-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

                    2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

           rename unmoderated newsgroup uk.games.video.gamecube
                          as uk.games.video.nintendo

Changes from previous RFD:

* a few typos corrected
* focus of group is on Nintendo *home* consoles
* removed section about 'long reviews or solutions'
* slight rewording of the section on copyright infringement and cut'n'paste
* change to crossposting (as suggested by Steve J)

Newsgroup line:
uk.games.video.nintendo	UK-based discussion about Nintendo videogames consoles


      *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
      *** CROSSPOSTED TO UK.GAMES.VIDEO.GAMECUBE ***

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.

RATIONALE: uk.games.video.nintendo

The uk.games.video.* heirarchy currently comprises the following groups:

GENERAL GROUPS
* uk.games.video.misc
* uk.games.video.handheld

SPECIFIC GROUPS
* uk.games.video.dreamcast
* uk.games.video.gameboy
* uk.games.video.gamecube
* uk.games.video.playstation (also uk.games.video.playstation.forsale)
* uk.games.video.xbox

This RFD concerns the future of uk.games.video.gamecube (ugvgc).  Within
the next couple of years, all three videogames console manufacturers
will be releasing their new systems.  Sony will release the Playstation
3 - this will fit into uk.games.video.playstation.  Microsoft will
release the Xbox 360 - this will fit into uk.games.video.xbox.
Nintendo will release the Nintendo Revolution - this will not fit into
any existing group, and discussion has so far been fragmented between
uk.games.video.misc, ugvgc, and all other groups in the heirarchy.
Furtermore, discussion relating to the Nintendo Gamecube is also slowly
diminishing.

I propose replacing ugvgc with uk.games.video.nintendo.  My reasoning is
this: Playstation and Xbox are the gaming 'brands' of Sony and Microsoft
respectively.  As such, their gaming hardware bears the Playstation and
Xbox names.  Nintendo do not have a separate brand - their gaming brand
is effectively "Nintendo".  This group would therefore cover the
Nintendo Gamecube and the Nintendo Revolution, but also the Nintendo
64, and all other videogames consoles produced by Nintendo (and their
games).

As I see it, the renaming process would go as follows:
- - - Once passed through fast-track or voting, ugvn is created.
- - - The charter of ugvgc is changed to state that the group will be
closing, and all discussion should take place in ugvn.
- - - Possibly, an autoresponder is set up to reply to any new thread/post
in ugvgc with details of ugvn.
- - - After one month, ugvgc is rmgrouped.

Finally, there will be some overlap between uk.games.video.nintendo and
uk.games.video.handheld.  While either group is suitable for this 
discussion, concensus appears to be that ugvh is the better place for
it, and so a pointer has been placed in the charter.  A similar issue
exists with the PSP and uk.games.video.playstation, but there has been
no problem with posts being posted in off-topic groups because of this.


CHARTER: uk.games.video.nintendo

This group is for the discussion of Nintendo home consoles and their games
and peripherals.

Posters are advised that a separate group, uk.games.video.handheld, is
more suited for discussion related to Nintendo's range of portable
games systems.

Links or pointers to UK focused websites relating to Nintendo consoles
are welcome, but must not be repeated more than once a month.
Duplication of copyrighted material from websites or other sources is
forbidden, with the exception of duplication of an excerpt from the
source material for discussion purposes only, in accordance with the
doctrine of "fair use" in copyright law. Such duplication must be
accompanied by some commentary by the user of these passages promoting
debate, and the original source credited.

Reviews, hints, tips and cheats are welcome, however spoilers should be
protected with spoiler space of between 20 and 25 lines.

Discussions about piracy, 'warez', 'backups' or other such activities
are forbidden. Discussion of copying or emulating games which are
commercially available is forbidden.  Discussions about the morality
and legality of such actions tend to become quickly inflammatory, and
should be avoided.

Cross-Posting

Cross-posting in general is discouraged.  Posts relating to connectivity
between Nintendo consoles and other game systems is allowed within the
uk.games.video.* hierarchy.  Posts relating to multiformat games are
best posted to uk.games.video.misc and not crossposted between
format-specific groups.

Cross-posting to newsgroups outside of the uk.games.video.* hierarchy is
forbidden as it may invite postings which do not conform to
this charter.

Advertising

Advertising (which includes wanted adverts and game trade lists) is
forbidden, with these exceptions:
* Adverts of no more than four lines, which are part of the poster's
regular signature, and which are not the main reason for the post, are
allowed.
* Owners of web sites with information relevant to the newsgroup may
post, not more than once every 3 months, an advert for their site,
providing that the site is not used to sell, nor advertise for sale,
any goods or services. The site may contain "banner"-style adverts if
it is beyond the control of the site's owner to remove them.

Binaries & Formatting

Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.) are forbidden.
Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which a pointer may be
posted. Cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP) may be used where
authentication is important and should be as short as possible.

Posts must be readable as plain text. HTML, RTF and similarly formatted
messages are prohibited. To see how to make some common newsreaders
comply with this, read <http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>.

Warning. Anyone posting contrary to this charter may be reported to
their "postmaster" and/or Service Provider.

END CHARTER

Existing Charter uk.games.video.gamecube

This group is for the discussion of the Nintendo GameCube and its games
and peripherals. 
Links or pointers to UK focused web sites relating to the GameCube are
welcome, but should not be repeated more than once a month. 

Reviews, hints, tips and cheats are welcome, however spoilers should be
protected with spoiler space of between 20 and 25 lines. Long reviews
or solutions (100 lines or more) should be placed on a web page, and
their URLs posted. 

Discussions related to piracy are strongly discouraged as they tend to
quickly become inflammatory and should be avoided. 

Cross-Posting

Cross-posting in general is discouraged. Posts relating to the
connectivity between the GameCube and other game systems is allowed
within the uk.games.video.* hierarchy. Cross-posting to newsgroups
outside of the uk.games.video.* hierarchy is strongly discouraged as it
may invite postings which do not conform to this charter. 

