>>>>Well, I'm talking about other counterparts, like 'freedom of the press'. If the 'publisher' thinks there's a plausible justification for the act of publishing, then the publisher may even decide to publish the whole thing.
>>>
>>>Freedom of the press doesn't give you the right to publish something to which you don't own the copyright. It gives you the right to publish writing you do own, regardless of whether the government approves.
>>
>>Actually, this might vay per country...
>>
>
>Understood. Some messages back, we indicated we were talking about the US.
>
>Tamar
Freedom of the press gives us the right to publish even a whole letter (we're not talking about a whole book here), most of the times embedded in a story that should make clear why it's published in its entirety. The person who thinks that such an act is an infringement of copyrights can always go to the court and then it's up to the judge. If the 'publisher' comes with a plausible explanation (justification) why it was best to publish the whole thing, then there's no problem, whether it's the Netherlands or the US.
Groet,
Peter de Valença
Constructive frustration is the breeding ground of genius.
If there’s no willingness to moderate for the sake of good debate, then I have no willingness to debate at all.
Let's develop superb standards that will end the holy wars.
"There are three types of people: Alphas and Betas", said the beta decisively.
If you find this message rude or offensive or stupid, please take a step away from the keyboard and try to think calmly about an eventual a possible alternative explanation of my message.
