Hey Marc,

Just curious...what does this mean? From the header of your page?

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

CX

I'm getting tired of lawsuits being threatened over some of the files in the pdf_files directory (GM is the latest to have done so - yesterday). I want to preclude any threats due to files users *may* post in the Forums. My lawyer and I discussed the situation and the disclaimer is to ensure that everyone knows files in the pdf_files directory and files users post as attachments in the threads are for research and/or education (you folks ARE posting the files for free and I'm not charging for use of the forums.... And, you ARE using them for educational purposes, aren't you???) - that I'm not making a profit from them (which I can't do if I charge for access to the Forums or the pdf_files directory).

In short, it's a disclaimer to help protect me. :thedeal:

I think this refers to the informaiton posted in the forums...it's free to anyone, no copyright, no profit, etc...

Marc,

Sorry to hear that big business is harassing you. Your service is invaluable to all of us. Bad enough we have Big Brother watching over us....now the big bullies are trying to horn in.

sigh,
CarolX

So far there has not been a follow through - just a few certified letters and some e-mails threatening 'legal action'. GM's complaint was from:

Dr. Axel Lünenbürger
Manager GME-Spec-Center + GLOSSAR
Adam Opel AG ITEZ T&V Central Lab
Tel.: ++49-6142-7-75519 Fax: ++49-6142-7-61745
axel.dr.luenenbuerger@de.opel.com

With regard to GMW3059.doc

In his favour, it was one of the less threatening (no direct threat of a lawsuit) of those I have received, but the e-mail itself was worded - shall we say in a 'tough' tone. I should also add that he correctly pointed out that it was an obsolete version.

My policy is - and will be - that when I receive a complaint I check the file and remove it if I think it really poses a problem.

Again - it's not a great big deal - but I want to take every precaution I can. Most of this started happening around the time Chris Parris was pissed at me so back then I figured he was checking files, contacting people he thought might be 'interested' and then I'd get the certified letter and/or e-mail and/or phone call. I don't believe that's the case here.

The only nice 'complaint' was a call from Robert X. Cringley's lawyer. Nice guy. I had a pdf file of the web page with the Sarasohn article. I explained about web pages disappearing and he said he understood, but that Mr. Cringley intended to keep the page up so I agreed to remove the pdf file. There was a link there already to the article and it worked so to me it was not a big deal. All the others have been pretty nasty in their wording. One lawyer I read the riot act to and - to my amazement - he e-mailed an apology! The issue was dropped.

No big deal. Part of the game.

And, you ARE using them for educational purposes, aren't you???)

Marc: I really believe most all of us are using the site for purley educational purposes... and Researching "how things may work best/better ideas" in similar industry settings.

I'm currently working with/for one of my "more ISO interested" co-workers (which as we all know can be difficult to find at times.)
He has found very clear explainations for auditing practices from discussion points we have had here in the Forums.

I have the history of this site backed up at least monthly to CD-ROM back to when it went online to the public with a domain name on 5 January 1996. While I will admit we did break some rules on copyright from time to time, there was never a profit motive in any of it. The site has been - and still is - something I don't make a profit from.

While we have gone off on weird topics like "...How to Find, Clean and Cook Roadkill..." tangents and such from time to time, yes - I do believe that visitors here are here for educational and/or research purposes.

When I posted "...And, you ARE using them for educational purposes, aren't you???..." I was serious. While some 'fun' goes on here in the forums, it's pretty much people looking for answers. I have even included the statement just above the agree button for new users signing up. Well, the wording is changed to say you agree you want to register beause you are seeking educational and/or research material, but you get the idea.

One of the problems in all this is the site is and has been a 'problem solver'. That GM document was posted - what - 2 years ago - because someone needed it for their job or something. I'd really have to research backups to see. But - the point is, although it is a copyright document, it's a supplier requirement that is readily available to many people. But I guess I look at this through my liberal eyes. They'll pass it out to their suppliers for free (well, they pay in one way or another) who pass it around. In some cases a supplier is missed. Or whatever. This isn't some starving author or even a company making it's livelyhood by publishing the document. It's a customer requirement. I have a hard time understanding why they could care. Heck, they can't be afraid of a competitor getting their hands on a copy. Too many companies do business as Tier I's to several auto manufacturers.

In my liberal eyes, the only justifiable point was that the document was not the current version. To that I say only that we went through the discussion in the other thread about 'abuse'. If someone downloaded that document and assumed it was the latest version, they're being stupid. If the document is important to their business the'll have a direct connection - with Ford it's their "FSN" network.

I really think anyone downloading the document would be a case of something like where one got wind of a requirement or something and wanted to do some preliminary research (yes, research) on what it is and is about. Usually middle management types or technicians who aren't right in line to get the document until 'further down the pike' so to speak.

Yes - I can honestly say I view this site as a site mainly for research and education. And since only 12 people have actually bought 'Members' access, and 6 or 7 bought 'Premium' access, I can guarantee you the site does not pay for its self. Most people come here for free information - like going to a library.

