Text 1633, 78 rader
Skriven 2012-07-30 23:37:06 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
   Kommentar till text 1461 av Dale Shipp (1:261/1466.0)
Ärende: Someting different (
============================
Hello Dale,

DS>The offices of the NYT are a physical thing.  Fidonews is an
DS>electronic magazine -- no office or building to take over.  No
DS>staff to chase away.

The Fidonews is published by the entire Fidonet community, in
whatever form it chooses.  Björn Felten is the one and only official
editor of the Fidonews, having been appointed to that position by
the previous editor, Frank Vest, with the full blessing of the entire
Fidonet community.  Of course, you know that already.

 MVDV>> You think anyone would get away with that? Woukld it be
 MVDV>> argued that there was no problem as the original editor
 MVDV>> still had his office in Northen New York and he could still
 MVDV>> publish his version of the New York Times from there?

DS>As I said, it is not my argument -- it is the argument that Björn
DS>is always touting to justify the theft of intellectual property.

Say what?  When has Björn ever done such a thing?  Never to the best
of my knowledge.  But please don't let the facts stand in your way.

DS>He still has his Fidonews electronic magazine.

The Fidonews is published by the entire Fidonet community.
Björn Felten is merely the editor who was chosen by that community.
And Björn reamins the one and only editor of our fine publication.

Janis Kracht is jealous, and Ross Cassell is having a hissy fit.
Nick Kill would kill to be the real editor, or even a real person.

But why do you care?  Why should you care?  By your own admisstion,
Björn Felten is the editor of the Fidonews.  And again, by your own
admission, there can be only one.  That's right.  One Fidonews, and
one editor.

What are you gonna do now?  Steal a recipe from Janis and try to make
Swedish meatballs?  Good luck with that...

DS>Playboy still has their centerfolds, etc.

You are no Hugh Hefner.

DS>Ergo (according to him) there is no theft.

You dumbfuck, the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C., Sections 101-810,
is federal legislation that covers a great deal of area - *including*
architectural design, software, graphic arts, motion pictures, and
sound recordings.  As it is *Federal* legislation, it invalidates
inconsistent state law - which is why the copyright field is almost
exclusively a Federal one, not subject to the realm of your beloved
Ice Queen's interpretation.

Copyright gives the owner the *exclusive* right to reproduce,
distribute, perform, display, or licnese his/her work.  The owner
can grant rights to others to publish a work, if he/she so desires,
but is under no obligation to do so.  In addition, the owner also
receives the *exclusive* right to produce or license derivatives
of his/her works.

Works are covered whether or not a copyright notice is attached
and whether or not the work is registered.  Do you know what that
means, dear boy?  If not, I suggest you do yourself a favor and
quit making a total ass of yourself in reference to making false
accusations against folks who actually know what the hell they
are talking about.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/intellectual-property/

Yeah, I know.  I plagiarized a good bit of it.  Kind of like
what Janice does with her "recipes".  But at least I cited my
source(s).  :)

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
 * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)