It does not serve the purpose if the content is copyrighted. Ancestry just stole 3 sites from one lady today and locked her out of them. The contents belong to her. She was in process of moving her pages to her own server and she is a USGenWeb Project lady. W. David Samuelsen > > In a message dated 8/31/2007 7:19:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, > wmwillis@earthlink.net writes: > > Sometimes the information is no longer on the original page, so I > have to fall back on the Cached version. > > > > In that instance the cached page serves the purpose of preserving > history. > > Joan > > > > ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL > at > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > COPYRIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Let me offer an alternative..... For any of us to assume that no profit will ever be made from the data we freely post is bordering on stupidity. It's also egotistical. It is almost akin to saying the ball is mine and you can't play with it. When we post data we have little to no control on who will use the data on an individual basis because we'll probably never know it was used. How many people will use the data then submit it to World Connect or a personal web site or one of the many other sites which will again be spidered by search engines, irregardless of whose they are. Well, the fact that ancestry had spidered and cached the data has the genealogical internet into a tail spin....but do any of the reason's why make sense? The bottom line given is they are taking data that was supposed to remain free and made an attempt to provide the data to their subscribers....paying and free. It's copyrighted? Is it a legal copyright? Just how many of us can afford to hire copyright attorney's? A copyright without the ability to back it up is like a teats on a boar hog....they're useless. Is it the caching? Everytime I visit a site my computer caches the site....so does most of our computers. An example-- I have a research project concerning the Emory/Hembree family on a web site. A locally well known and respected county historian and archivist used the data to write a history concerning a Cherokee man called Pathkiller. The article was published in their quarterly magazine which is either sold or provided to their membership. Danged if they didn't make a profit from the work. You know what, I was pleased as punch that he'd see the quality of the work that I'd aided with and want to use it. I've had my freely posted data, family trees used and abused just like the rest of you. Of course, I was unhappy about it at first and still not really satisfied with it since it was used incorrectly. BUT, I didn't let that stop me from continuing to provide data for those who need and want it. I'm not sure I know the answer to everyone's problem with ancestry since anyone who registers can access the data...it is as free as google or yahoo's is. AND all 501-c-3 websites are gone the data will STILL remain FREE because we have our web sites available. Joyce Gaston Reece

At 04:47 PM 8/31/2007, Jean wrote: >They just sat at home and took the information >from my web site for free without moving out of their house. To me >that is fraud against their clients. If you have proof of fraud, you can notify the client, the authorities, and professional associations and affiliates. However, this list is for the discussion of copyright issues only. copyright-admin@rootsweb.com

----- Original Message ----- From: W. David Samuelsen To: copyright@rootsweb.com Sent: 31 August, 2007 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Ancestry and Web pages <snip>Now Ancestry is about to run afoul of the newspaper owners. - same reasons! David, You have mentioned the newspaper collections in several of your posts and quite frankly I cannot understand your issue with these collections. The Historical Newspapers clearly come from Newspaperarchive.com for which one would have to pay $99 for an annual membership if using them directly. The obituaries clearly come from Legacy.com and also a large number of the obits they host require payment of $2.95 for one obit for 24 hours of use - in other words - 1 day. Clearly Ancestry has agreements with both Legacy.com and Newspaperarchive.com and this is what part of our subscription to Ancestry pays for. The pages at Ancestry are clearly marked from where they come from. The Historical papers view screen clearly is marked Newspaperarchive.com at the lower left of the view screen and the images themselves also have their name on them at the bottom of the page. The obituary pages, if one scrolls to the bottom of the webpage, it is clearly stated "Powered by Legacy.com". Are you trying to say that we should get LESS for the cost of our subscription to Ancestry? Linda in Costa Rica Monroe County, NY Records and Family Genealogy http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~monroenys/ Monroe County, NY History http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~monroenys/

