Copyright - Links in Posts Leading to Copyrighted Material on Other Web Sites

[Marc]

In Reply to Parent Post by kdsaggi

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.

[kdsaggi]

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?

[Marc]

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.

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.

[Sidney Vianna]

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.

[Marc]

In Reply to Parent Post by Sidney Vianna

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.

[qualityboi]

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.

[Wes Bucey]

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:

1. 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.")
2. 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.
3. 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.)
4. 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.
5. 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.

[Jim Wynne]

In Reply to Parent Post by Wes Bucey

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.