Text 41538, 117 rader
Skriven 2006-10-18 23:59:02 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 41511 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: DUD-file
================
19 Oct 06 00:09, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:

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

 RW>>  104. Subject matter of copyright: National origin

 RW>>  ___________ Snip! ____________O/___________________________________
 RW>>                                O\

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

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

 MvdV> Smoke screen....

That figures. That is copyright law which puts your notions to shame.

 MvdV>>> But let us assume - just for the sake of argument - that you got
 MvdV>>> it right. That copyright holders get the same protection for
 MvdV>>> their work in any country that signed the treaty as they would
 MvdV>>> get in 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
 MvdV>>> webiste without my permission.

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

 MvdV> Bottom line: I do not get the same rights in the US as I have
 MvdV> here...

Oh but you do. All you have to do is dance the dance that everyone else
has to do. But you're too stubborn to even ask for that procedure.

 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
 RW>>>> allowed the editor of Fidonews to publish it for you.

 MvdV> Individual contributors retain all rights....

They have given up their rights to them when they contributed them to
Fidonews. You have retained nothing when it comes to the already published
newsletter. Outside of that, you can control it all you want.

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

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

 MvdV> Because it is the law...

LOL! And you're full of shit.

 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
 RW>>>> users.

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

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

 MvdV> So I am the first to point it out. Does not make it invalid.

What you fail to understand is that what he's doing is as legal as it
gets.

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

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

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

 MvdV> No, that is not what I am saying. That is what you say.

That is what you're saying. Writing an article for Fidonews is no
different.

 MvdV> What I say is that individual copyright holders can object to
 MvdV> someone republishing new incarnations of the magazine without the
 MvdV> copyright holder's permission.

Nobody has republished the newsletter edition you're bitching about. It's
the same Fidonews that was posted in this echo, the same Fidonews edition
that was distributed by the Editor himself via email and the same
Fidonews edition distributed via netmail. You have no leg to stand on
here.

               R\%/itt




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