SIGVALD:
> Our French friend Gilles Maurice has very recently discovered the existence of this website:
> http://www.e-duckburg.org/
> Gilles Maurice says:
>
>>This site steals pictures and/or informations from our sites,
>>ie THE D.U.C.K.MAN, ARTICLES AND INTERVIEWS ABOUT DON ROSA,
>>THE LAST BALABU, and CALISOTA ONLINE
>
>
> I have now seen this page, and Gilles are so absolutely right.
And so f*cking what. Who cares? A little copying here and there doesn't
harm anybody. Besides, none of you are *forced* to visits those second
range sites. Calm down, Sigvald. Honestly.
> Normally I mostly feel flattered when people are copying stuff
> from my pages,
Me too, this actually suggests that you've created/scanned/found etc.
something useful. However, let's not forget that any of us who puts a
scan of Disney comics on the net is breaking some copyright law
somewhere. So, Sigvald and Gilles for that matter, you claim ownership
of something that you do not own in the first place and subsequently
take it out of some (IMO innocent) Greek. As Gilles just pointed out a
few minutes ago on IRC, the gent is probably a very nice fella. And he
must be a fan, eh?!
I also learned (on IRC) that plain text, minor articles are being
copied, but then again, who cares. If you boys and girls have a site
that is updated frequently and provides the latest of the latest,
then...what's your problem?! No one owns the Internet, not me, Gilles or
Sigvald. Nor does the little imitator. Ask yourselves: What is the utter
point of your sites; to promote yourselves? Is that it? Or (which I hope
would be the answer) to promote Disney comics. In the latter case, you
should have no problem with people copying your (strictly speaking
illegal) sites.
> *but* after being "heavily bombed" with viruses
> for a long time from somewhere in Greece I don't think this is
> very funny.
I really don't see the connection, Sigvald. The fact that you are being
"bombed" by viruses from Greece has no relation whatsoever to someone
copying your sites...nomatter where he or she resides in the universe.
> I even suspect this guy for being identical with the
> "virus-terrorist". I therefore hope that Apostolis, Kriton and
> other SERIOUS Greeks at DCML within reasonable time, will do the
> necessary research in order to determine if this "WEB-thief" is
> identical with the "virus-terrorist" or not.
That's plain rubbish, Sigvald! Please drop that subject.
> Sigvald :-)
I just don't get that smiley. It seems out of context most of the time.
In loving to be copied,
S?ren
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Author
Topic: 200211
(577 messages)
Søren Krarup Olesen
Another Greek "outlaw"
Message 16 -
2002-11-03 at 22:54:45
Lars Jensen
The value of unpublished material
Message 17 -
2002-11-04 at 01:08:49
sigvald at duckburg.dk wrote:
> I just read that unpublished Disney comics material should not be
>regarded as valuable as the published material as a reference for
>facts.
>
> As an historian I disagree with that point of view. What matters is
>how a creator see something, not wether that view is published. As long
>as Barks did confirm that his unpublished tree is how he saw the
>relations between the Ducks, that are IMO facts as good as any other
>published Barksian facts.
I'm assuming this is a reference to my earlier DCML posting under the
headline "Urban myth?". Actually, I wrote: "In my opinion, [an idea is
not an official fact] until that idea has actually been bought (and
possibly published) by a Disney licensee as an in-continuity event."
Note the phrasing "In my opinion" and the word "possibly" before
"published". I'm not quite the extremist you seem to think I am.
I regard unpublished material with a certain skepticism, because I
happen to know why some of those "facts" never make it to publication.
Sometimes it's because there isn't room for them in the number of pages
allotted or because the editor removes them (which can happen for
reasons both good and bad). Or because the publisher yanks out a few
pages, often because he/she needs more space for ads.
Sometimes, though, unpublished material remains unpublished because the
writer decides against its public use, not wanting to write him/herself
into a corner by establishing *too* many facts. (If Osborne and
Taliaferro back in '37 had had HDL's mom sign that letter simply
"Della", rather than "Cousin Della", we would have been spared some
debating last week. A minimalist approach to the use of facts can be a
good thing.)
