As you can probably understand or perhaps know first-hand, the controversy surrounding the Tony Pittarese page caused quite a stir among many of our readers and those elsewhere. As a result of our Response, another letter was again sent out by Mr. Pittarese accusing us of breaking the law – i.e., by violating Mr. Pittarese’s copyrights in the page, despite the fact that we had already explained how this just simply wasn’t correct.
Well, Mr. Pittarese’s letter essentially said that he would not respond to The Voice’s answer and that we were wrong in our view of the alleged copyright infringement. We then reiterated our position – that it was not a copyright violation – by sending a lengthy letter to Mr. Pittarese explaining in great detail how the copyright statutes work and how he had incorrectly interpreted them again. . . badly.
We received another letter from him stating that obviously our interpretations of copyright law were different (although I was not giving MY interpretation of the law, rather, I was giving Congress’ and the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation). So, there still remains unretracted defamatory statements and unsubstantiated charges of law breaking which we have chosen simply not to address directly here in The Voice. Why? Well, because we don’t want to waste time explaining things that everyone but a few individuals can understand and which would constitute the perfect example of us doing exactly what we don’t want done – focusing on tangential issues.
However, we do want to make it clear that we do take these charges seriously. The Voice strives to maintain accuracy and honesty, and when there are unsubstantiated charges to the contrary, we feel we owe a duty to you, the reader, to refute these charges. As someone wrote to us this past week, when we are trying to address morality, in a sense, honesty is a high virtue. And when individuals impugn our honesty or integrity, we take it very seriously and consider it our responsibility to correct the charges. Since we already did this in an adequate manner last week, we will not do so again this week.
However, we will make Tony’s second letter, our second Response, and Tony’s third letter available to anyone who would like to read them. We think you will find them interesting and of course invite your comments on them. Please just e-mail us and ask for these letters specifically.