Bravo, Pat. AS one of those 'paid' reseachers I can heartily agree with you. It's not like we're ripping people off. My clients are tickled pink to get data from the bowels of our courthouse - archives that they couldn't otherwise get to.....AND there are the occasional clients who wish full research but not very often. If people are thinking that every bit of historical data is available on web sites they are most definately wrong. There is ton's of data available that is nowhere near a web site. Our county has sites from all three major networks and we still have loads of data that is unavailable to the internet researcher. Joyce Gaston Reece ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat Asher" <pasher@ee.net> To: <copyright@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 4:30 PM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Ancestry and Web pages > At 04:09 PM 8/31/2007, you wrote: >>I openly invite people to take what they want from my web site. It is >>there to help people with their research. However, as has happened >>many times in the past, professional researchers take information from >>my site and charge their clients a lot of money for it, then that >>annoys me but I don't think there is anything that I can do about it. > > Some people hire someone to clean their house, or do their yard work > -- because they don't want to do it themselves. Would you object to > the people who actually did do the work being paid? Of course not. > > Some people are just not into "do it yourself" genealogy > research. They would prefer to pay someone else to do the research > and just provide them the finished report. The people who do the > research are providing a service and IMO should certainly be paid for > the service they provide. > > Pat > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > COPYRIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.1/981 - Release Date: 8/31/2007 > 6:13 AM > >

At 04:09 PM 8/31/2007, you wrote: >I openly invite people to take what they want from my web site. It is >there to help people with their research. However, as has happened >many times in the past, professional researchers take information from >my site and charge their clients a lot of money for it, then that >annoys me but I don't think there is anything that I can do about it. Some people hire someone to clean their house, or do their yard work -- because they don't want to do it themselves. Would you object to the people who actually did do the work being paid? Of course not. Some people are just not into "do it yourself" genealogy research. They would prefer to pay someone else to do the research and just provide them the finished report. The people who do the research are providing a service and IMO should certainly be paid for the service they provide. Pat

Joyce and others, Most of us are just happy that our websites are found by other researchers. While I do not condone Ancestry requiring payment for links to websites, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to provide a list of resources such as websites that can be searched in the free section of their website. If they sent me an email asking if I had a website and would I like to have it listed at Ancestry so that others might find it - and it was clear that it would be offered freely and that MY website would be represented as mine, not theirs, I would have no problem with it. The issue of the cached pages, however, is more than just the fact that they show the image of a cached page of someone's website on THEIR site, it also brings in another matter - if they were allowed to continue, just how often would the cached pages be updated? Some of us regularly update our websites just like we do our gedcoms. At times we find that our information was erroneous and correct it. While of course a link would provide the way to find the updated information, the cached page, if only that were viewed, would not. Personally, I think that the idea of what they were trying to do is interesting, but I think it was done rather like the old saying of putting the cart before the horse. They should have investigated the ramifications fully before attempting to launch it. Linda in Costa Rica Monroe County, NY Records and Family Genealogy http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~monroenys/ Monroe County, NY History http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~monroenys/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Joyce G. Reece To: copyright@rootsweb.com Sent: 31 August, 2007 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Ancestry and Web pages I know that and you know that. Ancestry doesn't crawl down my throat every time my computer caches one of their pages but I do pay for it. I had no problem with it when they moved it over to the 'free' side of their pages. BUT when all the others are objecting to the cached aspect of it is when I thought it should be handled by the leaders of these organizations....I still think so. Explanation, negotiations or communications will be much better handled thru TGN and leaders of these non-proftis....and the results better understood by all member/volunteers. I realize it is a legal issue....as do you. But on the other hand TGN isn't going to want to alienate those volunteers/members/subscribers who have their hands in several or all these 'pots'. Many think the execs in TGN won't listen to or care what the non-profits have to say about this. What do you think? Joyce Gaston Reece ----- Original