Advertising

Advertising is forbidden, with these exceptions: 
Suppliers of goods and services relevant to the Nintendo GameCube in the
UK may post an invitation to visit their web site or request details.
No more than 1 post per organisation/person per month and post headers
MUST be marked "FA: " (For Auction) or "FS: " (For Sale). Such adverts
should be limited to 5 lines in length. 

Binaries & Formatting

Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.) are forbidden.
Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which a pointer may be
posted. Cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP) may be used where
authentication is important and should be as short as possible. 

Posts must be readable as plain text. HTML, RTF and similarly formatted
messages are prohibited. To see how to make some common newsreaders
comply with this, read <http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>. 

Warning
Anyone posting contrary to this charter may be reported to their
"postmaster" and/or Service Provider. 

End Existing Charter


PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes.  In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved.  The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until January 29th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method.  Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website).  Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
        uk.net.news.announce
        uk.net.news.config
        uk.games.video.misc
        uk.games.video.gamecube

Proponent:
        Tim Miller 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG-v1.2.4-(GNU/Linux)
Charset: noconv

iQCUAwUBQ86cQGOfGXkh8vHZAQFMsAPxAeB10lhvqV6qHZrWhtfZBvQ1mkkUUBiW
dEgfilsOg5ya1ZVnfqqUKC3Ll3yUJYFbm5XskHN63OZ40oeudKozHCrTdtcwwh2o
9WZnQWLaYoQ8TYrMxMkEhFBDaEBY3h+p4lkeodIaXfc6aEmqWIKBJzhpqtTKsmOi
kwQnmNOx6g==
=O02P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Tim Miller wrote:
>                     2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

Works for me. No objections about any of this.

Choobs

-- 
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
Knight of the Wholly Gnarly Widget

Gaming Diary and Rants: http://www.nelefa.org

Tim Miller wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>                    2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following
> changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
>           rename unmoderated newsgroup uk.games.video.gamecube
>                          as uk.games.video.nintendo
>
That all seems reasonable
-- 
Alex

Hermes: "We can't afford that! Especially not Zoidberg!"
Zoidberg: "They took away my credit cards!"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk

Soni tempori elseu romani yeof helsforo nisson ol sefini ill des Wed, 18 Jan
2006 19:50:18 +0000, sefini jorgo geanyet des mani yeof do
uk.games.video.misc, yawatina tan reek esk Tim Miller
 fornis do marikano es bono tan el:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>                    2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

I agree to this, but would have preferred it if every new subscriber were to
get VIP Stars with their first post.

Oh, and the 360 is actually out now.

deKay
-- 
 + Lofi Gaming: www.lofi-gaming.org.uk  [Gamertag: deKay 01]
 |- Gaming Diary: www.lofi-gaming.org.uk/diary/  
 |- My computer runs at 3.5MHz and I'm proud of that
 |- CSS Crap Games Comp 2005: http://www.lofi-gaming.org.uk/speccy/cgc2005/

Tim Miller wrote:
> 
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
> 
>            rename unmoderated newsgroup uk.games.video.gamecube
>                           as uk.games.video.nintendo
> 

Makes sense to me!

Tim Miller wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> 
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following
> changes in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
> 
> rename unmoderated newsgroup uk.games.video.gamecube as
> uk.games.video.nintendo
> 
Can I just ask that if you do agree with this, and don't think it needs
changing, that you still post a message expressing that you agree with
it?  Last time, it was felt that there wasn't enough support, simply
because people felt that if they didn't object, they didn't need to post
saying so.

So, if you agree, please post just a short message in support.

Of course, if you don't agree, please post and tell us why!

Tim (tm)
-- 
tim (at) economic-truth.co.uk
http://www.gamerwiki.com - the videogame encyclopedia
http://xexyz.blogspot.com - Tim's Gaming Diary

Mother wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:50:18 +0000, Tim Miller
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>          rename unmoderated newsgroup uk.games.video.gamecube
>>                         as uk.games.video.nintendo
>>
>>Changes from previous RFD:
>>
>>* a few typos corrected
>>* focus of group is on Nintendo *home* consoles
>>* removed section about 'long reviews or solutions'
>>* slight rewording of the section on copyright infringement and cut'n'paste
>>* change to crossposting (as suggested by Steve J)
> 
> 
> Good show IMO - not that I understand such devices :-)
> 
Nintendo are aiming at *you* with the DS and the Revolution, then.

> I'd not object to what appears a reasonably sensible RFD - or fast
> track thereof.
> 
Thanks.

Can everyone please ensure that all discussion is crossposted to 
uk.games.video.gamecube?  Since that group will be effectively deleted, 
it is important to ensure that discussion is crossposted between ugvgc 
and unnc.

Tim (tm)
-- 
tim (at) economic-truth.co.uk
http://www.gamerwiki.com - the videogame encyclopedia
http://xexyz.blogspot.com - Tim's Gaming Diary

FatHippy wrote:

> 
> "Commercially available" in this context means what exactly ?
> 
> For example, there is a specialist shop not too far away from me that 
> deals entirely in secondhand games, including things like old NES/SNES 
> cartridges and it could be argued that these games are therefore 
> "commercially available".Or are we saying here that "commercially 
> available" means games that are available through wholesalers/suppliers 
> to retail outlets ?
> 
> Just seeking clarification here, else it could be argued/interpreted 
> that pretty much any form of emulation is not discussable as long as 
> there is a shop somewhere in th UK selling a particular game.

Interesting question.

Firstly, since the Revolution will allow users to download a very large 
portion of Nintendo's back catalogue for a small fee (including NES, 
SNES, N64 games), then all these games will definitely be commercially 
available anyway!

But I would expect this to work in the same way that discussion of 
emulation has always worked in the ugv* groups.  Discussion of the 
emulation is fine, but discussion of where to get the game images from 
is not.  So, discussion of emulating *games* is off-charter, but 
discussion of *emulation* is OK - since that's normally legal, give or 
take the occasions when BIOS images are needed.

"Commercially available" games, then would include those for sale now as 
well as those available second-hand.  The idea of the phrase is to 
distinguish from 'homebrew' software, or software that has been released 
as freeware.

