🚀 go-pugleaf

<0junk4me@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
toKel.1270$yb.1074@bignews4.bellsouth.net

> On 2009-01-24 tyreeford@comcast.net said:
>>> they  have permission from Mix Magazine - who paid you for the
>>> review I  guess - to reprint the text of your review,   And
>>> Microtech Gefell has  your Mix reviews on their website too,
>>> aren't we talking about the  same reviews?  Does not this
>>> permission to the parent company apply to  their distributors?
>>> Is MikroTech Gefell ripping you off publishing  the same work
>>> under the Mix permission, or is Mix Magazine ripping you  off
>> giving Gefell permissions they do not own? >
>> My deal with MIX (agreed on a long time ago) was very specific.
>> They could use the material for THEIR other uses, but if it went
>> outside, all rights were mine.
> SOunds to me like a serious consultation with your attorney
> is in order here Ty.  sOmebody obviously violated the terms
> of your agreement as you perceive them.  A consultation with
> the pros, especially the pro that works for you will help
> clear this up.

It's this kind of timewasting that has crippled the U.S economy. Hiring
lawyers and litigating the re-use of a review? Bollocks! You've attempted to
strongarm someone for an action that's at best likely "fair use" of your
review, and at worst an innocent mistake that benefits the writer. Any
writer benefits when his work is read and respected.

And the miscreant is an old man with a prestigious audio history far
exceeding that of the mere product reviewer. Sounds mostly like professional
jealousy at work.  And publications like Mix actively encourage
manufacturers to reprint their reviews, something that gives more
credibility to the publication as well as encourage advertisers - the method
by which ALL editorial is paid for.

A classic case of "biting the hand that feeds you".

If I was Mr. Lindberg I'd tell Tyreeford to go suck an egg. This is clearly
"fair use" under international copyright law.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511