Text 31855, 105 rader
Skriven 2006-06-14 23:59:05 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 31840 av Dan Ceppa (1:138/666.0)
Ärende: Pickled Pirates Prop
============================
Hello Dan.

14 Jun 06 16:22, you wrote to me:

 DC> On 14 Jun 06  12:04:00, Michiel van der Vlist got back to Dan Ceppa
 DC> -> Re: Pickled Pirates Prop

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

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

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

 DC> ROTF-LMAO!

 DC> You haven't even gotten out of the hospital yet and you have
 DC> already shot youself in the foot again.

Insults do not make convincing arguments.

 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
 MvdV>>> that placing the articles on a website is a "nieuwe
 MvdV>>> openbaarmaking" that requires renewed permission from the
 MvdV>>> author.

 DC> Bullshit, and you know it.

I know what the law is and what the courts ruled.

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

 MvdV>> You have obviously not read or understood the court
 MvdV>> proceedings. One

 DC> Hell, you can't even translate it.

Neither can you. But...

... I do not have to translate it to know what it says. It is written in my
native language.

 MvdV>> of the website *does* operate under the same name (Computable)
 MvdV>> as the printed version and the court acknowledges that this too
 MvdV>> is a "nieuwe openbaarmaking" that requires separate permission
 MvdV>> from the author. Now stop playing the know it all.

 DC> That's not what you said the last.

Indeed, that is not what I said last time. I did say anything about the names
of the websites.

 DC>   Try keeping you stories straight when you lie your ass off,

The only lies are yours.

 DC>> Shannon's board is part of FIDONET.

 MvdV>> It is not, but even if it were:

 DC> It isn't??????

No, his website where he publishes pirated copies of FidoNews is not part of
fidonet.

Only the part that runs the mailer is part of Fidonet.

 DC> You really are a flaming idiot.

Good point..... not!

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

 MvdV>> No, You are putting words into my mouth again.

 DC> No, Mikey.  You are changing your story to match the facts
 DC> you are making up.

No mr crocodile, you are putting words into my mouth.

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

 DC> That's right, you idiot:  All of the Websites are different.  However,
 DC> the Website under the same name and the hard copy are the same.

According to the court's ruling they are not. "nieuwe opebaarmaking"

Argue till you se blue in the face. The court has ruled that for a website -
whatever name it uses - renewed permission from the author is required.

Michiel

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