928 CDs and Craziness
05-12-2004, 11:40 AM
#1
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
928 CDs and Craziness
If you own a 928 and don't have the CD's to backup the factory manuals, you probably qualify for mental disability. It's the best money you will ever spend. I have the set of written manuals and scads of other manuals (at lots of money) but it's usually easier to find stuff on the CD...plus the PET, etc. are lifesavers. The earlier cheaper knock-off CDs don't compare to what JM's group has done. Also, with the manuals getting grease on them, I like printing out the pages I need and tossing when through. The newest version has a mini-repair-book by Wally Plumley in in making it worth the minimal cost.
Thanks, JM
Harvey
Thanks, JM
Harvey
05-12-2004, 12:25 PM
#2
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kihei, Hawaii
Posts: 813
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would certainly agree. I have used the PET diagrams and the repair maunals on CD several times this week.
Many thanks to those who helped put these together.
Many thanks to those who helped put these together.
Last edited by wds928; 05-13-2004 at 02:00 PM.
05-12-2004, 07:04 PM
#4
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
I'm backing up my original manuals with an archival copy...that's legal. I paid something close to $350 back when they were cheaper.
H
H
05-12-2004, 07:26 PM
#5
Rennlist Member
They want to charge highway robbery prices on the WSMs so they can drive business to the dealerships, most of which don't want to touch a 928 in the first place. IMHO they aren't taking very good care of shark owners.
Jim makes a very good point in the post below this, and I've cleaned up this post a bit after thinking it over.
Jim makes a very good point in the post below this, and I've cleaned up this post a bit after thinking it over.
Last edited by SharkSkin; 05-12-2004 at 09:38 PM.
05-12-2004, 09:08 PM
#6
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Porsche owns that material and can at anytime opt to enforce those ownership rights . The fact that they intend to sell printed copies for $1,200 or so just makes that more likely . I personally think Porsche should give away free copies on CD to ANYONE who asks obviously that is not my decision to make . Until they do that , perhaps publicly discussing the topic any further could be very counter productive .
Trending Topics
05-13-2004, 11:14 AM
#9
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
05-13-2004, 12:23 PM
#10
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
I'm not claiming to be a copyright lawyer, but it's my understanding that in copyright there are four fair use factors that need to be considered:1. What is the character of the use? 2. What is the nature of the work to be used? 3. How much of the work will you use? 4. What effect would this use have on the market for the original if the use were widespread?
In view of copying 928 manuals, the last question is perhaps the most important, the bottom line being whether the copyright holder would be losing money or be damaged somehow by unauthorized copies. While it is true that the 928 manuals (most of them) are no longer in production, can a case be made of knocking the copyright holder out of a profit? On the other hand, if the manuals are again reintroduced, then I think they probably would have a pretty good case for showing damages.
Copyright is not simple...it's a gray area with gray answers.
Other facters taken into account include whether the copy is used for nonprofit uses, mostly Educational uses (usually a bonefide school) or Personal use. These uses tend (TEND) to be less difficult to attack by the copyright owner. However, it gets sticky when copyrighted materials are sold for profit by a non-copyright owner, and these sales cause actual damages or affect the copyright owner's profits, in which case the copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement. In establishing the infringer's profits, I"ve heard that the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.
For sure, copyright law is much more complicated than this and this is only a snapshot of why copyright lawyers have a pretty thriving business. However, the bottm line would seem to be......if Porsche is not publishing its various outdated manuals any longer and has no intention of doing so, the question has to be asked.....is their bottom line (profits) actually being affected? On the other hand, if Porsche reintroduces the basic manual set at $1200 instead of $400, and the Fair Use guidelines of the Copyright Act are brought into play, it may or may not be a black and white determination of what's right or allowable but it would put them on a much stronger footing to file complaints and perhaps collect damages. These are just thoughts and not legal advice by any means. I'm not a lawyer. BUt lawyers love this stuff because it takes a long time ($$) to sort through. Unfortunately, Porsche's team of lawyers is larger than most individuals.
In any case, my personal feeling is that an archival copy of something that I legally bought and own is probably not going to knock the company out of any profit. However, people that pirate multiple copies of copyrighted works that are currently available on the open market from a company and sell them on eBay for their own personal profit are courting certain danger, be it copies of movies, Internet-obtained music, or printed materials. That's just my take. It's not simple and, I agree with Jim. It's probably not something to be speculated on on this listserv. I'm sorry I brought it up.
Harvey
In view of copying 928 manuals, the last question is perhaps the most important, the bottom line being whether the copyright holder would be losing money or be damaged somehow by unauthorized copies. While it is true that the 928 manuals (most of them) are no longer in production, can a case be made of knocking the copyright holder out of a profit? On the other hand, if the manuals are again reintroduced, then I think they probably would have a pretty good case for showing damages.
Copyright is not simple...it's a gray area with gray answers.
Other facters taken into account include whether the copy is used for nonprofit uses, mostly Educational uses (usually a bonefide school) or Personal use. These uses tend (TEND) to be less difficult to attack by the copyright owner. However, it gets sticky when copyrighted materials are sold for profit by a non-copyright owner, and these sales cause actual damages or affect the copyright owner's profits, in which case the copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement. In establishing the infringer's profits, I"ve heard that the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.
