Per this: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/copyright-law-repair-manuals-circular-economy
I can understand the frustration some people may feel. I would guess that some folks would boycott Toshiba and others.
But Toshiba owns the rights to their designs and manuals. I imagine they make good money training authorized repair persons to work on their stuff; that's part of the business model. They are attempting to control and profit from the repair business. If someone wants to buy their products, take them apart, figure out how they work, and make a living at repairing them, I don't think that Toshiba can stop them. But Toshiba has no obligation to help them. Or help someone give out free advice.
Toshiba developed, maunfactured and marketed and distributed the products. Then they spent more money hiring technicians and writers and illustrators and printers to create the manuals. It's their property. Some guy who comes along and thinks he has a right to the information for free is naive at best, and simply wants something valuable without having to pay for it. He could go to Toshiba's school and become an authorized repair shop; then he'd have rights to use the manual. (And I'm pretty sure he would have zero right to reproduce the manual.)
A lot of people think intellectual property is inherently less valuable than physical property. In my years as a photographer I was constantly asked by people to let them use photos free or dirt cheap. Everything that went into making the photos, from my education, to my huge investment in gear, workshops (and related travel expenses) I had to pay for to keep up my skills, my hotel and restaurant bills and the gas and the time consumed when out on the road shooting stock photos, the marketing of myself and my work ... some people act like that stuff never happened. I think writers and photographers are perceived by some as having "fun jobs;" and since they're having so much fun, what they produce cannot be very valuable.
You may be starting to understand why I initially shied away from from getting involved in this discussion!
Here's an example for you. A relative of mine who I'm guessing made over $250K annually was sailing on his boat one day when he noticed a helicopter hovering above. A couple of weeks later he got a 5x7 print in the mail. The letter said he could have that print free, but if he wished to have more, or get bigger ones, see the enclosed price sheet. And there was boilerplate language about how the pic was copyright protected. So, my relative promptly took the pic down to some lab, and had it copied, and large prints made for his home and office. He thought absolutely nothing of this, despite the fact that he worked in medical device R&D, and I can guarantee you his work was highly protected. Now, in over thirty years of sailing, I have never had the opportunity to get a shot of my boat from above, at full sail; and I'd love to have one. This guy, who made three times the money I did, plus had all these great benefits (medical insurance, profit-sharing, all his travel paid for, all his workshops and conferences paid for) had the opportunity to get such a pic from a good pro shooter dropped in his lap, and all he needed to do was pay a very reasonable price for prints beyond the free one ... so, he decided to rip off the photographer. "This was sent unsolicited; I can do what I want with it."
The photographer hired a chopper that was good for photography, probably a Bell Jet Ranger (way back then it was $500/hr.). Then spent the afternoon, purely on speculation, shooting boats. Then he laboriously tracked down the owners from public records, based on the registration on the boats' bows. Then he made, or had made, the 5x7s. Then he put together his professionally-designed mailing packets. Then he paid all the postage. Then he waited and hoped. And a well-off guy like my relative stole his work, as I'm sure some other boat-owners did as well. Fun.
Art and intellectual property has worth. It's real stuff. It's creators deserve protection from theft.
Overmod... We actually were named in a tragic personal-injury case where a child had debilitating brain injury from being hit riding an ATV we had sold. The father when he bought it insisted on the very cheapest helmet in the store, but that didn't stop his lawyer trying to deep-pockets us "in part for not talking him into a more capable type or refusing the sale". The mere letter of the law helps no more with PPE than it does with effective face masks for COVID-19...
We actually were named in a tragic personal-injury case where a child had debilitating brain injury from being hit riding an ATV we had sold. The father when he bought it insisted on the very cheapest helmet in the store, but that didn't stop his lawyer trying to deep-pockets us "in part for not talking him into a more capable type or refusing the sale". The mere letter of the law helps no more with PPE than it does with effective face masks for COVID-19...
In your suit - did the helmet that was sold meet the applicable DOT standard in effect at the time? Did the helmet meet and contain the applicable 'protection' sticker.
