Normy

Felonies? That's cool, give 'em hell.

-I thought you were going to start busting us for modifying our cars to be faster or fixing repairs ourselves when various state's laws require component replacement, etc.

(I bought my manuals; copying them is a pretty cheesy thing)

Obviously, the effect of reporting people because they may have pulled their cats or brag about driving at high speeds on public roads (both of which I'm against) and any number of variously unlawful things that get mentioned on here would have a very chilling effect on the Rennlist board-think about it.

Normy-

Greg86andahalf

Instead of having Avitars, maybe we should be posting our mug-shots!

bergstsm

Wow, has this thing meandered off into a stone flinging party. But to pour some more gas on this one, I will return to an example of mine.

Back in 1976, a Company filed for a patent on the idea of hyperlinking websites. In addition, they were able to finagle a copyright on the source code. Many years later, they went after a large corporation (Prodigy, an ISP, was one of them) for not paying royalties by using hyperlinks.

So, technically speaking, Ed, you are now required to turn EVERY single one of us in right now if you ever see us use a hyperlink, else you will be prosecuted as an accessory.

Should you? NO. Why? A couple of reasons; a) the patent is a farce. Anybody knows that there is no way that a judge will even bother with small potatoes like me. and b)the patent is now impossible for BT to collect. They waited too long. Of course, here in the land of plenty, that stops nobody from filing a lawsuit.

So now, read this article (it is on topic):

<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/15485.html" target="_blank">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/15485.html</a>

There, I have done it. I have just broken the law because I did not pay that royalty, and let me assure you I WILL NOT be paying it. The burden is now on you to turn me in. That is THE LAW. I know this seems rather childish, but I want to make a point.

My only request is that they not use leg irons when they come to take me away

Just food for thought, and an argument for the sake of argument! The spirit of the law is still alive, I hope, because the letter is often just plain dumb.

Shawn

Ed Ruiz

The difference (and there is one) is that Porsche does (in fact) fight to protect their trademark and copyrights. Moreover, trademark and copyright infringements are violations of Federal law, and the agency responsible for enforcing those laws is U.S. Customs (as if they didn't have anything else to do). When powerful copyright owners demand protection of their trademark or copyrights, Customs has no choice but to uphold the laws. YMMV.

Now, I know that this is a very interesting topic, but to be fair, it has strayed quite far from the discussion of our favorite car. I would like to end this thread on a positive note. Namely, let your conscience be your guide regarding how you obtain a 928 service manual. But please refrain from soliciting customers for participation in illegal activities on this BBS. You not only put yourself and those potential customers at risk, but you also make this BBS an unwitting partner in those illegal activities. I'm sure the BBS administrators would rather not have to explain why their site is used to fence illegal merchandise. <img src="graemlins/icon501.gif" border="0" alt="[icon501]" />

Big Dave

Ed:

Let's keep things clear here. You have inferred that your are a some sort of law enforcement official. For your edification (as well as that of our esteemed audience) please let me point out that trademark infringement is NOT a crime. It is a civil matter that entitles the owner of a trademark to damages.

Copyright infringement, unless done "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" is also NOT a crime. Therefore, the free sharing of copyrighted information is NOT a CRIME. It, like trademark infringement, allows the copyright owner to receive monetary damages from the infringer (and to obtain the infringing material). If copyright infringment were a crime WHY HAVEN'T THE OWNERS OF NAPSTER BEEN ARRESTED? They've been sued.

If you're going to jump on people and threaten to tell on them, make sure you know what you're talking about.

If you want citations to statutes, let me know.

It's not my intention to turn this discussion into something venomous, but few things irritate me more than bogus recitations of the law.

Rant off. <img src="graemlins/cussing.gif" border="0" alt="[grrrrrrr]" /> <img src="graemlins/soapbox.gif" border="0" alt="[soapbox]" /> <img src="graemlins/cussing.gif" border="0" alt="[grrrrrrr]" />

bergstsm

Ed,

I am very much aware of the difference between Porsche defending copyrighted Shop Manuals and my example. My example is absurd, you and I and everbody that reads this board knows it. Yet it is the truth, and the law. Strictly speaking, you would be bound by duty to call US Customs regarding my previous link to the webpage, but I would imagine (and hope ) that judgement prevails. My argument dealt with your assertion that all infringement had to be reported, else you would be culpable. In theory that is true, yet I, and I think Normy, were less than pleased with what appeared to me as a thinly veiled threat for people to fall in line on this board.

Copying the manuals, and any other copyrighted text, and then marketing and/or attempting to make a profit is illegal, unethical, and hazardous to continued support of the 928 by Porsche.

The somewhat murky area revolves around somebody creating a digital copy, and allowing for negligable or no profit, owners of the manuals to share the effort. I would imagine that the burden SHOULD shift to the person that is requesting a copy. If they have the manual, fine. It is technically an infringement, but not something to keep you from sleeping at night. For the rest, that are too cheap/lazy/poor to spend the $350-400, shame on you. That is where the effort should be spent chasing copyright. And thankfully, that is what generally happens.