Accepting unpublished material as "factual" can also be problematic in
another way. What happens when a creator reveals unpublished "facts" to
the fan public in one form, then decides to change those "facts" before
actually using them in a story?
Let me give you a fictitious example: Let's say, for instance, that I
come up with a new adversary to Scrooge called Philbert McFink. He's a
compulsive coin collector who simply *must* have the Number One Dime,
since it's the only dime in town from that particular year. When
creating Philbert, I also decide that he is the half-brother of Magica
de Spell, but since there is no room to use that idea in my first
Philbert story, I decide to leave it out and establish it later instead.
I have, however, casually mentioned it to some fans already. So fan
websites say it's canon: He's Magica's half-brother.
Ten years later I finally get around to using Philbert with Magica, and
I decide I'd rather make him her ex-boyfriend than her half-brother. So
I do a story where he's her ex-boyfriend.
This is the first time an actual Duck story has said anything about
their relationship, but the fan sites have already been saying for years
that according to Philbert's creator, he's Magica's half-brother. So
what is he really?
Going by your view, Philbert *is* Magica's half-brother, and my new
story is by necessity out of continuity. Not because I *want* the story
to be out of continuity, or because it's a bad story - but because a
never-used "fact" from years ago gets in its way. (True, I could simply
have kept the half-brother idea to myself ten years before, rather than
telling fans. But that's beside the point.)
Treating unpublished concepts as much more than speculation can be
stifling for the creative process. That's why I'm skeptical to regarding
them as factual.
But this is all in my opinion, of course. What does everybody else
think?
Lars
> I just read that unpublished Disney comics material should not be
>regarded as valuable as the published material as a reference for
>facts.
>
> As an historian I disagree with that point of view. What matters is
>how a creator see something, not wether that view is published. As long
>as Barks did confirm that his unpublished tree is how he saw the
>relations between the Ducks, that are IMO facts as good as any other
>published Barksian facts.
I'm assuming this is a reference to my earlier DCML posting under the
headline "Urban myth?". Actually, I wrote: "In my opinion, [an idea is
not an official fact] until that idea has actually been bought (and
possibly published) by a Disney licensee as an in-continuity event."
Note the phrasing "In my opinion" and the word "possibly" before
"published". I'm not quite the extremist you seem to think I am.
I regard unpublished material with a certain skepticism, because I
happen to know why some of those "facts" never make it to publication.
Sometimes it's because there isn't room for them in the number of pages
allotted or because the editor removes them (which can happen for
reasons both good and bad). Or because the publisher yanks out a few
pages, often because he/she needs more space for ads.
Sometimes, though, unpublished material remains unpublished because the
writer decides against its public use, not wanting to write him/herself
into a corner by establishing *too* many facts. (If Osborne and
Taliaferro back in '37 had had HDL's mom sign that letter simply
"Della", rather than "Cousin Della", we would have been spared some
debating last week. A minimalist approach to the use of facts can be a
good thing.)
Accepting unpublished material as "factual" can also be problematic in
another way. What happens when a creator reveals unpublished "facts" to
the fan public in one form, then decides to change those "facts" before
actually using them in a story?
Let me give you a fictitious example: Let's say, for instance, that I
come up with a new adversary to Scrooge called Philbert McFink. He's a
compulsive coin collector who simply *must* have the Number One Dime,
since it's the only dime in town from that particular year. When
creating Philbert, I also decide that he is the half-brother of Magica
de Spell, but since there is no room to use that idea in my first
Philbert story, I decide to leave it out and establish it later instead.
I have, however, casually mentioned it to some fans already. So fan
websites say it's canon: He's Magica's half-brother.
Ten years later I finally get around to using Philbert with Magica, and
I decide I'd rather make him her ex-boyfriend than her half-brother. So
I do a story where he's her ex-boyfriend.
This is the first time an actual Duck story has said anything about
their relationship, but the fan sites have already been saying for years
that according to Philbert's creator, he's Magica's half-brother. So
what is he really?
