Text 6449, 151 rader
Skriven 2005-03-08 10:25:01 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
   Kommentar till text 6393 av Ross Cassell (1:123/456)
Ärende: Shannon Talley's copyright violations
=============================================
Hello Ross,

07 Mar 2005 11:31, Ross Cassell wrote to Michiel van der Vlist:

 RC>>> In some case my local newspaper prints articles attributed to
 RC>>> another newspaper.

 MV>> Only the news.

 RC> Was your article not news of and for this organization Mikey?

You have no need to stoop to the level of Ceppa, Talley and Seaborn. Please use
my proper name when addressing me.

Yes, the part about the reporting of having a nodelist with extension 366 could
be considered news. The comment that it will probably never be repeated and the
reason why are my personal comments on that news and therefore are not covered
by the exemptions for news items. Also that article is not the only one on mr.
Talley's website. I have writen articles about other subject in the past and
they certainly are opinion, not news.
  
 RC> You submitted the article to Fidonews for distribution,

And for distributing by the FidoNews editor *only*.

 RC> you knew it would get published in there, it would get distributed via 
 RC> the FDN's and get posted in this echo that particular Sunday.

And for that I gave permission.

 RC> You knew it would end up on several BBS's and you also know that these 
 RC> BBS's have that FDN setup as a downloadable file area for its users, many 
 RC> of which arent sysops.

And for making that file *as issued by the FidoNews editor* available for
freq/download I gave permission.

 RC> You also know that this echo out of most echoes are available on several 
 RC> HTML BBS's

Irrelevant. Knowing about it does not make it right. By the same logic the
edotor of Playboy knows that pictures will be scanned en end up on peoples
harddisk and eventuallly on the InterNet. Does that make it right to put them
on your website then? If so, why the uproar about the Centrefolds on Björn's
webpage? If not, whet is the difference between Playboy and FidoNew from the
copyright POV?
  
 RC> and you also know of one web site, known as sensationalcontent.com, makes 
 RC> our echoes available for any surfer to see. So your so called article was 
 RC> up on there and probably still is.

Two wrongs don't make a right. 

 RC> Is Shannon displaying your article in such a way as to lead people to 
 RC> believe that he authored it?

Irrelevant. I am not accusing him of plagiarism, I am accusing him of violating
my copyright.

 RC> I havent actually viewed his site but am under impression that he 
 RC> makes Fidonews editions viewable online as ASCII text or some such.

Nope. He makes it available as HTML readbale pages too.

 MV>> The fact that it has appeared in print does not mean one can do
 MV>> anything one wants with it. If that were true why the uproar about 
 MV>> the Playboy centrefold pictures?

 RC> Because you lost control of your articles distribution as soon as it 
 RC> ended up as a part of the Fidonews,

By that same reeasoning Playboy lost control of the distribution as soon as it
landed on the shelves of the stores.

 RC> if you want to exercise more control of your words, you should employ 
 RC> better discretion.

I as the author and copyright holder of the article am the only one to say how
it may be distributed. This right is no way is diminished by submitting it for
publication in an e-zine. Individual authors retain full rights to their
contribution. That is in accordance with Dutch Law, with Swedish law and the
Berne Convention. As a reminder it says so if the Snooze itself.
 
 RC> Steven King, the famous book writer controls his work by not 
 RC> publishing it in newspapers or NEWSLETTERS! He controls by having it 
 RC> published via his books with a publisher.

Irrelevant. 

 RC> Playboy compensates the women who pose for them in return for having 
 RC> all rights to the photo's,

Financial issues have nothing to do with it. That I offered my articles for
free to the the editor of Fidonews in no way dimishes my intellectual rights.
It certainly does not give others to right to make unauthorized copies and
distribute them without my permission and without compensation.

 RC> They control distribution of that work via their print, cable and 
 RC> internet mediums.. They did not contact Bjorn to be part of this 
 RC> distribution chain.

And I did not contact mr. Talley to make his website part of the distribution
chain of my articles.

 RC> You jumped on this diversion, not because you know what you talk 
 RC> about but only because you saw Bjorn taking some heat over this and 
 RC> it was your European duty to shill for him and I am well aware that 
 RC> in reverse we would have some americans shilling for someone else if 
 RC> someone else was in Bjorns position.

Whether this is a diversion or not is irrelevant. Mr Talley is violating my
copyright. Diversion or not.

 RC> This has nothing to do with your stupid article, if you feel harmed 
 RC> by Shannons web site, then you probably felt harmed when the edition 
 RC> got published and distributed via the standard Fido channels, yet you 
 RC> dont mention being harmed, until now..

Harm does not come into the equation. I don't have to show harm. Republishing
my articles without my permission is a violation of copyright. Period. 

 RC> Look, the moral to this story is in this network, if one puts up a 
 RC> web site or even a BBS, they better exercise some discretion on what 
 RC> they put on it.

When in a glass house one should not throw stones.

 RC> Bjorn may not care and I dont care what he does with his own 
 RC> computer, his actions have not had any adverse affect on me, if the 
 RC> right people find out and decide that they want to talk to him about 
 RC> what he is doing, then that piper is his to pay. However it is his 
 RC> own actions that brought this grief onto him.

No, it is you guys that continue to impose your US morals on the rest of the
world. It has been pointed out many times by now that what Björn is doing is
not against the laws of his country. But you won't accept that. You keep
insisting on judging him by US morals and US law. 

It is all too obvious. You won't accept Björn as moderator of this echo and of
FN_SYSOP because his ways are not the way things are done in the USA. And so
you want to get rid of him. You tried everything from terrorising the echo to
forcing an election. And when al that failed you now try character
assasination.

You are out to "get him". Plain and simple.


Cheers, Michiel

--- Msged 6.0.1
 * Origin: Thou shalt not go faster than light. (2:280/5555)