Text 41406, 70 rader
Skriven 2006-10-16 08:33:52 av Bob Ackley (1:2905/3)
  Kommentar till text 41361 av Jeff Smith (1:14/0)
Ärende: DUD-file
================
Replying to a message of Jeff Smith to All:

 JS> Hello Everyone.

 MV>> But then again, it *does* mean somethong in the USA. Shannon has
 MV>> copyrighted material on his website: the articles I wrote for
 MV>> FodoNews. And not just the two latest ones that had a copyright
 MV>> notice atteched. ALL my articles.

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

 MV>> Which Shannon can not.

 JS>      What's the point here people? I know what has been said by both
 JS> sides. No offense to Michiel but what in his articles is that
 JS> important that it needs to be copyrighted. Is a copyright really
 JS> needed or is it just a another play in an ongoing game? Is Michiel
 JS> that worried about someone seeing his articles that shouldn't? Who
 JS> cares? If an article is published it should be done so with the
 JS> forknowledge of how and to what extent it will be distributed. Trying
 JS> to force one's will on the editor and the distribution system is
 JS> wrong. If one does not accept that then they IMHO should not submit
 JS> the article. Expecting everyone to accept and bow to their view of
 JS> the importance of their copyright is just an expression of the
 JS> importance that they have of themself.

It seems to me that it's basically a tempest in a teapot, or started out that
way anyway.
Shannon and Bjorn have been feuding for months over supposedly copyrighted
material
that Bjorn supposedly had/has on his web site.  On reading Michiel's copyright
note I
seen nothing that would prevent distribution of the article through
*traditional* Fidonet channels.  Unfortunately, those traditional channels have
been supplemented for good or
for bad by other means and methods of distribution and that is where Janis saw
a problem.
Technically I suppose it was, but if she and many others did not distribute the
Snooze
and otherwise make it available through non-traditional channels it wouldn't
have been
one at all.

Then again, one can contend that a BBS web site that has a valid Fidonet node
number
IS a legitimate Fidonet distribution channel, as are archives of Fidonet
traffic whether
they're maintained on a web site archive (that has a valid Fidonet node number)
or on
my or somebody else's HD.

IMO Michiel and probably Bjorn were simply providing an example of the
limitations
of national copyright laws/concepts.  Shannon was attempting to contend that
Bjorn's
site violates US copyright law and at least some of the Z2 folks have attempted
to tell
him that US copyright law doesn't apply in Sweden.  Since most of the Z1 folks
are
claiming that Netherlands/Swedish copyright law doesn't apply here it stands to
reason
that logically they should also agree that US copyright law doesn't apply
there.  Which
I think was the point of the exercise.

Just my $.02.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
 * Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:2905/3)