<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/wordpress-mu-1.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Reflections on the Guidebook Debate of 2001</title>
	<link>http://blog.rockfax.com/alanjames/2007/11/08/reflections-on-the-guidebook-debate-of-2001/</link>
	<description>My personal weblog of thoughts about climbing and life in general</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:11:50 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=wordpress-mu-1.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Alan James</title>
		<link>http://blog.rockfax.com/alanjames/2007/11/08/reflections-on-the-guidebook-debate-of-2001/#comment-32</link>
		<author>Alan James</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:02:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.rockfax.com/alanjames/2007/11/08/reflections-on-the-guidebook-debate-of-2001/#comment-32</guid>
		<description>The point in question was not straight copyright - as in "here's my version, here's your later version, they are the same, hence you copied". The BMC knew from the outset that this wouldn't wash since ultimately the only version out there had been written and re-written by the same person - Chris Craggs. The point that was dug up was the significantly more murky and untried topic of 'database law' which was only introduced in 1997. This assigns a copyright to the effort of compilation of a database. This was covered on some very lengthy and notorious threads on UKC. 

This thread in particular has a lot of information - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=43721

Including this erudite post from Dave Garnett (legal-type) - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=43721&#38;v=1#578971</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The point in question was not straight copyright - as in &#8220;here&#8217;s my version, here&#8217;s your later version, they are the same, hence you copied&#8221;. The BMC knew from the outset that this wouldn&#8217;t wash since ultimately the only version out there had been written and re-written by the same person - Chris Craggs. The point that was dug up was the significantly more murky and untried topic of &#8216;database law&#8217; which was only introduced in 1997. This assigns a copyright to the effort of compilation of a database. This was covered on some very lengthy and notorious threads on UKC. </p>
<p>This thread in particular has a lot of information - <a href="http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=43721" rel="nofollow">http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=43721</a></p>
<p>Including this erudite post from Dave Garnett (legal-type) - <a href="http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=43721&amp;v=1#578971" rel="nofollow">http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=43721&amp;v=1#578971</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Leader</title>
		<link>http://blog.rockfax.com/alanjames/2007/11/08/reflections-on-the-guidebook-debate-of-2001/#comment-29</link>
		<author>Ian Leader</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:28:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.rockfax.com/alanjames/2007/11/08/reflections-on-the-guidebook-debate-of-2001/#comment-29</guid>
		<description>This article has piqued my curiosity, but it doesn't make an awful lot of sense without a description (or link to an explanation) of the legal points raised / claimed. It's not clear to me if this was about copyright on unpublished texts or something else. Can you elaborate?

Thanks,

Ian.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This article has piqued my curiosity, but it doesn&#8217;t make an awful lot of sense without a description (or link to an explanation) of the legal points raised / claimed. It&#8217;s not clear to me if this was about copyright on unpublished texts or something else. Can you elaborate?</p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Ian.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