This applies to everyone but Al and energy. They come here solely to harrass me because I'm a liberal... :thedeal: Of course, if I was a conservative, I'd charge everyone to even get in the door.... :p

C'mon Marc,

That is only 90% of my activities on the board. The other 10% is to harass other cove members!:bigwave:

This week my boss told me to go on line and see what my "buddies" have on Product Realization. I explained how each company indidualizes this section to suit their particular product. However, I searched around trying to find something that he could look at for comparison. My "research" produced NADA, zilch, zero. Is this a library or what?:)) As for me harassing liberals, not so. To be hassled, they have to have a clue:biglaugh: :smokin:

Hi Marc,

I see you expanded your little message up top. Sorry to hear you continue to get harassed.

Perhaps it is time for the rest of us to kick some :ca:

C'mon Marc, tell us who it is!!!!!

CarolX

Pretty Please?????

A right winger begging a left winger? What has this world come to!;)

No recent complaints - just expanding upon things a bit to eliminate any confusion. Actually, things have been very calm since I first put in the disclaimer. I've pretty well weeded out all the stuff that anyone could really complain about, anyway. :thedeal:

From: http://reason.com/sullum/022202.shtml

February 22, 2002

Overextended
Copyrights out of control.
By Jacob Sullum

Irving Berlin wrote the original version of "God Bless America" in 1918, when Woodrow Wilson was president and transatlantic airlines were still a dream. The song was published 20 years later. Under current law, which gives works produced before 1978 a copyright term of 95 years, "God Bless America" will not enter the public domain until 2033.

Now imagine another composer who, like Berlin, writes his first big hit at 23 and dies at 101. If his breakthrough single came out today, no one could legally perform, record, publish, broadcast, or distribute it without paying for the privilege until 2150, 70 years after his death.

That's assuming Congress does not once again extend copyright terms, something it has done 11 times in the last four decades. If 148 years of exclusivity seems reasonable, why not 200 or 300?

Officially, Congress is trying "to promote the Progress of...useful arts," as the Constitution puts it, "by securing for limited Times to Authors" an "exclusive Right" to their works. But it's hard to see how extending the copyright on "God Bless America," as Congress did in 1998, serves that purpose. Even if he were still alive, Berlin couldn't exactly write the song again.

The disconnect between the intent of the Copyright Clause and its implementation by Congress is at the center of a case the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear. "By repeatedly extending the terms of existing copyrights," argue several publishers of public domain material, Congress can "achieve a perpetual copyright 'on the installment plan.' "

If intellectual "property" were morally indistinguishable from tangible property--as copyright holders suggest when they equate infringement with theft--there would be nothing wrong with a perpetual copyright. We take it for granted that ownership of a house or a diamond ring does not simply expire after a set number of years and that such assets can be passed on to descendants indefinitely.

A song, a movie, or a book is not quite the same, as the very existence of the Copyright Clause suggests. The Framers did not give Congress the power to grant people rights to their homes, farms, or personal possessions because such rights already existed. Indeed, protecting those rights was one of the main reasons for establishing a government in the first place.

Copyrights, by contrast, were understood to be a legal invention, and the justification for them was utilitarian: to promote progress and enrich the culture by giving authors an additional incentive to create. But the Framers recognized that copyrights could also impede progress and impoverish the culture by preventing people from building on the work of others. That is one reason copyright terms--originally set at 14 years, renewable for another 14--had to be limited.

Even with limits, copyrights were criticized by such luminaries as Thomas Jefferson, who recognized them as government-granted monopolies that would invite corruption. James Madison agreed that monopolies are "justly classed among the greatest nuisances in Government" but suggested they could be justified "as encouragements to literary works and ingenious discoveries."

Today copyright law is unmoored from the goal Madison had in mind, while the corruption Jefferson feared is evident every time Congress votes to line the pockets of big media companies by extending their monopolies. The hypocrisy of the entertainment giants makes this spectacle even harder to stomach: Disney, which has made a fortune by recycling other people's stories (Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, The Hunchback of Notre Dame), can't bear the thought of letting early Mickey Mouse cartoons slip into the public domain.

In the case the Supreme Court has agreed to consider, the plaintiffs argue that using copyright law to to reward influential corporations is not just unappetizing but unconstitutional. Although their argument was rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, at least one judge found it persuasive.

The Copyright Clause "is not an open grant of power to secure exclusive rights," Judge David Sentelle wrote in his dissent. "It is a grant of power to promote progress.... Extending existing copyrights is not promoting useful arts, nor is it securing exclusivity for a limited time."

This reading of the Copyright Clause would not address all the problems associated with intellectual property. But it would restore some balance to a debate that has been dominated for too long by the uncompromising, moralistic rhetoric of monopolists.

© Copyright 2002 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Hello,

I don't know where to put this thread but I just want to know if, suppose I have a copy of MSA 3rd edition and somebody asked a question about MSA, will I not get jailed or something if i posted a portion of the MSA in response to that question?

coz sometimes, there are questions and I have a document to answer that question and yet decided not to share it because of copyright thingie.

