What is the difference?

[Jason Larsen]

I have just received word that another online game site that I go to has just been given a cease-and-desist order.

This worries me, because Apterous has not been taken down yet.

Granted, this other site is a favorite of mine, but I'm wondering how the unthinkable could happen to Apterous.

Let's say that Channel 4 gives Charlie a cease-and-desist order to take Apterous down. How can that be?

Charlie said, "At the risk of being sued by Channel 4, I will not use any music on the site.

Yet, he has used Phil Reynolds' outstanding piano piece as think music for each round.

I am trying to sound as rational as possible. When I speak of the Constitution, all of you would probably look at me like a deer in the headlights if I were in the UK. In plain English, the first amendment in the Constitution states freedom of speech. At the same time, "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." This is intended to be a debate and not an argument.

So, could someone please sort this out? Why is Apterous still around and what will happen if the unthinkable occurs?

One final word, I am placing this in the General forum in case Channel 4 tracks Internet hits.

[Charlie Reams]

About five back accounts, three ounces and two vehicles.

[Matthew Green]

But finally it could slightly teeter and end up as the reverse side of the title board. Horizon.

[Jason Larsen]

Seriously, why hasn't Apterous been taken down?

This matter is up for debate and not intended to be an argument.

[Ian Fitzpatrick]

Seriously, why hasn't Apterous been taken down?

This matter is up for debate and not intended to be an argument.

Why should it be taken down? Or have I missed something?

[Derek Hazell]

Seriously, why hasn't Apterous been taken down?

This matter is up for debate and not intended to be an argument.

Apterous doesn't encroach onto anyone else's territory. It has a different name, different music (as you said), and is the only decent online version of this type of words-and-numbers game. As you know, the producers of the television programme Countdown are aware of the site, and have never expressed any desire to start an online version of that show.
I remember an outcry when "Scrabulous" was removed by the makers of Scrabble, and that was because they wanted to start their own official Scrabble game for sites like Facebook. Maybe the site which you mention that was taken down also got in the way of a planned official Internet spin-off.
Far from competing with the TV show Countdown, the website Apterous, actually produces more interest in that show, and also several players who want to go on to compete in that show, so this seems a very different situation to me.
There you go Jason, there's you discussion.

[Sue Sanders]

Seriously, why hasn't Apterous been taken down?

This matter is up for debate and not intended to be an argument.

Apterous doesn't encroach onto anyone else's territory. It has a different name, different music (as you said), and is the only decent online version of this type of words-and-numbers game. As you know, the producers of the television programme Countdown are aware of the site, and have never expressed any desire to start an online version of that show.
I remember an outcry when "Scrabulous" was removed by the makers of Scrabble, and that was because they wanted to start their own official Scrabble game for sites like Facebook. Maybe the site which you mention that was taken down also got in the way of a planned official Internet spin-off.
Far from competing with the TV show Countdown, the website Apterous, actually produces more interest in that show, and also several players who want to go on to compete in that show, so this seems a very different situation to me.
There you Jason, there's your discussion.

Well Dez, you've written a sensible thread that should erase Jason's fears. Have you thought of writing for the Daily Mail??

[Jason Larsen]

Thank you, Derek!

I'm sorry for causing a stir, Ian.

[JackHurst]

Far from competing with the TV show Countdown, the website Apterous, actually produces more interest in that show, and also several players who want to go on to compete in that show, so this seems a very different situation to me.
There you go Jason, there's you discussion.

That bit. It gets mentioned on the show a lot too, (albeit not by name), and they seem to be allowing it to be promoted slightly, if anything.

[Jason Larsen]

Apterous? Is that because they don't want the name of any big website mentioned and Rachel Riley stood there all stone-faced when it was a maximum in Dictionary Corner, Jack?

In other words, is it because of conflict of interest that they have to let it go?

[JackHurst]

Apterous? Is that because they don't want the name of any big website mentioned and Rachel Riley stood there all stone-faced when it was a maximum in Dictionary Corner, Jack?

In other words, is it because of conflict of interest that they have to let it go?

I dont know the answer to that question, nor do I really know what you are tyying to ask, but ill reiterate my previous post:

There have been numerous references to "online play" on the show, but to my knowledge, apterous.org has never been mentioned as the website where you can play countdown online. This implies to me that the people on power dont mind about the apterous website, but if its actually mentioned by name they'd have to fill out paperwork or get permission from so and so which they cba to do. I know very little about this sort of thing, but in my limited imagination, thats what i thought.

[Ian Fitzpatrick]

When Kirk was on he said he deliberately didn't mention the site by name because he didn't want all his pupils logging on to pester him and others.

I still can't fathom out what Jason is on about!

[David Williams]

I don't have any real legal knowledge, but I would have thought that the owners of Countdown would have a pretty strong case for shutting down apterous. It's a blatant copy of the game, and any "disclaimers" only reinforce that. How would someone get on if they put out a board game called apterous, with a statement on the box that it had absolutely no resemblance to Countdown? And claiming that it was being sold at a loss wouldn't cut much ice.

But there's a legal principle called estoppel. Once you've approved or condoned something you lose the right to assert the opposite position, so C4 would have a problem. But Armand Jannot? I imagine it depends what rights he's ceded to C4.

No lawyers out there?

[Jason Larsen]

Jack, I was asking if anyone plugged Apterous on the show.

Ian, now that I think about it, it wouldn't be a problem!

And David, Armand Jammot has passed away.

[Kirk Bevins]

Charlie plugged c4countdown but not apterous. I think it would be OK to say apterous by name on the show but the few of us who have mentioned it have kept it to "online study" (possibly to stop future opponents beating them?)

[Jason Larsen]

I see, Kirk.

[Charlie Reams]

It's a blatant copy of the game, and any "disclaimers" only reinforce that.

I'm not infringing their trademark, they do not have a patent and copyright does not apply to the rules of games.

[Ian Fitzpatrick]

It's a blatant copy of the game, and any "disclaimers" only reinforce that.

I'm not infringing their trademark, they do not have a patent and copyright does not apply to the rules of games.

It can't be a blatant copy of the game otherwise everyone would be on television.

[Charlie Reams]

It can't be a blatant copy of the game otherwise everyone would be on television.

Maybe Kirk knows something you don't...

[David Williams]

It's a blatant copy of the game, and any "disclaimers" only reinforce that.

I'm not infringing their trademark, they do not have a patent and copyright does not apply to the rules of games.

If that's the legal position I'm delighted, if a little surprised. Not least because what you say doesn't actually contradict what I said.

[Charlie Reams]

If that's the legal position I'm delighted, if a little surprised. Not least because what you say doesn't actually contradict what I said.

Maybe I should've quoted this bit instead:

I would have thought that the owners of Countdown would have a pretty strong case for shutting down apterous

[Jason Larsen]

Thank you, Charlie!