Text 41451, 110 rader
Skriven 2006-10-17 13:51:22 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 41425 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: DUD-file
================
17 Oct 06 12:54, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:

 MvdV> Hello Roy!

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

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

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

 MvdV> You are wrong, it is the other way around. You get the same rights
 MvdV> and protection as a citizen of the country in which the work is
 MvdV> published.

 104. Subject matter of copyright: National origin

 ___________ Snip! ____________O/___________________________________
                               O\

(b) Published Works. - The works specified by sections 102 and 103, when
published, are subject to protection under this title if -

(1) on the date of first publication, one or more of the authors is a
national or domiciliary of the United States, or is a national,
domiciliary, or sovereign authority of a treaty party, or is a stateless
person, wherever that person may be domiciled; or

 MvdV> But let us assume -

You know what that means, right?

 MvdV> just for the sake of argument - that you got it
 MvdV> right. That copyright holders get the same protection for their
 MvdV> work in any country that signed the treaty as they would get in
 MvdV> there own country.

 MvdV> Then the US is in violation of the treaty. You see here I get
 MvdV> prototection against people putting my articles on their webiste
 MvdV> without my permission.

And you do here as well. But there's a catch to that. Too deep to go into
here.

 MvdV> So if the US allows it under the fair use act, they are in
 MvdV> violation because they do not grant me the same protection as I
 MvdV> have here.

Not really. You'd have to peruse Section 108 of the US Copyright Law to
know what is allowed and what isn't. i.e. your article would be allowed to
be used without your permission in a whole set of different scenarios. The
most open one would be the article being kept in an archive.

As it is published in a newsletter, you have no control over it's
distribution. If you have a problem with that, then you should take it up
with the Fidonews Editor.

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

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

 MvdV> The trailer of the snooze says that individual authors retain their
 MvdV> rights.

That's written by a self professed copyright pirate. Why would you believe
him?

 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.

 RW>> He doesn't have to. You gave your article to be published in
 RW>> Fidonews. He's obligated as a *C to provide Fidonews to his users.

 MvdV> I am not stopping him from doing so. He can use the tradional means
 MvdV> of supplying his users.

Ok, that's what he is doing. His users happen to be using the internet to
access his copy of that Fidonews edtion. It's one of more than 1000
different copies of Fidonews. Until you came along, nobody EVER said that
distribution of Fidonews or any of its content was restricted.

 RW>> You lost your rights of distribution when you allowed your articles
 RW>> to be published, rather than publish them yourself.

 MvdV> Not here. If US laws says different then the US is in violation of
 MvdV> the international treaties. By your own wrds....

So what you're saying is that if somoene writes a letter to the editor of
a local paper, or writes a guest column for that paper, they can control
that newspaper's distribution.  That's rediculous and you know it.

               R\%/itt




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