My World War II website!

Forget it! This place stinks!

 

pretty good

 

Well, it would seem that you're off to a good start!

 

Seeing as you haven't written anything yourself, I wouldn't really consider it a good website.

Examples:

US equipment
M1911A1 section copied from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911
M1 section copied from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Carbine

German equipment
P 08 section copied from
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/ ... 8/p08.html
MP 44 section copied from
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/ ... stg44.html

Wikipedia does allow you to use their material, however you have to make a link back to each article from which you get the material. You have, however, also copied material from at least one private website, which is copyright infringement and is illegal.

You are furthermore stating that there is no copyright on the site, however this is a lie. Just because you have stolen the contents doesn't allow you to give others the right to do so. You are therefore also inciting copyright infringement.

You don't deserve the right to have a website, since you're obviously not mature enough to understand the simple basics of the law.

I would suggest that the moderators remove the link to the website, to prevent people from supporting this person's theft.

Oh, and by the way - I reported the website to Freewebs for copyright infringement.

 

Thanks Christian for your research and action in this matter. The link in the opening post has been removed. Killertankkiller, please write your own text and state the sources you use. Better yet, provide a simple link to the websites you used, since you don't seem to add anything to them.

 

Isn't that a bit extreme Christian? (not to mention a rather harsh thing to do to a young-person)... The laws of plagiarism are policed so inadequately on the internet, so you must know as well as I do that your complaint will be dismissed as mere whinnying, and that Killertankkiller will recieve nothing more than an email and maybe a slap on the wrist

I mean, if a kid wants an internet site... fine, no-one short of an bitter anally-retentive old geezer is going to give a damn
If Killertankiller was a university student you'd perhaps have a point, but I actually doubt very much that Killertankiller is even old enough to be answerable to the law of plagiarism... So your complaint comes across as nothing more than destroying a young child's dreams of having his own WW2 internet site :cry:

 

There's a difference between writing a webpage about a topic you're interested in, and creating a website on which you copy the text of other websites for no reason but that it is easier than writing your own text, and without mentioning the site you copy.

It's not just illegal, it's a bad source this way. The website itself looks very good indeed, so Killertankkiller only has to gather, process and write his own information to make it a pretty good site.

 

Technically a minor over 10y.o. cannot commit a crime unless it can be proven he was aware that what he was doing was wrong

 

I agree with you on the first parts, but when I read this, Well, don't come crying to us when NAZI Zombies come to take you to hell, @$$. Flamer! Death to the Flamers!!!! Death to the Critics!!! Shut Up!!

 

An immature and unreasoned response...

If KTK was a university student he would be knowldegable and informed on such matters as plagiarism, if not then he deserves such criticism, Smeghead, since people should not be allowed to pass up such work as their own.

Whilst I have had disagreements with Christian in the past on strict interpretations of Copyrtight, where exactly does the comments on Nazi Zombies come from? It's not a matter of "Death to the Critics", and frankly it's not down to you to tell others on this site to "Shut up". Christian has a valid compaint regarding the origins of such material.

You are the one causing the "Flames" not he and you claimed credit for others work, that is plagiarism. Can you claim honestly otherwise?

 

smeghead
Regardless of age, stealing is stealing. If someone is old enough to make a website, they're old enough to suffer the consequences from doing so. To the persons having their contents stolen, it makes no difference what age the criminal is. Furthermore, I see that Freewebs have terminated the website, so it does seem to have had an effect.

Furthermore, the website specifically mentioned that the website wasn't covered by copyright, so from this, we must assume that the author knew the rules of copyright.

 

Regardless Killertankiller cannot be proven liable for copyright infringment; firstly he is a minor, it is unlikely that he has any experiences related to copyright law, and it would not be unreasonable to forsee that a young person would disregard the website rules entirely, so it cannot be said that he 'ought' to have known the rules...
Personally I consider your original message to have been a little brutal and unnessecary, a simple question as to the legality would have sufficed... I can't say i'm totally suprised with Killertankkillers reaction to this matter, although I do not agree with it... The line "You don't deserve the right to have a website, since you're obviously not mature enough to understand the simple basics of the law. " is even a little bit provocative, and quite a nasty thing to say...
Still, at least theres nothing illegal about your provokation OR killertankillers reaction

 

Moderator message:

I will leave this open for a discussion on copyright. Just be careful where you go...



I have not had the chance to discuss this with the other Moderators, so it might get locked.

 

A minor can still commit a crime, even if the minor can't be tried for the crime. Therefore, committing the crime and being liable can be two different matters. Nonetheless, just because the crime can't the tried, doesn't mean that there can't be consequences. For example, a child stealing from a supermarket might not be tried with the crime, but can still be excluded from coming to that supermarket. Likewise, as has been the case here, even though the crime can't be tried in a court of law, the website in question has been sanctioned by being removed by the host.

The website stated on its front page that the source for most of the material was Wikipedia (without further explanation) and that the site was copyright free because none of the contents was written by the author. In doing so, it is clear that the author knows that rules exists both academically and legally governing the handling of other peoples writing. If someone knows that there are rules in an area, but acts without understanding these rules, they have shown negligence by not acting as a bonus pater, and thus culpa can be established. This is true regardless of age.

My statement could perhaps be seen as provocative, however I consider it true regardless. Creating a website, whether with a free or paid host, requires the author to read and sign (typically electronically) that they agree to a set of terms and conditions. Common for these is that the website can't infringe copyright. If one was to read a set of terms and conditions, one should look up everything which isn't understood, or ask someone well-versed in such conditions to explain them. Failing to read the conditions or asking someone is not an excuse (rather, I'd consider it an aggravating circumstance).

 

copyright.

I have been down this road in the past, not on this forum but mainly to do with the entertainment business, the 1956 Copyright act has this piece in it, "In general, copyright in literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works is vested in the author for the period of his lifetime and 50 years following, after which it passes into the public domain and becomes freely available to any who wish to make use of it."
Maybe you could 'Google' to see how it stands to day.

 

The Berne Convention, which has been ratified by almost all countries (except such countries as Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and Uganda), specifies 70 years after the author's death. Certain countries (such as the US, Germany, Norway and Denmark) have slightly different rules, usually specifically for photographic images (where the expiration is often 50 years after the photograph was taken).

 

so is it plagerism to take some names out've the old testiment?

 

What do you mean?

 

I think w can safely say that more than 70 years have passed since the Old Testament was first written...

 

I find that unlikely...

Nonetheless, it is still plagiarism if you copy very old material and don't mention the name. The author must always be credited, copyright only tells you who can make copies of a work.