Message ----- From: <JYoung6180@aol.com> To: <copyright-l@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 2:34 PM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Ancestry and Web pages > > In a message dated 8/31/2007 2:06:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, > bjreece@bellsouth.net writes: > > Joan > > I'm sure you are watching all the controversy on the other lists. Some > will > say 'absolutely not' it is not nor will ever be 'ok' with them for > ancestry > to use cached pages of thier web sites. > > Others are saying differently. > > Joyce Gaston Reece > > > > --- > Joyce - > > I'm well aware of what is being written. We all know that anyone can have > an > opinion but that doesn't make their opinion factual nor does it mean they > know the law or legal aspects. People tend to write from an emotional > standpoint but copyright is a LEGAL issue. > > Cached pages -- including cached pages for a fee (which isn't what was > being > done here) have been around since the early days of the Internet. AOL > caches pages for their proxy server so that web sites can be quickly > accessed by > their subscribers. Caching pages is a part of Internet life. > > Joan > > > > ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL > at > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > COPYRIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.1/981 - Release Date: 8/31/2007 > 6:13 AM > > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to COPYRIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

You may want to review the many excellent early posts in the archives of this site---especially towards the end when the site effectively went dormant. I'm not sure exactly what types of problems you are having, but as the posts in the archives make clear, information is not copyrightable. If you put information onto a web site, it can be freely used by anyone. Specific written text may be subject to copyright, but the information itself is not. And of course, typing in text that's out of copyright, secures you no copyright privileges. The folks who input Chalkley's, for example, did a very commendable job. But the work itself is out of copyright, and I believe anyone can use the text freely. (Though I think the polite thing to do is to acknowledge the immediate source of the transcription.) Of course, if you know someone has used your own writing verbatim, then that's another matter. I believe that the creativity involved in writing something yourself gives you copyright privileges. As I understand it the information still isn't copyrightable, but the text is. Bill On Aug 31, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Jean McCarthy wrote: > I openly invite people to take what they want from my web site. It is > there to help people with their research. However, as has happened > many times in the past, professional researchers take information from > my site and charge their clients a lot of money for it, then that > annoys me but I don't think there is anything that I can do about it. > > Jean McCarthy nee Moore > > On 31/08/2007, Sara Binkley Tarpley <sarabtarpley@gmail.com> wrote: >> Joan, >> >> You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that the link to >> the actual >> URL was not easy to find on the first day that I was made aware of >> it, which >> was Monday; and at that time the database was available only to paid >> subscribers. The cached URL made it look as if Ancestry owned the >> material. Furthermore, the source information that was put at the >> bottom of >> each page was generic, relating to the entire collection and of no >> use in >> properly sourcing information that you might use. Whereas for >> other kinds >> of information, such as death records, the source information >> names the >> specific record the information comes from and makes it possible >> to properly >> source data you use. >> >> Initially, to see the actual URL you had to click on the link to >> the cached >> image. At the top of the page there was a tab which took you to >> the actual >> page. This is the reverse of what other search engines do. >> Furthermore, I >> know of no other results page on Ancestry that has a tab at the >> top; it is >> certainly not something that people are looking for. Actually I >> am not sure >> that the tab was there at the start because I certainly did not >> see it till >> later. >> >> In the next incarnation of the collection, Ancestry placed a link >> to the >> actual page below the link to the cached URL, again a difference >> between >> real search engines and Ancestry. Later they placed a non- >> hyperlinked >> address for the actual page at the bottom of each record. It was >> certainly >> plain to see, but by that time they had infuriated many people. >> >> Surely you can disagree with those of us who were upset without >> impugning >> us. I have researched a geographic subgroup of my maiden name for >> eleven >> years and have had a Web site for most of that time. I have a >> database, >> with sources, both on my own site and on Rootsweb. I have helped >> many, many >> people find their ancestors and have provided text reports by e- >> mail that >> contain all of my research notes, including record >> transcriptions. I have >> sent