|
|
 | | From: | Richard C. | | Subject: | Re: Bill Martin is NOT a thief | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:58:52 -0800 |
|
|
 | for cyndianne info
--
X-No-archive: yes
"Stuffed Tiger" wrote in message
news:2horu0diflnpt7fso3hj3vg0karkgct1n4@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 04:33:38 GMT, Nonna Yabisness
> wrote:
>
> ... snip ...
>>He is not a "common carrier" under USA law that may claim an
>>indemnification as the telco companies do with respect to the content
>>posted by others, and remains responsible for any content on his pages
>>under his control.
> ... snip ...
>
> One does not have to be a "common carrier" to be covered. His stated
> usage is no different than Usenet which certainly is covered, even if
> moderated. He may well have a claim under this provision in the law if
> posting and downloading at his web site are open to the public.
>
> However, that is not the source of his claim.
>
> He claims protection under "fair use" which is in force precisely to
> allow this kind of educational use of materials not sold for profit.
> This is much broader than the recording and publishing industries
> would have you believe. It is intended precisely to cover usages like
> this where the sheer volume of participants is instructive.
>
> In addition, if asked, he removes the pictures (he says). On that
> basis, and while I don't agree with the notion of having pictures on
> this kind of open web site, and I don't care for them myself, I
> believe he is well within his rights. Further, I see no moral issue.
>
> IMHO, your point is moot and your suppositions erroneous; Dario is
> correct. Calling Bill a thief is just another overreaction of one
> nudist camp against another for no good reason. Anyone with half a
> brain would instead ask for an attribution and a link to their site.
> That way, they would build adherents rather than avoidance.
>
> Were he to charge for those pictures, that would be an entirely
> different matter. Then, that would be theft, and he could be sued.
>
> Stuffed Tiger
|
|
|