Tim (tm)
-- 
tim (at) economic-truth.co.uk
http://www.gamerwiki.com - the videogame encyclopedia
http://xexyz.blogspot.com - Tim's Gaming Diary

Tim Miller  wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>                    2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
>           rename unmoderated newsgroup uk.games.video.gamecube
>                          as uk.games.video.nintendo
>

Agreed. 

What is the projected timescale for this to happen? Assuming there are
no procedural problems etc.

Paul S.

Paul Stradling wrote:
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> What is the projected timescale for this to happen? Assuming there
> are no procedural problems etc.
> 
After 10 days I will call for a fasttrack, assuming no hitches.  That
then has a five day period during which objections can be lodged.  If
there is one valid objection, then the fasttrack is denied, and it has
to go to a vote.

If it passes the fasttrack or vote, then Control will issue the new 
group message for ugv.nintendo.  Hopefully, then, someone will set up an 
autoresponder which will reply to any post posted in ugv.gamecube with a 
pointer to the new group.  I think deKay offered last time, but I'm not 
sure if that's still available.  From that point, ugv.gamecube will be 
set for deletion, say a month later.

Tim (tm)
-- 
tim (at) economic-truth.co.uk
http://www.gamerwiki.com - the videogame encyclopedia
http://xexyz.blogspot.com - Tim's Gaming Diary

In message , Tim Miller 
 writes
>FatHippy wrote:
>
>>  "Commercially available" in this context means what exactly ?
>>  For example, there is a specialist shop not too far away from me 
>>that deals entirely in secondhand games, including things like old 
>>NES/SNES  cartridges and it could be argued that these games are 
>>therefore  "commercially available".Or are we saying here that 
>>"commercially  available" means games that are available through 
>>wholesalers/suppliers  to retail outlets ?
>>  Just seeking clarification here, else it could be argued/interpreted 
>>that pretty much any form of emulation is not discussable as long as 
>>there is a shop somewhere in th UK selling a particular game.
>
>Interesting question.
>
>Firstly, since the Revolution will allow users to download a very large 
>portion of Nintendo's back catalogue for a small fee (including NES, 
>SNES, N64 games), then all these games will definitely be commercially 
>available anyway!

Yep.

>
>But I would expect this to work in the same way that discussion of 
>emulation has always worked in the ugv* groups.  Discussion of the 
>emulation is fine, but discussion of where to get the game images from 
>is not.

Yep. Fine.

> So, discussion of emulating *games* is off-charter, but discussion of 
>*emulation* is OK - since that's normally legal, give or take the 
>occasions when BIOS images are needed.

Hazy.
That reads as if it means that if I have a game that I am trying to run 
under an emulator, and it happens to be a commercial game, then I can't 
ask how to get it running. You may not of course mean this, but that's 
the way it reads.

>
>"Commercially available" games, then would include those for sale now 
>as well as those available second-hand.  The idea of the phrase is to 
>distinguish from 'homebrew' software, or software that has been 
>released as freeware.
>
Ah ! So commercially available in this context means anything other than 
homebrew/PD software.

Perhaps the wording could be changed to say that ?
-- 
FatHippy
'Poking death in the face with a big stick and then running away'
(To reply by e-mail, please replace {$spamtrap$} with fathippy)
Name: Fats      Town: Bauhaus

FatHippy wrote:
>>
>> "Commercially available" games, then would include those for sale now 
>> as well as those available second-hand.  The idea of the phrase is to 
>> distinguish from 'homebrew' software, or software that has been 
>> released as freeware.
>>
> Ah ! So commercially available in this context means anything other than 
> homebrew/PD software.
> 
> Perhaps the wording could be changed to say that ?

So that it reads, in the first instance, "Commercially available 
software (that is, software that is not public domain)"?

Sure, that's a pretty minor change.

Tim (tm)
-- 
tim (at) economic-truth.co.uk
http://www.gamerwiki.com - the videogame encyclopedia
http://xexyz.blogspot.com - Tim's Gaming Diary

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:23:31 +0000, Tim Miller
 wrote:

>After 10 days I will call for a fasttrack

Add my voice to support for this. The wording change (re. "public
domain") shouldn't cause any issue, I think.

Paul.

-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

On 2006-01-19, Tim Miller  wrote:
> Tim Miller wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> 
>> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> 
>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following
>> changes in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>> 
>> rename unmoderated newsgroup uk.games.video.gamecube as
>> uk.games.video.nintendo

Looks good to me.

-- 
Mike Jenkins
Dreamcast/Gamecube FAQs - http://www.kwik-e-mart.org
Mike's Auctions: http://tinyurl.com/2374h

On 19 Jan 2006 Tim Miller  wrote in
news:3u54a3-ir4.ln1@dekay.dynu.com: 

> If it passes the fasttrack or vote, then Control will issue the
> new group message for ugv.nintendo.  Hopefully, then, someone will
> set up an autoresponder which will reply to any post posted in
> ugv.gamecube with a pointer to the new group. 

That would likely very quickly hit BI20. A better way is for you to set 
up an autopost that posts every n days to the group. If you just post 
to one group you can post once every 3 days, if you want to crosspost 
to the new group as well it is once every 4 days (although you might 
want to think whether it really needs to be any more than weekly). If 
you want to do that then I'm quite happy for you to use the autoposter 
I have here, email me for more details.

If you do want to reply to each post then you could write something to 
email posters. I'd suggest limiting it to 1 email / address / week else 
you'll start annoying people.

-- 
Graham Drabble
http://www.drabble.me.uk/

In message , Tim Miller 
 writes
>FatHippy wrote:
>>>
>>> "Commercially available" games, then would include those for sale 
>>>now  as well as those available second-hand.  The idea of the phrase 
>>>is to  distinguish from 'homebrew' software, or software that has 
>>>been released as freeware.
>>>
>> Ah ! So commercially available in this context means anything other 
>>than  homebrew/PD software.
>>  Perhaps the wording could be changed to say that ?
>
>So that it reads, in the first instance, "Commercially available 
>software (that is, software that is not public domain)"?
>
Yep. Clearer.

