&law/c10_main.htm
DDSRS;691302 Wrote:
Perhaps XL would kindly explain why their website does not contain any
geographical address information...after all, the UK Distance Selling
Regulations state that this information must be supplied to customers
prior to purchasing.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20002334.htm
I notice XL was clearly informed on numerous occasions on the MSE
thread that it is unlawful to sell products via a website without
providing geographical address details to any customer before they
purchase. I am certainly not saying XL are selling completely illlegal,
unlawful products/services, therefore divulging geographical address
details should not pose a problem for them, i'm sure. The only reasons
I can see why XL do not include geographical address details are
because either the seller does not wish to be contacted, or because of
they are not 200% sure that nature of the service they are offering is
watertight legal. If they ARE 200% certain that they are offering a
completely legitimate product or service, managing to fully adhere to
the Distance Selling Regulations should be a breeze....
Again, without a geographical address present on a website, it is 100%
illegal to sell any goods from that website (if payment is required in
advance), and a website can be forcefully closed down if they
persistently refuse to fully abide by the DSR's which apply to them. I
am sure many other users 'in the know' will back up these facts.
Do you really think after the libell, the defamation and the general
posts that broke data protecion act several times I might add.. do you
really think we would be putting our details on there now?
If you don't put your company registered address on there, then you
are breaking the law.
Simple as that.
Everyone in
a corporate measure who people have 'reported us to' are siding with us
:)
We can be contacted in a wide variety of ways - we have not been taken
off the net, neither will we be... as we do nothing illegal and why MSE
have now seen sense and killed the threads and will continue to do so.
We do comply with the DSR - we do give customers 7 days to change their
minds.. however, the DSR states that the items come back to us in a
re-sellable condition and 9/10 times they do not.. hence they are not
entitled to refunds.
The DSR states no such thing.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Dodgy software sites
- From: Mike Ross
- Re: Dodgy software sites
- From: Mr X
- Re: Dodgy software sites
- References:
- Dodgy software sites
- From: Brutus
- Re: Dodgy software sites
- From: Why I Like BT
- Re: Dodgy software sites
- From: DDSRS
- Re: Dodgy software sites
- From: XLTrading
- Dodgy software sites
- Prev by Date: Re: Continuous credit card authority -- should the law be changed?
- Next by Date: Re: What should we do if the Lisbon Treaty is passed before the Tories come to power?
- Previous by thread: Re: Doggy software sites?
- Next by thread: Re: Dodgy software sites
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
