Text 31813, 94 rader
Skriven 2006-06-14 16:04:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 31808 av Dan Ceppa (1:138/666.0)
Ärende: Pickled Pirates Prop
============================
Hello Dan.

14 Jun 06 08:29, you wrote to me:

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

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

 DC> You don't know how a commercial newspaper makes money, do you.

Argue until you see blue in the face. *Fact* is that the content on the
websites *is* offered for free. Janis was wrong.

 JK>>   He wanted his cut.($$)

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

 DC> It's because it is a separate publication under a different cover.
 DC> Like you, he would have no case at all had both the hard copy
 DC> and web site operated under the same name by the same company.

You have obviously not read or understood the court proceedings. One of the
website *does* operatr under the same name (Computable) as the printed version
and the court acknowledges that this too is a "nieuwe openbaarmaking" that
requires separate permission from the author.

Now stop playing the know it all.

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

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

 DC> See top.  Now, ask youself how and why the publication can give
 DC> away what it needs to make a profit.

I do not need to ask that. The court ruled that renewed permission is required.
End of argument.

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

 DC> Shannon's board is part of FIDONET.

It is notm but even if it were:

See above, Both the printed version and the website of Computable are owned by
the same company (VNU). Yet the court acknowleged that renewed seperate
permission *is* required for the website.

 MvdV>> The court ruled that publishing on another website is indeed a
 MvdV>> new publication that requires renewed permission from the
 MvdV>> author.  Th

 DC> No, Michiel.  You already stated that the company was using
 DC> a different title for that particular publication.

No, You are putting words into my mouth again.

There are several websites. One uses the same name as the printed magazine
(Computable) Others use a different name, The court ruled that they *ALL*
qualify as separate publications, requiring separate permission.

Now go read the court proceedings before you make an even bigger idiot of
yourself and stop putting words into my mouth.

 DC> Perhaps it's time you give this up.  After all, your credibility
 DC> is so far down the drain the that water closet has already refilled.

No Dan, it is time you give it up. You pretend to be an expert in Dutch law,
but you keep making a fool of yourself by making all kind of claims that you
can not back up.

First you claimed that authors give up all rights when they submit an article
to a magazine. I don't hear you claim that any more, instead you claimed I need
to show financial loss. I do not hear that anymore from you either. You change
your tune every time your argument is debunked and you make up a new one. You
know nothing about Dutch law, you are just making it up. And every time your
made up argument is debunked you revert to spouting insults. And even the
weakest of al arguments: call the spelling police!

Give it up Dan, you have made enough of a fool of yourself.

Michiel

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