Text 31092, 93 rader
Skriven 2006-06-06 14:46:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 31090 av Dan Ceppa (1:138/666.0)
Ärende: Pickled Pirates Propaganda
==================================
Hello Dan.

06 Jun 06 08:49, you wrote to me:

 DC>> So, where's the crime?

 MvdV>> You have been told: the crime is in violating copyright by
 MvdV>> making copies of articles and republishing them - on a webiste
 MvdV>> - without the author's permission.

 DC> Really?

Yes, really. As I told you: plenty of precendence.

 DC>   Even when the publication states that the tome is written for
 DC> general publication for all?

Huh? Where does it say that?

It says: "by and for the members of FidoNet".

 DC>> It's obviously not one of a violent nature.  That leaves only
 DC>> only one other avenue:  It is of a fiduciary nature.

 MvdV>> A very limited POV. The Dutch law makers obviously were not
 MvdV>> that impaired when they wrote the laws.

 DC> Yeah?  Even tort law requires that some sort of damage needs to
 DC> have occured.

What damage did Menno Blom do?

 DC> Your bruised, over-inflated ego would be laughed out of any reasonable
 DC> court in the world.

Why do you continue to argue as if you were the expert on Dutch law? What in
"plenty f precedence" is it that you do not understand?

 DC>>> Now, just what is the penalty?  Death?

 MvdV>>> The maximum penalty is six month in prison.

 DC>> I'm sure that if someone made millions by using someone
 DC>> else's idea that the 6 months would be more than worth it.

 MvdV>> The court could also impose a monetary fine and in the follow
 MvdV>> up a monetary compensation could be awarded to the victim.

 DC> Ah, it does come back to money, doesn't it.

The operative word is "could", not would. Yes, *some* cases involving copyright
violations are about money, such as in the example you provided. My case is not
such a case.

I note hat you are reverting to a dishonest debating technique. You introduce
The case of someone making millions of dollars and than when I comment on *that
specific case*, you turN it back on me as if it applies to me.

 DC> Thus, your protestations to the contrary were nothing but baldfaced a
 DC> lie, weren't they.

See above: dishonest debating technique.

 DC>> You definitely have some strange laws over there.

 MvdV>> The same can be said about your country. As one of my fellow
 MvdV>> countryman found out the hard way: that is no excuse.

 DC> His problem was that his hard way was a hard-on for underage children.

Which in our country is not a crime. From that one can not conclude that it is
not a crime in another country. *Exactly* the same applies to you and Shannon:
From the fact that what Shannon did is not a crime in the USA, one can not
conclude that it is not a crime in The Netherlands.

 DC>   He can can go fuck himself.

The language of someone running out of arguments...

 DC> And, your connecting the two very separate cases is rather
 DC> interesting.

The comon factor is that someone living in country A did something that is a
crime in country B but not in country A. (Reverse A and B as applicable).

 DC>   Do you condone pedophilia?

Do you condone torturing animals?

Michiel

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