-
--> Gary Larson (The Far side) has returned. <--
Copyright - Links in Posts Leading to Copyrighted Material on Other Web Sites
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
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.
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.
- 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.
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!"
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.
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!"
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.
This is a very valuable subject, and it's worth a little time to review and try to understand how we would best navigate it safely.
For starters (not sure if anyone else has posted this already - my apologies if they have) I will reference the U.S. Copyright Office's web site weighing in on the subject of copyright and fair use.
In the web site page the U.S. Copyright Office points us to a 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law, which discusses several examples of fair use and U.S. court cases involving creative ownership (copyright) and fair use. While application of this advice will of course vary among nations, I think the principles may still be helpful, especially since the Cove is based in the U.S. and as such is subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
The U.S. Copyright Office answered some FAQs in a page called "Can I Use Someone Else's Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine?"
I hope I have properly posted links without violating copyright of the Copyright Office!
For starters (not sure if anyone else has posted this already - my apologies if they have) I will reference the U.S. Copyright Office's web site weighing in on the subject of copyright and fair use.
In the web site page the U.S. Copyright Office points us to a 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law, which discusses several examples of fair use and U.S. court cases involving creative ownership (copyright) and fair use. While application of this advice will of course vary among nations, I think the principles may still be helpful, especially since the Cove is based in the U.S. and as such is subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
The U.S. Copyright Office answered some FAQs in a page called "Can I Use Someone Else's Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine?"
I hope I have properly posted links without violating copyright of the Copyright Office!