Going by your view, Philbert *is* Magica's half-brother, and my new
story is by necessity out of continuity. Not because I *want* the story
to be out of continuity, or because it's a bad story - but because a
never-used "fact" from years ago gets in its way. (True, I could simply
have kept the half-brother idea to myself ten years before, rather than
telling fans. But that's beside the point.)
Treating unpublished concepts as much more than speculation can be
stifling for the creative process. That's why I'm skeptical to regarding
them as factual.
But this is all in my opinion, of course. What does everybody else
think?
Lars
Sigvald
Another Greek "outlaw"
Message 18 -
2002-11-04 at 11:35:04
Hi all!
It seems that our Danish friends have misunderstood some of my points. I thus have to make my points more clear:
1) I believe that most of the viruses lately (not as many nowadays) keeps coming from the same computer in Korinth, Greece because it keeps being equipped with the same false addresses (from Duckhunters). The pattern *can't* be misunderstood.
2) I suspect that the Greek "WEB-thief" (I don't care much about the theft itself) can be identical with the person with the infected computer because:
a) They live in the same country (Greece)
b) The "WEB-thief" has obviously visited D.U.C.K.hunt and most pages related to D.U.C.K.hunt and might thus for any reason have collected our addresses and put them in his electronic address-book.
I thus still think that the "WEB-thief" should be checked against the IP-address of the viruses.
Sigvald :-)
It seems that our Danish friends have misunderstood some of my points. I thus have to make my points more clear:
1) I believe that most of the viruses lately (not as many nowadays) keeps coming from the same computer in Korinth, Greece because it keeps being equipped with the same false addresses (from Duckhunters). The pattern *can't* be misunderstood.
2) I suspect that the Greek "WEB-thief" (I don't care much about the theft itself) can be identical with the person with the infected computer because:
a) They live in the same country (Greece)
b) The "WEB-thief" has obviously visited D.U.C.K.hunt and most pages related to D.U.C.K.hunt and might thus for any reason have collected our addresses and put them in his electronic address-book.
I thus still think that the "WEB-thief" should be checked against the IP-address of the viruses.
Sigvald :-)
Pekka Timonen
Another Greek "outlaw"
Message 19 -
2002-11-04 at 11:47:49
Sigvald :-) wrote:
> It seems that our Danish friends have misunderstood some of my
> points. I thus have to make my points more clear:
>
*PLONK*
--
//Pekka Timonen (pati at iki.fi)
> It seems that our Danish friends have misunderstood some of my
> points. I thus have to make my points more clear:
>
*PLONK*
--
//Pekka Timonen (pati at iki.fi)
Gjn
Another Greek "outlaw"
Message 20 -
2002-11-04 at 12:14:59
Sigvald:
> 2) I suspect that the Greek "WEB-thief" (I don't care much about
> the theft itself) can be identical with the person with the
> infected computer because:
> a) They live in the same country (Greece)
> b) The "WEB-thief" has obviously visited D.U.C.K.hunt and most
> pages related to D.U.C.K.hunt and might thus for any reason have
> collected our addresses and put them in his electronic address-book.
I'll be sure *never* to hire you as my private investigator;-)
Greetings from
Geir J. Netland
http://skurkestreker.com
> 2) I suspect that the Greek "WEB-thief" (I don't care much about
> the theft itself) can be identical with the person with the
> infected computer because:
> a) They live in the same country (Greece)
> b) The "WEB-thief" has obviously visited D.U.C.K.hunt and most
> pages related to D.U.C.K.hunt and might thus for any reason have
> collected our addresses and put them in his electronic address-book.
I'll be sure *never* to hire you as my private investigator;-)
Greetings from
Geir J. Netland
http://skurkestreker.com
Stefan Persson
Another Greek "outlaw"
Message 21 -
2002-11-04 at 12:16:25
>From: sigvald at duckburg.dk
>To: dcml at stp.ling.uu.se
>Subject: Re: Another Greek "outlaw"
>Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:35:04 +0100 (CET)
>1) I believe that most of the viruses lately (not as many nowadays) keeps
>coming from the same computer in Korinth, Greece because it keeps being
>equipped with the same false addresses (from Duckhunters). The pattern
>*can't* be misunderstood.
