Text 6366, 113 rader
Skriven 2005-03-07 08:53:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av SHANNON TALLEY
Ärende: You are violating my copyright
======================================
Hello SHANNON,

06 Mar 2005 07:35, SHANNON TALLEY wrote to MICHIEL VAN DER VLIST:

 >> ST> I won't debate this with you.  You should read the 1976 U.S.
 >> ST> copyright act, specifically section 107, "fair use".
 >>
 >> Fair use my foot! Copying the entire article and making it available to 
 >> the general public is not "fair use". It is pirating, no more no less.

 ST> Your interpretation of the law is incorrect Michiel, I suggest you 
 ST> hire an attorney affluent in copyright laws.

I suggest you follow your own suggestion. Actually you should have done that
before you started messing with copyrights. "Fair use" allow you to cite form
articles for the well describes purposes. You have not merely cited from my
article, you have republished my article in toto. And not just my article but
every article in the Snooze. You have not doen thois for the purpose of
eductation or critisims or whatever, you have just copied it. That can never be
fair use. If that is fair use than cipoying and offering for downloiading an
entire movie is too.

Anyway the burden of proof that you are making "fair use" is on you:

==quote ==

Fair use as a defense

Fair use is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. This means that
if the defendant's actions do not constitute an infringement of the plaintiff's
rights (for example, because the plaintiff's work was not copyrighted, or the
defendant's work did not borrow from it sufficiently), fair use does not even
arise as an issue. However, it also means that, once the plaintiff has proven
(or the defendant concedes) that the defendant has committed an infringing act,
the defendant then bears the burden of proving in court that his copying should
nonetheless be excused as a fair use of the plaintiff's work.

Because of the defendant's burden of proof, some copyright owners frequently
make claims of infringement even in circumstances where the fair use defense
would likely succeed in hopes that the user will refrain from the use rather
than spending resources in his defense. This type of frivolous lawsuit is part
of a much larger problem in First Amendment law; see Strategic lawsuit against
public participation.

Because paying a royalty fee may be much less expensive than having a potential
copyright suit threaten the publication of a completed work in which a
publisher has invested significant resources, many authors may seek a license
even for uses that copyright law ostensibly permits without liability.

=== end quote ===

This quote comes form :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_law

I strongly suggest you read the entire article before you continue on your use
of the lame excuse of "fair use" to violate my copyrights.

 >> You are doing the exact same thing as what you accuse Bj"rn Felten of. 
 >> That makes you a bigot and a hypocrite.

 ST> Ha.. That's funny... The pot calling the kettle black!  Except the 
 ST> Pot doesn't usually use the word "black" -- the Pot normally uses a 
 ST> racial slur instead <g>.

Except that the one kettle really is white. I suggest you once more follow your
own advice and consult a lawyer knowlegable with Swedish law before you
continue to make allegations against Björn. 
  
 ST> You are continuing to "twist and twist and twist" this 
 ST> thing into something it's not.

You are the one that is twisting things. Yoi have been flooding us with qoutes
from international treaties. I suggest you /read/ what you ahve quoted to us
before yoyu say again that you are not violating my copyright. You are the
twisting what is bend into straight by using the lame excuse of "fair use".

 ST> Felton hosts illegal software on his site.

Are you sure? I suggest you read this before answering:


http://linuxreviews.org/news/2005/02/10_way_to_go_sweeden/


 ST> I legally host fidonews.

No you don't. You have republished my articles without my permission and that
is a violation of my copyright. Even by US law.


 ST> There is a big difference, you know it,

No Shannon, I don't know that Björn is breaking any law's of his country. But I
DO know that you are.
 
I will give you the benefit of the doubt, you may be under the wrongfull
impression that what you do is indeed "fair" and therefor I will not pusreu
this issue if you remove the illegal copies from your website immidiately. 

 ST> You have become a laughing stock, a joke, and a very annoying person...

You make false allegations, you violate my copyright and *I* am the one that is
annoying because I defend them? 

Get real man!



Cheers, Michiel

--- Msged 6.0.1
 * Origin: We love MsgEd ... (2:280/5555)