If a little restrictive.
-- 
FatHippy
'Poking death in the face with a big stick and then running away'
(To reply by e-mail, please replace {$spamtrap$} with fathippy)
Name: Fats      Town: Bauhaus

Graham Drabble wrote:
> 
> That would likely very quickly hit BI20. A better way is for you to set 
> up an autopost that posts every n days to the group. If you just post 
> to one group you can post once every 3 days, if you want to crosspost 
> to the new group as well it is once every 4 days (although you might 
> want to think whether it really needs to be any more than weekly). If 
> you want to do that then I'm quite happy for you to use the autoposter 
> I have here, email me for more details.
> 
True ... how has this been handled in the past?

> If you do want to reply to each post then you could write something to 
> email posters. I'd suggest limiting it to 1 email / address / week else 
> you'll start annoying people.
> 
At least if you annoy them they might take note that the Gamecube group 
isn't to be used any more!

Maybe a manual process might be better, where the users of ugv* agreee 
to point out ugvn to every post in ugvgc for the period of changeover. 
Responding to posters probably wouldn't work given the number of fake 
email addresses.

Tim (tm)
-- 
tim (at) economic-truth.co.uk
http://www.gamerwiki.com - the videogame encyclopedia
http://xexyz.blogspot.com - Tim's Gaming Diary

On 2006-01-19, Tim Miller  wrote:
> FatHippy wrote:
>>>
>>> "Commercially available" games, then would include those for sale now 
>>> as well as those available second-hand.  The idea of the phrase is to 
>>> distinguish from 'homebrew' software, or software that has been 
>>> released as freeware.
>>>
>> Ah ! So commercially available in this context means anything other than 
>> homebrew/PD software.
>> 
>> Perhaps the wording could be changed to say that ?
>
> So that it reads, in the first instance, "Commercially available 
> software (that is, software that is not public domain)"?
>
> Sure, that's a pretty minor change.

Erm..... hang on - open source and GPL'd software isn't in the public
domain. In fact, even my games - which are free but don't have source
code aren't in the public domain.

How about "Commercially available software (that is, software which is
not freely redistributable)"?

Choobs

-- 
Darth Gubbins 
Dark Lord of TEH KRATS
Mario Kart DS FC: 146 088 722 295
http://www.nelefa.org - Game Diary, Fiction, and Ramblings           [ESC]:wq

FatHippy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Commercially available" games, then would include those for sale 
>>>> now  as well as those available second-hand.  The idea of the phrase 
>>>> is to  distinguish from 'homebrew' software, or software that has 
>>>> been released as freeware.
>>>>
>>> Ah ! So commercially available in this context means anything other 
>>> than  homebrew/PD software.
>>>  Perhaps the wording could be changed to say that ?
>>
>> So that it reads, in the first instance, "Commercially available 
>> software (that is, software that is not public domain)"?
>>
> Yep. Clearer.
> 
> If a little restrictive.

Unfortunately, with the lack of common sense exhibited by a lot of 
Internet users (very few of which currently use ugv*, I hasten to add), 
the charter does indeed need to be restrictive.

Emulation is still, unfortunately, mainly illegal, other than when it's 
being used to run games that have been granted a free licence (such as 
those held at worldofspectrum).  There's a difficult line to be drawn 
between "currently available" games and "copyright protected" games, as 
you all to ably demonstrate.  However, for the purposes of a charter 
"use your common sense" doesn't work, and we have to draw the line 
somewhere.  I think that drawing it where there is a clearly defined 
line (in terms of legality/illegality) works best.

Of course, as with everything in any charter, common sense applies to 
its invokation and use.  Not that I've ever seen a post in ugv* about 
getting a specific game to run on an emulator, anyway!

Tim (tm)
-- 
tim (at) economic-truth.co.uk
http://www.gamerwiki.com - the videogame encyclopedia
http://xexyz.blogspot.com - Tim's Gaming Diary

Sir Chewbury Gubbins wrote:
> 
> Erm..... hang on - open source and GPL'd software isn't in the public
>  domain. In fact, even my games - which are free but don't have
> source code aren't in the public domain.
> 
> How about "Commercially available software (that is, software which
> is not freely redistributable)"?
> 
I didn't realise there was a difference - certainly, back in the days of
the CPC, it meant the same thing.  I'm happy to go with your suggestion, 
although I'm concerned that people might take it in terms of technical 
rather than legal restrictions - so maybe "not legally freely 
redistributable"?

Tim (tm)
-- 
tim (at) economic-truth.co.uk
http://www.gamerwiki.com - the videogame encyclopedia
http://xexyz.blogspot.com - Tim's Gaming Diary

Tim Miller wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>                     2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following
> changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
>            rename unmoderated newsgroup uk.games.video.gamecube
>                           as uk.games.video.nintendo
>


Agreed and supported

Soni tempori elseu romani yeof helsforo nisson ol sefini ill des Thu, 19 Jan
2006 11:22:34 +0000, sefini jorgo geanyet des mani yeof do
uk.games.video.gamecube, yawatina tan reek esk Tim Miller
 fornis do marikano es bono tan el:

>Emulation is still, unfortunately, mainly illegal, 

By which you mean "not illegal at all".  It's like saying "CD burners are
still, unfortunately, mainly illegal".

It's what you *do* with your emulation, not the emulation itself.


deKay
-- 
 + Lofi Gaming - www.lofi-gaming.org.uk      
 |- ugvm Magazine - www.ugvm.org.uk          
 |- My computer runs at 3.5MHz and I'm proud of that
 |- "CLART - YOU KNOWS IT"

On 2006-01-19, Tim Miller  wrote:
> Sir Chewbury Gubbins wrote:
>> 
>> Erm..... hang on - open source and GPL'd software isn't in the public
>>  domain. In fact, even my games - which are free but don't have
>> source code aren't in the public domain.
>> 
>> How about "Commercially available software (that is, software which
>> is not freely redistributable)"?
>> 
> I didn't realise there was a difference - certainly, back in the days of
> the CPC, it meant the same thing.  I'm happy to go with your suggestion, 
> although I'm concerned that people might take it in terms of technical 
> rather than legal restrictions - so maybe "not legally freely 
> redistributable"?