>2) I suspect that the Greek "WEB-thief" (I don't care much about the theft
>itself) can be identical with the person with the infected computer
>because:
>a) They live in the same country (Greece)
>b) The "WEB-thief" has obviously visited D.U.C.K.hunt and most pages
>related to D.U.C.K.hunt and might thus for any reason have collected our
>addresses and put them in his electronic address-book.
AFAIK, only *one* message was traced, and that single message was sent to
S?ren, and not even to you.
Secondly, several people with computers infected by viruses might have
address books containing Duckhunters' addresses. One reason to this is that
some viruses not only send themselves to other peoples' computers, but also
copy the sender's address book. Thus, your and other peoples' e-mail
addresses may have been sent to several people that you don't know.
Third, Per reported that the computer identified as infected *never* has
visited the subscription page for the DCML list. It seems unlikely that the
"WEB-thief," as you refer to him or her, never would have heard of DCML nor
visited the subscription page if he or she has managed to find your and the
other peoples' web pages.
Fourth, there are several *million* of people living in Greece, so the
so-called "WEB-thief" is not the only one in his or her country.
Stefan
_________________________________________________________________
Hitta billigaste resan p? MSN Resor http://www.msn.se/resor/default.asp
>To: dcml at stp.ling.uu.se
>Subject: Re: Another Greek "outlaw"
>Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:35:04 +0100 (CET)
>1) I believe that most of the viruses lately (not as many nowadays) keeps
>coming from the same computer in Korinth, Greece because it keeps being
>equipped with the same false addresses (from Duckhunters). The pattern
>*can't* be misunderstood.
>2) I suspect that the Greek "WEB-thief" (I don't care much about the theft
>itself) can be identical with the person with the infected computer
>because:
>a) They live in the same country (Greece)
>b) The "WEB-thief" has obviously visited D.U.C.K.hunt and most pages
>related to D.U.C.K.hunt and might thus for any reason have collected our
>addresses and put them in his electronic address-book.
AFAIK, only *one* message was traced, and that single message was sent to
S?ren, and not even to you.
Secondly, several people with computers infected by viruses might have
address books containing Duckhunters' addresses. One reason to this is that
some viruses not only send themselves to other peoples' computers, but also
copy the sender's address book. Thus, your and other peoples' e-mail
addresses may have been sent to several people that you don't know.
Third, Per reported that the computer identified as infected *never* has
visited the subscription page for the DCML list. It seems unlikely that the
"WEB-thief," as you refer to him or her, never would have heard of DCML nor
visited the subscription page if he or she has managed to find your and the
other peoples' web pages.
Fourth, there are several *million* of people living in Greece, so the
so-called "WEB-thief" is not the only one in his or her country.
Stefan
_________________________________________________________________
Hitta billigaste resan p? MSN Resor http://www.msn.se/resor/default.asp
Pete Fernbaugh
DCML digest, Vol 1 #1121 - 9 msgs
Message 22 -
2002-11-04 at 13:30:51
Please unsubscribe spif33 at juno.com from your mailing list.
Thank you,
Pete Fernbaugh.
Thank you,
Pete Fernbaugh.
Goofy313g
Another Greek "outlaw"
Message 23 -
2002-11-04 at 13:34:14
Hi!
This may be a little off topic, but I'd like to give my point of view on the question, as I'm concerned a bit...
The term "outlaw", which suggests "law", is a little bit strong and inapropriate (btw, I don't think the word "f*cking" is apropriate to this list either,S?ren), as people who maintain ANY kind of website about ANYTHING concerning Disney should be considered as an outlaw and a thieve...
So this doesn't concern law but morale.
