[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hacker Links page (fwd)
Forwarded message:
>From [email protected] Tue Jun 3 16:51:58 1997
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 15:02:09 -0700
From: Duffy <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Organization: Telecode (http://www.hackerscatalog.com)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: James Choate <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Hacker Links page
References: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
James,
My most sincere apologies for any personal inconvenience to you in this
matter. The sole purpose of the request was just to ask you to delete a
link to a site. We didn't intend or foresee any problems with the
request, but there were and I believe a more detailed explanation is in
order.
We here at Telecode were notified by Mr. Lancaster several weeks ago
that he wished that the link(s) we had given to his site be removed. No
reason was given, and of course, none was required. We complied within 2
hours of the receipt of the e-mail and removed both links from our 2
site:
http://www.hackerscatalog.com
http://www.cinecam.com
On Monday, Mr. Lancaster did a search at HOTBOT and found another link
to what he "thought" to be a "Mirror" of our site, namely, your web page
with the links. When we looked at the page, we determined that it did
look like or was "close enough" to, our web page of Hackers Links at
www.hackerscatalog.com/web.htm.
We responded to him via e-mail that more than one person in the past has
posted this page to their site without permission (not needed anyway)
and that on several occasions our entire site has been lifted. We were
not pointing to you specifically, but just speaking in "general terms"
stating that's possibly how the linkage had occurred.
I also remarked that I would do my best to contact and ask that the link
be removed. I did this because it "appeared" to Mr. Lancaster that the
both yours and our site were somehow "connected". Of which, there are
not. We do not claim that there is any copyright infringement on you
part and we also state openly that your are the "true and rightful owner
of that page". We believe, because of the similarity of the pages, that
we had a "responsibility" at least to ask that you remove the link. So,
we did.
Again, I apologize for any inconvenience in this matter.
Duffy
Office Manager, Telecode
www.hackerscatalog.com
>
> Hi Duffy,
>
> > James,
> >
> > With regards to the page URL listed below:
> >
> > http://einstein.ssz.com/ravage/hacker.html
> >
> > The owner of the site of one the links listed has asked to have their
> > URL removed from this page. Since the source of the page was "The
> > Hackers Catalog", they contacted us. We removed their link promptly,
> > however, a web search showed your URL still remaining on the page. They
> > have asked us to remove all links back to them, so I am asking you to
> > remove the link to the "Guru's Lair" as soon as possible. It's the first
> > one on the top of the page.
> >
> > Thanks for helping...
> >
> > duffy
> > [email protected]
>
> Please do not send further email to '[email protected]' as this has
> nothing to do with my business or the issue under discussion. ALL
> correspondance should occur through '[email protected]' or phone at
> 512-451-7087 (8pm - 10pm CST only). Should I receive further email
> at Tivoli - IBM's site I will inform them of the breach on your part.
>
> First, let's set the record straight. I was NEVER asked to do anything.
> It was DEMANDED that I take the link down. When I explained that I would
> not do that I received an email accussing me of criminal libel. Not what
> I would call a request by any definition of that word. I don't like being
> threatened and it makes me less than cooperative when it happens.
>
> Furthermore, why should I take it down? Does the owner plan on dropping
> the site and therefore it is a dead link? Certainly I will take it down
> because it reflects badly on me having dead links.
>
> As to where the html that I currently possess came from originaly, I
> don't have a clue. I received it as a piece of email from somebody quite
> a while ago (memory says over a year). If it really did come from The
> Hackers Catalog and they are claiming copyright on it, I have no problem
> removing their html, I would replace it with the same links using my own
> text and html thereby removing the infringment. Is that what you are
> requesting?
>
> The next question that needs asked is whether there is any copyrighted
> material other than The Hackers Catalog claim. The link does not use
> any text or graphics from the target site. It furthermore does not even
> explicity identify the link. So it is clear that there is no copyrighted
> material from Don or his site residing on my server.
>
> So, the remaining question is does Don have the legal right to limit who
> may link to it. I do not believe that Don has any more right to decide
> who can link or furthermore visit his sight than my own. This in effect
> means none.
>
> I believe the only reasonable responce that I can have to this 'request'
> is to decline on any other issue other than removing the The Hackers
> Catalog and replacing it with my own file.
>
> So, are you representing The Hackers Catalog and requesting the removal
> of their fragment of html? If so then I have no problem replacing the file
> as soon as I receive a written notice from a legal representative detailing
> the complaint and the time period I have to correct the situation.
>
> If you are instead representing Don and requesting that I remove that
> specific link because of his disatisfaction with its location then I must
> refuse. I furthermore would request, as I have of Don, to forward me the
> name and number of the appropriate lawyer so that my legal council may
> contact them and begin proceedings.
>
> Have a nice day.
>
> Jim Choate
> The Armadillo Group
> [email protected]
> 512-451-7087