many copies of documents by snail mail and have never asked >> for one >> penny of compensation. I have posted answers on many query >> boards. I >> currently moderate a very active Yahoo group of Binkley >> researchers. I >> find what is obviously my research all over Rootsweb. I don't >> think that >> anyone who knows me would accuse me of screaming "mine, mine, >> mine." [It is >> true that I am protective of my brief biographical essays, which >> are my own >> creative work.] >> >> Many of us may not be as Internet savvy as you are. When we first >> saw what >> Ancestry had done, it was very confusing. Furthermore, and not to >> belabor >> the point, Ancestry did not present the cached search results in a >> straightforward manner. Frankly, I could have lived with the >> format as it >> last appeared. However, I think that if Ancestry wanted to provide a >> genealogy-specific search engine, Ancestry could have set one up >> on its site >> and called it that. [There is some question as to how genealogy- >> specific >> the Internet Biographical Collection was. Many people complained >> of finding >> things that were not genealogy related. One person found an X- >> rated site.] >> >> >> Sara Binkley Tarpley >> >> On 8/31/07, JYoung6180@aol.com <JYoung6180@aol.com> wrote: >>> >>> ---- >>> Right, which is why the whole thing was removed -- but that >>> doesn't make >>> me >>> have any more respect at all for mob rule or for people who >>> supposedly are >>> interested in sharing free genealogical resources with the >>> greatest number >>> of >>> people ut who, when a tool is created to help accomplish just >>> that, start >>> screaming mine mine mine. >>> >>> Joan >>> >>> >>> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to COPYRIGHT- >> request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > -- > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanmccarthy36/ > > jeanmccarthy36@googlemail.com > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to COPYRIGHT- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

In a message dated 8/31/2007 3:58:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarabtarpley@gmail.com writes: << The cached URL made it look as if Ancestry owned the material. >> ---- The cached pages were the original pages and were not altered to make it appear they were Ancestry-owned at all. There was a bold blue link and header up top that clearly told you this was a CACHED page and that you could access the LIVE page by clicking the link. Originally (but only for the first few hours the collection was displayed) the tool--the search engine--was for the use of Ancestry subscribers. Then it was opened freely to everyone. << Actually I am not sure that the tab was there at the start because I certainly did not see it till later.>> ---- It was definitely there from the very beginning. << Surely you can disagree with those of us who were upset without impugning us. I have researched a geographic subgroup of my maiden name for eleven years and have had a Web site for most of that time. I have a database, with sources, both on my own site and on Rootsweb. I have helped many, many people find their ancestors and have provided text reports by e-mail that contain all of my research notes, including record transcriptions. I have sent many copies of documents by snail mail and have never asked for one penny of compensation. I have posted answers on many query boards. I currently moderate a very active Yahoo group of Binkley researchers. I find what is obviously my research all over Rootsweb. I don't think that anyone who knows me would accuse me of screaming "mine, mine, mine." [It is true that I am protective of my brief biographical essays, which are my own creative work.] >> ---- But isn't the goal to help as many people as possible FIND the information you are providing for other genealogists? To me, that is the purpose of doing the work. I couldn't care less HOW people find it, only that they do and that it is useful to them. When a new tool is presented that helps people FIND bios they never were able to locate before--and I have to say I found a few I'd not located with the previously existing search engines during the brief incarnation of Ancestry's new patented search tool. << When we first saw what Ancestry had done, it was very confusing. >> --- I will grant you that the launch of the new tool COULD have been better explained and described. I'm not sure, however, that the naysayers would have been any less vocal had that been the case. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Nope I rarely pay attention to live forums these days. Most lists that I belong to are private lists, and it hasn't come up. So it was a surprise to see it here---one of the few lists I actually subscribe to that's not private. Bill On Aug 31, 2007, at 2:05 PM, Joyce G. Reece wrote: > Joan > > I'm sure you are watching all the controversy on the other lists. > Some will > say 'absolutely not' it is not nor will ever be 'ok' with them for > ancestry > to use cached pages of thier web sites. > > Others are saying differently. > > Joyce Gaston Reece > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <JYoung6180@aol.com> > To: <copyright-l@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 1:46 PM > Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Ancestry and Web pages > > >> >> In a message dated 8/31/2007 1:39:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, >> wmwillis@earthlink.net writes: >> >> Thank you for that feedback. >> >> I can see why ancestry would want to preserve a record of a file for >> the benefit of future researchers. >> After all, most web sites have a very ephemeral existence, and >> and in >> most cases the information would not be available for long. >> Not giving people credit for their work, however, is another matter. >> >> Had ancestry used a different method of displaying the information, >> one that say clearly showed that this was a cached version of a >> specific file, the original location, ownership, and link, would >> they have been OK? >> >> >> >> ------ >> Actually they DID clearly indicate that the pages were cached and >> provided >> a >> link the LIVE PAGE that was clearly visible. There was no deception. >> Sometimes people just like to complain without understanding the >> law and >> without >> understanding the issues involved. >> >> Joan >> >> >> >> ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all- >> new AOL >> at >> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> COPYRIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.1/981 - Release Date: >> 8/31/2007 >> 6:13 AM >> >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to COPYRIGHT- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

Also thank you. I appreciate the clarification. But apparently it wasn't sufficient to provide that information. That might have met the letter of the law, but perhaps as you suggest, the law wasn't the underlying issue, but a perception (correct or not) that someone was "stealing my stuff". Sometimes perception rules over facts. I guess I understand the rancor if someone thinks their stuff is being stolen---but the reality is that few of us write well enough that "stealing our stuff" should be an issue. Much of our "stuff" is worth copying, but not stealing. I rather like the idea underlying the genealogy wiki's where its clear that if you post something, its meant to be used by others. Since its a very public media "getting credit for what you've done" is almost always going to be the case. Indeed, even though its a publically editable system, you can always tell EXACTLY what someone particular person contributed to the final product. Much better than placeing it on a "here to day gone tomorrow" web page. Wiki's sort of eliminates the hassle of copyright restrictions, but not everyone's cup of tea either. Bill On Aug 31, 2007, at 1:46 PM, JYoung6180@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 8/31/2007 1:39:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, > wmwillis@earthlink.net writes: > > Thank you for that feedback. > > I can see why ancestry would want to preserve a record of a file for > the benefit of future researchers. > After all, most web sites have a very ephemeral existence, and and in > most cases the information would not be available for long. > Not giving people credit for their work, however, is another matter. > > Had ancestry used a different method of displaying the information, > one that say clearly showed that this was a cached version of a > specific file, the original location, ownership, and link, would > they have been OK? > > > > ------ > Actually they DID clearly indicate that the pages were cached and > provided a > link the LIVE PAGE that was clearly visible. There was no deception. > Sometimes people just like to complain without understanding the > law and without > understanding the issues involved. > > Joan > > > > ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all- > new AOL at > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to COPYRIGHT- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

In a message dated 8/31/2007 3:14:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, dsam@sampubco.com writes: Joan, 1. It is illegal to provide full cached image of file. Google tried and lost in court. 2. Originally this IBC search engine required PAID subscription for access to sites that are FREE not only within Rootsweb but also OUTSIDE the Generations Network such as Political Graveyard (free site), Findagrave, etc. Ancestry changed it to free but it was not enough because of #1 above. Now Ancestry is about to run afoul of the newspaper owners. - same reasons! W. David Samuelsen ----- David- Pat cited legal precedent which proves otherwise, unless you know something we don't know? If so, please provide the source. Caching pages isn't illegal under the circumstances you cite above -- other companies have been doing it for many years with no legal repercussions. What Ancestry had originally planned to include in their subscription services was the patented TOOL to help people FIND the bios. This is very similar to One World Tree providing a search engine to find otherwise free data. The data remained free (as it did in this situation) but the tool was what was being charged for. