[amitk26]

Originally Posted by hserus

If it involves playing around with the car chipset settings / electronics then they can claim that these are patented designs, copyrighted software code etc etc.

Not only software and chips , lets say if this dangerous doctrine is accepted that it is fully possible to copyright mechanical design of each and every component
in conjucntion.
Example: Lets say company A instead of hexagonal nut with threads device some other fastner ( lets say a octagonal headed nut or a press fit design) files a copyright on how hub , alloy rim and Nuts fit in a design ( very trivial case but just to demonstrate the concept) now any 3rd party manufacturer making tools to open these propriety octagonal nuts is violating copyrights and also a consumer fitting 3rd party alloy rims is copyright violations.

Ofcourse trivial cases such as wheels will be left out but suppose if I am a an auto manufacturer and I have copyright protection on everything and anythuing I would like to cover full assembly so that no 3rd party can do any repairs.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

A few months later the board received a letter from the architect claiming we were infringing on his copyright.

He had visited the school and noticed, that inside the school hall, stairway, corridors, the teachers had hung and displayed the kids works (drawings, paintings and other kids handiwork). As one does, as this is a primary school, duh!

But the kids handiwork was obscuring his design and that constituted an copyright infringement!

But won't his argument be thrown out of court based on property rights?

From wiki:

Copyright is a legal right created by the law of a country that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights to its use and distribution, usually for a limited time, with the intention of enabling the creator (e.g. the photographer of a photograph or the author of a book) to receive compensation for their intellectual effort. The exclusive rights are, however, not absolute and do not give the creator total control of their works because they are limited by limitations and exceptions to copyright law.

I don't see how it becomes mandatory binding for the buyer of his copyrighted work of art to display it all the times.


Or perhaps the notice was on the lines that the kid's drawings and paintings were kept in a way that used the architecture's art and made the combination even more artistic. Therefore the school was capitalizing the architect's work of art to create its new work of art without paying him for it ... or without taking his permission?
Kind of makes sense, but then hasn't the school already paid for his work of art?

Originally Posted by amitk26

Not only software and chips , lets say if this dangerous doctrine is accepted that it is fully possible to copyright mechanical design of each and every component
in conjucntion.
Example: Lets say company A instead of hexagonal nut with threads device some other fastner ( lets say a octagonal headed nut or a press fit design) files a copyright on how hub , alloy rim and Nuts fit in a design ( very trivial case but just to demonstrate the concept) now any 3rd party manufacturer making tools to open these propriety octagonal nuts is violating copyrights and also a consumer fitting 3rd party alloy rims is copyright violations.

Of course the 3rd party IS violating copyrights (actually patents) in this case. If you support copyright and patent laws then you must agree with the point that manufacturer has developed something by putting in it's thought. Used creativity to come up with a product.
Seat belts is a good example. Of course Volvo decided to make the patent on the modern 3 point open. But then that decision is patent or copyright holder's.

[hserus]

Regardless of that mostly correct wiki quote above, copyright law is complex enough for a whole lot of dirty tricks to be possible - especially when backed by shrinkwrap agreements - pages and pages in an attached booklet or a window that you have to click "I agree" on .. and who reads those, right? [Also - signing something while being ignorant of its contents because of not reading them doesn't remove the binding nature of what you signed]

As Jeroen says, a Dutch lawyer reviewed the agreement and confirmed to the school that, incredible as it sounded, the kids hanging their paintings up was a violation of the artist's copyright.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by alpha1

But won't his argument be thrown out of court based on property rights?

.

No, as I said earlier, understanding copy rights is tricky at the best of time.
In essence the architect retained the copyright on how the whole building looked, inside and outside. Even thought he building belonged to us, how it looked outside and inside was part of his copyright.

So putting kiddies paintings on the wall was infrining on his copyright as that wall in its entire design wasnt visible any more.

Again, it varies from country and or legal system to the next, but one thing I have come across tends to be that Copyright is defaulte to whoever produced the product, book, item in question. Under Dutch law the exception are payroll employees. When you have for instance an employee inventing something new, by default the copyright belongs to the employer unless you have agreed, by contract, differently.

Our contract with the architect did not stipulate anything around copyright. He wasnt our employee. By law, by default it meant the IPR of his design remained with him. Had we known, we might have done things differently contractualy speaking. Truth be told, nobody had ever heard of a case like this where it involves a school, and then the inside of the school too.

you can see that an architect has good reasons to protect his/her design. It's their name that is associated for even with that building design. But, in this case we (board and parents) felt that it was just ridiculous. Common sense would dictate what happens with halls, corridors and schools. Common sense might, but legally we had not a leg to stand on. Which is actually pretty remarkable as the main principle of Dutch law is always that things need to "redelijk en billijk" or "fair and reasonable".

So a Dutch judge will always look at a case from the perspective of what is fair and reasonable, no matter what a contract stipulates. However, copyrights are seen as very, very fundamental belonging to the original producer (ie architect).

I have been myself in a few other court case (not to do with copyright) where technically/legally speaking I was at default. But after hearing my story and the other party's story, the judge ruled that I was 99% correct and the 1% remaining was to reflect the 'formal' legal responsibility I had. And the subsequent financial settlement was done 99% in my favor.

Jeroen
Jeroen

[tsk1979]

The big push for this is coming via John Deere
http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/

Tractors are usually not replaced for a long time. Farmers keep tinkering and tinkering. Unlike cars, where replacements are common, tractors keep going on and on, because there is none of that "pressure" to own the shiny new(Unless you 100 acres in Punjab, but then thats a different story)

So how does John Deere plan to improve their bottom-lines. Make it impossible to DIY.
So either you buy a new tractor, or go bankrupt paying the standard rates of company workshops.

As far as "soft" products are concerned, the battle is already lost. You no longer own the software. You rent a license.
They want to do this to vehicles to. You just get a license.
With DMCA on their side, they can shut down your DIY shop.

This is happening at multiple places. For example, Nikon stopped selling spare parts to independent repair outfits. That's the reason I plan not to buy Nikon cameras. Tomorrow, others may follow suit, and there won't be much choice.

Today if Deere is their way, it will be GM next, then New Holland and so on.
The only term for this is rentseeking.
Companies somehow have gotten the idea that they should be able to collect tax. Its the ultimate goal of Oligarchy. Become the tax collectors, and profit!!!

[sgiitk]

Crazy fools. Only as long as we are not messing up the Emissions and maybe chipping how can they stop us.

[latentpotential]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

Crazy fools. Only as long as we are not messing up the Emissions and maybe chipping how can they stop us.

Why chipping? If an engine has been deliberately sold in a crippled state of tune with no mechanical changes whatsoever, it should be upto the owner to reprogram the system to get the proper rated power from the equipment.

[Cartman]

Interesting thread. Flies right in the face of this thread.

The reason DIY thrives in western countries is because parts are easily available. If not OEM, aftermarket tried and tested parts are available for most makes. Also, labour isn't as cheap as it is in our country. Long story short - not going to happen. The manufacturers can lobby all they want, but they simply cannot get this implemented. The net result of killing the aftermarket supplies will put tremendous pressure on the OEM suppliers - I'm not entirely sure if they'd want that.

Quoting the final line from the article - this man has got it spot on

"It's just a myth that the manufacturers are the only people who can make improvements"

When you talk about this being implemented in India, consider this : India is known for jugaad and also known not to give a flying hoot about the laws.


Cheers!
Cartman