Marc, thanks for your clarification on the handling of copyrighted material. Makes complete sense to me. So much so that if this is truly the case, would we be doing our readers a service by posting any known links to similar "source" material? FYI, I need to access a copy of ISO 14971:2007 Risk Management standard and would certainly appreciate a similar "link".

Marc, thanks for your clarification on the handling of copyrighted material. Makes complete sense to me. So much so that if this is truly the case, would we be doing our readers a service by posting any known links to similar "source" material? FYI, I need to access a copy of ISO 14971:2007 Risk Management standard and would certainly appreciate a similar "link". Well, the bottom line is if someone posts a link to known copyrighted material that is in some company's (or other entity's) directory, it's OK by me with the cavat that I, and the moderators, reserve the right to edit out the link if we feel, for whatever reason, that it's not 'appropriate'. Now, I know that's very a vague statement because we may discuss a link and what ever the consensus is will be the end result.

That said, this forum has been here for quite a few years and there are quite a few links to resources. The question of whether a link to a resource is appropriate (spam posts excepted) has never been an issue before, as far as I can remember.

On the other side of the coin, I don't want the site to become known for harboring or trading copyright documents, or promoting copyright infringement. So - People should use 'good judgment' as to links they post here, as well as documents they upload as post content and/or post attachments.

The last aspect is 'Fair Use' content. I'll let Wes put in his :2cents: on Fair Use.

NOTE: As I understand it the different country members of ISO have the right to set their own rules about copyright and which can publish anything they want, regardless of the original author's intent and declare it thus copyright free, even without a special notice to that effect. So, there are some links to external sites where there may be an exclusion.

Can I post, pharmaceutical related training video?

Can I post, pharmaceutical related training video?

Welcome and thank you for the offer. We are basically a people helping people forum and we welcome people who want to 'share' provided the material is:
1. Not copyrighted
2. Not spam
3. Not an attempt to make use of the forum for personal gain
4. Not in violation of our TOS (http://elsmar.com/Forums/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_forum_tos) (terms of service)
5. Full disclosure if you are in any way related to it.

Copyright???

Well all free e-books links on the net are of copyrighted books.
so I can't post these links here???

Copyright???

Well all free e-books links on the net are of copyrighted books.
so I can't post these links here???

You cannot post material on the cove that bears the copyright protection mark. :modcop:

Copyright???

Well all free e-books links on the net are of copyrighted books.
so I can't post these links here???

We need to protect our users. Sometime back, we were forced to ban one poster for posting a link to some blog or e-book related site.

Welcome and thank you for the offer. We are basically a people helping people forum and we welcome people who want to 'share' provided the material is:
1. Not copyrighted
2. Not spam
3. Not an attempt to make use of the forum for personal gain
4. Not in violation of our TOS (http://elsmar.com/Forums/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_forum_tos) (terms of service)
5. Full disclosure if you are in any way related to it. Good list. Thanks, Harry.

Copyright???

Well all free e-books links on the net are of copyrighted books.
so I can't post these links here???

Sometime back, we were forced to ban one poster for posting a link to some blog or e-book related site. I don't think we banned the person. We probably removed the link.

kdsaggi, the problem is we don't want the site to be known as a place where people come for copyrighted material.

The aspect of external links to copyrighted material is a gray area. It has been discussed, including in the moderator's forum, and the general consensus has been that a link to copyrighted materials on another site is allowed. My position is it is the responsibility of the other site to control the content there.

That said, our main purpose here is discussion and sharing non-copyrighted materials.

What e-books are you thinking of linking to?

Can I post, pharmaceutical related training video?Is it yours? Can you give us some details of what you want to post? Do you want to post it here or provide an external link to it?

NOTE: Links to files you post on Rapidshare is not allowed, nor are links to your blog in posts.

I have recently post a video link which is uploaded by me on youtube. I have created this video from a ppt file.
Please check out it is useful, can I post more link this?

If you created it and it is on YouTube, post it and the moderators will review it.

See: YouTube - How to add a YouTube Video Link (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=18772).