The page of this website about Don Rosa's family tree is just a COPY of Sigvald's text on his page, with the same background, so I think this isn't totally fair, even if it isn't a law infringement. Sigvald us other webmasters, take such a long time to colelct information, but also to build pages, translate from our mother tongue to english,... and I think it's too simple just to copy a page of somebody else and tell that you built it, and so collect the honours instead of the original creator of the page... I don't have anything against take informations from a website, and use it in your own website, these informations are there to be shared with other fans (and i don't doubt that this guy we call a "thief" is a disney comics fan), but I don't think it's correct just to copy a page somebody else wrote.
Then, this man used every versions of Don Rosa's family trees Sigvald provides on his site. I think there was nothing wrong with taking just one version f the tree, which would be the american version, but I think that using all the versions Sigvald spent so much time and search to collect wasn't correct either. That's my point of view, and it could be discussed, but I just feel it that way, as a webmaster who also spend hours with my site.
Then, this guy also used five of the trees i provide on my site, without saying were they come from,and I think it isn't very fair either, as I spent so much time scanning and doing researches for my own section. In my family trees section, I just put links to other sites which have a family tree, and tell the name of their webmasters or authors. Why did this guy not do this too? he just had to put a link to my family tree pages, or to my family trees index, or at least quote my site as a source...
Well, this isn't very important and will not keep me from sleeping tonight, but I wanted to tell Sigvald about this, as he's concerned, and i'll probably send a mail to the webwaster to tell him what I think...
He's probably a nice guy, and I don't think he was thinking that what he was doing was bad or not, and probably a good fan, as his website also countains some inedite material, and maybe he would be a great dcmailer too :-)
About the possibilities that he could be the origin of Sigvald's viruses, I really don't think it's the case...
Well, I'm finishing writing this mail so that I can write another to mr Basoukos, our "thief" :-)
Best regards to you all
In loving to be copied, but not too much,
Gilles MAURICE
:-) (S?ren, I hope my smiley wasn't out of context)
This may be a little off topic, but I'd like to give my point of view on the question, as I'm concerned a bit...
The term "outlaw", which suggests "law", is a little bit strong and inapropriate (btw, I don't think the word "f*cking" is apropriate to this list either,S?ren), as people who maintain ANY kind of website about ANYTHING concerning Disney should be considered as an outlaw and a thieve...
So this doesn't concern law but morale.
The page of this website about Don Rosa's family tree is just a COPY of Sigvald's text on his page, with the same background, so I think this isn't totally fair, even if it isn't a law infringement. Sigvald us other webmasters, take such a long time to colelct information, but also to build pages, translate from our mother tongue to english,... and I think it's too simple just to copy a page of somebody else and tell that you built it, and so collect the honours instead of the original creator of the page... I don't have anything against take informations from a website, and use it in your own website, these informations are there to be shared with other fans (and i don't doubt that this guy we call a "thief" is a disney comics fan), but I don't think it's correct just to copy a page somebody else wrote.
Then, this man used every versions of Don Rosa's family trees Sigvald provides on his site. I think there was nothing wrong with taking just one version f the tree, which would be the american version, but I think that using all the versions Sigvald spent so much time and search to collect wasn't correct either. That's my point of view, and it could be discussed, but I just feel it that way, as a webmaster who also spend hours with my site.
Then, this guy also used five of the trees i provide on my site, without saying were they come from,and I think it isn't very fair either, as I spent so much time scanning and doing researches for my own section. In my family trees section, I just put links to other sites which have a family tree, and tell the name of their webmasters or authors. Why did this guy not do this too? he just had to put a link to my family tree pages, or to my family trees index, or at least quote my site as a source...
Well, this isn't very important and will not keep me from sleeping tonight, but I wanted to tell Sigvald about this, as he's concerned, and i'll probably send a mail to the webwaster to tell him what I think...
He's probably a nice guy, and I don't think he was thinking that what he was doing was bad or not, and probably a good fan, as his website also countains some inedite material, and maybe he would be a great dcmailer too :-)
About the possibilities that he could be the origin of Sigvald's viruses, I really don't think it's the case...
