Text 31789, 146 rader
Skriven 2006-06-14 09:07:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 31694 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
Ärende: Pickled Pirates Prop
============================
Hello Janis.

13 Jun 06 08:41, you wrote to me:

 >> 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.

 JK> Of course he would.  The Magazine surely is not putting out those
 JK> other versions for free, but charging for them.

Sorry, you are wrong. The articles on the website(s) are freely available to
the public.

http://www.computable.nl/

And for one of the articles of Peter Mom:

http://www.computable.nl/artikels/archief2/d44ra2eh.htm

Scroll to the bottom and you feel see the name of the author there.

 JK>   He wanted his cut.($$)

That may have been one of his reasons for starting the court case, but it was
not an argument in the court's conclusion that placing the articles on a
website is a "nieuwe openbaarmaking" that requires renewed permission from the
author.

You assumption that the articles were not offered for free shows that you have
not read or understood the proceedings of the court. They explicitly mention
that the articles *are* offered to the public for free.

Now try to understand this: Dutch copyright law is not primarily about money.

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

 JK> No, it is not the same.  A commercial magazine stands to gain income
 JK> from multiple sites listing that article...

Since they offer the article to the public for free.. out of the window goes
your argument.

 JK> and I'm sure you are wrong about dutch law considering a club's
 JK> newsletter which stipulates the distribution and the scope of that
 JK> distribution in it's by-laws (policies) and a commerical magazine as
 JK> the same!

Then you sure are wrong.

 JK> This case is very different.

With all due respect Janis: you are not qualified to judge.

You are looking at it wit US coloured glasses through a crappy translation.

 JK> Nothing of what you posted shows that dutch law considers
 JK> what we do in Fidonews to be the same as what that magazine did.

Someone makes the on-line version of a magazine available (for free) on another
website without the permission of the author of some of the articles.

The court ruled that publishing on another website is indeed a new publication
that requires renewed permission from the author.  Th court also ruled that
permission was missing and that hence a copyright violation had occured.

What is the difference?

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

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

The lawyers here say something else.

 >> 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.

 JK> You _will_ be laughed out of court.

That is not what the lawyers here say.

You are still looking at it form a US point of view. In the US you only seem to
have a case if you can show financial loss. Things are different here. The
"auteurswet", losely - but not entirely correctly - translated into "copyright"
is primarily about intellectual property rights, *not* about nmoney. The rights
exist independent of its commercial exploitability and (re)publishing without
permission is a breach of rights indepedent of any demonstrable financial
damages.

No Janis, I will not 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...

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

And *here* it applies to *all* publications, commercial or otherwise,
explicitly stated in the footers or not.

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

It is not a translation. It is a.. summary.

And, no I am not 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.

 JK> No, now I have your translation,

My summary. And you still are looking at it through US coloured glasses.

 JK>  which you conveniently refused to post.

And for good reasons. Your comments only confirm that my reluctance was
justified. You are unable to properly read and interpret Dutch legal documents.

 JK>  I still disagree with you.

What really matters is if the judge in the Dutch court will agree with me isn't
it? The Mom vs VNU case and others give me confidence that (s)he will.

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

Forget it Janis, your US interpretation of Dutch laws is wrong.


Michiel

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