Text 21065, 75 rader
Skriven 2006-01-04 23:50:00 av Dale Shipp (1:261/1466.0)
  Kommentar till text 20965 av Michiel Van Der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Re: Editor's censorship
===============================
 -=> On 01-04-06  11:51,  Michiel Van Der Vlist <=-
 -=> spoke to Dale Shipp about Editor's censorship <=-

 >   So you have established that you believe he is in violation
 > of Dutch law.  OK.

 MVDV> No, not ok. Just the opposite. Björn is not a citizen of 
 MVDV> The Netherlands and he does not reside in The Netherlands. 
 MVDV> We are not so arrogant as to declare our laws to cover all 
 MVDV> of the world. Björn is not subject to Dutch law and so he 
 MVDV> can not violate it.

  Then let me restate the implication of what you said:
  You have established that what Björn is doing would be in violation of
  Dutch law if done in the Netherlands.

  It is also true that what he is doing would be in violation of US law
  if done in America.  Some might say that since he is making his web
  site and files available for download in the US, then he is in fact in
  violation of US law.  That is not clear, and to my knowledge is an
  untested area of law with respect to the internet.

 MVDV> Only in your eyes. As for backpedaling, there is none. From the
 MVDV> beginnig I  have taken the stance that there is no evidence Björn has 
 MVDV> broken swedish law and I still say so. As for bias, I give 
 MVDV> everyone the benefit of the doubt until he/she forfeits it. 
 MVDV> No bias there.

  The evidence was posted here, by posting of the Swedish law which
  could be read by all.  I'll grant that the test of a law is what a
  judge says when a specific case is brought before her, not what laymen
  might say.

 >> What evidence have you seen which demonstrates that what Björn is
 >> doing is not in violation of Swedish law?

 MVDV>> How about that Swedish law firm that claimed to represent
 MVDV>> Playboy? Put on the trail by some snitch. They intimidated
 MVDV>> Björn but backed off when challenged with the question:
 MVDV>> "what Swedish law has been broken?" Does that not tell you
 MVDV>> tell there was no case?
 
   It tells me that the Swedish law firm decided that there was no case
   worth pursuing.  It does not say that Björn is not in violation of
   Swedish law.


 MVDV> says does not conflict with other information I have. And 
 MVDV> there is circumstantial evidence backing up his story. The 
 MVDV> fact that his web page is still on-line after all this time 
 MVDV> is a pretty good indication that indeed there is no 
 MVDV> violation of the law.

   It is an indication that the copyright holders decided not to bother
   pursuing the case.

 MVDV> Also keep in mind that in civilised countries like Sweden 
 MVDV> end The Netherlands the burden of proof is still on the 
 MVDV> prosecution. Björn does not have to prove to me or you that 
 MVDV> what he does is not in violation of the laws of his 
 MVDV> country. The burden of proof is on the accusers.
 
  Such is true in the US and many other countries.  The burden of proof
  is on the plaintiff.

                               Dale Shipp
                  fido_261_1466 (at) comcast (dot) net
                              (1:261/1466)


... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 22:48:30, 04 Jan 2005
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01
 * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)