It's a matter of copyright, as I understand it. But yes, your change
looks good.

Choobs

-- 
Darth Gubbins 
Dark Lord of TEH KRATS
Mario Kart DS FC: 146 088 722 295
http://www.nelefa.org - Game Diary, Fiction, and Ramblings           [ESC]:wq

deKay wrote:
> 
>>Emulation is still, unfortunately, mainly illegal, 
> 
> By which you mean "not illegal at all".  It's like saying "CD burners are
> still, unfortunately, mainly illegal".
> 
You missed the rest of the sentence:

Emulation is still, unfortunately, mainly illegal, other than when it's 
being used to run games that have been granted a free licence (such as 
those held at worldofspectrum).

In the context we're talking about, emulators will be used to run either 
games that are freely distributable (legal, covered by the above), or 
used to run games that are covered by copyright (illegal, and the vast 
majority of use).  Were we talking about, say, uk.games.video.sinclair, 
then there would be a lot of other reasons for the use of an emulator, 
but unfortunately Nintendo never created a home computer.

Tim (tm)
-- 
tim (at) economic-truth.co.uk
http://www.gamerwiki.com - the videogame encyclopedia
http://xexyz.blogspot.com - Tim's Gaming Diary

On 19 Jan 2006 Tim Miller  wrote in
news:lq84a3-kt4.ln1@dekay.dynu.com: 

> Graham Drabble wrote:
>> 
>> That would likely very quickly hit BI20. A better way is for you
>> to set up an autopost that posts every n days to the group. If
>> you just post to one group you can post once every 3 days, if you
>> want to crosspost to the new group as well it is once every 4
>> days (although you might want to think whether it really needs to
>> be any more than weekly). If you want to do that then I'm quite
>> happy for you to use the autoposter I have here, email me for
>> more details. 
>> 
> True ... how has this been handled in the past?

I'm not sure people really have done much. Control normally 
crossposts the announcement of the new group to the one it will 
replace but other than that not much.

> Maybe a manual process might be better, where the users of ugv*
> agreee to point out ugvn to every post in ugvgc for the period of
> changeover. Responding to posters probably wouldn't work given the
> number of fake email addresses.

Manual posts can still fall foul of BI. The test is "substantively 
identical".

From: http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/spam.html
===BEGIN QUOTE===
"Substantively identical" means that the material in each article is 
sufficiently similar to construe the same message. The signature is 
included in the determination. These are examples of substantively 
identical articles:

    * byte-for-byte identical messages
    * otherwise identical postings minimally customized for each 
group it appears in.
    * advertising the same service.
    * articles that consist solely of the same signature
    * articles which consist of inclusions of other user's postings, 
but are otherwise identical. 
===END QUOTE===

As regards email not working, if people choose to use invalid email 
addresses then they may miss out on info. That's their problem.
-- 
Graham Drabble
http://www.drabble.me.uk/

Soni tempori elseu romani yeof helsforo nisson ol sefini ill des Thu, 19 Jan
2006 11:57:42 +0000, sefini jorgo geanyet des mani yeof do
uk.games.video.gamecube, yawatina tan reek esk Tim Miller
 fornis do marikano es bono tan el:

>> By which you mean "not illegal at all".  It's like saying "CD burners are
>> still, unfortunately, mainly illegal".
>> 
>You missed the rest of the sentence:

I didn't miss it.

>Emulation is still, unfortunately, mainly illegal, other than when it's 
>being used to run games that have been granted a free licence (such as 
>those held at worldofspectrum).

Who said running games had to be a part of emulation?  The emulator
(generally) emulates the machine, not the games.

I'm just being picky.  Ignore me.

>In the context we're talking about, emulators will be used to run either 
>games that are freely distributable (legal, covered by the above), or 
>used to run games that are covered by copyright (illegal, and the vast 
>majority of use).  Were we talking about, say, uk.games.video.sinclair, 
>then there would be a lot of other reasons for the use of an emulator, 
>but unfortunately Nintendo never created a home computer.

Yes, they did.  The Famicom was a full computer, complete with keyboard and
BASIC.

deKay
-- 
 + Lofi Gaming - www.lofi-gaming.org.uk      
 |- ugvm Magazine - www.ugvm.org.uk          
 |- My computer runs at 3.5MHz and I'm proud of that
 |- "CLART - YOU KNOWS IT"

deKay wrote:
> 
>>Emulation is still, unfortunately, mainly illegal, other than when it's 
>>being used to run games that have been granted a free licence (such as 
>>those held at worldofspectrum).
> 
> Who said running games had to be a part of emulation?  The emulator
> (generally) emulates the machine, not the games.
> 
But when the machine in question only runs games, then it's a bit of a 
moot point.

> I'm just being picky.  Ignore me.
> 
Pickiness is what usenet's all about ...

>>then there would be a lot of other reasons for the use of an emulator, 
>>but unfortunately Nintendo never created a home computer.
> 
> Yes, they did.  The Famicom was a full computer, complete with keyboard and
> BASIC.

I knew there'd be something I'd forgotten.  The N64DD also had its share 
of non-games software too.

Tim (tm)
-- 
tim (at) economic-truth.co.uk
http://www.gamerwiki.com - the videogame encyclopedia
http://xexyz.blogspot.com - Tim's Gaming Diary

Graham Drabble wrote:
>>
>>True ... how has this been handled in the past?
> 
> I'm not sure people really have done much. Control normally 
> crossposts the announcement of the new group to the one it will 
> replace but other than that not much.
> 
Just goes to show how much hassle it can be to be helpful!

> As regards email not working, if people choose to use invalid email 
> addresses then they may miss out on info. That's their problem.

An autoresponse to email may be best then, coupled with aweekly 
(noncrossposted) posting.

