Copyright Material vs. File Sharing - Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

[CarolX]

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

[Marc]

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.

[E Wall]

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

[CarolX]

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

[Marc]

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.

[Jim Biz]

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.

[Marc]

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... Of course, if I was a conservative, I'd charge everyone to even get in the door....

C'mon Marc,

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