Please Help...

Billiard Architect

Billiard Architect

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Unfortunately, if you offer it for free and someone else decides to act as a middle man and sell it he probably is doing nothing illegal. Just like when people sell publications that the government put out for free. People can get them for free directly from the government but don't know that and pay the middle man.

But, I am not an attorney. What did Ebay tell you?

Jake
 
jjinfla said:
Unfortunately, if you offer it for free and someone else decides to act as a middle man and sell it he probably is doing nothing illegal. Just like when people sell publications that the government put out for free. People can get them for free directly from the government but don't know that and pay the middle man.

But, I am not an attorney. What did Ebay tell you?

Jake
Click to expand...
He sent me an email stating that he purchased the plans from another individual on ebay and was told that he can do anything he wanted with the plans. I informed him that individual was also reported to EBay and they removed his auction.

I just reported him this morning so it will take around 24-48 hours for them to get back to me.

This really sux... Try and do something nice and the sleazebags come out of the woodwork.
 
Johnny "V" said:
Someone has stolen my web site (http://pooltable.kirchelconsulting.com) and is selling it on EBay (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=21213&item=7145175580&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW). This information is free and they have seen fit to copy, print and sell the material. Please flood this scum with as many emails as possible.

I have already reported them to ebay so hopefully they will pull it soon.

Thanks in advance

John Kirchel
Click to expand...

This may sound strange coming from me, but what's the problem?

If you gave it away, can't the person who received it do what s/he wants to do with it?

What loss have you incurred?

Am I missing something?

Jeff Livingston
 
Am I missing something?

What you are missing is that the written info has copyright protection. Meaning John owns that written work to do with as he pleases. Not for others to do with as they please, like making money from it.

If you let someone use your car and they robbed a bank, made a drug deal with it, mowed down two little old ladies with it, and then raped a goat in the front seat. Would that be ok with you?

If the info that the ebayer is selling, is in fact the same written work or very close to John’s work, then IMO John would have some legal recourse against the ebayer.

Rick
 
chefjeff said:
This may sound strange coming from me, but what's the problem?

If you gave it away, can't the person who received it do what s/he wants to do with it?

What loss have you incurred?

Am I missing something?

Jeff Livingston
Click to expand...


The problem is a violation of copyright infringement. Just because this person wishes to provide this information for free to the public, that service is for personal use. In the same sense, you cannot take an MP3, package it and resell it. This really is rudamentary copyright law.

One of my relatives is a professional photographer who offers her pictures for sale on her website. Now, obviously if you wish to download any of the photos she offers on her site for personal use, there's nothing stopping you but if you wish to publish any of them, she'll need to be compensated.
 
hustlefinger said:
Am I missing something?

What you are missing is that the written info has copyright protection. Meaning John owns that written work to do with as he pleases. Not for others to do with as they please, like making money from it.

If you let someone use your car and they robbed a bank, made a drug deal with it, mowed down two little old ladies with it, and then raped a goat in the front seat. Would that be ok with you?

If the info that the ebayer is selling, is in fact the same written work or very close to John’s work, then IMO John would have some legal recourse against the ebayer.

Rick
Click to expand...
LOL. I guess all the rest would be ok but raping a goat would be rough on the interior.

Rick you nailed it on the head. Not only do I have ownership of it but Billiards Digest also owns a piece of it.

EBay removed the auction and I got a very friendly email from the guy telling me his thoughts about the subject. I have saved it for future reference if I ever run into problems from him again. I love it when people don't think before they type (nothing like documented slander and threats :) )

JV
 
hustlefinger said:
Am I missing something?

What you are missing is that the written info has copyright protection. Meaning John owns that written work to do with as he pleases. Not for others to do with as they please, like making money from it.
Rick
Click to expand...

