nntp2http.com
Posting
Suche
Optionen
Hilfe & Kontakt

Re: Fuji-san / George Dance

Von: George Dance (georgedance04@yahoo.ca) [Profil]
Datum: 05.06.2010 23:35
Message-ID: <ea263740-c809-4d78-a7e6-2af186264262@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
Newsgroup: alt.arts.poetry.comments
On May 11, 3:05 pm, Gwyneth <gwyn...@patchword.com> wrote:
> On 10/05/10 06:59, George Dance wrote:
> > On May 8, 6:31 pm, Gwyneth<gwyn...@patchword.com>  wrote:
> >> On 08/05/10 21:20, George Dance wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 21, 2:57 pm, Gwyneth<gwyn...@patchword.com>    wrote:
> >>>> On 21/04/10 19:09, George Dance wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 20, 1:41 pm, Will Dockery<will.dock...@gmail.com>
     wrote
:
>
> >>>>>> some (PJR) have stated their
> >>>>>> opinion that simply /crossposting/ a poem from one
newsgroup to
> >>>>>> another is infringement!
>
> >>>>> Some of them, like Gwyneth, insist that crossposting
*anything* is
> >>>>> copyright infringement:
> >>>>> <quote>      Personally, I think there's no doubt that
re-posting
> >>>>> a poem - or commentary - to a different news group without
good rea
son
> >>>>> is a breach of copyright."</q>
> >>>>> What they've never shown, of course, is any reason to think
that.
>
> >>>> I believe that copyright law allows me, as a writer,
> >>>> to choose where my words are published. If I choose -
> >>>> as I do - to limit the newsgroups to which I post
> >>>> (which is a form of publication) it is an infringement
> >>>> of my rights if someone copies my words elsewhere.
>
> >>> Why don't you bother to look at the legislation, and learn what it
> >>> does and doesn't say, instead of saying
> >>>    "I believe" when you make statements like this, Gwyneth?
>
> >>> snip for focus
>
> >> What makes you think I haven't read "the legislation", George?
>
> > Your own Gwynethlogic, Gwyneth:
>
> > <q>Why don't you check the archives instead of saying
> > "I believe" when you make statements like this, George?<q>
> > Message-ID:<7vvoqoF1m...@mid.individual.net>
>
> > <q>If you had checked the archives, and were commenting
> > accurately on what you had read there, what need would
> > there have been to put "I believe"?</q>
> > Message-ID:<7vvur6F2v...@mid.individual.net>
>
> > By the same token, if you'd actually checked the legislation, and were
> > commenting accurately on what you'd read there, you would not have
> > needed to put "I believe".
>
> There is a difference between using the archives to
> check who said what (this doesn't require specific
> expert knowledge, although, as the cited example shows,
> the findings may be subject to (mis)interpretation) and
> referring to legislation, which, although precisely
> expressed in black and white, is notoriously difficult
> to interpret.
>

First, it's silly of you to think that legal language is any more
"difficult to interpret" than any other language. If anything, it's
the opposite: because of what is at stake depending on the
interpretation of legislation, its drafters go out of their way to
make its meaning as precise as possible; maybe never absolutely
precise, but certainly moreso than in the typical usenet
conversation.

Second, you're either deluded or dishonest to pretend that all you've
been doing here is checking and reporting "who said what". For
example, when you claim (as you did in starting this fight with me),
that I'd said I hadn't read something in the archives to which I was
referring, you are *not* simply reporting "who said what". Similarly,
when you claim (as you did in starting your previous fight with me
here) that I'd ever said you haven't read the group archives, you are
not simply reporting "who said what." In both cases, you are
*interpreting* what I said -- and, I'd say, misinterpreting it (though
I doubt that's the 'cited example' you mean.)


> Without legal expertise, I feel it's unwise to state
> categorically what is meant by the legislation.
>
> >> Is there anything in what I wrote that is at odds with the
> >> legislation?
>
> > I didn't see any relation between what you wrote, and the legislation,
> > at al..
>
> OK, here's the relevant bit from the Spanish
> Ley de Propiedad Intelectual
> (http://civil.udg.es/normacivil/estatal/reals/Lpi.html)
> ----------
> CAP�TULO III
> Contenido
>
> Secci�n primera
> Derecho moral
>
> Art�culo 14. Contenido y caracter�sticas
del derecho mora
l
>
> Corresponden al autor los siguientes derechos irrenunciables
> e inalienables:
>
> 1. Decidir si su obra ha de ser divulgada y en qu� forma.
>
> 2. Determinar si tal divulgaci�n ha de hacerse con su nombre,
> bajo seud�nimo o signo, o an�nimamente.
> ----------
>
> and a reference to UK law:http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01
_uk_copyright_law
> -------------
> Rights covered
> The law gives the creators of literary, dramatic, musical,
> artistic works, sound recordings, broadcasts, films and
> typographical arrangement of published editions, rights to
> control the ways in which their material may be used.
> The rights cover; broadcast and public performance, copying,
> adapting, issuing, renting and lending copies to the public.
> In many cases, the creator will also have the right to be
> identified as the author and to object to distortions of
> his work.
> --------------
>
> Loosely stated, both say that a writer has the right
> to choose where and in what format his or her words are
> published, if at all.
>

Of course you have  right to keep your "words" from being published on
usenet "at all": by not publishing them on usenet yourself. However,
if you do publish them on usenet yourself, you do not have any right
-- and certainly the sections of the laws you quoted do not give you
any obvious right -- to prevent anyone else from quoting those same
words on usenet himself.

If they did, then by that Gwynethlogic it would be a copyright
violation for anyone to quote anyone else's messages on usenet,
without permission, at all.
Come to think of it, that might be convenient for you: You could call
me a copyright thief again for quoting you right here. Of course,
since you've been quoting me in the same way, that might pose a wee
problem for you; but I'm sure you could come up with another
"difference" to justify the double standard.


> I have every reason to believe that the equivalent clauses
> are still in the American legislation, but, no, I am not going
> to go looking for them. They were there last time I looked.
> However, I do the vast majority of my writing in Spain and in
> the UK, so those are the laws I need to be most familiar with.
>
> So, my claims:
> "I think there's no doubt that re-posting a poem - or commentary
> - to a different news group without good reason is a breach of copyright.
"
>
> and
>
> "I believe that copyright law allows me, as a writer,
> to choose where my words are published. If I choose -
> as I do - to limit the newsgroups to which I post
> (which is a form of publication) it is an infringement
> of my rights if someone copies my words elsewhere."
>
> are based on my knowledge and understanding of copyright
> law.

I stand by what I said: "I didn't see any relation between what you
wrote, and the legislation, at all", and "I don't have the relevant
psychiatric expertise, so I'll have to state that I believe you sound
like a copyright kook."


> Of course the law allows for texts to be republished in
> other contexts, and the whole area encompassing fair use,
> parody and derivative works may need to be clarified by
> experts and ruled upon in court before it is clear in each
> individual situation.
>
> Beyond that, I think anyone else reading this must be as
> bored by the whole thing as I am. So I'll just remind you
> that if I don't reply, it in no way implies agreement
> with what you write about me, about my opinions or about
> anything else.
>

Heh. I'm sure that no one who reads the group will suspect you of
agreeing with me on anything. However, you're not the only one to come
out with the ides that not replying to a post is somehow implies
agreement with it. Hence the need for me to reply. At the same time, I
have no intention to dance to any troll's tune -- I've been far too
considerate of your kind in the past -- so I'll reply when I want, and
where I want.


[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]

Antworten