Well, I'm finishing writing this mail so that I can write another to mr Basoukos, our "thief" :-)
Best regards to you all
In loving to be copied, but not too much,
Gilles MAURICE
:-) (S?ren, I hope my smiley wasn't out of context)
Klaus Harms
Off-topic, but not completely virus-related
Message 24 -
2002-11-04 at 13:59:06
Hi all;
I have extended my email kill filter: My mail server now automatically
deletes anything that carries the string "virus" in the message body. No
offense meant, Sigvald.
Now to prove that off-topics can reach a certain level of interest: DC's
Action Comics 1 can be read online at:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG02/yeung/actioncomics/cover.html
Klaus
I have extended my email kill filter: My mail server now automatically
deletes anything that carries the string "virus" in the message body. No
offense meant, Sigvald.
Now to prove that off-topics can reach a certain level of interest: DC's
Action Comics 1 can be read online at:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG02/yeung/actioncomics/cover.html
Klaus
SRoweCanoe
Off-topic, but now completely virus-related
Message 25 -
2002-11-04 at 14:15:50
In a message dated 11/4/2002 7:02:39 AM Eastern Standard Time,
harms313 at web.de writes:
> have extended my email kill filter: My mail server now automatically
> deletes anything that carries the string "virus" in the message body. No
> offense meant, Sigvald.
>
hmm, that would remove Norton Virus update announcments wouldnt it?
but some of the rest of us ARE putting Sigvald in our killfiles --- (it's
either that or leave the list completely), could the rest of us (including
me) please watch our responses to him? While i personaly dont think he is
deliberately trying to destroy this list, he is doing a good job it anyway.
Heck, currently he is the virus on this list.
steven rowe
harms313 at web.de writes:
> have extended my email kill filter: My mail server now automatically
> deletes anything that carries the string "virus" in the message body. No
> offense meant, Sigvald.
>
hmm, that would remove Norton Virus update announcments wouldnt it?
but some of the rest of us ARE putting Sigvald in our killfiles --- (it's
either that or leave the list completely), could the rest of us (including
me) please watch our responses to him? While i personaly dont think he is
deliberately trying to destroy this list, he is doing a good job it anyway.
Heck, currently he is the virus on this list.
steven rowe
Donald D. Markstein
Another Greek outlaw
Message 26 -
2002-11-04 at 15:07:06
>> And so f*cking what. Who cares? A little copying here and there doesn't
>> harm anybody. Besides, none of you are *forced* to visits those second
>> range sites. Calm down, Sigvald. Honestly.
Your casual dismissal of theft is appalling. If you are simply unable to
comprehend why a creator doesn't like it when a no-talent creep steals his
work by removing it from his control, then there's no point in arguing. So
let's just stick to legalities.
When a person creates something out of his own mind, it is his property, not
just in a moral sense but also, in every civilized country in the world,
legally. He DOES NOT HAVE TO JUSTIFY his choice not to allow others to use
it.
You seem to think that because third parties, who also do not own the work,
are not forced to look at the stolen copy, there is no harm -- a point of
view I am utterly unable to fathom. What do third parties have to do with
it? The work is stolen, whether anyone looks at it or not.
The fact that it is very easy to steal from the Internet is immaterial -- it
is also very easy to steal a bicycle left on the front lawn. The fact that
Internet theft is condoned by people who have no proprietary interest in the
work is not.
If you don't own intellectual property that you consider valuable enough to
protect, that's fine. Just put a "no copyright" notice on whatever you do,
if anything. But don't go around claiming it's okay to steal from those who
care about their work.
Quack, Don
Today in Toons: Every day's an anniversary
http://www.toonopedia.com/today.htm
>> harm anybody. Besides, none of you are *forced* to visits those second
>> range sites. Calm down, Sigvald. Honestly.
Your casual dismissal of theft is appalling. If you are simply unable to
comprehend why a creator doesn't like it when a no-talent creep steals his
work by removing it from his control, then there's no point in arguing. So
let's just stick to legalities.
When a person creates something out of his own mind, it is his property, not
just in a moral sense but also, in every civilized country in the world,
legally. He DOES NOT HAVE TO JUSTIFY his choice not to allow others to use
it.