Tim (tm)
-- 
tim (at) economic-truth.co.uk
http://www.gamerwiki.com - the videogame encyclopedia
http://xexyz.blogspot.com - Tim's Gaming Diary

"Tim Miller"  wrote in message
news:0d94a3-1u4.ln1@dekay.dynu.com...
> FatHippy wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Commercially available" games, then would include those for sale
> >>>> now  as well as those available second-hand.  The idea of the phrase
> >>>> is to  distinguish from 'homebrew' software, or software that has
> >>>> been released as freeware.
> >>>>
> >>> Ah ! So commercially available in this context means anything other
> >>> than  homebrew/PD software.
> >>>  Perhaps the wording could be changed to say that ?
> >>
> >> So that it reads, in the first instance, "Commercially available
> >> software (that is, software that is not public domain)"?
> >>
> > Yep. Clearer.
> >
> > If a little restrictive.
>
> Unfortunately, with the lack of common sense exhibited by a lot of
> Internet users (very few of which currently use ugv*, I hasten to add),
> the charter does indeed need to be restrictive.
>
> Emulation is still, unfortunately, mainly illegal, other than when it's
> being used to run games that have been granted a free licence (such as
> those held at worldofspectrum).  There's a difficult line to be drawn
> between "currently available" games and "copyright protected" games, as
> you all to ably demonstrate.  However, for the purposes of a charter
> "use your common sense" doesn't work, and we have to draw the line
> somewhere.

> I think that drawing it where there is a clearly defined
> line (in terms of legality/illegality) works best.

Just because a product is copyrighted or licence restrictions apply, doesn't
mean that "emulation" is illegal. There are legal rights to undertake
decompilation and reverse engineering etc in some circumtances which
override such 'protections', and that may permit emulation.

In context though, I am not objecting to making discussion of emulation, as
most users of the group are likely to be meaning, as off-topic; that's just
a FYI comment.


> Of course, as with everything in any charter, common sense applies to
> its invokation and use.  Not that I've ever seen a post in ugv* about
> getting a specific game to run on an emulator, anyway!
>
> Tim (tm)

Yippee-kai, Sir Chewbury Gubbins!

> Tim Miller wrote:
>                     2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

Good work.  You have my support.

-- 
:: Last game completed Double Dragon Advance (GBA) January 2006
:: Mario Kart: 176153 764870 / Tony Hawk's American Sk8land: 210512 501575
:: Use Amazon? http://tinyurl.com/4kdn to help a preschool charity
:: "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for Sega." - Brodie (Mallrats)

Tim Miller wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>                     2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following
> changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
>            rename unmoderated newsgroup uk.games.video.gamecube
>                           as uk.games.video.nintendo

Supported here!

Daz

Tim Miller  wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
>                     2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> 
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
> 
>            rename unmoderated newsgroup uk.games.video.gamecube
>                           as uk.games.video.nintendo

I think that this is a great idea and I fully support it.

In message , at 08:04:04 on Fri, 20 Jan 
2006, Wm...  wibbled

>My concern is about a charter that forbids people saying things.
>
Given that the proposed charter says, in effect, don't ask for something 
illegal and don't breach copyright then I really don't see what your 
concern is about.

An objection that says the proposed group should allow asking for 
something illegal and/or it's OK to breach copyright should be treated 
with the disdain it rightly deserves IMO.

If you really want nitpick perhaps I should point out that a group you 
post to says HTML formatted posts are binaries, which they are not.


 From where I sit, it's obvious the Proponent has listened to the 
comments after the 1st RFD and this 2nd RFD tidies it all up. It
looks very much like a suitable candidate for a Fast Track. Won't
use the group myself but that doesn't stop me supporting a proposal
that looks sensible and is supported.

X-post reinstated as the Proponent asked for xposts to the group under 
discussion and I see no reason to deny that.

-- 
Pedt

Pedt" <"\"@ @\" wrote:
> In message , at 08:04:04 on Fri, 20 Jan
> 2006, Wm...  wibbled
>
>> My concern is about a charter that forbids people saying things.
>>
> Given that the proposed charter says, in effect, don't ask for
> something illegal and don't breach copyright then I really don't see
> what your concern is about.

It's Wm... - there doesn't need to be a reason for the concern.
-- 
John Briggs

Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:13:31 <fgdAf.8359$0N1.870@newsfe5-win.ntli.net> 
uk.net.news.config John Briggs 

>Pedt" <"\"@ @\" wrote:
>> In message , at 08:04:04 on Fri, 20 Jan
>> 2006, Wm...  wibbled
>>
>>> My concern is about a charter that forbids people saying things.
>>>
>> Given that the proposed charter says, in effect, don't ask for
>> something illegal and don't breach copyright then I really don't see
>> what your concern is about.
>
>It's Wm... - there doesn't need to be a reason for the concern.

True.  One person's reason may be another person's concern.

I just don't see how this forbidding will work.

I am happy to play words with people but I think forbidden is a word 
with a definite meaning that doesn't make sense if it cannot be 
supported by a reciprocal action.

I have read what Tim (the proponent) has said and understand his 
reasoning.  I am not having a go at him.

I am asking the community how these forbidden words will be policed.

As far as I know I can say pretty much anything I want anywhere I want 
in the UK.  If I say something illegal I expect to be arrested, taken to 
court, etc.  As a person that doesn't like being in jail I tend not to 
do forbidden things.  Killing people for example.

I'd like Tim to look at the word forbid again.

-- 
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting

In message <RBIJLkOf$X0DFwEH@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm... 
 writes

[snip]
>
>I'd like Tim to look at the word forbid again.
>
I'd like him not to.
-- 
FatHippy
'Poking death in the face with a big stick and then running away'
(To reply by e-mail, please replace {$spamtrap$} with fathippy)
Name: Fats      Town: Bauhaus

Sat, 21 Jan 2006 01:46:16  
uk.net.news.config FatHippy <{$spamtrap$}@fathippy.net>

>In message <RBIJLkOf$X0DFwEH@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm... 
> writes
>
>[snip]
>>
>>I'd like Tim to look at the word forbid again.
>>
>I'd like him not to.

I don't think Tim is "owned" by either of us.

He will or won't look as he feels sensible.

