Text 31694, 80 rader
Skriven 2006-06-13 08:41:56 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
  Kommentar till text 31667 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Pickled Pirates Prop
============================
Hello Michiel,

> This shows my reluctance to provide you with references in Dutch was fully
> justified. I told you translating legal documents is tricky business. You
> obviously ran it through some robot translator and it fubarred.

No, it shows your typical hard-headedness in not posting information. Very
typical.

> Peter Mom, a freelance journalist offered article's to a publisher, VNU
> business publication, for inclusion in one of their magazines.

[...]

> Mon's articles were published in the printed version of the magazine and were
> also available on the on-line version via the publisher's website.
>Then the publisher opened *another* website and made the on-line version of th
>magazine, including Mom's articles, *also* available via that website. To
>this  Mom protested, he claimed it was a new publication that required his
>renewed permission.

Of course he would.  The Magazine surely is not putting out those other
versions for free, but charging for them.  He wanted his cut.($$)

>Same as what I claim regarding Shannon's website.

No, it is not the same.  A commercial magazine stands to gain income from
multiple sites listing that article... and I'm sure you are wrong about dutch
law considering a club's newsletter which stipulates the distribution and the
scope of that distribution in it's by-laws (policies) and a commerical magazine
as the same!  This case is very different.  Nothing of what you posted shows
that dutch law considers what we do in Fidonews to be the same as what that
magazine did.

> The court put him in the right and awarded him compensation  (Though not as
> much as he asked for).

I caught that too.  As I said, it's different.

> This case shows:
> 1) That those claiming that by submitting an article to a magazine for
>publication, the author gives up all rights, have it wrong. Mon was not laughe
> out of court, as some claim would happen to me, his case was accepted by the
> court and judged on merit.

You _will_ be laughed out of court.

>2) That publishing an article on another website - in part, in toto, as part o
> a collection or separate, is a *new publication* that requires renewed
> permission. That is about the only part that your robot translator got right.
> More or less...

We have the same thing here with commercial magazines who stipulate that fact
in there pages and magazines.

>>> http://www.boek9.nl/weblog2/pivot/entry.php?id=1864
>> And this example is over the copyright of DOMAIN NAME :)
>Janis, face it, you had no idea what these cases were all about. And it is not
>"cases" plural, the two references were about the same case. In the first, you
>had the plaintiff and the accuser mixed up and you thought the second was abou
> a domain name. You had no idea!

Well, it's nice of you to comment, thank you for the translation that you
should have provided, but you are still wrong.

>> a compilation of individual articles, being distributed as designed
>> to it's members and displayed by those members on their bbs systems.
>They have everything to do with it, but you will never see that if you continu
> to look at it from across an ocean through the eyes of a robot tramslator.

No, now I have your translation, which you conveniently refused to post. I
still disagree with you.

Forget it Michiel, there is no way your case will stand up in court.

Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)