Text 30926, 87 rader
Skriven 2006-06-03 16:52:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 30921 av Ross Cassell (1:123/456)
Ärende: Pickled Pirates Propaganda
==================================
Hello Ross.

03 Jun 06 11:11, you wrote to me:

 RC> Hello Michiel!

 RC> 03 Jun 06 15:48, you wrote to me:

 MV>> So you say that when Shannon made copies of my articles and made
 MV>> them available to everyone via his website, he committed
 MV>> thievery?

 RC> Not the same thing,

According to the laws in my country it is *exactly* the same thing. he makes
copies and distributes them without the copyright holder's permission.

 RC> because your article was distributed within that weeks copy of
 RC> Fidonews, freely downloadable on many BBS's or Fidonet sites.

Irrelevant.

 RC>  It was even published within the Fidonews echo, which is
 RC> readable on many BBS's, even WEB based BBS's.

For which I gave permission.

I did *not* give permission to Shannon for publishing copies on his web site.
There is no need to argue this, there is plenty of precedence. Publicing the
content of a magazine on a website is a new publication that requires renewed
permission from the copyright holder.

So Dutch law does not apply, it is US law that applies you say? Ok, but then
*Swedish* law applies to what Björn puts on his website, *not* US law.

 RC> Now if you raised such a stink about Shannon posting

I would never have done that if Shannon did not first make a stink about what
he found on Björn's website. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander. If he applies US law to Björn's website, than I can apply Dutch law to
my article on his website.

Anything else is applying a double standard.

And Shannon is continuing the hate campaign against Björn and continuing to
violate my copyright I might add.

 RC> the snooze on his web site, _knowing_ full well that your article was
 RC> published in a copy of the snooze that got posted and gets posted
 RC> weekly in _this_ very echo,

Irrelevant.

 RC> then can you show me the _stink_ you made over it appearing on
 RC> sensationcontent.com or _any_ other accessible BBS, Telnet, HTTP or
 RC> otherwise?

I can not show you the stink against sensationcontent.com or any other as there
isn't one. There is no need. I am the sole owner of the copyright of my
articles and I can do with it as I damned well please. I do not have to be
fair, I do not have to be just, I do not have to be reasonable. I can give
permmission to one and deny it to another. I do not have to justify that.

That is.. all according to Dutch law.

Dutch law does not apply to Shannon's web site you say? Very well, then US law
does not apply to Björn's website.

Anything else is applying a double standard.

 RC> BUT...

 RC> Had Shannon posted your article as or otherwise altered the copy of
 RC> the snooze to reflect the contents of your article to make it look
 RC> like your words were his own, that would have been plagarism

It would have been BOTH plagiarism AND a violation of my copyright.

 RC> and quite wrong, is this what he did?

No, but that does not nullify the copyright violation.


Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)