Text 30937, 154 rader
Skriven 2006-06-04 00:25:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 30929 av Ross Cassell (1:123/456)
Ärende: Pickled Pirates Propaganda
==================================
Hello Ross.

03 Jun 06 13:51, you wrote to me:

 RC>>> Not the same thing,

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

 RC> You lost distribution rights to your article the minute you asked for
 RC> it to be published in the Fidonews..

You still don't get it do you? You still do not understand that Dutch law is
different from US law. Under Dutch law I do NOT lose my distribution rights
when I submit an article to a magazine. In Dutch law copyright and distribution
right is one and the same.

 RC> If you write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper for
 RC> publishing in the op-ed section (not sure if you all have those
 RC> freedoms), what you wrote are still your words, but you lose control
 RC> of the distribution of your words.

NO! What do I have to do to make you understand that under Dutch law I do NOT
surrender my copy- and distribution rights by submitting that letter?

 RC> You cannot control when the editor publishes, nor can you control
 RC> what its readership does with any portion of the newspaper.

Yes I can. As I said, it is no use arguing this, there is LOTS of precendence.

 RC> You lost control of distribution when you asked for it to be included
 RC> in that weeks Fidonews.

NO, NO NO!!!!

GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL, Dutch law is different!!!

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

 MV>> For which I gave permission.

 RC> How was this permission extended,

In a private communiction between me and Björn.

 RC> I dont remember you saying I could or couldnt do anything?
 RC> Nor do I recall any public proclaimation on
 RC> your part laying down permissions and prohibitions.

There is no need for a public proclamation. If you do not know if you have my
permission to (re)publish, you don't have it, it is as simple as that.

 MV>> I did *not* give permission to Shannon for publishing copies on
 MV>> his web site.

 RC> Thats because your permission is implied via your submission of it to
 RC> be included in that weeks edition of the Fidonews.

Sigh... No, the permission is not implied. Not under Dutch law.

 RC> You have no case, your argument is lame.

I have a case. Tons of precendent...

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

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

 RC> Not in this case.

Yes, in this case.

 RC> I believe even a Dutch Judge would laugh your ass out of court, once
 RC> it was explained to him that you asked for the article to be published
 RC> in a newsletter for a hobbyist organization no less.

That shows you know nothing about Dutch copyright law.

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

 MV>> I can not show you the stink against sensationcontent.com or any
 MV>> other as there isn't one. There is no need. I am the sole owner
 MV>> of the copyright of my articles and I can do with it as I damned
 MV>> well please.

 RC> You cant show no stink because you didnt go out and look there, in
 RC> fact you didnt even know about sensationcontent, until I told you.

Assuming I did indeed not know about it until you told me: So what?

 RC> A Dutch Judge even if you are right would laugh your ass out of court
 RC> because you cant show who you forbade and who you consented to in
 RC> regards to your writings,

Again: that only shows you know nothing about Dutch law. I do not have to show
anything like that. The judge will ask the accused to show that he has my
explicit permission for (re)publishing and if he can not...

 RC> I dont recall getting consent to further distribute tht edition.

Then you do not have permission to republish, simple as that.

Note: there is a difFerence between being part of an existing publication and
republication. Passing on the files in the fidonews file echo and passing on
the messages in the fidonews echo as hatched by Björn is partaking in an
existing distributIon. MAking copies and putting them on your website is e
*new* distribution or a redistribution for which renewed permission is
required.

 RC> So I did and you can wrap your tiny little boy like hands into tinier
 RC> little fists and pound them on your desk in frustration and throw a
 RC> little temper tantrum.

The fact that under *US* law I do not have a leg to stand on, does not mean
that I do not have a case under Dutch law. Under Dutch law I have a case. As I
said: plenty or precedent.

 MV>> I do not have to be fair, I do not have to be just, I do not have
 MV>> to be reasonable. I can give permmission to one and deny it to
 MV>> another. I do not have to justify that.

 RC> Yet you cannot show who you gave permission to and who you did not.

No need. The burden of proof is on the accused.

 MV>> That is.. all according to Dutch law.

 RC> Which I dont think you even understand that.

You believe you understand Dutch law better than I do? Wauw!

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

 RC> I didnt say Dutch law didnt apply, I dont think you understand the
 RC> nature of the fact that you surrendered distribution rights when you
 RC> asked Bjorn to _include_ it, within Fidonews.

And I don't think, no I am *sure* that you do not understand that Dutch law is
different from US law.


Michiel

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