What happened when I charged NEXT for my time...

Poppie68

jaylee3 wrote: »

I'm only joking. I think you might be in trouble if you did name someone anyway, so I shouldn't have asked, even though, I am just kidding about.

I am 99% sure I know who it is......but alas we can't blab:D

foxtrotoscar_2

JReacher1 wrote: »

I always forget who it is. There are two posters both with similar names and I get them mixed up. One is a good poster and one isn't so I don't want to tar the wrong one.

Also I don't want to start an argument with her!

Then you should really pay more attention.

foxtrotoscar_2

ThumbRemote wrote: »

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents
or in summary: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law

It's a protected piece of work under 3i
Rights automatically occur under 4




It's not public domain, it's a created literary work like any other.

I don't care if they earn any money or not. Nobody makes you follow a link.

Blog has a copyright at the bottom.

Using the share options doesn't reproduce the content, it just shares the link. In any case, providing such options only allows you to use those options; it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with the content.

So in the real world copyright hasn't been broken. (copyrighted so can you quote me?)

daytona0

As someone who has worked in a call center and someone who has heard the "I'm going to charge you for my time" line about a million times I have to say that I was expecting a bit more from the article here.... I was expecting it to be even slightly interesting (ie actually charging the company) but it was not to be..

Just another crank who probably didn't read the T's and C's (which would contain the charging information). Also, the employees are generally on minimum wage fresh out of college with not very good qualifications. It is unreasonable to assume that they give a !!!! about anyone who tries to be even remotely smug or clever. All they want to do is sort out problems and collect their wage packet. Some employees just can't comprehend any aspect of consumer law, and unless you get it escalated to a manager (which is hit and miss btw) then you're not going to get anywhere. Of course you could run into me, a fellow clever !!! over the internet, and I've took people to school in the past over similar issues (or sort out the issue if it is a company error! - unless the company operates on a zero tolerance policy on goodwill gestures I would have sent out a free 5 pound voucher, without admitting liability of anything, and this usually ends the whole saga).

I think the funniest thing about the article though is that they've made an error (it is almost always human error when something happens which would not have happened on its own!). Why didn't the writer pursue them for this inconvenience?! That ironically has more substance. Also, if the T's and C's do not mention the catalogue then he should relentlessly pursue this (but not by "charging for your time" - this is just cringeworthy! You might be able to get a free 5 pound voucher from them)!

Pollycat

Just curious - is this a 'praise', a 'vent' or a 'warning'?

Or is it just entertainment - and therefore posted on the wrong board?

JReacher1

Pollycat wrote: »

Just curious - is this a 'praise', a 'vent' or a 'warning'?

Or is it just entertainment - and therefore posted on the wrong board?

No comment......

Pollycat

JReacher1 wrote: »

No comment......

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Trying to up your post count, JReacher1?

I can't see any reason for you to quote my post and add 'No comment' for any other reason.