OK. And he pleases to give it away. Now that it rightfully and voluntarily belongs to someone else (ie, it is now their property,too), doesn't s/he have the same right to do with it as s/he pleases? How can you argue for property rights in John's instance, but not for the person who receives it? :confused:

Does receiving copyrighted material by the owner's consent mean that the receiver also owns it?

hustlefinger said:
If you let someone use your car and they robbed a bank, made a drug deal with it, mowed down two little old ladies with it, and then raped a goat in the front seat. Would that be ok with you?

Rick
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur. If I gave (not lent) someone my car, it is his car, not mine, so what he does with it is his business. John isn't lending his property, he's giving it away for free. The car analogy doesn't really work in this case.

hustlefinger said:
If the info that the ebayer is selling, is in fact the same written work or very close to John’s work, then IMO John would have some legal recourse against the ebayer.

Rick
Click to expand...

OK, let's say he has some legal recourse....I'm not lawyer, I don't know. Let's say you're right about this. What economic harm is done to John? What would the ebayer have to pay/do and why?

Why did John put it on the website for free? To spread the knowledge? To get satisfaction from exclusively posting the material? What value did John expect from the site? What value is lost to John now that someone else has sold the same on ebay?

Jeff Livingston
 
chefjeff said:
OK. And he pleases to give it away. Now that it rightfully and voluntarily belongs to someone else (ie, it is now their property,too), doesn't s/he have the same right to do with it as s/he pleases? How can you argue for property rights in John's instance, but not for the person who receives it? :confused:

Does receiving copyrighted material by the owner's consent mean that the receiver also owns it?



Non-sequitur. If I gave (not lent) someone my car, it is his car, not mine, so what he does with it is his business. John isn't lending his property, he's giving it away for free. The car analogy doesn't really work in this case.



OK, let's say he has some legal recourse....I'm not lawyer, I don't know. Let's say you're right about this. What economic harm is done to John? What would the ebayer have to pay/do and why?

Why did John put it on the website for free? To spread the knowledge? To get satisfaction from exclusively posting the material? What value did John expect from the site? What value is lost to John now that someone else has sold the same on ebay?

Jeff Livingston
Click to expand...
Here is a better example... A little while back JR was giving away Inside pool as a download off his site (recently he started charging a dollar). So you think it would be ok for me to download that copy and sell it on ebay to anyone that wants to bid on it? What about the Embeded Visual Basic that Micro$oft was giving away for free. I am allowed to d/l it burn it to a CD then sell it on EBay? No? Then what gives them rights that I don't have to my Intellectual Property? Obviously I have rights to it because the auction was removed.

JV
 
chefjeff said:
OK. And he pleases to give it away. Now that it rightfully and voluntarily belongs to someone else (ie, it is now their property,too), doesn't s/he have the same right to do with it as s/he pleases? How can you argue for property rights in John's instance, but not for the person who receives it? :confused:

Does receiving copyrighted material by the owner's consent mean that the receiver also owns it?



Non-sequitur. If I gave (not lent) someone my car, it is his car, not mine, so what he does with it is his business. John isn't lending his property, he's giving it away for free. The car analogy doesn't really work in this case.



OK, let's say he has some legal recourse....I'm not lawyer, I don't know. Let's say you're right about this. What economic harm is done to John? What would the ebayer have to pay/do and why?

Why did John put it on the website for free? To spread the knowledge? To get satisfaction from exclusively posting the material? What value did John expect from the site? What value is lost to John now that someone else has sold the same on ebay?

Jeff Livingston
Click to expand...
Why did John post the material? So other people could benifit from the knowledge not so a few would reap a few bucks out of my hard work and determination. Just because it is presented on a web site does not make it any less copyrighted than any other publication.

JV
 
I was selling an enterprise edition Win2K3 advanced server edition with 25 cals on ebay..... it got yanked in a heartbeat because I was selling a "promo" item that they were giving away. I even got threatening emails from Microsoft over it....
 
