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

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