Grand Prix Rejects

dr-baker wrote:As discussed elsewhere, I still have all the old podcasts saved. But it is sad to see all the old written info lost into the ether.

Nuppiz wrote:

dr-baker wrote:As discussed elsewhere, I still have all the old podcasts saved. But it is sad to see all the old written info lost into the ether.

It's not lost.

We just can't repost it.

Myrvold wrote:I understand that it is a very nice gesture to not republish any material. However, in the nature of preservation of material that - depending on being historical/interview etc. - is of an actual historical interest, I would actually believe that we would be allowed to publish it.

Myrvold wrote:A further point in that, is that with these measures taken by the original F1Rejects crew, there isn't a case to be made of any lost income or similarities.

Aislabie wrote:Okay, as someone who's new to the forum but who regularly read the stuff on F1 Rejects way back when, why was the information taken down in the first place, and why would the original authors not want it re-issued with full credits to them? I'm a tad confused by the impasse

Simtek wrote:

Aislabie wrote:Okay, as someone who's new to the forum but who regularly read the stuff on F1 Rejects way back when, why was the information taken down in the first place, and why would the original authors not want it re-issued with full credits to them? I'm a tad confused by the impasse

F1 Rejects received a cease and desist order from FOM for the use of the 'F1' trademark, which meant the whole website had to be taken down. The forum still operated for a little while after that while Biscione set up a new website, the one you are looking at right now. As for why Enoch doesn't want his wonderful profiles reposted, none of us know for certain.

On the bright side, some of the other content from F1 Rejects that wasn't written by either Jamie or Enoch has been reposted: Mario's Zakspeed-Yamaha article and TomPryce's F1 95 review. And by my understanding some of the team and driver profiles not written by Jenoch will also be posted in the future.

Simtek wrote:No, we wouldn't. Biscione isn't holding back on republishing the old content out of respect, it's because he has no legal right to do so without the consent of the original authors. Jamie and Enoch have not given this consent, so the old material will remain unpublished until they do (and it's looking very unlikely in the foreseeable future).

If you're talking about the robots.txt file, it has nothing to do with Jamie and Enoch. They no longer own the f1rejects.com domain. The old content has been accessible through the Wayback Machine long after the domain expired. This was more than likely done by whoever owns the domain now.

Myrvold wrote:

Simtek wrote:No, we wouldn't. Biscione isn't holding back on republishing the old content out of respect, it's because he has no legal right to do so without the consent of the original authors. Jamie and Enoch have not given this consent, so the old material will remain unpublished until they do (and it's looking very unlikely in the foreseeable future).

If you're talking about the robots.txt file, it has nothing to do with Jamie and Enoch. They no longer own the f1rejects.com domain. The old content has been accessible through the Wayback Machine long after the domain expired. This was more than likely done by whoever owns the domain now.

Then we'll have to disagree on the legal aspects of just that.

As far as I understand, there are certain fair use terms when it comes to preserving and archiving (which this would be).

AndreaModa wrote:I'd be very very interested to see what that cease and desist order actually said.

Judging by what F1 says you can and can't do with their supposed trademarks (I still don't believe "F1" is actually trademarked, but there we go), there would have only needed to be minor changes to the site in order to comply.

See for yourself, under Section 2: https://www.formula1.com/content/fom-website/en/toolbar/guidelines.html

If you go right to the bottom of the page, under Grammar, they show how the trademarks actually work.

I think a lot of it is scaremongering and the use of bully tactics to hide the fact their brand is based on some very generic terms used widely in other scenarios (see BriSCA F1, F1 H2O, etc). I highly doubt they'd spend any length of time pursuing a small fan site, they just play on the fear. Of course if it were monetising the F1 brand then that's a different matter entirely. There was a bit of F1 Rejects merchandise you could buy, wasn't there?

But if that was the issue, pull the merch, change the domain and name of the site, add the disclaimer at the bottom of the homepage and voila. I don't see why there has to be a full blackout, especially considering all of the effort and time invested into that website.

dinizintheoven wrote:The further thought occurs, as it did circa late 2014: is the content of the Perry McCarthy forum also ever likely to be under threat, seeing as the "F1" in F1RWRS stands for exactly what everyone would expect it to stand for?

Simtek wrote:

Myrvold wrote:

Simtek wrote:No, we wouldn't. Biscione isn't holding back on republishing the old content out of respect, it's because he has no legal right to do so without the consent of the original authors. Jamie and Enoch have not given this consent, so the old material will remain unpublished until they do (and it's looking very unlikely in the foreseeable future).

If you're talking about the robots.txt file, it has nothing to do with Jamie and Enoch. They no longer own the f1rejects.com domain. The old content has been accessible through the Wayback Machine long after the domain expired. This was more than likely done by whoever owns the domain now.

Then we'll have to disagree on the legal aspects of just that.

As far as I understand, there are certain fair use terms when it comes to preserving and archiving (which this would be).

There are no fair use laws in the UK. There is fair dealing instead, which to my knowledge is less flexible than fair use. Yes, there are certain copyright exceptions made for libraries and archives, but Grand Prix Rejects is neither of those things. Fair dealing only applies to things like criticism and private research.

Nuppiz wrote:There are some very good reasons why the content written by Enoch can't be published at this time. Reasons which, unfortunately, we cannot disclose.

