Text 31024, 162 rader
Skriven 2006-06-05 08:51:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 30939 av Ross Cassell (1:123/456)
Ärende: Pickled Pirates Propaganda
==================================
Hello Ross.

03 Jun 06 20:20, you wrote to me:

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

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

 RC> Then Dutch Law is fugged up,

You are entitled to your opinion. Just as I am entitled to the opinion that
this fair use" in US law is fucked up.

 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
 RC>>> control of the distribution of your words.

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

 RC> Yes you do because you have no control as to how the newspaper
 RC> distributes its publication, nor can you control who can or cannot
 RC> subscribe to the publication..

I can control who makes copies of my article in the newspaper and who
distributes these copies.

There is something you do not seem to understand. and that is: publishing
articles from fidonews on a website is *not* part of the distribution of
FidoNews. Someone mentioned the analogy of the dentist putting magazines in the
waiting room for the patients to read. Wrong analogy.

The correct analogy is the dentist *making copies* of the magazine and givinG
them to the patients to read. I think that even would violate US law. In any
case it violates Dutch law.

Puyting copies of a magizinE on a website, is starting a *new* publication that
required the renewed permission of the copyright holder(s). Such is the law in
The Netherlands. as I said: no use arguing, there is lots of precedent.

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

 MV>> NO, NO NO!!!!

 RC> YES YES YES!!

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

 RC> There aint no such thing as dutch law.

Well... that is refreshing POV....

 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
 RC>>> it to be included in that weeks edition of the Fidonews.

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

 RC> What is the Fidonews for?

You would not want to persue that in court. Fidonews does not even exist as a
legal entity. Not according to Dutch law anyway. From the legal POV my
permission to publish my article was given to Björn as a person to person
favour.

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

 MV>> I have a case. Tons of precendent...

 RC> Despite your stammering about Dutch law, there still wouldlie the
 RC> question of you submitting your article to a Swede.

A Swede who agreed in advance that submitters of article retain their
copyright. No question.

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

 MV>> That shows you know nothing about Dutch copyright law.

 RC> Dont have to, there is none.

Then by the same reasoning there is no US copyright law either.

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

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

 RC> You cannot claim Shannon has damaged you

I do not have to. Dutch copyright law is about intelectual ownership. Financial
damages are not a factor when determining if a copyright violation has ocurred.

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

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

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

 RC> He posts the editions as he receives them, unaltered.

The dentist that Xeroxes National Gegraphic does not alter the copies either.
It is still a violation. Now stop pretending to be an expert in Dutch law: you
are not.

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

 RC> I'll remember that and will never venture into your third world
 RC> country.

Ah, here we go again: out of arguments --> insult.

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

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

 RC> Guilty until proven innocent? Yeah Dutch Law alright..

Usually the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Except for thsoe instances
coverd by law. The burden of proof that copies are made and distributed would
indeed be on me. Well, that is easy, the evidence is on his website  for the
whole world to see. After that it is up to him to prove he has my permission...

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

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

 RC> rrrrrrright.

Sorry, I forgot: when it comes to foreign law you are never wrong....


Michiel

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