My racing organization requires that helmets used in competition must be of the two most recent Snell (a international classification organization) ratings which are published on a 5 year basis. The 2020 Snell requirements have yet to be published, currently helmets with Snell 2010 and 2015 stickers with the SA qualification are legal. The SA qualification is 'Special Application' and pertains to fire protection abilities of the helmets interior materials. There are helmets manufactured a M standard nominally for motorcycle and other forms of use. The Snell standards were created after the death of sports car race Pete Snell in 1956 of head injuries when his helmet failed. The testing done to create the standard is done by the Snell Memorial Foundation (a non-profit). Helmet manufacturers are required to have one of EACH size and style of helmet they sell tested to see that it meets or exceeds the required standards before Snell certification (and stickers) will be granted - it is my understanding that the Snell Foundation will also buy and test helmets from retail outlets to insure that manufacturers continue to manufacture the helmets to the same standard that were certified.
Wikipedia Safety[edit] Snell Standards significantly surpass those set by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), ASTM International (ASTM) and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's 16 CFR Part 1203.[citation needed] Snell Standards are updated about every five years. These updates are based on new scientific research and improved, available manufacturing technologies. As such, and in addition to other factors such as typical use wear and tear, Snell recommends that helmets be replaced approximately every five years to ensure good safety.
Snell Standards significantly surpass those set by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), ASTM International (ASTM) and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's 16 CFR Part 1203.[citation needed]
Snell Standards are updated about every five years. These updates are based on new scientific research and improved, available manufacturing technologies. As such, and in addition to other factors such as typical use wear and tear, Snell recommends that helmets be replaced approximately every five years to ensure good safety.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The problem with speedometers came out of a clever use of the idea of implied warranty: if you amplifier knob goes to 10, it's presumed safe that you can turn it there; if the speedometer says 120 not only should you be able to run it there, you might be motivated to sue if the vehicle can't actually go that fast (shades of EMD complaining about the original Charger procurement!). In California in the mid-Nineties a law form actually started a class-action suit because most exercise free weights don't measure precisely what is stamped on or molded into them.
SD70dudeIf the factory manual contains a mistake wouldn't that affect licensed repair facilities as well?
Of course the issue since at least the '70s has been what is NOT in the manuals; the precedent set by the moron using his mower as a hedge trimmer was in no small part based on the manual not telling him not to. Factory tech manuals aren't going to waste time repeatedly warning about shock or ESD or swallowing small parts, and very likely won't have warnings about how to read a schematic, contain detail about when to use common-sense replacements for factory parts, feature long safety discussions in every mL or procedure, etc.
If I hurt myself, say, not wearing gloves or glasses while repairing my chainsaw, can I sue Husqvarna for damages?
SD70DudeProbably the most egregious "right to repair" case is that of John Deere. I mean, what kind of IDIOT would tell farmers that they aren't allowed to fix their own tractors!?
I think Tesla may be getting more known for that.
Even other manufactures are toying with ideas of disabling features of cars if you don't subscribe, or get a new lease or whatever.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Overmod SD70Dude Here's a case that I think illustrates the rationale behind my "use it or lose it" point. Actually, the problem is a part of the current 'right to repair' legislation now going on (pushed as you'd expect by lobbyists for the storefront electronics-repair industry; resisted by the criPhones-just-wear-out-and-you-have-to-buy-new-ones criminals) but there is a deeper issue, one intimately related with a different aspect of American criminality and probably only addressable through tort reform. If someone follows a downloaded factory manual that contains a mistake and ruins what he's working on, can he sue for damages? If he electrocutes himself can he say the 'no user-serviceable parts inside' sort of exception doesn't apply because he had a factory manual from the factory? Remember there were folks who sued Ford and Firestone over the former putting 120mph speedometers in top-heavy vehicles and the latter being deemed to imply their 721 series was qualified to go that speed by knowingly supplying them to Ford to put on a 120mph vehicle.
SD70Dude Here's a case that I think illustrates the rationale behind my "use it or lose it" point.