If you created it, and it is a powerpoint file, you can share it by attaching it to a post here.

Please remember Harry's list:

1. Not copyrighted
2. Not spam
3. Not an attempt to make use of the forum for personal gain
4. Not in violation of our TOS (terms of service)
5. Full disclosure if you are in any way related to it.

FWIW, I fail to see how this is not a copyright violation. The AS9101 checklist is a copyrighted document. The Registrar that provides this link slapped it's logo on a few pages of the document.

I don't want to start a controversy, but, in my personal opinion, this link promotes copyright violation.

FWIW, I fail to see how this is not a copyright violation. The AS9101 checklist is a copyrighted document. The Registrar that provides this link slapped it's logo on a few pages of the document.

I don't want to start a controversy, but, in my personal opinion, this link promotes copyright violation.

The 'standard' in the forum is links to copyright documents on other sites are 'tolerated' (for lack of a better word). What comes into play here, as to whether or not it 'promotes' copyright violations, is the degree to which one is passionate about copyright.

Personally, after all the years I've been around, I don't get real concerned that an organization will be significantly harmed by people getting their hands on copyright material. I've had lots of copyrighted documents given to me over the years. Every one I ever used I would buy. My first copy of ISO 9001 (and ISO 9002 and ISO 9003) were copied on a copy machine. As soon as I started using them I bought copies. In the years since I've bought hundreds of copies when I include all the copies I bought for students when I gave related courses some years back.

And I've been through the 'I've been screwed' because I bought a pdf copy and the print was limited to 1 and the printer screwed up and when I contacted Standards Australia about it (to get a 'new' copy so I could make the 1 print allowed) they in no uncertain terms said 'Tough Luck'.

So.... There are pros and cons.

I think that most people who use these things eventually buy them but people who aren't going to pay aren't going to pay for lack of availability, especially with respect to documents which are loose on the internet.

I've gotten screwed where the company sent me the AS9100b with one license. Then my hdd went bad and I had to reload the OS. It wouldn't work anymore and since I had ordered it through my company's purchasing the online store wouldn't give me another license. That really made me angry. Now I use a free ware program called capture to take screen shots of pages that print out with the same clear resolution you see on a screen for all my downloaded (purchased) standards. I don't feel copyright is an issue when there is a clear conflict of interest between the companies needing to have certifications, registrars and and online standards stores. Many of these stores want over a thousand dollars for a site license. If anyone wants the screen capture progam shoot me private message.:2cents:

I'm sorry I didn't notice this thread earlier. I'm on my way out the door and for now will just post an excerpt of material I have previously shared with moderators in our discussions on handling copyright issues.

