And... no - this matter is certainly NOT the same as IP theft related to clone VCDS cables!
Come the revolution (comrade) when the proletariat's interests prevail - such inane practices by multinational conglomerates will be outlawed! When this happens (as it surely must happen) - which side will you be on (i.e. the side of the silver-tailed, shiny pants bosses, or the side of the common man) ?
The part #s and the database are copy written IP material case closed when taken to court here in the USA.
It's all about use within granted permissions to access the IP no different than when you use the granted license of VCDS by means of purchase and dongle.
In VAG's case you bought the car and each part indeed has a part # printed on it......you didn't buy the right to the parts database IP, unless you chose to negotiate that permission like I did when I did my own business transaction.
Maybe before you buy your next car try to get a letter in writing on VAG letterhead & from someone that matters granting such a permission........ever consider that verse being a brandy wine?
I have always been a common man.........no one special here.......
DV52, let's turn the tide here... Feel free to prove that this is NOT copyrighted material. As a starting point...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102
...for the time being, those catalogs contain images - which in almost all cases are copyrighted (not just in the US) and there is very little one can argue about that. Therefor, the entire "work" containing these images is protected, which means that the sites removed here would have a very tough standing legally.
FWIW, I've been moderating in Germany's biggest automotive forum since 2003 and we have had countless topics, discussions and legal arguments thrown back and forth. I'm not going to say I've heard it all, though believe me when I tell you, I have heard a lot of arguments. In the end, none has prevailed in court yet.
More information please.
Getting back to my previous points - what asect of the Part #s database did the courts say is "copy written IP material case closed when taken to court here in the USA"? It can't be the number itself (since it's written on the parts in my car - as you say). Is it the price perhaps? I would argue that a buyer has the fundamental right to know the cost of an item before it's purchased. Or is it the fact that the part number is linked to a model- perhaps ? Again, it would respond that a buyer should have reasonable confidence that the part to be purchsed is suitable for his/her vehicle - without having to pay extra for that reassurance.
So what is it about the part #s database that is so sacrosanct in the USA?
With the deepest respect - quite the opposite! I don't believe that as a purchaser of a VAG vehicle, I should have to seek such permission. In fact, I would argue that if VAG's practices deviate so radically from normal accepted commercial processes, it's incumbent on VAG to tell me BEFORE I purchase the vehicle that the only way that I could get access to the basic data for buying their spare parts is to pay them an additional fee for this information. Would this change my decision to buy the car? Probably not - but I don't for a minute believe that every purchaser of a VAG vehicle should be aware of these deviant commercial practices and therefore provide implicit consent unless they otherwise negotiate a signed release on VAG letterhead!
Jack: Whilst I agree with the first part, I vehemently disagree with the second bit. We have not met, but I've little doubt that you a man of the people. However, in your case - being a common-man does most certainly not make you a common man! I only have to read your writings to prove that you are anything but a common man (and that's a very good thing)!!
PS: I hope that you don't disclose any portion of the parts #s database to customers that "walk into your shop" - or does your special agreement have a waiver for disclosing IP?
IANAL, but but IMO a part number is not something that a company can prevent a 3rd party from referencing under copyright law. A part number, by itself is simply not a copyright-able "work". Now a complete database of part numbers, their application, associated images, and so on, that is a copyright-able "work".
-Uwe-
(a) Definitions.
(1) A Display Warning of Copyright is a notice under paragraphs (d)(2) and (e)(2) of section 108 of title 17 of the United States Code. As required by those sections the “Display Warning of Copyright” is to be displayed at the place where orders for copies or phonorecords are accepted by certain libraries and archives.
(2) An Order Warning of Copyright is a notice under paragraphs (d)(2) and (e)(2) of section 108 of title 17 of the United States Code. As required by those sections the “Order Warning of Copyright” is to be included on printed forms supplied by certain libraries and archives and used by their patrons for ordering copies or phonorecords.
(b) Contents. A Display Warning of Copyright and an Order Warning of Copyright shall consist of a verbatim reproduction of the following notice, printed in such size and form and displayed in such manner as to comply with paragraph (c) of this section: notice warning concerning copyright restrictions
The copyright law of the United States (title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material.
Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specific conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law.
(c) Form and manner of use.
(1) A Display Warning of Copyright shall be printed on heavy paper or other durable material in type at least 18 points in size, and shall be displayed prominently, in such manner and location as to be clearly visible, legible, and comprehensible to a casual observer within the immediate vicinity of the place where orders are accepted.
(2) An Order Warning of Copyright shall be printed within a box located prominently on the order form itself, either on the front side of the form or immediately adjacent to the space calling for the name or signature of the person using the form. The notice shall be printed in type size no smaller than that used predominantly throughout the form, and in no case shall the type size be smaller than eight points. The notice shall be printed in such manner as to be clearly legible, comprehensible, and readily apparent to a casual reader of the form.
(Pub. L. 94-553; 17 U.S.C. 108, 702) [42 FR 59265, Nov. 16, 1977, as amended at 82 FR 9357, Feb. 6, 2017]
17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
prev | next
§ 107.
Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
(Pub. L. 94–553, title I, § 101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2546; Pub. L. 101–650, title VI, § 607, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5132; Pub. L. 102–492, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3145.)
when i become president, this issue is on my list to fix.
and when i say fixed, i am not saying that this should not be copyright-able, but that it it should be considered fair use for all end users and parts-chain members for access and dissemination.
IANAL, but but IMO a part number is not something that a company can prevent a 3rd party from referencing under copyright law. A part number, by itself is simply not a copyright-able "work". Now a complete database of part numbers, their application, associated images, and so on, that is a copyright-able "work".
-Uwe-
I'm not going to make ethical judgments here, but I'm pretty confident it is a "work" that qualifies for copyright protection under the law in most jurisdictions.The concept of creating a database whose sole purpose is to support the act of selling goods to customers and then wrapping that database with a copyright label - and then designing a charging regime that further deters those same customers from gaining access (so that dealers and independent workshops remain part of the sales process) is just plain wrong!!
PS: and finally - I didn't get a chance to look at the links that were removed in Dave's post - was the information a straight-copy of VAG's database, or was it a "re-created" database? If the latter - why is it "illegal"? If the former, why aren't VAG's lawyers all over it - like a rash?