You seem to think that because third parties, who also do not own the work,
are not forced to look at the stolen copy, there is no harm -- a point of
view I am utterly unable to fathom. What do third parties have to do with
it? The work is stolen, whether anyone looks at it or not.
The fact that it is very easy to steal from the Internet is immaterial -- it
is also very easy to steal a bicycle left on the front lawn. The fact that
Internet theft is condoned by people who have no proprietary interest in the
work is not.
If you don't own intellectual property that you consider valuable enough to
protect, that's fine. Just put a "no copyright" notice on whatever you do,
if anything. But don't go around claiming it's okay to steal from those who
care about their work.
Quack, Don
Today in Toons: Every day's an anniversary
http://www.toonopedia.com/today.htm
Fernando Ventura
Off Topic: Lost e-mails
Message 27 -
2002-11-04 at 15:29:30
Friends...
I've lost all the e-mails I received from the last two months due to an
computer error... :-(
I know I have had lot's of things to respond to many friends from DCML...If
you can send the mails again I'll be very thankfull! (Rob, please, sendo
again your list of brazilian comics!)
Sorry to be off topic....
Fernando...
I've lost all the e-mails I received from the last two months due to an
computer error... :-(
I know I have had lot's of things to respond to many friends from DCML...If
you can send the mails again I'll be very thankfull! (Rob, please, sendo
again your list of brazilian comics!)
Sorry to be off topic....
Fernando...
Timo Ronkainen
Another Greek "outlaw"
Message 28 -
2002-11-04 at 15:30:24
We are getting into this once again. Well... :-)
>as people who maintain ANY kind of website about ANYTHING concerning Disney
>should be considered as an outlaw and a thieve...
Nope. Only if that someone is using Disney copyrighted images. *No one* can
forbid you or anyone else *writing* critisism, essays, studies etc about
Disney comics. Not even Disney.
*And* those writings are intellectual property of the writer. If some one
copy-and-paste your text into his/hers own page without giving any credit -
that's theft.
Timo
^^''*''^^
Cartoonist - writer - donaldist -
Timo Ronkainen ---------------- -
YO-kylä 52 A 26 --------------- -
20540 Turku ------------------- -
Finland ----------------------- -
timoro at hotmail.com
timoro at sunpoint.net
¨¨ Personal:
http://www.geocities.com/timoro2/
¨¨ Ankkalinnan Pamaus:
http://www.perunamaa.net/ankistit/
.................................
"Rumble on, buxom bumble bee!
Go sit on cowslip - far from me!"
_________________________________________________________________
Unlimited Internet access for only $21.95/month. Try MSN!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp
>as people who maintain ANY kind of website about ANYTHING concerning Disney
>should be considered as an outlaw and a thieve...
Nope. Only if that someone is using Disney copyrighted images. *No one* can
forbid you or anyone else *writing* critisism, essays, studies etc about
Disney comics. Not even Disney.
*And* those writings are intellectual property of the writer. If some one
copy-and-paste your text into his/hers own page without giving any credit -
that's theft.
Timo
^^''*''^^
Cartoonist - writer - donaldist -
Timo Ronkainen ---------------- -
YO-kylä 52 A 26 --------------- -
20540 Turku ------------------- -
Finland ----------------------- -
timoro at hotmail.com
timoro at sunpoint.net
¨¨ Personal:
http://www.geocities.com/timoro2/
¨¨ Ankkalinnan Pamaus:
http://www.perunamaa.net/ankistit/
.................................
"Rumble on, buxom bumble bee!
Go sit on cowslip - far from me!"
_________________________________________________________________
Unlimited Internet access for only $21.95/month. Try MSN!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp
Sigvald
Another Greek "outlaw"
Message 29 -
2002-11-04 at 15:41:04
"Stefan Persson" <reimersholme at hotmail.com> wrote:
> AFAIK, only *one* message was traced, and that single message
> was sent to Søren, and not even to you.