Actually, the problem is a part of the current 'right to repair' legislation now going on (pushed as you'd expect by lobbyists for the storefront electronics-repair industry; resisted by the criPhones-just-wear-out-and-you-have-to-buy-new-ones criminals) but there is a deeper issue, one intimately related with a different aspect of American criminality and probably only addressable through tort reform. If someone follows a downloaded factory manual that contains a mistake and ruins what he's working on, can he sue for damages? If he electrocutes himself can he say the 'no user-serviceable parts inside' sort of exception doesn't apply because he had a factory manual from the factory? Remember there were folks who sued Ford and Firestone over the former putting 120mph speedometers in top-heavy vehicles and the latter being deemed to imply their 721 series was qualified to go that speed by knowingly supplying them to Ford to put on a 120mph vehicle.
If you're speeding you're speeding, and it's your fault. My small SUV has a speedometer that reads far higher than it is actually capable of going on level ground (yes I tried, and yes, I was speeding and if I'd crashed it would have been my own fault), and it also contains warning stickers to not drive excessively fast around corners.
If the factory manual contains a mistake wouldn't that affect licensed repair facilities as well? And any manufacturer with a legal department worth any salt will stuff the manuals chock full of disclaimers and warnings.
Overmod I could easily see why tech companies don't want the liability can cracked even the least little bit open. crApple went so far as to start using weird proprietary screws and excessive glue to keep people out of their stuff, spawning some frankly fascinating back-door ways to get in; then restricted access to parts until a whole industry of coin-operated machines giving cell-phone thieves an unlimited mechanical fence for a few pennies on the dollar produced open parts availability... then said aftermarket parts make the whole device unqualified for any further crApple repairs until all the non-factory parts were replaced, essentially in defiance of settled precedent in the automotive and some other consumer industries. What should be the right way a company should handle the manuals and procedures reserved to its 'skilled professional repair partners'? How should this change when -- as is the case today -- a company like crApple decides to stop providing any factory support to a product... but continues to be dog-in-the-manger with resources. (Heck, the Antichrist of software licensing, Microsoft, set up free access for versions of Office and OS versions requiring online activation when those programs reached end of support).
I could easily see why tech companies don't want the liability can cracked even the least little bit open. crApple went so far as to start using weird proprietary screws and excessive glue to keep people out of their stuff, spawning some frankly fascinating back-door ways to get in; then restricted access to parts until a whole industry of coin-operated machines giving cell-phone thieves an unlimited mechanical fence for a few pennies on the dollar produced open parts availability... then said aftermarket parts make the whole device unqualified for any further crApple repairs until all the non-factory parts were replaced, essentially in defiance of settled precedent in the automotive and some other consumer industries.
What should be the right way a company should handle the manuals and procedures reserved to its 'skilled professional repair partners'? How should this change when -- as is the case today -- a company like crApple decides to stop providing any factory support to a product... but continues to be dog-in-the-manger with resources. (Heck, the Antichrist of software licensing, Microsoft, set up free access for versions of Office and OS versions requiring online activation when those programs reached end of support).
Didn't Torx start out as a tamper-proof fastener system? How long did that last?
Probably the most egregious "right to repair" case is that of John Deere. I mean, what kind of IDIOT would tell farmers that they aren't allowed to fix their own tractors!?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70DudeHere's a case that I think illustrates the rationale behind my "use it or lose it" point.
zugmann Lithonia Operator In the US, things go into the public domain seventy tears after the creator of ther work dies. Until then, the heirs own it. It's a simple concept, and similar to how other propety is treated. If you don't own something, you are not allowed to just take it; this idea is long-embeded in law and custom worldwide. Until Disney gets it extended again.
Lithonia Operator In the US, things go into the public domain seventy tears after the creator of ther work dies. Until then, the heirs own it. It's a simple concept, and similar to how other propety is treated. If you don't own something, you are not allowed to just take it; this idea is long-embeded in law and custom worldwide.
Until Disney gets it extended again.
Exactly!
