Monique

Hello fellow Porkers,

After a nice international exchange of information, two Rennlisters created a link to view the above article.

Timely advice from a superbly rational mag. We purchased a 993 RS instead of a GT3 after reading this article.

Enjoy.

http://www.dictim.com/renn/993guide.pdf

red911c2

Great article, thanks for posting!

flatair

*sigh* I long to be able to purchase a real 993 RS.

Jeff 993TT

Awsome... Thanks...

Rob993

Thanks for posting!

Monique

Been told my efforts were an infringement of copyright laws. HMMM.

Nonetheless, 911 & Porsche world does a tremendous job of helping DIY'ers with their cars. Their article is what swayed us to get a 993 RS instead of a 996 GT3.

My post was as much a thank you to them as a service to the Porsche community. Oh well. The road to good intentions is.....

Monique

BTW Rob993,

How is life in "Garlic Gulch"??

Lived there for 7 years.

shrek993

Monique if you don't mind me asking, wot did u pay for your RS??

Monique

If you look at Mobile.de and search for 993 RS's, the cheapest original RS is about 56000 Euros. (Circa us$67000)

If you go for a numbers matching, 39000 kms with full OPC service and zero options... this is a case of less is more.

laurence '97 C4S

"Been told my efforts were an infringement of copyright laws. HMMM."

I am anything but an expert on copyright laws, but I'm surprised to find that a link to an article is per se, copyright infringement.

Monique

I felt the same...

My wife is a judge and she did not see much of a problem with my post.

But notwithstanding the discussion, the person who commented might be right though.

Why tease a beast?

John D.

Well - not to "split hairs" here, even though I saw Monique's post earlier today - and didn't comment then as "why raise the issue"....

But, indeed - it is an infringement. To make it "legal", it would have to minimally meet one or several of the following:

- the link goes to the website of the publisher - and they have "posted" the article (there is also some legal debate to this as well – under “fair use” as used within hyperlinks); or

- Monique has permission from the publisher to re-publish and redistribute their original work; or

- Monique was the original author of the work, and has a "release" from both the photographer and the publisher; or....

Well - you get the idea...

Anyway - it follows the same legal parameters of "scanning" and redistributing (whether you give them away for free - or sell them commercially is absolutely inconsequential and not relevant ) something like the Porsche Workshop manuals. Both works retain copyright and are protected from unauthorized redistribution.

Just my $0.000001

Monique

You are correct in the land of the CONSTANT lawsuit...

My intent was never to infringe copyrights but to offer information to all concerned.

I expect 911 & Porsche World will get more subscriptions because of this.

John D.

Hi Monique,

My thanks for your reply. However - as to your opinion how "911 & Porsche World" will "benefit" is fully and totally not relevant - regardless of "intent". For example - I could use the same "rationale" by giving away FREE bootleg copies of the PET CD, maintaining that because I’m sharing illegal copies - everyone has the Porsche Part Numbers, so they would be inclined to only order Porsche Manufactured parts by Porsche Part Numbers (and Porsche Part numbers can only be used by Porsche Authorized Dealers, as even THOSE are protected!). So, by your contention and argument – I am helping Porsche by encourging "Porsche Parts Sales".

Nope - doesn't work that way...

Oh - as an FYI - copyright, trademark and Intellectual Property laws here in the US are "mild" compared to some Western European countries. The propensity to litigate is another issue altogether - and quite superfluous to copyright/trademark precedence and protections offered to the rightful holder therein.

Monique

You are indeed quite correct.

As to the litigation process, you are also correct. :-)