Angelo To(t)ti and copyright

Daniel van Eijmeren dve at kabelfoon.nl
Fri Apr 20 18:51:54 CEST 2001


FRANCOIS WILLOT to SOREN OLESEN, 19-04-2001:

>> Kicking him off this list is pure discrimination. History has shown
>> that nothing good comes out of that. Angelo has not spammed this list
>> in any sense, nor has he posted off-topic messages.

> I second that (and I also am the owner of a site that Angelo "used").

I agree with Soren and Francois. (My site also was "used".)

Angolo did not remove my name from the page he used. So, in other words,
I was credited as the maker of the page. 

My (main!) objection to Angelo's use of that page was that he changed its
contents, for example by removing one line from Barks' "Ode to the Disney
Ducks". By crediting me as the sole maker of that page, he suggested that
I was the maker of that error as well!

Anyway, I still try to trust that Angelo didn't have any bad intentions
by including that page on his site. At this moment I guess that his usage
of other sites was a matter of not knowing the do's and don'ts of making
a website of his own.

But even if he did have bad intentions then I still do not see a 
connection between that and his subscription to this mailing list.


About copyright in general:

In the discussion about copyrights and stealing, I've seen comparisons
with stealing someone's possessions. Even though I agree with the thought
behind that comparison, I can imagine that it can be a bit confusing when
what possesion is copyrighted material.

For example:

1. I've drawn a picture on a paper and someone steals that paper. Now that
   this piece of paper has been stolen, I do not have it myself anymore.

2. I've drawn a picture on a paper and someone makes xeroxes/scans of that
   paper. I still do have the original art myself.

In example 1 the picture is stolen by removing it.
In example 2 the picture is stolen by *multiplying* it.

A person who is familiar with copyright laws won't see much difference
in both examples. 

A person who does *not* understand copyright laws, will have difficulties
with understanding example 2, because of the big (practical) difference
between removing and multiplying. 

Indeed there are copyright laws, but as with many other laws, it can be
rather difficult to *understand* these laws.

I think it's a rather common situation that people break a law without
knowing it. I think that a lot of judges and lawyers would be without work
if this wasn't the case.

As for copyrights, just look at Napster. Why does it take so long before
this network is being shut down? And why do some artists sue Napster, 
while other artists *support* Napster? The artists who sue Napster say 
that the network is bad for their income. The artists who support Napster
say that it is *good* for their income, because a lot more people get 
interested in their work.

As the Napster trial has taken quite a long time, with lawyers and judges
involved, I think that the copyright laws apparently aren't as clear as
some people would like them to be.

Also, when you subscribe to free webservers like Geocities (or if you buy
software), there indeed is a list of rules and conditions. Mostly, these 
rules are written so clearly that you'll need a dictionary and a lawyer 
to *really* understand them.

So, even though I do *not* like the way *how* this copyright discussion
has started, I do find it a very interesting subject on its own.


Best wishes,

--- Daniel

PS. Please note that my thoughts on copyrights don't have anything to do
with Angelo or with anyone else involved in the discussion about his site.
It's just my opinion on copyrights in general.



More information about the DCML mailing list