Lithonia Operator "we have to differentiate between Elvis the man and Elvis the business. Once he died Elvis was beyond caring what happened to his work." "Estate" sounds impersonal, but in most cases it basically means "family." If you have a profitable car-repair business (you own the building too), and you die, it passes on to whomever YOU (in your will) designate, not to any Tom Dick or Harry. Or if your estate is worth $500,000, and you have 5 kids, YOU can say each gets $100K. "If the copyright holder is not earning revenue from something they hold, or from licensing it to others who might earn revenue for the both of them, why should they have a right to keep it hidden away?" If, in the case above, one heir inherits the car repair business, but just lets it sit there unused, this does not give other people the right to break in and repair their cars there. Or sieze the property. In the US, things go into the public domain seventy tears after the creator of ther work dies. Until then, the heirs own it. It's a simple concept, and similar to how other propety is treated. If you don't own something, you are not allowed to just take it; this idea is long-embeded in law and custom worldwide. The Internet brought with it a whole culture of "man, it's just sitting there, I can take it." In a clothing store, the sweaters are just sitting there. The only difference is that store security is WAY better than Internet security.
"we have to differentiate between Elvis the man and Elvis the business. Once he died Elvis was beyond caring what happened to his work."
"Estate" sounds impersonal, but in most cases it basically means "family." If you have a profitable car-repair business (you own the building too), and you die, it passes on to whomever YOU (in your will) designate, not to any Tom Dick or Harry. Or if your estate is worth $500,000, and you have 5 kids, YOU can say each gets $100K.
"If the copyright holder is not earning revenue from something they hold, or from licensing it to others who might earn revenue for the both of them, why should they have a right to keep it hidden away?"
If, in the case above, one heir inherits the car repair business, but just lets it sit there unused, this does not give other people the right to break in and repair their cars there. Or sieze the property.
In the US, things go into the public domain seventy tears after the creator of ther work dies. Until then, the heirs own it. It's a simple concept, and similar to how other propety is treated. If you don't own something, you are not allowed to just take it; this idea is long-embeded in law and custom worldwide.
The Internet brought with it a whole culture of "man, it's just sitting there, I can take it." In a clothing store, the sweaters are just sitting there. The only difference is that store security is WAY better than Internet security.
As I've said, physical property and intellectual property are different things. The law recognizes this, there of course is no time limit on the ownership of physical property.
But in the case of land and buildings you do have certain obligations, and if you fail to follow them the municipality can eventually decide that you should no longer have ownership of that property.
I'm not disputing the reality of the current copyright laws, and I obey them. When I post stuff here or on any other site it is usually as links to whatever site I found it on. But I do think the current IP rights protection system reaches much farther than it should.
The purpose of copyright and patents should be to allow creators to support themselves and benefit from their creations, but this should only last for a reasonable time, not closer to forever like it does now (anything longer than a human lifespan may as well be forever from any individual's point of view).
Instead of comparing copying a photo or writing to the theft of a shirt, I would say it is more akin to copying the sewing patterns and producing your own shirt of the exact same dimensions and material.
Here's a case that I think illustrates the rationale behind my "use it or lose it" point. Also note that I only posted the link, not any text from the article, and it is not behind a paywall:
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/copyright-law-repair-manuals-circular-economy
Lithonia OperatorIn the US, things go into the public domain seventy tears after the creator of ther work dies. Until then, the heirs own it. It's a simple concept, and similar to how other propety is treated. If you don't own something, you are not allowed to just take it; this idea is long-embeded in law and custom worldwide.
Lithonia OperatorThe Internet brought with it a whole culture of "man, it's just sitting there, I can take it." In a clothing store, the sweaters are just sitting there. The only difference is that store security is WAY better than Internet security.
I guess in many ways, the pirates have similarities with looters? Some do it out of a feeling of necessity, some do it just because it's available, while others see themselves as making a political statement through the act.....
In the US, things go into the public domain seventy tears after the creator of the work dies. Until then, the heirs own it. It's a simple concept, and similar to how other propety is treated. If you don't own something, you are not allowed to just take it; this idea is long-embedded in law and custom worldwide.
charlie hebdo NKP guy charlie hebdo they could have simply linked the texts or photos from the original sources or summarized with a full citation. Here's the nub of the problem: The "average bear" doesn't know this. Given their positions, both of them did or certainly should have.
NKP guy charlie hebdo they could have simply linked the texts or photos from the original sources or summarized with a full citation. Here's the nub of the problem: The "average bear" doesn't know this.
charlie hebdo they could have simply linked the texts or photos from the original sources or summarized with a full citation.