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Joan, this is from EOGN.com commentary. - David "Also, I do agree with Data Center Manager about deleting the database. If what they did was to actually copy web sites without the copyright holders' consent then they've got to be breaking copyright law. There's no way that I could make copies of Ancestry's databases and then use them in my own for profit business without them suing my pants off." "After the dual PR disasters of FTM 2008 and Internet Biographical Collection, all I can do is paraphrase that great American philospoher Oliver Norvell Hardy and say "Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten yourselves into." Need I say more? It's the new management of TGN that kept shooting themselves in their own feet. How many more screwups will it be before Paul Allen have enough of it to purge the management? I wonder how many top to middle tier managers left Ancestry soon after the new management came in... I am aware of one big name who left Ancestry for the rival company (that rival company is working with LDS Church now.) W. David Samuelsen

In a message dated 8/31/2007 3:12:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, bjreece@bellsouth.net writes: I realize it is a legal issue....as do you. But on the other hand TGN isn't going to want to alienate those volunteers/members/subscribers who have their hands in several or all these 'pots'. Many think the execs in TGN won't listen to or care what the non-profits have to say about this. What do you think? Joyce Gaston Reece ---- Right, which is why the whole thing was removed -- but that doesn't make me have any more respect at all for mob rule or for people who supposedly are interested in sharing free genealogical resources with the greatest number of people ut who, when a tool is created to help accomplish just that, start screaming mine mine mine. Joan ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

JYoung6180@aol.com wrote: This is very similar to One > World Tree providing a search engine to find otherwise free data. The data > remained free (as it did in this situation) but the tool was what was being > charged for. > > Joan Obvious you have NOT tried without *paid subscription* to know the HUGE difference. They DID require paid subscription to even see a single free site, even USGenWeb Project sites which are free, and even required paid access in order to visit the sites that have NOTHING to do with Ancestry group at all. That inclues the Political Graveyard site, many sites at USGenNet, etc. That is the line Ancestry crossed too far. Also Ancestry went too far - with distorted cache links. Google had clear cache link and they're very clear, very much unlike Ancestry. If you have ACTUALLY seen what the cache link look like, you will not tolerate what Ancestry did. Now it's Obituary Collection - still requiring paid access to see FREE obituaries at many online newspaper sites. Copyright issue here now. W. David Samuelsen

I know that and you know that. Ancestry doesn't crawl down my throat every time my computer caches one of their pages but I do pay for it. I had no problem with it when they moved it over to the 'free' side of their pages. BUT when all the others are objecting to the cached aspect of it is when I thought it should be handled by the leaders of these organizations....I still think so. Explanation, negotiations or communications will be much better handled thru TGN and leaders of these non-proftis....and the results better understood by all member/volunteers. I realize it is a legal issue....as do you. But on the other hand TGN isn't going to want to alienate those volunteers/members/subscribers who have their hands in several or all these 'pots'. Many think the execs in TGN won't listen to or care what the non-profits have to say about this. What do you think? Joyce Gaston Reece ----- Original Message ----- From: <JYoung6180@aol.com> To: <copyright-l@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 2:34 PM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Ancestry and Web pages > > In a message dated 8/31/2007 2:06:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, > bjreece@bellsouth.net writes: > > Joan > > I'm sure you are watching all the controversy on the other lists. Some > will > say 'absolutely not' it is not nor will ever be 'ok' with them for > ancestry > to use cached pages of thier web sites. > > Others are saying differently. > > Joyce Gaston Reece > > > > --- > Joyce - > > I'm well aware of what is being written. We all know that anyone can have > an > opinion but that doesn't make their opinion factual nor does it mean they > know the law or legal aspects. People tend to write from an emotional > standpoint but copyright is a LEGAL issue. > > Cached pages -- including cached pages for a fee (which isn't what was > being > done here) have been around since the early days of the Internet. AOL > caches pages for their proxy server so that web sites can be quickly > accessed by > their subscribers. Caching pages is a part of Internet life. > > Joan > > > > ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL > at > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > COPYRIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.1/981 - Release Date: 8/31/2007 > 6:13 AM > >

