Text 41378, 93 rader
Skriven 2006-10-16 12:45:01 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 41359 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Ärende: DUD-file
================
Hello Roy!

On Sunday October 15 2006 18:46, you wrote to me:

 RW> 15 Oct 06 23:04, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:

 MvdV>>>>> It is not a pirate site. That is just your unsubstantiated
 MvdV>>>>> claim.
 DC>>>> Then why does it contain unpaid copyrighted material?
 RW>>> Vlist doesn't seem to understand the definition of pirated
 RW>>> copyright vs the law. Definition of a copyright pirate (from the
 RW>>> US copyright office)
 MvdV>> What you guys fail to understand that Björn does not live in
 MvdV>> the USA.

 RW> What you guys fail to understand is that there are certain treatys
 RW> among certain countrys of the world. Holland and Sweden included.

What you fail to understand is that these treaties are between *countries*. The
individual citizen is subject only to the laws of the country he/she resides
in.

The treaties prescribe how countroes should implement the treaty in their
national law, but there are differences in how it is implemented in various
countries. The treaties *allow* for these differences.

 MvdV>> The definitions of the US copyright office mean nothing in
 MvdV>> Sweden.

 RW> Apparently not, or there wouldn't be such a problem with pirates
 RW> there.

The "problem with pirates" exists only in the mind of the USAians who wish to
impose their laws and their moral values on the citizens of Sweden.

 RW>>> In otherwords, just the presence of copyrighted materials on a
 RW>>> website is defined by law as piracy ...

 MvdV>> But then again, it *does* mean something in the USA.

 RW> And it means the same in Sweden/Holland.

No, it does not. In Sweden the mere presence of copyrighted material on a
website is not piracy.

 MvdV>>  Shannon has copyrighted material on his website: the articles
 MvdV>> I wrote for FodoNews.

 RW> Yes? It's there under copyright law which allows 'fair use' of
 RW> copyrighted material.

Yes. That is a US law that implements the international treaties different that
some other countries.

 RW>  I believe it was section 108g, but I'd have t go
 RW> look it up again and check for sure.

 MvdV>> And not just the two latest ones that had a copyright notice
 MvdV>> atteched. ALL my articles.

 RW> Nothing wrong with that, under international copyrright law fair use
 RW> is allowed.

No. Not under *international* law. You are making that up. It is *US* law that
allows that. Over here the closest equivalent is the "citation right". One may
quote a few lines or maybe a paragraph from an article as an illustration in
one's own work. Quting or republishing an *entire* article is a definite no-no
here.

This is one of the things where US law allows more that what is laid down in
the treaties.

 RW>>> Unless of course, he can show permission from the copyright
 RW>>> holder to distribute.

 MvdV>> Which Shannon can not.

 RW> Shannon doesn't need your permission to use

According to your own words, he does. He needs permsiion from the copyright
holder. *I* am the copyright holder of my articles.

 RW> what is supposed to be a Fidonet newsletter on his website. Just
 RW> because you claim copyright to an article in it, the entire newsletter
 RW> is not yours to play with.

I am doing nothing like that. I have asked him to remove *my* articles. No
more, no less.

Cheers, Michiel

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