-- 
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 03:08:04 +0000, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Sat, 21 Jan 2006 01:46:16  
>uk.net.news.config FatHippy <{$spamtrap$}@fathippy.net>
>
>>In message <RBIJLkOf$X0DFwEH@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm... 
>> writes
>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>I'd like Tim to look at the word forbid again.
>>>
>>I'd like him not to.
>
>I don't think Tim is "owned" by either of us.
>
>He will or won't look as he feels sensible.




Everybody has their price :)

On 2006-01-21, Wm...  wrote:
>
> I am happy to play words with people but I think forbidden is a word 
> with a definite meaning that doesn't make sense if it cannot be 
> supported by a reciprocal action.

Why can't it be supported by reciprocal action? Reporting posts which
break a charter to the posters newshost or ISP is an established form of
reciprocal action. It could be argued, in fact, that this action is the
reason for making an official charter.

Choobs

-- 
Sir Chewbury Gubbins 
"Streaming through the starlit sky, travelling by telephone" - Syd Barret 1967

http://www.nelefa.org - Game Diary, Fiction, and Ramblings           [ESC]:wq

In MsgID within
uk.net.news.config, 'Pedt' wrote:

>>My concern is about a charter that forbids people saying things.
>>
>Given that the proposed charter says, in effect, don't ask for something 
>illegal and don't breach copyright then I really don't see what your 
>concern is about.

The fact that usenet should be about discussion of anything connected to
particular subjects as defined in charters. A restriction on the grounds
of illegality depicts a disappointingly sheeplike tendency.

>An objection that says the proposed group should allow asking for 
>something illegal and/or it's OK to breach copyright should be treated 
>with the disdain it rightly deserves IMO.

No, the disdain should be reserved for the cuckoo land daydream that
legality has any link at all to morality or that it should be used to
restrict freedom of discussion.

Usual disclaimer, my abstract thoughts only and nothing to do with the
group as I'm not a user. If that's how they want it then that's how they
should have it.

Dave J.

"Wm..."  writes:
> I am asking the community how these forbidden words will be policed.

Er, they won't.  That sort of wording is just a yummy marshmallow for
the control-freak types on this list.  If somebody posts something
against the charter, they will then leap into action and post Sternly
Worded Warnings in response.

-miles
-- 
Come now, if we were really planning to harm you, would we be waiting here,
 beside the path, in the very darkest part of the forest?

Miles Bader wrote:
> "Wm..."  writes:
> 
>>I am asking the community how these forbidden words will be policed.
> 
> 
> Er, they won't.  That sort of wording is just a yummy marshmallow for
> the control-freak types on this list.  If somebody posts something
> against the charter, they will then leap into action and post Sternly
> Worded Warnings in response.
> 
> -miles

Timmy Miller step forward.

lol. ;)

--

In message , Wm... 
 writes
>Sat, 21 Jan 2006 01:46:16  
>uk.net.news.config FatHippy <{$spamtrap$}@fathippy.net>
>
>>In message <RBIJLkOf$X0DFwEH@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm... 
>> writes
>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>I'd like Tim to look at the word forbid again.
>>>
>>I'd like him not to.
>
>I don't think Tim is "owned" by either of us.

I quite agree.
You have expressed your preference. I have expressed mine.
-- 
FatHippy
'Poking death in the face with a big stick and then running away'
(To reply by e-mail, please replace {$spamtrap$} with fathippy)
Name: Fats      Town: Bauhaus

Sat, 21 Jan 2006 14:13:11  
uk.net.news.config Sir Chewbury Gubbins 

>On 2006-01-21, Wm...  wrote:
>>
>> I am happy to play words with people but I think forbidden is a word
>> with a definite meaning that doesn't make sense if it cannot be
>> supported by a reciprocal action.
>
>Why can't it be supported by reciprocal action? Reporting posts which
>break a charter to the posters newshost or ISP is an established form of
>reciprocal action. It could be argued, in fact, that this action is the
>reason for making an official charter.

Is there a uk isp or independent news provider that takes action about 
such complaints?

I think for most the issue is abuse of not on the internet.

Disobeying a charter isn't something serious.

-- 
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting

On 2006-01-22, Wm...  wrote:
>
> Is there a uk isp or independent news provider that takes action about 
> such complaints?

Yes. Because in most ISPs, the abuse email address goes to at least one
BOFH-inspired netcop sysadmin :)


Choobs

-- 
Sir Chewbury Gubbins 
"Streaming through the starlit sky, travelling by telephone" - Syd Barret 1967

http://www.nelefa.org - Game Diary, Fiction, and Ramblings           [ESC]:wq

Wm... wrote:
>>
>> Why can't it be supported by reciprocal action? Reporting posts which
>> break a charter to the posters newshost or ISP is an established form of
>> reciprocal action. It could be argued, in fact, that this action is the
>> reason for making an official charter.
> 
> Is there a uk isp or independent news provider that takes action about 
> such complaints?
> 
> I think for most the issue is abuse of not on the internet.
> 
> Disobeying a charter isn't something serious.
> 
Disobeying a charter *is* abuse of the Internet.

And for one example: William Bennett spent a long time trolling 
uk.games.video.dreamcast.  After a number of complaints, Blueyonder shut 
his account down.

There are other examples too.  Some ISPs do react.

Tim (tm)
-- 
tim (at) economic-truth.co.uk
http://www.gamerwiki.com - the videogame encyclopedia
http://xexyz.blogspot.com - Tim's Gaming Diary

Dave J. wrote:
> 
>>>My concern is about a charter that forbids people saying things.
>>
>>Given that the proposed charter says, in effect, don't ask for something 
>>illegal and don't breach copyright then I really don't see what your 
>>concern is about.
> 
> The fact that usenet should be about discussion of anything connected to
> particular subjects as defined in charters. A restriction on the grounds
> of illegality depicts a disappointingly sheeplike tendency.
> 
You would rather that any group could contain any discussion at all?