EOGN is still having the commentary on this issue as of today. Greta Van Sustern, the attorney that's often on TV, specializing in these type of cases may be already stepped in - having been asked by her cousin whose site was corrupted by Ancestry.com. She's a genealogist herself. David Samuelsen Bill wrote: > Nope > > I rarely pay attention to live forums these days. Most lists that I > belong to are private lists, and it hasn't come up. > So it was a surprise to see it here---one of the few lists I actually > subscribe to that's not private. > > Bill > On Aug 31, 2007, at 2:05 PM, Joyce G. Reece wrote: > >> Joan >> >> I'm sure you are watching all the controversy on the other lists. >> Some will >> say 'absolutely not' it is not nor will ever be 'ok' with them for >> ancestry >> to use cached pages of thier web sites. >> >> Others are saying differently. >> >> Joyce Gaston Reece >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: <JYoung6180@aol.com> >> To: <copyright-l@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 1:46 PM >> Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Ancestry and Web pages >> >> >>> In a message dated 8/31/2007 1:39:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, >>> wmwillis@earthlink.net writes: >>> >>> Thank you for that feedback. >>> >>> I can see why ancestry would want to preserve a record of a file for >>> the benefit of future researchers. >>> After all, most web sites have a very ephemeral existence, and >>> and in >>> most cases the information would not be available for long. >>> Not giving people credit for their work, however, is another matter. >>> >>> Had ancestry used a different method of displaying the information, >>> one that say clearly showed that this was a cached version of a >>> specific file, the original location, ownership, and link, would >>> they have been OK? >>> >>> >>> >>> ------ >>> Actually they DID clearly indicate that the pages were cached and >>> provided >>> a >>> link the LIVE PAGE that was clearly visible. There was no deception. >>> Sometimes people just like to complain without understanding the >>> law and >>> without >>> understanding the issues involved. >>> >>> Joan >>> >>> >>> >>> ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all- >>> new AOL >>> at >>> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> COPYRIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >>> the >>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>> >>> >>> -- >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>> Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.1/981 - Release Date: >>> 8/31/2007 >>> 6:13 AM >>> >>> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to COPYRIGHT- >> request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to COPYRIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Wikipedia's smart cookie. They do NOT use cached links. They simply link off sites and include disclaimer that the links are "off site". And use public domain images. They have management checking even the contents to be sure they are not copyright violation cases. David Samuelsen Bill wrote: > Also thank you. I appreciate the clarification. > > But apparently it wasn't sufficient to provide that information. > That might have met the letter of the law, but perhaps as you > suggest, the law wasn't the underlying issue, but > a perception (correct or not) that someone was "stealing my stuff". > Sometimes perception rules over facts. > > I guess I understand the rancor if someone thinks their stuff is > being stolen---but the reality is that > few of us write well enough that "stealing our stuff" should be an > issue. > Much of our "stuff" is worth copying, but not stealing. > > I rather like the idea underlying the genealogy wiki's where its > clear that if you post something, its meant to be used by others. > Since its a very public media "getting credit for what you've done" > is almost always going to be the case. Indeed, even though its a > publically editable system, > you can always tell EXACTLY what someone particular person > contributed to the final product. > Much better than placeing it on a "here to day gone tomorrow" web page. > > Wiki's sort of eliminates the hassle of copyright restrictions, but > not everyone's cup of tea either. > > Bill > > > > On Aug 31, 2007, at 1:46 PM, JYoung6180@aol.com wrote: > >> In a message dated 8/31/2007 1:39:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, >> wmwillis@earthlink.net writes: >> >> Thank you for that feedback. >> >> I can see why ancestry would want to preserve a record of a file for >> the benefit of future researchers. >> After all, most web sites have a very ephemeral existence, and and in >> most cases the information would not be available for long. >> Not giving people credit for their work, however, is another matter. >> >> Had ancestry used a different method of displaying the information, >> one that say clearly showed that this was a cached version of a >> specific file, the original location, ownership, and link, would >> they have been OK? >> >> >> >> ------ >> Actually they DID clearly indicate that the pages were cached and >> provided a >> link the LIVE PAGE that was clearly visible. There was no deception. >> Sometimes people just like to complain without understanding the >> law and without >> understanding the issues involved. >> >> Joan >> >> >> >> ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all- >> new AOL at >> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to COPYRIGHT- >> request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to COPYRIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Joan, Mob rule? - tell that to those who have their sites NOT at Rootsweb/Ancestry but elsewhere. They were outraged, equally-wise because even if it was free, the cached links still strong imply to visitors it's a Ancestry-owned, when it is not. The links are still very wrong-url linked. And I was reading the comments from some of data center managers about the differences between Google and Ancestry. They were saying what Ancestry did and still do is wrong. (still do - because there's this Obituary collection, too - same issues.) David Samuelsen JYoung6180@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 8/31/2007 3:12:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, > bjreece@bellsouth.net writes: > > > I realize it is a legal issue....as do you. But on the other hand TGN > isn't > going to want to alienate those volunteers/members/subscribers who have > their hands in several or all these 'pots'. Many think the execs in TGN > won't listen to or care what the non-profits have to say about this. What > do you think? > > Joyce Gaston Reece > > > > ---- > Right, which is why the whole thing was removed -- but that doesn't make me > have any more respect at all for mob rule or for people who supposedly are > interested in sharing free genealogical resources with the greatest number of > people ut who, when a tool is created to help accomplish just that, start > screaming mine mine mine. > > Joan > > > > ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to COPYRIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Joan, You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that the link to the actual URL was not easy to find on the first day that I was made aware of it, which was Monday; and at that time the database was available only to paid subscribers. The cached URL made it look as if Ancestry owned the material. Furthermore, the source information that was put at the bottom of each page was generic, relating to the entire collection and of no use in properly sourcing information that you might use. Whereas for other kinds of information, such as death records, the source information names the specific record the information comes from and makes it possible to properly source data you use. Initially, to see the actual URL you had to click on the link to the cached image. At the top of the page there was a tab which took you to the actual page. This is the reverse of what other search engines do. Furthermore, I know of no other results page on Ancestry that has a tab at the top; it is certainly not something that people are looking for. Actually I am not sure that the tab was there at the start because I certainly did not see it till later. In the next incarnation of the collection, Ancestry placed a link to the actual page below the link to the cached URL, again a difference between real search engines and Ancestry. Later they placed a non-hyperlinked address for the actual page at the bottom of each record. It was certainly plain to see, but by that time they had infuriated many people. Surely you can disagree with those of us who were upset without impugning us. I have researched a geographic subgroup of my maiden name for eleven years and have had a Web site for most of that time. I have a database, with sources, both on my own site and on Rootsweb. I have helped many, many people find their ancestors and have provided text reports by e-mail that contain all of my research notes, including record transcriptions. I have sent many copies of documents by snail mail and have never asked for one penny of compensation. I have posted answers on many query boards. I currently moderate a very active Yahoo group of Binkley researchers. I find what is obviously my research all over Rootsweb. I don't think that anyone who knows me would accuse me of screaming "mine, mine, mine." [It is true that I am protective of my brief biographical essays, which are my own creative work.] Many of us may not be as Internet savvy as you are. When we first saw what Ancestry had done, it was very confusing. Furthermore, and not to belabor the point, Ancestry did not present the cached search results in a straightforward manner. Frankly, I could have lived with the format as it last appeared. However, I think that if Ancestry wanted to provide a genealogy-specific search engine, Ancestry could have set one up on its site and called it that. [There is some question as to how genealogy-specific the Internet Biographical Collection was. Many people complained of finding things that were not genealogy related. One person found an X-rated site.] Sara Binkley Tarpley On 8/31/07, JYoung6180@aol.com <JYoung6180@aol.com> wrote: > > ---- > Right, which is why the whole thing was removed -- but that doesn't make > me > have any more respect at all for mob rule or for people who supposedly are > interested in sharing free genealogical resources with the greatest number > of > people ut who, when a tool is created to help accomplish just that, start > screaming mine mine mine. > > Joan > > >