Then Søren asked me to send the next viruses arriving in my
mail-box over to him. And so I did. But after then our Danish
friend has said nothing about this. So it's up to him have those
viruses traced. I can send him new ones if he wants them -
because they are still coming, but not in the same amount as
before.
> Secondly, several people with computers infected by viruses
> might have address books containing Duckhunters' addresses.
Do you suggest that this is a virus special-progrmmed to use
duckhunter's adresses only? Well I don't think so.
> One reason to this is that some viruses not only send themselves
> to other peoples' computers, but also copy the sender's address
> book. Thus, your and other peoples' e-mail addresses may have
> been sent to several people that you don't know.
If the virus are coming from various sources I expect that it would
use other adresses after a while. This virus are using the exactly
same adresses over, and over, and over again...
> Third, Per reported that the computer identified as infected
> *never* has visited the subscription page for the DCML list.
This is *not* about this list anymore - it's about "D.U.C.K.hunt".
> It seems unlikely that the "WEB-thief," as you refer to him
> or her, never would have heard of DCML nor visited the
> subscription page if he or she has managed to find your and the
> other peoples' web pages.
It's definately an HE. And there is no doubt that he knows
various subpages of Duckhunt very well.
> Fourth, there are several *million* of people living in Greece,
> so the so-called "WEB-thief" is not the only one in his or her
> country.
I know that, but this person has obviously searched various
D.U.C.K.hunt sub-pages and probably our main-page as well...
Anyway what I am trying to say is that this guy can by accident
have caused the virus problem while searching our pages for info.
That's if he has copyed our addresses into his mailbook. That's
way I think it's a good idea to check his IP up against the other
IP.
Sigvald :-)
> AFAIK, only *one* message was traced, and that single message
> was sent to Søren, and not even to you.
Then Søren asked me to send the next viruses arriving in my
mail-box over to him. And so I did. But after then our Danish
friend has said nothing about this. So it's up to him have those
viruses traced. I can send him new ones if he wants them -
because they are still coming, but not in the same amount as
before.
> Secondly, several people with computers infected by viruses
> might have address books containing Duckhunters' addresses.
Do you suggest that this is a virus special-progrmmed to use
duckhunter's adresses only? Well I don't think so.
> One reason to this is that some viruses not only send themselves
> to other peoples' computers, but also copy the sender's address
> book. Thus, your and other peoples' e-mail addresses may have
> been sent to several people that you don't know.
If the virus are coming from various sources I expect that it would
use other adresses after a while. This virus are using the exactly
same adresses over, and over, and over again...
> Third, Per reported that the computer identified as infected
> *never* has visited the subscription page for the DCML list.
This is *not* about this list anymore - it's about "D.U.C.K.hunt".
> It seems unlikely that the "WEB-thief," as you refer to him
> or her, never would have heard of DCML nor visited the
> subscription page if he or she has managed to find your and the
> other peoples' web pages.
It's definately an HE. And there is no doubt that he knows
various subpages of Duckhunt very well.
> Fourth, there are several *million* of people living in Greece,
> so the so-called "WEB-thief" is not the only one in his or her
> country.
I know that, but this person has obviously searched various
D.U.C.K.hunt sub-pages and probably our main-page as well...
Anyway what I am trying to say is that this guy can by accident
have caused the virus problem while searching our pages for info.
That's if he has copyed our addresses into his mailbook. That's
way I think it's a good idea to check his IP up against the other
IP.
Sigvald :-)
Sigvald
Another Greek "outlaw"
Message 30 -
2002-11-04 at 15:44:30
"Dorilys from Gryffindor" <dreischel at hotmail.com> wrote:
> PLEASE STOP THIS BULLSHIT!
> BUY YOURSELF AN ANTI-VIRUS PROGRAM
That's *not* the problem here. My computer is well protected. The problem is that I can't stop this viruses from filling up my mailbox.
Sigvald :-)
> PLEASE STOP THIS BULLSHIT!
> BUY YOURSELF AN ANTI-VIRUS PROGRAM
That's *not* the problem here. My computer is well protected. The problem is that I can't stop this viruses from filling up my mailbox.
Sigvald :-)