Text 31935, 115 rader
Skriven 2006-06-15 12:41:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 31816 av SHANNON TALLEY (1:275/311)
Ärende: Pickled Pirates Prop
============================
Hello SHANNON.

14 Jun 06 11:49, you wrote to me:

 >> I see that you are offering goods for sale on your website. You once
 >> offered me a 10% (or was that 15%) discount, so you must be making
 >> some profit on it. So your websiate is commercial. At least in part.

 ST> What you are referring to is the 'online store' which

Yes, advertised as "our" online store...

 ST>  --- when you click on an item, will take you to "another site" (owned
 ST> and operatingby someone else) where one can purchase goods.

When I click on "visit our online store", I get to a page which is clearly on
the same server as your home page. It sureley *looks* like a commercial corner.

It is only whan I click on an item for sale that I get linked through.

 ST> What you see is nothing more than "links" to another site because all
 ST> proceeds go to charitable causes.  No green touches my hands :)  None
 ST> of it.  ALL the products and handling of proceeds are outsourced.

Hmmm....

 ST> *"WWHHAAAAMMM!!!!*

 ST> That was the sound of the trap closing.  Than YOU for taking the bait
 ST> <grin>

That is not very original. In Dutch it is called a "jijbak".

 ST> If you would still like a 15% discount, it can be arranged.

How can you give a discount if you are not involved at all? If it does not come
from your cut or the cut for the charity that you control, where does it come
from?

If you have no financial ties with the guy running that "other" website, how
can you persuade him to give me a discount? What is in it for him to give me a
discount that goes of his profit margin?

 ST> To support the homeless in Hampton Roads, just buy something at
 ST> http://www.fidotel.com/store

And that is another thing: You advertise with a dot COM domain. You also
registered fidotel.org, but you advertise with fidotel.COM.  Surely that
suggests something *commercial*

 >> Could it be that by offering free material you are atrackting more
 >> vistors to the commercial part of your website?

 ST> I don't have a "COMMERCIAL" part of my BBS, it's all free.

You advertise goods with the fidotel logo on www.fidotel.COM/store/ and there
is a price tag on them. Looks commercial to me...

 >> I don't think you would want to pursue this avenue in court. You
 >> *did* inform the IRS of this source of income I take it?

 ST> I'd only have to inform the IRS of money made above and beyond
 ST> specific levels (as specified by IRS rules),

Same here. Extra income is free to a certain limit. Above that one must pay
income tax.

 ST> which -- I wouldn't make ANYWAY because so few actually purchase
 ST> anything.  Again, no money ever touches my hands and it all goes to
 ST> charity and is outsourced and I therefore have no commercial venture
 ST> on MY BBS.

Well, not being familair with US law, I am not going to argue that. All I can
say is that it sure *looks* like a commercial venture.

 ST> By the way, was that a 'threat'??

Of course not. Just reminding you not to forget the tax collector. Would not
want you to get in trouble through forgetfulness... ;-)

 >> No. he similarity is in the ruling that publishing on another
 >> website is a "nieuwe openbaarmaking" that requires the renewed
 >> permission from the contributing authors.

 ST> Not in this case.

Yes, in this case too.

 >> The fact that Mom wanted money for his permission and that I want
 >> something else makes no relevant difference. Copyright here is not
 >> primarily about money. It is about author's rights.

 ST> And you retain your rights.  I haven't modified your article, nor
 ST> claimed it to be my own, NOR have I sold it, nor have I made any money
 ST> by distributing it on my Fidonet BBS.

Irrelevant. The mere act of making it available to the public via your website
is a violation of my rights. Keyword: "nieuwe openbaarmaking".

 ST> Those are your rights, and I respect all authors rights.

Not mine apparently or you would remove my articles per my wishes. Or ask for
my permission.

 ST> I know you keep ignoring this, but -- this is where your argument goes
 ST> south....  This is where "we" are right, and "YOU" are wrong.

If you paid for the lawyer who told you that, you have been swindled. I think
Ward got it right, these guys have no clue about Dutch law, they just gambled
it would never come to the test in a Dutch court.

Cheers, Michiel

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