Text 28739, 69 rader
Skriven 2015-10-18 16:45:06 av Joe Delahaye (55717.fidonews)
  Kommentar till text 28731 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Saboteur of Fidonews
============================
  Re: Saboteur of Fidonews
  By: Michiel van der Vlist to Joe Delahaye on Sun Oct 18 2015 15:59:18

 JD>> It is not being (re)published, only delivered a diferent method.

 MV> "different method" is exactly what makes it a "new publication" even if it
 MV> were 
 MV> done by the same party.

 MV> An illustrating example is distributing TV over cable in addition to over
 MV> the air. In the beginning TV was only distributed over the air. Owners of
 MV> a TV paid 
 MV> "kijk- and luistergeld". Then came cable. Exactly the same content was
 MV> distributed simultaneously over the air and via cable. A TV displays the
 MV> content received via the air or via the cable. But not at the same time.
 MV> The POV from the customer was that he had already paid for watching the
 MV> content. But the court ruled in favour of the content providers who
 MV> claimed that distribution via cable instead of via the air is a "new
 MV> publication" that requires separate negotiation of rights. That was upheld
 MV> by the Dutch supreme court and so now I pay extra to the cable company for
 MV> the rights that they have 
 MV> to pay to the content providers for distributing via the cable. Despite
 MV> the fact that already pay for the same content that is distributed over
 MV> the air.

I remember the radio and TV taxes.  The radio tax from when I still lived in
Limburg, but the TV tax from Germany, although as Canadian military we did not
have to pay that.  I dont think there was ever a similar tax in this country. 
The cable and/or sat companies do have to pay the content providers, and of
course make a profit, so we pay 


 JD>> If I send a printed copy, via mail, is that also against Dutch or EU
 JD>> laws? After all it is now on paper instead of digital.

 MV> And the latter is exactly what makes it a new publication that requires
 MV> renewed 
 MV> permission. Yes, it is against Dutch law to do so without permission..

Seems strange, as it is still the same content and publication, just available
in different formats.


 MV>>> But then why the uproar when Björn put pictures of old playmates
 MV>>> on his website? Why was he demonised for not following US law? If
 MV>>> you guys are only bound by the laws of your own country, why does
 MV>>> that not apply to Björn too?

 MV>>> Or is this yet another case of double standards?

 JD>> It is a different type of standard to be sure.  On the one hand, the
 JD>> US tries to extend its laws into the rest of the world (and that is
 JD>> not made up), but on the other it wont recognize laws from other
 JD>> countries.

 MV> Eaxactly. IOW double standards!

Different interpetations I think.  Copyright applies I think because the
magazine implicitly states in the magazine that the copying, etc, of any of the
content without written permission, is illegal.


 MV> I am against TTIP. The main reason is that I do not trust the US
 MV> Americans. We will get the short end of the stick. The minute a dispute
 MV> arises, they will interpret the rules in their own advantage and force
 MV> that interpretation on us by right of might. As they have done with
 MV> Fidonet and still try to do.
--- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
 * Origin: The Lions Den BBS, Trenton, On, CDN (1:249/303)