For sure, copyright law is much more complicated than this and this is only a snapshot of why copyright lawyers have a pretty thriving business. However, the bottm line would seem to be......if Porsche is not publishing its various outdated manuals any longer and has no intention of doing so, the question has to be asked.....is their bottom line (profits) actually being affected? On the other hand, if Porsche reintroduces the basic manual set at $1200 instead of $400, and the Fair Use guidelines of the Copyright Act are brought into play, it may or may not be a black and white determination of what's right or allowable but it would put them on a much stronger footing to file complaints and perhaps collect damages. These are just thoughts and not legal advice by any means. I'm not a lawyer. BUt lawyers love this stuff because it takes a long time ($$) to sort through. Unfortunately, Porsche's team of lawyers is larger than most individuals.
In any case, my personal feeling is that an archival copy of something that I legally bought and own is probably not going to knock the company out of any profit. However, people that pirate multiple copies of copyrighted works that are currently available on the open market from a company and sell them on eBay for their own personal profit are courting certain danger, be it copies of movies, Internet-obtained music, or printed materials. That's just my take. It's not simple and, I agree with Jim. It's probably not something to be speculated on on this listserv. I'm sorry I brought it up.
Harvey
05-13-2004, 12:24 PM
#11
Rennlist Member
Originally posted by Steve J.
Is this manual on CD the PDF WSM's we are familiar with? Looks different. Bidding is pretty high...
Is this manual on CD the PDF WSM's we are familiar with? Looks different. Bidding is pretty high...
05-13-2004, 02:25 PM
#13
928 Engine Re-Re-Rebuild Specialist
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
What can be said about the impact on the market if the price of the manuals has increased 300% over the last year? Unless Porsche is completely ignoring the general rule of supply and demand, the demand is still there and may have increased in proportion to the supply.
Porsche has a reputation for bullying people with its lawyers (i.e., stomping out websites that are alleged to be infringing on Porsche's name). I believe the Rennlist name itself was selected partially as a result of the desire to avoid such problems. Whether or not someone believes that the law supports their activity, the reality is that the costs of defending against litigation can be at best burdensome, at worst catastrophic. Every lawyer knows this, and this reality is evidenced by the fact that a substantial majority of all litigation settles before ever getting to trial.
There are a$$holes (both the clients and the lawyers that represent them) out there that like to exploit this reality. They file baseless lawsuits in the pursuit of settlement. They seek damages FAR in excess of what they deserve (if anything) to intimidate. These are commonly called "nuisance suits". In some instances, the plaintiff gets slapped with sanctions, but it doesn't eliminate the fact that the defendant incurs costs.
The plaintiff's attorneys in most civil litigation involving private parties are paid on contingency, so they're motivated to spend as little time as possible on the case and to settle it quickly. They file over-the-top complaints and then quietly offer to settle for much less than is contained in the complaint, but still more than is fair. The defendants sometimes panic and begin to rationalize paying the settlement to avoid mounting legal bills and the risk of losing in trial. There are tactics for defendants to fight back which often involve keeping the plaintiff's attorney busier than he ever thought possible, killing his ability to spend time on other cases.
My point (after wandering a bit
) is that the debate about the legality of marketing these CDs is moot. If someone falls into the crosshairs of Porsche's lawyers, they're going to get hit with some serious defense costs regardless of the outcome or the merits of the case. This is true no matter what. It doesn't matter if someone believe 100% that he has the right to do what he's doing.
IMO, the topic should be dropped. Period. The archives have enough information for anyone to contact the right party to get what they need. Don't keep flaunting it, and don't keep daring a potential plaintiff. Sometimes I think there should be a Darwin award for litigation risk.
Porsche has a reputation for bullying people with its lawyers (i.e., stomping out websites that are alleged to be infringing on Porsche's name). I believe the Rennlist name itself was selected partially as a result of the desire to avoid such problems. Whether or not someone believes that the law supports their activity, the reality is that the costs of defending against litigation can be at best burdensome, at worst catastrophic. Every lawyer knows this, and this reality is evidenced by the fact that a substantial majority of all litigation settles before ever getting to trial.
There are a$$holes (both the clients and the lawyers that represent them) out there that like to exploit this reality. They file baseless lawsuits in the pursuit of settlement. They seek damages FAR in excess of what they deserve (if anything) to intimidate. These are commonly called "nuisance suits". In some instances, the plaintiff gets slapped with sanctions, but it doesn't eliminate the fact that the defendant incurs costs.
The plaintiff's attorneys in most civil litigation involving private parties are paid on contingency, so they're motivated to spend as little time as possible on the case and to settle it quickly. They file over-the-top complaints and then quietly offer to settle for much less than is contained in the complaint, but still more than is fair. The defendants sometimes panic and begin to rationalize paying the settlement to avoid mounting legal bills and the risk of losing in trial. There are tactics for defendants to fight back which often involve keeping the plaintiff's attorney busier than he ever thought possible, killing his ability to spend time on other cases.
My point (after wandering a bit
) is that the debate about the legality of marketing these CDs is moot. If someone falls into the crosshairs of Porsche's lawyers, they're going to get hit with some serious defense costs regardless of the outcome or the merits of the case. This is true no matter what. It doesn't matter if someone believe 100% that he has the right to do what he's doing.IMO, the topic should be dropped. Period. The archives have enough information for anyone to contact the right party to get what they need. Don't keep flaunting it, and don't keep daring a potential plaintiff. Sometimes I think there should be a Darwin award for litigation risk.