I think I am done. I appreciate your dedication to your oath or duty, Ed. As long as judgement and common sense prevails, I could live with whatever your opinion was.

Regards,

Shawn

Ed Ruiz

Dear Big Dave:
My friends at Customs do in fact arrest folks for both trademark and copyright infringements. (Just ask the administrators of ebay about the sale of "replica" high-line items (such as, Longines, Rolex, etc.). Clearly, Customs has the authority to do so, but since their resources are quite limited, they only do so when the trademark or copyright holders provide compelling evidence of a crime, and when the dollar amount justifies their effort. YMMV.

Shane

You tell 'em Ed! Respect what is someone elses' property and give them their due.

<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />

Big Dave

Ed:

Please ask your friends at Customs: Under which section of the United States Code are they making these arrests? It certainly isn't under the Lanham Act (Trademark Act). I suspect they are involved because there are counterfeit goods arriving in the U.S. from foreign countries. It's the movement across borders that makes it a matter for Customs.

The sale of "replica" items isn't what we're discussing here. We're talking about copies of the real thing...not counterfeit knock-offs.

Sorry for coming off as being so confrontational

Ed Ruiz

If enough copies of the real thing are made, then the potential monetary loss to the copyright holder could be in the $ks. The chances for getting arrested go up significantly as both the $ amount increases, and the level of activity increases. Also, advertizing the sale of illegal copies does not help your case either.

Moreover, any profit from the sale of those illegal copies is subject to income tax. So if nothing else occurs, if you don't claim the sale of those copies as income, you could be charged with income tax evasion by the Treasury Dept. Remember, that's how they got Al Capone.

Chances are that you will be chaged with a civil crime. However, the legal fees involved to defend yourself are nothing to sneeze at. The amount of $ you might make selling tose copies will not even come close to the cost and time of your defense.

In any event, best of luck in whatever you decide. I have my original set of manuals, and someday I'll sell them, and probably make a profit. There aren't too many things that provide useful information and appreciate too. <img src="graemlins/jumper.gif" border="0" alt="[jumper]" /> YMMV.

bergstsm

Ed,

Remember to pay the income tax when you sell those babies!

Ed Ruiz

Not only the tax, but capital gains as well.

Greg86andahalf

Shane,

While you are buying sheet protectors, (you will need a ton of them), consider buying larger binders as well. The sheet protectors will add to the thickness of the pages and they barely fit into the binders now. I have torn the holes on a few of the pages just by trying to turn them in the binders. I'm considering removing some of the pages which don't pertain to my model year to free up some room in the binders. I also keep disposable rubber gloves handy. I put them on my grreasy hands prior to touching the manuals during messy repairs. Seems a bit backwards, but I'm more worried about the manuals getting dirty than I am my hands.

PS. I guess I can expense the rubber gloves against the gains if I sell the manuals

Greg

Big Dave

What's a "civil crime"? Crimes are broken into two types: misdemeanors and felonies. Everything else is a civil infraction.

Typical infringement issues are akin to breaches of contract....they allow the injured party to sue for damages. However, the fact that a particular state law provides for the recovery of damages for a contract breach does not therefore make the breach of a contract a crime.

Try not to forget that I'm not advocating any behavior. I believe that stealing is wrong. But the act of making a copy of a copyrighted material itself is not always stealing. The Copyright Act has specific exceptions which permit copying a/k/a the "fair use" exceptions. Of course, the mass copying and distribution of a work is wrong. One of the factors to be examined to determine if use is "fair" is whether the copying will have an adverse effect on the market or potential value of the copyrighted work. Getting back to the concept of the free electronic back-up on CD, I believe that it would have no adverse impact. If Porsche began selling the manuals in electronic format, the answer would be different.

Ed Ruiz

[quote]Originally posted by Big Dave:
<strong>
Getting back to the concept of the free electronic back-up on CD, I believe that it would have no adverse impact. If Porsche began selling the manuals in electronic format, the answer would be different.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Dear Big Dave:
Ultimately, what you or I think may be fair, or that it will have no impact is "irrelevant". It all comes down to what a judge thinks. So far, the majority of cases have been ruled in favor of the copyright owner. BTW, as the owner of the copyright, Porsche can print or publish it as they see fit. They also reserve the right to publish it digitally. For only reasons they know, they have not done so - yet.

Since you are considering the sale (even at cost) of copies of THEIR copyrighted material, you need to get Porsche's written permission to legally make and sell those CDs. There is no ambiguity in the law. I strongly recommend that before you make a single copy (besides your backup) that you get advice from someone that KNOWS copyright law.
Trust me, the courts usually don't look too kindly on those who claim ignorance.

Again, good luck. <img src="graemlins/xyxwave.gif" border="0" alt="[bigbye]" />