Simtek wrote:F1 Rejects received a cease and desist order from FOM for the use of the 'F1' trademark, which meant the whole website had to be taken down. The forum still operated for a little while after that while Biscione set up a new website, the one you are looking at right now. As for why Enoch doesn't want his wonderful profiles reposted, none of us know for certain.

On the bright side, some of the other content from F1 Rejects that wasn't written by either Jamie or Enoch has been reposted: Mario's Zakspeed-Yamaha article and TomPryce's F1 95 review. And by my understanding some of the team and driver profiles not written by Jenoch will also be posted in the future.

Wallio wrote:It also makes me even firmer in my belief that the two site authors are no longer speaking to each other, hence the sites content being held hostage.

Simtek wrote:

Wallio wrote:It also makes me even firmer in my belief that the two site authors are no longer speaking to each other, hence the sites content being held hostage.

ummm...

Wallio wrote:

Simtek wrote:

Wallio wrote:It also makes me even firmer in my belief that the two site authors are no longer speaking to each other, hence the sites content being held hostage.

ummm...

Just like they said the whole trademark thing 100% most assuredly was NOT the reason for the site closing. I'll believe it when I see it. Besides, there is no demand for a podcast, we have members doing that already. The old content on the other hand.....

Miguel98 wrote:http://downforce-radio.co.uk/the-rejects-podcast-preview/.

Wallio wrote:

Miguel98 wrote:http://downforce-radio.co.uk/the-rejects-podcast-preview/.

Well its a start. I guess. Here's hoping they wake up and release the content.

Wallio wrote:there is no demand for a podcast,

Wallio wrote: a podcast, we have members doing that already.

Ataxia wrote:Regardless of whether there's circumstances preventing them from releasing the content or not, the ball is firmly in Jamie and Enoch's court. It's their content, and ultimately it's their choice what do with it. You can't rock up and demand the world, and expect everyone to comply with your wishes. Of course, I'm sure everyone misses the old articles, but you can't throw your weight around and expect things to be placed at your doorstep.

Wallio wrote:I'm mostly just bitter about being lied to. I'll get over it. Still to be ok to resume one old thing (the podcasts) but not another is very fishy. Also whn did the new F1/FE/Whatever podcasts die? I though there was a shiteload of work and discussion about them. I admittedly didn't listen, I never listen to podcasts, I'm much too old, but I'm legitimately surprised to hear they are over.

Wallio wrote:I'm mostly just bitter about being lied to. I'll get over it. Still to be ok to resume one old thing (the podcasts) but not another is very fishy. Also whn did the new F1/FE/Whatever podcasts die? I though there was a shiteload of work and discussion about them. I admittedly didn't listen, I never listen to podcasts, I'm much too old, but I'm legitimately surprised to hear they are over.

Wallio wrote:While I am glad to finally know the reason, I must admit it is a bit annoying to find out that it is because of the very reason that many of us (including myself) speculated and were told repeatedly "No no, that isn't is." We're not children afterall.
...
I'm mostly just bitter about being lied to. I'll get over it. Still to be ok to resume one old thing (the podcasts) but not another is very fishy.

AndreaModa wrote:But if that was the issue, pull the merch, change the domain and name of the site, add the disclaimer at the bottom of the homepage and voila. I don't see why there has to be a full blackout, especially considering all of the effort and time invested into that website.

dinizintheoven wrote: Either way, the extent of my injuries are thus: think about where Will Stevens' girlfriend would have a tramp stamp (she is, presumably, from Essex)... in the same position I have a huge bruise and several scars, but other than that I'm up and running, which is more than can be said for my bank account.

Simtek wrote:Well, I'm glad to hear the full explanation of the drama that happened a year ago. It seems the whole FOM thing was not quite as dramatic as I (and others) have been led to believe, so cheers for clearing that up Jamie.

dinizintheoven wrote:And there's been an unfortunate development on that front.[/url]

What you see behind the link is my main bedroom, which was all cleared and ready for redecoration, right up until the point I had to move some bits and pieces around in the loft and, after 13 years of never once having had a problem doing so, I finally fell over and crashed clean through the plasterboard where the real floorboards weren't. Curse my sense of balance.

While I wait for a quote that the East Midlands' drywall experts seem unwilling to give, remembering what time of year it is, one thing is for certain: I have to claw back the cost of the repairs by whatever means necessary. And this means my entertainment budget has been slashed to zero for... several months. I can no longer afford the 50-odd quid to get a decent place to watch the race from or the bus fare home, so I'm going to have to can the day out in Battersea Park.

Furthermore, this enforced austerity also applies to every gig I've had planned between now and the autumn as well, most likely including my annual festival trip which I haven't missed since 1999, and my daily food budget has sunk to about a quid a day. The heating's off until November now, so I'd better hope the sun stays out.

All in all I am not terribly happy with the hand of cards I've been dealt right now.

Simtek wrote:As for the Wayback Machine thing, it seems that someone purchased the domain and is now using it to redirect to spam sites. Looks like all those spambots have finally gotten their revenge...

Kuwashima wrote:

Enoch works in the legal profession and the initial representations made to us by FOM regarding our use of F1 were by no means threats to “shut us down” or force us to take the site down. Not at all. Enoch took great pains to delete suggestions to that effect in the forum and refute this. I am sorry if this subsequently gave you the wrong impression, Wallio.



Cheers,
Jamie