Some of you are aware I have a legal education, but I want to stress I am NOT rendering a legal opinion, just a working policy to cover most cases we will experience. Five easy points:
Is the copyright holder currently SELLING (or offering for sale) the document? If yes, we need a release to post it in its entirety on the Cove. (A current, approved Standard (not drafts of pending ones nor copies of obsolete ones - they are almost always covered under "fair use.")
If the document being added here to the Cove is currently being offered for sale in its entirety, is someone merely posting a "brief" excerpt to illustrate a point? If yes it is probably "fair use." The tricky part (no clear guidelines) is HOW MUCH (percentage-wise) OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS BEING COPIED? The next tricky part is whether the copy is "legitimately" part of a review or discussion or whether the copy is really only being offered to circumvent the cost (or availability) of the document. Offering material from a "members only" website like ASQ would fit this bill as illegitimate.
If someone plagiarizes material and passes it off as his own original creation, we are not police and do not have a duty to investigate each and every submission for plagiarism. If someone else recognizes it as plagiarism, it should be reported to the moderator and we can determine how to deal with it then. Usually, even brief "google" will demonstrate a blatant case and we can merely remove the item and "caution" the plagiarist - condemning one in print can bring a case of libel if the guy can demonstrate HE was the original author and others plagiarized from him. Each case needs to be examined on its merits - no blanket "policy" is justified. (If a Cove member who is not a moderator raises the question of plagiarism in an open post rather than reporting to us, usually it is best to let it play out.)
Posting private documents from one's organization jumps the fence from copyright infringement (a slap on the wrist) to trade secret violation - a criminal act that can result in prison time for the poster - little or no consequences for the innocent dupes [us] who allow it on our website in good faith. For all intents and purposes, we can ignore such document despite any and all printed copyright notices on the document to the contrary. This would be for forms, drawings, etc. because most such organizations cripple their copyright case by allowing the documents to be given or shown to customers AND prospects alike for free. (Almost every ISO registrant says their Quality Manual is copyrighted, but they freely distribute copies in hard copy and electronic copy to almost anyone who asks.) Their labeling of such documents as copyrighted is redundant at best and meaningless in comparison to trade secret issues which they also cripple if they include any in the Quality Manual.
The power and value of a copyright is eroding as technology allows easier copying and distributing. Our emphasis should not be on anything other than limiting copies of entire documents which are currently being offered for sale or limited to paying members of an organization. (So - if John Doe can't access a link to the document because he is not a member, then we probably shouldn't be allowing it on our site. This does NOT preclude individual "lending" of a copy between Cove members via their own email [our Cove email does not allow attachments.]) Documents for sale or on limited access sites are the ones where courts might require money damages - all else, the remedy when an infringement is pointed out is EXACTLY what Marc does - simply remove it. No court has yet imposed a duty on a publisher to engage in deep investigation of all material to determine whether copyright infringement, plagiarism, or trade secret violation is taking place. Thus, the burden is on the copyright holder to detect infringement and ask for remedy. Note - ONLY the copyright holder can ask for remedy, not just any "goody twoshoes" - goody twoshoes should be told to contact the copyright holder for him to make his own decision whether to seek remedy. (The court will say goody twoshoes has no "standing" to bring suit.) The only time a stink arises is when the publisher (the Cove) refuses the copyright holder's request for removal after the holder demonstrates his "standing" as the legitimate holder and that any "gray area" of fair use is sufficiently gray to justify removal. Sufficiently gray would be 200 pages of a 500 page book. Insufficiently gray would be one page of the same book - most likely clear-cut "fair use."Bottom line:
WE are not the primary police. Apply the "smell test." If it is absolutely obvious to you the poster is trying to evade copyright, just report it - this issue of copyright is NEVER so time sensitive that a decision must be made on the spot, there is always time for reasoned discussion. If you think there is sufficient activity of "goody two shoes," I can prepare a boilerplate statement to send him which will explain he has no standing and that his duty as a good net citizen is to contact the copyright holder directly with his information and ONLY the copyright holder may make the decision whether to pursue the issue with the Cove.

Some of you are aware I have a legal education...

What does this mean, exactly? I took a business law class in high school, so I have a "legal education" too.

Some of you are aware I have a legal education, but I want to stress I am NOT rendering a legal opinion, just a working policy to cover most cases we will experience.

What does this mean, exactly? I took a business law class in high school, so I have a "legal education" too.

Jim, he explains it in this post (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=63467&postcount=36).

Stijloor.

Marc, thanks for your clarification on the handling of copyrighted material. Makes complete sense to me. So much so that if this is truly the case, would we be doing our readers a service by posting any known links to similar "source" material? FYI, I need to access a copy of ISO 14971:2007 Risk Management standard and would certainly appreciate a similar "link".


Try www.iso.org .

The truth of the matter is that from a business standpoint, and sadly enough quality resources are among the first ones cut during an economic downturn. This often promotes copyright violation as the price of these standards are more than the market will bare. Instead, the prices for these standards continually go up to make up for the rise in costs and creates an upward spiral in people trying to get standards anyway they can. Our tactic to defeat these costs is to have our registrars provide standards materials by suggesting that we are interested in pursuing another quality standard. So I will say, "hey we are interested in pursuing ISO 13485, send us the standard so we can look at the long term costs of ownership along with your quote initial registration." Then we copy it as needed within our company pretty much disregarding the legal risks which are very low to nil anyway. I am glad Marc gives a lot of leeway here to the moderators. It's interesting to see the various stances the members take regarding standards. Imagine if we had to pay for getting copies of laws and regulations, would anyone really follow them?