Here's the nub of the problem: The "average bear" doesn't know this.
Given their positions, both of them did or certainly should have.
I'll agree with you on that point.
SD70Dude BaltACD Flintlock76 Well, somebody should have gotten suspicious when they heard this drifting over the border: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9f9ehaNlA4 ARRRRR!!! ARrrrrrrrrrrg! There is a whole lot of FLAT in the background in every direction pictured. You can watch your dog run away all week! Unfortunately for CN and CP, our prairies are far from perfectly flat. There is a lot of undulating territory and some surprisingly steep grades, especially in and out of river valleys.
BaltACD Flintlock76 Well, somebody should have gotten suspicious when they heard this drifting over the border: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9f9ehaNlA4 ARRRRR!!! ARrrrrrrrrrrg! There is a whole lot of FLAT in the background in every direction pictured.
Flintlock76 Well, somebody should have gotten suspicious when they heard this drifting over the border: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9f9ehaNlA4 ARRRRR!!!
Well, somebody should have gotten suspicious when they heard this drifting over the border:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9f9ehaNlA4
ARRRRR!!!
ARrrrrrrrrrrg!
There is a whole lot of FLAT in the background in every direction pictured.
You can watch your dog run away all week!
Unfortunately for CN and CP, our prairies are far from perfectly flat. There is a lot of undulating territory and some surprisingly steep grades, especially in and out of river valleys.
Water level grades can be really significant - most railroads were laid out following water level as best they could - going from 3000 feet to sea level creates a real grade. B&O's grades West of Cumberland followed rivers and streams as best they could and ended up with Sand Patch, 17 Mile and Cranberry grades.
SD70Dude Don't worry, copyright law exists in Canada, we're a civilized frozen wasteland. Our term is 50 years after the death of the creator, which I still think is far too long. Looks like we've been committing IP piracy since long before it was cool. Don't worry, I got this image from Wikipedia, which states it is public domain in the U.S:
Don't worry, copyright law exists in Canada, we're a civilized frozen wasteland. Our term is 50 years after the death of the creator, which I still think is far too long.
Looks like we've been committing IP piracy since long before it was cool. Don't worry, I got this image from Wikipedia, which states it is public domain in the U.S:
You know if certain people hadn't felt they were above the law, they could have simply linked the texts or photos from the original sources or summarized with a full citation.
Q.E.D.
charlie hebdo Just a bunch of law breaking thieves with no respect for intellectual property, even though it is in our Constitution. Maybe it's not in the Canadian one?
Just a bunch of law breaking thieves with no respect for intellectual property, even though it is in our Constitution. Maybe it's not in the Canadian one?
Them's fightin words. I challenge thee to a duel!
(isn't that how things were settled back when the constitution was written?)
Fun fact: intellectual property rights were even mentioned in the US Consitution.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/clause-8/
CSSHEGEWISCH By analogy based on some of the prior posts, if a person owns a vacant lot and just lets it sit vacant for a number of years, then squatters should be allowed to take possession of the lot. Intellectual property is no different than real property.
By analogy based on some of the prior posts, if a person owns a vacant lot and just lets it sit vacant for a number of years, then squatters should be allowed to take possession of the lot. Intellectual property is no different than real property.
Physical property and intellectual property are different things.
A landowner also has the responsibility to maintain their property and any buildings on it to certain standards, not to mention paying property taxes. If they fail to do so the municipality can seize it.
Abandoned physical properties have become a real problem in some places, like Detroit.
charlie hebdo SD70Dude charlie hebdo Possibly not, but it certainly violates the spirit of the protection of IP. If someone gives you something which you know he stole, would you feel it's right about your using it as though you had acquired it lawfully? But it seems "Thou shall not steal" doesn't apply to some members. In my example I didn't know that the text was stolen. Of course, once I am informed of that fact I would be obligated to return the object or stop using the text/image. In the case of a book that is out of print but still falls under copyright, I believe that a "use it or lose it" principle should apply. The copyright holder should either make new copies available for sale, or after a shorter period of time (say, 5 years) the material becomes public domain. Kind of like how mineral leases work (out here anyway), if the leaseholder does not develop the deposit in a timely manner then the lease reverts back to the government, who can then lease it to someone else. You can't just sit on the stuff forever. You might like the protection of intellectual property to be similar land use laws but they are not and IP is not analogous to your example. The land was government property originally. Intellectual property is by definition, an original creation by the right's holder.
