LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksthats why scan have their own systems, fully built, as do dabs, and kustompcs will build it for you. hmm...Originally Posted by miw
thats why scan have their own systems, fully built, as do dabs, and kustompcs will build it for you. hmm...
"And if you really think that those boilerplate disclaimers actually mean very much, then you're naive in the extreme."
You've got to love the online community - people make these wild assertions like this "naive in the extreme" and you are totally utterly 100% wrong. What these disclaimers do is explicitly put the recipient on notice that the writer asserts their rights under the general rules of copyright (which exist anyway whether they assert it or not) that that email is still the copyright of the sender of the email. Therefore publishing that publically is breach of copyright. I haven't personally met a full-time writer who doesn't know this and I have known several online games' industry writers since before the dotcom days. And yes, I trained in law and work with lawyers every day.
Actually, I have an LLB(Hons), and have considered this matter at some length; you might with advantage consider the advice offered by Pinsent Masons regarding disclaimers (http://www.out-law.com/page-5536).
In other words, go ahead, it can't hurt - but place no reliance upon their not being thrown out.
Assertion of copyright is largely irrelevant; it's copyrighted anyway, so the boilerplate is meaningless. I would further note that an assertion that the contents of an email are "intended for the addressee only" - besides being laughable, since the email would not have arrived with the recipient if they were not the addressee, albeit perhaps a mis-typed one - does not amount to an explicit declaration of copyright, nor does it necessarily of itself oblige the recipient to keep the contents confidential. Perhaps Hexus might have been better to paraphrase the contents, since this would have eliminated the vexed question of copyright, but I hardly think that would do AW any favours, do you?
Last edited by nichomach; 31-10-2006 at 08:39 PM.
Just wanted to throw our two cents in here.
My name is Scott Piercy, and along with my colleague and business partner Nigel Woodford, we operate two budding enthusiast websites Fastsilicon.com and Siliconnews.net.
As we're enthusiasts as well as webmasters, we read the news posted on sites we respect and have come to rely on over the years. Yesterday morning we ran across this post on Hexus.
We're of two minds here. Naturally we fully realize that manufacturers want their product shown in the best light, which is the fundamental essence of a P.R. Managers job. Dealing with manufacturers and staying true to ones position as a journalist and advocate for consumers, means you constantly have to walk a very thin line.
You naturally want to retain positive relationships with manufacturers, and it is very important that you listen to them and try to appreciate their concerns. Many products cater themselves to a very specific target market, and to be fair and balanced you must take such things into consideration when approaching a review.
By the same token, you have to remain true to your goals and ideals when it comes to your end users. These are the people that visit your site, care deeply about what you have to say, and make purchasing decisions based on your analysis and opinions.
Because of these realistic concerns, a technology site webmaster has to constantly question himself, his motives and his opinions to insure that all concerns are dealt with in a fair and professional manner.
It's not our place to judge Hexus.net or Alienware in this matter, as it clearly "didn't happen to us", but we're well aware of these sorts of pressures.
Our opinion on this matter focuses on a very fine point. It's one thing for a manufacturer to decide to simply not deal with a particular review site. These companies have finite resources and it's totally within their pervue to decide whom they wish to deal with. That's simply doing business. We've experienced this very thing ourselves over the 7-8 years the both of us have been writing and reviewing, and it's part of the job.
It's another thing entirely to imply or outright demand favoritism. To do so implies many things that in the course of a business relationship shouldn't be tolerated. There's a big difference between an unspoken "hope" that a product is reviewed favorably, and a "tell everyone it's great or else" approach. Major print publications dont tolerate this, and neither should anyone else.
Because we were curious as to how Alienware would respond, we contacted Alienware's North American P.R. firm for an official statement, which you can find posted on our site. To be honest it wasnt much of a response, and related in no way to the issue brought up by Hexus's staff.
Would we have done the same thing as Hexus? It's hard to say. Have we experienced "pressure" from manufacturers to bend the truth? Yes, every review site webmaster has I'm quite sure. Has any of them *ever* been so candid and blunt with either of us? No. Not in the 8 years we've worked in this industry, which entails LOTS of companies we've dealt with.
Everyone seems to want to come down on one side or the other here, and that's human nature. Being in the business ourselves you can obviously see how we tend to take this sort of thing. Hopefully Hexus.net will not suffer for it, and hopefully Alienware will step up to the plate and respond in a more direct manner.
Just to update everyone
Brian M. Joyce, Senior Vice President Alienware Europe got in touch and click this link to find out what he had to say.
Now thats a professional e-mail. Glad AW finally addressed the situation .
Agreed that it's a very professional stab at pouring oil on troubled waters; personally, I hope that AW DO submit more systems that come out rather better than this one. It would be nice to see fruits from their takeover by Mikey-boy in terms of Alienware specs and build quality combined with access to parts at the prices Dell get them for...
I wonder if CustomPC have had a similar exchange. They reviewed this Green Monster in the latest (039) issue and concluded
"If you want a PC with all the latest premium overclocking components such as the lightening-fastCore 2 Extream X6800......... then you should really really be thinking of building you own PC....... "
In fact the review was generally positive, but CPC like Hexus tell it like they find it, which is why I read reviews from both - and not many others!