The truth of the matter is that from a business standpoint, and sadly enough quality resources are among the first ones cut during an economic downturn. This often promotes copyright violation as the price of these standards are more than the market will bare. I have to somewhat disagree. I think some of the standards are very over priced, but not so much that one cannot make the investment to purchase the standard if one is going to use it 'to make money' (as a consultant, or as a company employee). I've worked places where I have bought standards with my own money when the company was balking at paying for one or more standard. I have also worked places where the company spent thousands, if not 10's of thousands of US$ for standards and to be 'kept current' by companies which specialize in standards.

I make this statement as someone living in the US who can put out a hundred bucks or so, and I realize not everyone can actually afford to personally pay for a standard.

You do make some good points in your post, though.

Thanks for the idea Marc, I should buy some of these with my own money, use it as a tax write off then keep it down the line for my own archives.

Thanks for the idea Marc, I should buy some of these with my own money, use it as a tax write off then keep it down the line for my own archives. That's the way I look at it. I write them off, in my case on my Schedule C. It's an investment / expense as far as I'm concerned.

As to companies, they pretty much have to have a 'legal' copy of the standard. When I did a lot of auditing one of the things I asked to see was their copy of standards they cited (such as ISO 9001 or TS 16949) with the expectation that it would be a 'proper' copy (as opposed to say a copy machine copy - Of course these days most everything is digital pdf files or Word documents).

I don't think a copyright owner should be cheated, but I also don't think some of the terms are 'fair'. It's a personal decision for each person where that line is drawn.

In general, standards are:

- a collection of "best practices" which are not always best or optimum or cheapest;

- a guidance to people who are not educated enough in some area (i see this a lot, for example, people who use the ISO 9000 family and do not even know about the fundamentals of quality management/assurance/control, etc. - this problem is related to the quality certification and consulting "industry");

- VOLUNTARY - i mean, you can always have a quality management system that does not follow ISO 9001, or a medical device QMS that does not follow ISO 13485.

Following standard is easier if you do not want to develop your own requirements, but following because you do not know and then want to get this information for free is a little too much.

Marc got to the point when he speaks about "using the standard to make money". People should just think about the money they would have to spend if they would develop their own standard, instead of using a published one.

Following standard is easier if you do not want to develop your own requirements, but following because you do not know and then want to get this information for free is a little too much.

Marc got to the point when he speaks about "using the standard to make money". People should just think about the money they would have to spend if they would develop their own standard, instead of using a published one.I agree about the "cost of developing from scratch." I frequently make the point that organizations often are better off from an economic standpoint to adopt an off-the-shelf solution to solve a problem, perhaps "tinkering or adapting to fit" rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. It seems much more efficient to spend a few minutes, hours, or days evaluating the off-the-shelf solution for utility than weeks, months, years struggling to develop a solution from scratch.

Sometimes "good enough" IS good enough, sometimes not. My question is why not take some time to evaluate whether "good enough" is the most economic solution for your situation? Sometimes needless ego and hubris get in the way of what is best for the organization.

Mom always used a phrase that seems to fit here:
Penny wise and pound foolish!"

:topic:If your organization is the type of penny-pinching one seeking free, pirated copies of standards, software, etc., odds are it is also penny-pinching and miserable in terms of compensation, benefits, and working conditions for its employees. Employees subjected to such duress are the ones most likely to "drop a dime" on the organization just to get even. There are an entire regiment of Microsoft lawyers making a handy living going after organizations with pirated MS software, paying dandy finder's fees to disaffected current or former employees (who have tipped off Microsoft) when those organizations ultimately settle or lose in court. Obviously, similar events occur around music and other copyright infringement (some idiotic organizations have even downloaded pirate music to play as background themes on their corporate websites! - Maybe it's the result of letting some executive's teenager design the site to save money!)

In many cases, just the threat of the bad publicity arising from such a suit that prompts organizations to FINALLY look at the situation with some common sense and rush to correct past misdeeds.