[rsheidler]

Re: Yamaha shuts down FZ1 sites

I was gonna say pretty much the same thing. The link does not give us enough (actually almost no) information to have any understanding of what is the issue. Did seem that most other posters on that board were not too worked up.

Before piling on and demanding a boycott of Yamaha products, I'd have to know a lot more about all sides of the issue.

Not to mention, if I boycotted every product for which there were p!ssed off owners, I would be living a stone-age lifestyle!

Cheers

Bob

 

[rsheidler]

Thanks for the Additional Information

This really puts a different spin on things, doesn't it.

Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of people seem to think that the internet invalidates all preexisting concepts of ownership of intellectial property of any kind.

Seems like Yamaha's aproach was pretty reasonable. Don't wanna alienate your customer base, but you sure as hell can't let someone pirate your copyrighted information, especially if they then sell it at a profit.

Regards

Bob

 

[rsheidler]

Re: Thanks for the Additional Information

Banda

You raise some good points. I am not a copyright law specialist so do not intend to argue the fine points of "Fair Use."

If they were taking information (ie specs) and creating a new document, I would not object at all -- especially if they added their own content. BMW sites (and I am sure others as well) do that (see the post below) apparently with no objections from BMW. I probably would not object to selected, very limited illustrations or even entire pages being posted so long as it was for free use by readers of the site. Doesn't sound like that is what was going on here, though.

If they were printing copies of Yamaha manuals to paper, and selling them, would you make the same arguement?

If I were to write a Finance textbook (argueably not a work of fiction), would you argue that someone has the right to scan it and burn cds to sell in competition with my publisher? If someone is foolish enough to steal my concepts and ideas and put them into his own words, he can go for it.

A shop manual is every bit as much an item of intellectual property as is the latest Grishom novel and the copyright holder is every bit as entitled to protection.

 

[rsheidler]

Facts seem to be somewhat in dispute

Seemingly, some of the critical facts in this case are in dispute. The Staff commentary quotes Yamaha as claiming that someone on the site was selling burned CDs of the manuals, while regular readers of the site dispute this. I do not pretend to know the answer.

If, in fact, the posted information was merely the exchange of information among a group of enthusiasts, Yamaha was probably heavy-handed and misguided in their approach, even if their legal grounds are sound. If Yamaha are correct and someone was using the site to sell pirate copies of the manuals, they are on stronger footing, but maybe still ill-advised.

From a business perspective, I suggest that they would be better off taking a higher road and making that information available, for non-commercial use, for free, over the internet, rather than appearing to be trying to squeeze another $60 out of a buyer who has just forked over $8,500.

My guess is that this was an action initiated by Yamaha's legal counsel rather than their marketing department.

I absolutely endorse Yamaha's full rights of ownership in the intellectual property which they certainly spent many thousands of dollars to produce. They have to do whatever is necessary to assure that they retain full ownership. I do suspect that they could have done so in a more customer-friendly fashion.

Cheers

Bob

 

[rsheidler]

Re: Thanks for the Additional Information

Banda:

I checked your link and found the following -- Note that I do believe my use of this information falls within "fair use" guidelines:

>>a. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes -- Courts are more likely to find fair use where the use is for noncommercial purposes.>b. The nature of the copyrighted work -- A particular use is more likely to be fair where the copied work is factual rather than creative.>c. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole -- A court will balance this factor toward a finding of fair use where the amount taken is small or insignificant in proportion to the overall work. >c. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work -- If the court finds the newly created work is not a substitute product for the copyrighted work, it will be more likely to weigh this factor in favor of fair use.<<

If (and I am not asserting that this IS actually the case) they are selling CD copies of the entire manual for something less than the $60 Yamaha is asking, og giving the information for free, I would say that this use clearly fails to meet the "fair use" test cited.

IF Yamaha have the facts substantially correct, and complete copies of the manual are being reproduced and sold over the site, they would appear to be fully within their rights to come down on them. Even if the copies are being offered for free, the fact that the entire manual (or substantial portions) are being offered would seem to fail the criteria in the site you posted.

Doesn't seem to fit the "fair use" guidelines.

Regards

Bob

 

[rsheidler]

Re: Thanks for the Additional Information

>>If you disagree, think about this for a minute: If you and I both own FZ-1s, and you lost your user manual, should it be illegal for me to tell you how many quarts of oil it takes? Or how many miles between valve adjustments? Should that information really be protected so vigorously that you and I can't discuss it? Is that what we all want?<<

That is not the correct analagy. First of all, I believe it is a Shop Manual, not an Owner's Manual at issue. I don't think you need a shop manual if all you want is to know how frequently to change the oil. If we both own FZ-1s and I am to effin cheap to by the Shop manual so I copy yours, I have violated copyright law. If I borrow it to determine the proper valve clearances, that is OK. If I buy one but lose it (or in my case, more likely accidently drop it in my oil drain pan) and get a copy from you, I would argue that that is ok within "fair use" guidelines.

Since, in this analagy you legally purchased your copy of the manual, you can copy it in any way you damn well please FOR YOUR OWN USE. As soon as you copy it for me, you are stealing (assuming that I have not legally purchased a copy). No different from copying music CDs. Copy em to your hard drive, to cassettes or whatever you want, so long as you own the original and it is for your own use, and Sony or Virgin or whoever won't give a damn. Sell the copies or give em to your friends and you are potentially in trouble. You can call it patriotism if you want, I still call it stealing.

Bob

 

[rsheidler]

Re: Thanks for the Additional Information

Speaking for myself, I think it is time to ratchet back the level of retoric at least until such time as the underlying facts are more clearly in evidence.

If we are talking an owner's manual (which, by definition should be the property of each owner), I probably would agree with you. If it is a shop manual, that is very different.

Meanwhile, I apologize if the tone of my posts was inappropriate. Several years ago, I worked for a consulting company writing financial and accounting manuals for multi-national companies, and we were very protective of our right to ownership of that intellectual property. This just hit a sensitive nerve.

Regards

Bob

 

[rsheidler]

Re: Facts seem to be somewhat in dispute

True, if they are providing entire manuals, or even substantial portions. There does appear to be some significant grey area in between, and a commercial use gets a very different than a non-commercial use for those grey areas. For example, a commercial use of even a single illustration would likely be deemed copyright infringment, while the same use by a non-profit educational institution would get a lot more slack. Especially if the copyroght holder is not able to show that they have suffered economic harm as a result.

My point was not so much directed at their legal right as to the appropriateness of the response. A non-commercial use might better have been responded to with a velvet glove instead of an iron fist. This is a commercial, rather than legal, position.

Cheers

Bob

 

[rsheidler]

Hey Longride



Don't beat yourself up too much on this. It was news, even if it mostly resulted from a misunderstanding. I suspect a lot of the crap about dealers, manufacturers etc that gets slung on this and many other sites is equally a matter of misunderstanding. Maybe we all learned not to immediately assume the worst.



Not to mention, I found this really informative site on "Fair Use" of copyrighted materials that banda posted. Clarified some issues with things that sometimes get posted here.



All's well that ends well.



Bob

 

[rsheidler]

Re: Yamaha shuts down FZ1 sites

Hey, looks like you pretty well nailed this one -- see LongRide's post at the end.

Bob

 

[rsheidler]

Oh yeah, meant to ask.....



.........was your pasting of Steve's post covered within "fair use" guidelines?



Actually, it does not appear that the FZ-1 web site is asserting copyright ownership so I doubt that you will get a C&D ;-)



Bob