1pRoscoe said:
I was selling an enterprise edition Win2K3 advanced server edition with 25 cals on ebay..... it got yanked in a heartbeat because I was selling a "promo" item that they were giving away. I even got threatening emails from Microsoft over it....
Click to expand...
I wonder why THAT would be a problem :P

I am surprised they didn't send the software police after you. I had a web site that had the name advantasearch (old piece of shareware I wrote). I got an email from Advanta (the conglomerate) telling me that I was not allowed to use the name Advanta in Advantasearch because it infringed on their trademark. I sent an email back telling them they were on drugs and if they wanted to purchase my website name for 15,000 I would be happy to sell it to them. I then started receiving delivery confirmed letters in the mail from their lawyers. I finally let the name expire and someone else registered it. They were too busy getting me to drop the name they missed registering it when it expired.

JV
 
chefjeff said:
Does receiving copyrighted material by the owner's consent mean that the receiver also owns it?
Jeff Livingston
Click to expand...

No. The owner of copyright material can issue licenses for specific uses of that material, such as personal use as it is in this case. That doesn’t give an individual the right to resell that material. John could have issued or sold licenses to the ebayer enabling the ebayer permission to resell the info, but John didn’t do that.

He didn’t turn over ownership of the property, he is letting the individual use the knowledge gained from the material for their personal use (i.e. build a pool table).

Rick
 
hustlefinger said:
No. The owner of copyright material can issue licenses for specific uses of that material, such as personal use as it is in this case. That doesn’t give an individual the right to resell that material. John could have issued or sold licenses to the ebayer enabling the ebayer permission to resell the info, but John didn’t do that.

He didn’t turn over ownership of the property, he is letting the individual use the knowledge gained from the material for their personal use (i.e. build a pool table).

Rick
Click to expand...

Finally, an answer. Are you in the legal profession?

Personally, I'd be happy if my FREE message was spread further by anyone, even if (horror!) they made money doing it. Actually, I'd be mad at myself, not them, for my choice to not market it profitably.

It's funny how things happen at the right time, but just before I got into this thread I bookmarked this site:

http://www.valeoip.com/

Which claims to be the only online place for licensing intellectual property. Perhaps John could use it for protection from whatever it is he doesn't like. (which I still don't really know).

Another thing....I read John's table building article in BD (or am I mistaken about this?) a while back and enjoyed it tremendously. Thanks, John. I especially like the part about the strongest legs going all the way to the frame, vs. the cabinet style that eventually starts to move.

What rights does BD have in all of this, I wonder?

Jeff Livingston
 
chefjeff said:
Does receiving copyrighted material by the owner's consent mean that the receiver also owns it?

Jeff Livingston
Click to expand...

I am really surprised someone would even think this to be true. :confused:

When you purchase a book, you own the book yes. But you do not own the content within the book. The book is licensed to you for reading purposes. Not to photocopy, retype, or otherwise make duplicates and then sell them. Same with Music CD's, Software etc.. When you purchase that Box with a Windows XP CD in it, you are not purchasing the software, you are purchasing a license to USE the software. Apply that same line of thinking to book, Music, and other forms of media.
 
rokudan said:
I am really surprised someone would even think this to be true. :confused:

When you purchase a book, you own the book yes. But you do not own the content within the book. The book is licensed to you for reading purposes. Not to photocopy, retype, or otherwise make duplicates and then sell them. Same with Music CD's, Software etc.. When you purchase that Box with a Windows XP CD in it, you are not purchasing the software, you are purchasing a license to USE the software. Apply that same line of thinking to book, Music, and other forms of media.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. That makes sense, too. Except of course, John wasn't selling his book, but giving it away. I suppose he's looking at it as the price he set for it was zero and wants it to stay that way.

The reason I was wondering about this is because copyright law is becoming confusing, what with the internet and all. Same with patent law.

As anyone who read the Basivich article thread and the smoking ban threads here and on BD knows I'm all for property rights. I'm not questioning them; I'm simply questioning how they work here and exactly why John is mad about the violation when there aren't any monetary damages that I can see.

Thanks all,

Jeff Livingston
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top