And of course, life would be easier for us if we can share our files right?

thanks,
Ituralde

You can post quotes from (portions of) a document - typically a paragraph or two, but you are not allowed to post the document as a whole. Some folks include a reference to the original which is appropriate.

You can post quotes from (portions of) a document - typically a paragraph or two, but you are not allowed to post the document as a whole. Some folks include a reference to the original which is appropriate.We are only talking about copyrighted materials here. Most government documents for instance, are NOT copyrighted and may be copied without limit. Some documents may be in the public domain because no copyright was applied for or because the copyright has expired.

"Fair use" of a copyrighted document allows quoting portions, with proper attribution. An example would be quoting a paragraph or two from ISO9k2k. Entire documents may only be copied and distributed with permission of the copyright holder who may NOT be the author. Articles in Quality Progress, for instance have copyright held by ASQ, not the author.

Without direct information to the contrary, ALL written documents not issued by the U.S. government should be considered copyrighted.

Also see:

Copyright discussion thread (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=9504)
and
10 Big Myths about copyright explained (http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html)

Just a reminder:

Folks, PLEASE do not ask for or attach copyrighted standards or other copyrighted documents to posts and PLEASE do not offer to send anyone copyrighted standard(s) or documents by e-mail in forum posts.

In the past this has not been a significant problem, however lately more and more people are asking for copyright documents and some folks are openly offering to send others copyright documents via e-mail in threads. I don't want to debate whether this is right or wrong - I know many people 'trade' documents from time to time as have I. Unfortunately, people are doing this too publicly which puts me, and the site as a whole, at risk for not controlling it.

I have been contacted by the ISO and AIAG folks in the past (granted it's been about 5 years) and they were not amused. I cannot afford a lawsuit. I know people are going to 'share' from time to time, but Please - Keep your sharing activities private. Remember, what you write in posts in public threads thousands of people can and do read.

In addition, please be very careful about anything from Chris Paris or Oxebridge. Chris is cocked and ready for a shooting match and since his filing a complaint with the Ohio Atty General's office ( Chris Paris of Oxebridge - Waging a Personal war (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8692) ), it's evident he is capable of causing trouble at any level and will do whatever he can, no matter how frivolous, to stir things up. The following is from a post in a thread in the ASQ board ISO forum by Chris Paris of Oxebridge (for ASQ members, the link is http://www.asq.org/discussionBoards/thread.jspa?threadID=145&tstart=0 ) : "It is being exclusively reprinted on the ASQ forum board with permission of my company. Other websites or forum boards are strongly advised against republishing on their sites without permission. I myself do not have the authority to grant reprint permission, and due to recent unpermitted republishing of our articles, Oxebridge management is taking a harder stance on copyright infringement. Please... don't risk it, folks." Actually, despite Mr. Paris' claim, I know of no web site or other venue where someone has 'republished' any of their stuff. I will say I thought his "Don't risk it folks" was typical...

This includes LINKS to anything on Oxebridge's site - Please do NOT post any. The Oxebridge business model is old and failing and they, as well as some other people and companies, will cause whatever problem(s) they can for this site because people like you can get all the information they need here for free.

Oh, well! On with the show!

Just a reminder:
... Unfortunately, people are doing this too publicly which puts me, and the site as a whole, at risk for not controlling it.

I have been contacted by the ISO and AIAG folks in the past (granted it's been about 5 years) and they were not amused. I cannot afford a lawsuit. I know people are going to 'share' from time to time, but Please - Keep your sharing activities private. Remember, what you write in posts in public threads thousands of people can and do read.

Marc,

Thanks for the reminder and for your efforts (and all others that contribute here regularly) to make The Cove available to those of us seeking answers to common questions.

Jaime

Here is a very interesting paper on copyrights. It is a Law Review Article on the Problems with Copyright by John Tehranian: "Infringement Nation: Copyright Reform and the Law/Norm Gap" (http://www.turnergreen.com/publications/Tehranian_Infringement_Nation.pdf) from Turnergreen.com (.pdf file).

Excerpt:

"By the end of the day, John has infringed the copyrights of twenty emails, three legal articles, an architectural rendering, a poem, five photographs, an animated character, a musical composition, a painting, and fifty notes and drawings. All told, he has committed at least eighty-three acts of infringement and faces liability in the amount of $12.45 million (to say nothing of potential criminal charges). There is nothing particularly extraordinary about John’s activities. Yet if copyright holders were inclined to enforce their rights to the maximum extent allowed by law, he would be indisputably liable for a mind-boggling $4.544 billion in potential damages each year. And, surprisingly, he has not even committed a single act of infringement through P2P file sharing. Such an outcome flies in the face of our basic sense of justice. Indeed, one must either irrationally conclude that John is a criminal infringer -- a veritable grand larcenist -- or blithely surmise that copyright law must not mean what it appears to say. Something is clearly amiss. Moreover, the troublesome gap between copyright law and norms has grown only wider in recent years."

The point of the article is how, simply by acting normally, all of us are technically lawbreakers many times over every day. When laws are this far outside the social norms, it's time to change them.