Text 41887, 151 rader
Skriven 2006-10-24 08:44:03 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 41555 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: DUD-file
================
19 Oct 06 11:55, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:

 MvdV> Hello Roy!

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

 MvdV>>> Smoke screen....

 RW>> That figures. That is copyright law

 MvdV> *US* copyright law...

Ignorance does not become you.

 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
 RW>>>> to go into here.

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

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

 MvdV> Over here I do not have to do any dancing. Over here I do not have
 MvdV> to ask fore a procedure. Over here i just *have* those rights.
 MvdV> Period. Bottom
 MvdV> line: I do not get the same rights in the US as I have here, the US
 MvdV> is in violation of the international treaties.

 MvdV>>> Individual contributors retain all rights....

 RW>> They have given up their rights to them when they contributed them
 RW>> to Fidonews.

 MvdV> As I told you before: that may be so in the US,

That is universal.

 MvdV> it is not so in The
 MvdV> Netherlands and in Sweden. I live in the Netherlands and FidoNEws
 MvdV> is published in Sweden.

 MvdV> And if the US does not honour that, she is in violation of the
 MvdV> international treaties you refer to...

She, as in the US, is never in violation of those treaties, she is the
one who insists that everyone be in compliance. The only one it seems.

 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
 RW>>>> you believe him?

 MvdV>>> Because it is the law...

 RW>> LOL! And you're full of shit.

 MvdV> Out of arguments you are. Again.

Merely stating the facts, brown eyes.

 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.

 MvdV> An unauthorised copy published as a new incarnation.

Wrong, as usual.

 RW>>>>  It's one of more than 1000 different copies of Fidonews. Until
 RW>>>> you came along, nobody EVER said that distribution of Fidonews or
 RW>>>> any of its content was restricted.

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

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

 MvdV> If that is so then the US is in violation of international treaties
 MvdV> as my rights are not upheld.

See above...

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

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

 RW>> Nobody has republished the newsletter edition

 MvdV> Everyone who puts it on a website, readable with a html browser has
 MvdV> republished it.

Wrong.

 RW>> It's the same Fidonews that was posted in this echo, the same
 RW>> Fidonews edition that was distributed by the Editor himself

 MvdV> It is an unauthorised copy republished by someone who is not the
 MvdV> editor.

How is it unauthorized? It's the same copy that was distributed by the
Editor. If you compare the one on Shannon's website, the one published in
the echo and the one sent via Fidonet distribution and the copy that the
editor distributed via email, it has not been changed. The words are all
the same, the formatting is the same, even you fake copyright notice is
still there. You're barking up the wrong tree.

 RW>>  via email and the same Fidonews edition distributed via netmail.
 RW>> You have no leg to stand on here.

 MvdV> I do have here.

I think you're full of shit again.

 MvdV> So according to that international treaty you referred to, I should
 MvdV> have the same leg in the US. If not, the US is in violation of the
 MvdV> international treaties...

Why don't you test your 'leg' here and get the US to honor you copyright?

See, the treaty doesn't mean anything if you don't enforce your copyrights
to that work here. Have you registered that work with the US copyright
office? That's the first requirement in the case of alleged copyright
violations.

               R\%/itt




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