Text 41383, 136 rader
Skriven 2006-10-16 09:02:31 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 41378 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: DUD-file
================
16 Oct 06 12:45, 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.

 MvdV> What you fail to understand is that these treaties are between
 MvdV> *countries*.

More specifically in your case, the Europeon Union, who dictates what it's
memeber countries will do according to those treaties...

 MvdV> The individual citizen is subject only to the laws of
 MvdV> the country he/she resides in.

Which in it's own right, applies the treaties of the EU to their laws.

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

Which are still in accordance to the treaty, no matter how much bullshit
you try to spread on it.

 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.

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

And those among the svedes who believe that their works are their own to
do with as they wish, without having to put up with the likes of the
Felten.

 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.

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

Better look again.

 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.

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

So, in Sveden, they don't have such 'fair use' laws and Felten is a
thieving pirate.

 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.

 MvdV> No. Not under *international* law. You are making that up. It is
 MvdV> *US* law that allows that.

See, that's where you're wrong. In those treaties it states that I as a
US copyright holder of a work, can expect the same protections as I would
have in the US, under that treaty in any other country who's signed that
treaty. Any signatory country that doesn't provide that protection is in
violation of the treaty.

 MvdV> Over here the closest equivalent is the "citation right". One may
 MvdV> quote a few lines or maybe a paragraph from an article as an
 MvdV> illustration in one's own work. Quting or republishing an *entire*
 MvdV> article is a definite no-no here.

It shouldn't be. You should be able to use the entire article to critique
it where you think is needed.

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

Actually, the treaties have this in them as well.

 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

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

That would be true, had you published it on your own and not allowed the
editor of Fidonews to publish it for you.

 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
 RW>> newsletter is not yours to play with.

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

He doesn't have to. You gave your article to be published in Fidonews.
He's obligated as a *C to provide Fidonews to his users. You lost your
rights of distribution when you allowed your articles to be published,
rather than publish them yourself.


               R\%/itt




--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)