Try to make each and every day the best it can be.
Nice to see the system works
I wonder if Mr Bettinson now requires a medical sling for his left butt-cheek after that reply from further up the food chain
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
might be fair to dump some more attention to this response on the front page of the comment.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Have you checked the HEXUS homepage?... it was already posted? & linked to
Cheers!
You misunderstood my mail which made two distinct points. One, as I stated firstly, the email is / was copyright regardless of the boilerplate. You repeated this (rather as if it were a new point than a repetition of the point I had already made but whatever) in agreement with my first post. Therefore Hexus breached copyright. With your training you could perhaps acknowledge that was unprofessional rather than put it down to some 'vexed' general question of copyright.
Secondly, the attachments to these mails put the recipient on notice of their obligation not to reforward them. If you've ever spent any time in any sort of serious court case (for my sins I have spent several years in court in a 17 year career) you would acknowledge that is important as not only did the right under law exist on the part of the plaintiff but that the fact that defendent had been explicitly on notice of that right would be an additionally strengthening fact to the plaintiff's case. The Pinset piece is rather clear;
"The value of the notice is that, if the disclosure of the content of an email becomes a subject of dispute, it would be possible to point a court to the existence of the confidentiality notice and argue that the recipient should have known to not disclose the contents of the message.
Such notices cost nothing to include – so it's worth having them. Just be aware that they may be thrown out as ineffective."
So on your quoted authority "it's worth having them". This is why every single major law firm in the UK uses them including Eversheds, Clifford Chance, Linklaters all of whom I communicate with regularly.
If you'd said originally "the value is questionable" then I might have agreed that. If you're going to call people "naive in the extreme" which is a personal attack on another poster when if fact the subject matter is clearly felt to be "worth it" and in use by every legal authority in the country then clearly you've lost the force of your argument and if you rather puffy-chestedly say "Actually, I have an LLB(Hons) {woooooh not a whole law degree gosh}, and have considered this matter at some length; you might with advantage consider the advice...." (I mean seriously fella get over yourself), you probably deserve getting called for your unsubstantiated extreme overstatement.
how pathetic, Hexus should be ashamed of themselves. I love it when companies true colors come out that Hexus would actually have the nerve to post personal e-mails between two companies because they got all pissy the Alienware isn't sending them any more toys. Its F@@Kin pathetic, and it only makes Hexus look bad. NOT Alienware.
sorry didn't say which page
ie: http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=7113 i know its on the end i just think an updated or something would be useful!
its really good to see hexus been fair and seamingly open with this whole debacle, good work guys
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Stand by Hexus 100% on this one though obviously we as readers are concerned that you guys would get hit with a lawsuit.
Glad to see it has been smoothed over by someone sensible within the company.
As a reader I expect a review to tell me exactly what the good and bad and the darn right nasty is of a product before I go out and spend my hard earned on it. That is the point of a review for anyone.
There are companies out there I hope that read them and rework their products accordingly to make something better. Honestly a good product sells itself and a bad one costs a company a lot of money.
What was said about alienware is the truth plain and simple we all know it. I haven't owned an alienware product though they tout themselves as the gamers brand it certainly is excessively priced. I could put together the same system for less on my own and have the fun of building it. It is WELL known they are over priced and has become much like a porche of the PC world. Something to talk about but over priced for what it is.
Perhaps they would care to justify their overpricing now that would be an interesting read.
The product isn't poor the price is and that is entirely their own fault.
OK, I'll answer the last first. You stated that you had "trained in law" and attempted to establish that as a basis to attack me. I merely pointed out that I'd had some training too in response. If that's "puffy-chested", well, pot, kettle etc. I attempted to phrase my response to you courteously (perhaps too much so), shame it wasn't taken in kind.
The post to which I responded made no mention of copyright; merely a general reference to a standard "disclaimer". You raised the issue of copyright, when it was not any part of the post to which I responded. Assuming that there were any mention of copyright in addition to the standard disclaimer (since most advice that I've read counsels separating these two aspects in any automatically appended or prepended text), I agree that it would serve to put the recipient on notice; it would be of evidentiary value in determining, for instance, that a respondent was aware of the intellectual property in the email and chose to appropriate it anyway.
However, it's also noted by the Pinsent Mason piece that "When the notice is added automatically to every external communication, there is a risk that a court would consider that the venom in your warning has been diluted.". In another words the efficacy of the notice is reduced by automatic inclusion. It is also worth noting that there is no authority for automatic boilerplate disclaimers possessing any efficacy whatsoever.
I agree that my initial statement was hasty and overstated the case; you are correct, and I apologise to spud387 for calling him/her naive. I even put it in bold. OK?
It would have been more proper to note that they are of utterly untested and unproven efficacy, that they ARE commonly used, but thus far have not been shown to have any force of law behind them. The firms you mentioned certainly do include them, but at the moment it's certainly arguable that what they're doing is consciously snapping their fingers to keep the tigers away, since, absent any authority on the matter, they have no idea whether they would be held to have any force at all. Would that be a summation upon which we could agree?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
