jldmelb:

Although it is said there is nothing wrong with this, what about from an ethical point of view?

Selling a site, then stealing the content of that site to start another site of the same ilk sounds dodgy to me...

Exactly!

Puncher:

jldmelb:

Although it is said there is nothing wrong with this, what about from an ethical point of view?

Selling a site, then stealing the content of that site to start another site of the same ilk sounds dodgy to me...

 

Exactly!

It's common practice when someone sells an organisation/ company that there is an agreement not to re-enter that market for a fixed period of so many years etc. I wonder whether the transfer of Beoworld had such an agreement?

Having said that there would be nothing to stop the previous owner keeping a copy of the website html from the days of his ownership and then updating it under another name unless excluded by an agreement or outright sale of copyright including the html code. I am not an expert in html but it would be interesting if someone compared the sites looking for historically linked common html code use.

Graham

i recall reading at the beocollectors site that it was going to discontinue and beophile was going to be run from 1 July.

i gather the beocollectors site had some affiliation to the beophile and a "handover"

I just noticed that beophile.com has added a "random pages" feature. Wonder where that idea came from?

Mika, I knew someone would notice this but (i may be wrong, i normally am) i thought it was the other way around.

The one time i looked at that site i seen the random thing and then a few days later it was mentioned on here. Im not saying anything is wrong with taking a good idea and using it.
To be fair the beophile site is pointless realy when we've got Beoworld.