SD70Dude charlie hebdo Possibly not, but it certainly violates the spirit of the protection of IP. If someone gives you something which you know he stole, would you feel it's right about your using it as though you had acquired it lawfully? But it seems "Thou shall not steal" doesn't apply to some members. In my example I didn't know that the text was stolen. Of course, once I am informed of that fact I would be obligated to return the object or stop using the text/image. In the case of a book that is out of print but still falls under copyright, I believe that a "use it or lose it" principle should apply. The copyright holder should either make new copies available for sale, or after a shorter period of time (say, 5 years) the material becomes public domain. Kind of like how mineral leases work (out here anyway), if the leaseholder does not develop the deposit in a timely manner then the lease reverts back to the government, who can then lease it to someone else. You can't just sit on the stuff forever.
charlie hebdo Possibly not, but it certainly violates the spirit of the protection of IP. If someone gives you something which you know he stole, would you feel it's right about your using it as though you had acquired it lawfully? But it seems "Thou shall not steal" doesn't apply to some members.
Possibly not, but it certainly violates the spirit of the protection of IP. If someone gives you something which you know he stole, would you feel it's right about your using it as though you had acquired it lawfully? But it seems "Thou shall not steal" doesn't apply to some members.
In my example I didn't know that the text was stolen.
Of course, once I am informed of that fact I would be obligated to return the object or stop using the text/image.
In the case of a book that is out of print but still falls under copyright, I believe that a "use it or lose it" principle should apply. The copyright holder should either make new copies available for sale, or after a shorter period of time (say, 5 years) the material becomes public domain.
Kind of like how mineral leases work (out here anyway), if the leaseholder does not develop the deposit in a timely manner then the lease reverts back to the government, who can then lease it to someone else. You can't just sit on the stuff forever.
You might like the protection of intellectual property to be similar land use laws but they are not and IP is not analogous to your example. The land was government property originally. Intellectual property is by definition, an original creation by the right's holder.
If the copyright holder is not earning revenue from something they hold, or from licensing it to others who might earn revenue for the both of them, why should they have a right to keep it hidden away? Use it or lose it.
This example would probably end up mainly applying in cases of books etc that would not earn much revenue anyway, if they were profitable to publish or license (electronically or in print) wouldn't the copyright holder be doing so?
Originally, copyright wasn't even guaranteed to last the entire life of the creator, but it has been lengthened over and over again as the years gone by. It could be argued that some of that was necessary, but I think the current regulations go too far, and were created at the behest of big media companies who wish to continue surviving off of things from the distant past. And I fully expect the copyright term to be further lengthened in the future.
I think we also have a real problem with so-called patent and copyright trolls, who will purchase the rights to something and then try to track down and sue small-time individual users, many of whom may not have known that they were committing a violation.
Or they may be in the right but cannot easily prove it, and find it easier to 'feed the troll' to make it go away.
Lithonia OperatorDoes anyone really think that the day after Elvis died, people should have been able to take his records, dub them onto tape, then sell them? Or give them away?
Certainly not, but we have to differentiate between Elvis the man and Elvis the business. Once he died Elvis was beyond caring what happened to his work. Elvis the business was another matter, that's the estate in action, and of course they want to make all the money they can before all the hard-core fans of "The King" die off and subsequent generations could care less who Elvis was.
Can't blame them, the clock keeps ticking and the calender pages keep turning and no power on earth can stop them.
Oh, and on the PLA pirating film clips? American filmmakers probably consider that just a hidden cost of doing business with China. They make big money on the Chinese market so they're not likely to get bent out of shape over film clips of a few seconds duration being used without permission or pay.
Sometimes it is ok to "borrow"
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3102291/china-us-tensions-video-pla-attack-pacific-airbase-uses
"The person, who asked not to be named, told the South China Morning Post that it was common practice for the PLA’s publicity department to “borrow” from Hollywood films to make their productions look more spectacular."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.