This is not a question of legality.  This is a questionof what sort of 
discussion the users of the group want.  The users of the group do not 
want piracy discussion in the group - this was voted on when the group 
was first formed, and has not been revoked since.  It's not really about 
the legality, it's about the fact that piracy discussion always 
degenerates into a slanging match, and attracts less-than-intelligent 
people into the group.

Tim (tm)
-- 
tim (at) economic-truth.co.uk
http://www.gamerwiki.com - the videogame encyclopedia
http://xexyz.blogspot.com - Tim's Gaming Diary

In MsgID within uk.net.news.config, 'Tim
Miller' wrote:

>> The fact that usenet should be about discussion of anything connected to
>> particular subjects as defined in charters. A restriction on the grounds
>> of illegality depicts a disappointingly sheeplike tendency.
>> 
>You would rather that any group could contain any discussion at all?
>
>This is not a question of legality.  This is a questionof what sort of 
>discussion the users of the group want.  

Indeed, and you'll note that I said these were my abstract views and that
if the users get the group they want then all is well. I may hope that
those who would prefer the reverse engineering discussions that arise when
people want to get around the petty restrictions put in place by software
companies will get it together to vote for a change, but that is all I do.

>The users of the group do not 
>want piracy discussion in the group - this was voted on when the group 
>was first formed, and has not been revoked since.  

>It's not really about 
>the legality, it's about the fact that piracy discussion always 
>degenerates into a slanging match, and attracts less-than-intelligent 
>people into the group.

Yes, the only part that irritates me is that from my watching of some
related groups (I can't remember if ugvg was among them) the degeneration
is caused not so much by those who make what I consider interesting
discussions but mostly by those that I regard as as the
less-than-intelligent netcops.

IOW to get rid of 80 percent or so of the junk postings, you don't need to
ban the illicit stuff, you need to ban the whingeing, or at least make
both categories of discussion seperately filterable.

<Shrug> SEP field in full effect.

-- 
Dave J.

An even better one!
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/greater.swf

In MsgID within uk.net.news.config, 'Tim
Miller' wrote:

[Snip Discussion about supposedly OT topics inside ugvg]

>> It's not 'crap' it involves quite sophisticated reverse engineering
>> techniques that could be someone's first incentive toward exploration of
>> computer programming.
>> 
>I can see you have little experience with what's actually contained in 
>piracy threads on Usenet ...
>
>A: WHERE CAN I GET A COPY OF FIFA2007????
>B: j00 r teh lam0r!!!!!
>C: FUK u B u can go 2 www.pikeychavvyscumcopyworld.com tey ave it!!!!
>A: FUK YOU B!!!!  Fanx C!!!!one
>C: YEH B!!!!
>B: FUX j00!!!!! I ave s3nt j00 bofh v1ru5e5!!!!!!1111eleven
Like I said, I certainly didn't see that when I looked, I saw more some
queries raised about the results of reverse engineering, with 'debates'
along the lines of

A: So if I open the exe under OllyDbg and search for E808FFFFFF I'll have
found the call to the anti-save routine??

B: How dare you pollute our group with your illegal discussion

A: Go away you feeble netcop. BTW, I tried a search but I couldn't find
that string anywhere in the code

B: Look you're still doing it!!! Go Away You PIKEYCHAV!!!1111!!!!!

C: Listen B, would you please mind your own business this is an
interesting discussion - To A: As you're using version 1.03 you'll need to
search for E809FFFFFF, and if you change the 09 to 1A then it bypasses the
problem.

B: How DARE you call discussions about getting around the software's
god-given protection interesting you're nothing but a SCROUNGING DOLEY
CHAV!!!!

D: Look B: you cause more bother in this newsgroup than all the supposed
off topic posters put together.

B: You're always sticking up for these LAZYCHEAPSKATESCUM!!!11!! Just SOD
OFF AND MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!!!!!!

D: Oh well B, you're too far gone for common sense to work. Bye.

A: Thanks to all, it worked a treat and my granddaughter can now save her
games.

Dave J.

On 2006-01-27, Dave J  wrote:
>>A: WHERE CAN I GET A COPY OF FIFA2007????

Please do not discuss piracy in this group. It's off topic and clearly
against the charter[0]


Choobs


[0] Muhh

-- 
Sir Chewbury Gubbins 
"Streaming through the starlit sky, travelling by telephone" - Syd Barret 1967

http://www.nelefa.org - Game Diary, Fiction, and Ramblings           [ESC]:wq

Tim Miller wrote:

> Links or pointers to UK focused websites relating to Nintendo consoles
> are welcome, but must not be repeated more than once a month.
> Duplication of copyrighted material from websites or other sources is
> forbidden, with the exception of duplication of an excerpt from the
> source material for discussion purposes only, in accordance with the
> doctrine of "fair use" in copyright law. Such duplication must be
> accompanied by some commentary by the user of these passages promoting
> debate, and the original source credited.

The fair use doctrine is an American thing, and probably not appropriate in
the charter of a UK group.  The UK equivalent is "fair dealing", and I
think that is what should appear in the charter.

Jonathan Bryce wrote:
> 
> The fair use doctrine is an American thing, and probably not appropriate in
> the charter of a UK group.  The UK equivalent is "fair dealing", and I
> think that is what should appear in the charter.

You're right of course - in that the 1988 Act Chapter III calls it "fair 
dealing" in each of its provisions.

I'll leave it up to the committee as to whether the wording can be 
changed in the charter at this point.

Tim (tm)
-- 
tim (at) economic-truth.co.uk
http://www.gamerwiki.com - the videogame encyclopedia
http://xexyz.blogspot.com - Tim's Gaming Diary

Tim Miller wrote:
> Jonathan Bryce wrote:
>>
>> The fair use doctrine is an American thing, and probably not
>> appropriate in the charter of a UK group.  The UK equivalent is
>> "fair dealing", and I think that is what should appear in the
>> charter.
>
> You're right of course - in that the 1988 Act Chapter III calls it
> "fair dealing" in each of its provisions.
>
> I'll leave it up to the committee as to whether the wording can be
> changed in the charter at this point.

I'd say it was just a typo :-)
-- 
John Briggs