Jump to content

mb_c11

Members
  • Content Count

    402
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mb_c11


  1. Lots of verbiage and twisted logic. You were not confrontational calling the one of the members a troll?

    "Tamiya sold these manuals in the past as replacement parts, they might choose to sell them in a compendium book of manuals one day. If you could download all the manuals for free, that would take away Tamiya's option to do that." When? Between now and decades from now? Tamiya is restricting the flow of information to maintain or repair their vehicles it's customers purchased decades ago. Tamiya can do whatever it pleases, but it has not addressed this issue. Period.

    Besides, making them available for free does not "take away Tamiya's option to do that". They can still release the book(s), and people who think it's worthwhile to have will buy it. Anyway, such books would likely have additional contents making them worthwhile, like any such book out there.

    But I don't think you will change HunterZero's mind. He came down extremely aggressively on me when I pointed out Tamiya themselves didn't seem to know what distribution scheme to use, since the four sites they offer free manuals at all have different downloading conditions :P . Tamiya Japan's site is the most restrictive, Tamiya France has the most clear-cut license, TamiyaUSA(!) and Tamiya Germany lack conditions for downloadable content ;) . I've also already made the "free contents is free to distribute unless explicitly forbidden"-argument...I got the same reaction as you did.

    ". . .you confusing copyright with consumer protection?" No I did not, and in certain cases like this they intersect. You still haven't addressed the issue when information has entered the public domain for long periods of time. You sound like a believer of perpetual copyright.

    The manuals have been out there for too few years to actually fall under the proper public domain (the term is 50 years or so, unless it's something that has entered common usage, e.g. "Googling" for "searching the internet"). On the other hand, Tamiya themselves making them available for free with no further conditions... Also, it's impossible in practice to make copyright or licenses act retroactively (for good reasons, imagine the mess it would cause...), so if you downloaded something for free several year ago and there were no restricting conditions that still applies today.

    "If you think there's no legal barrier, why are you all getting cranky at TamiyaClub for taking the manuals down? What's stopping you from setting up a website with all the manual scans on it, and taking the risk, if you feel you are in the clear to distribute these manuals for free?" Because I'm lazy & I do not have all the manuals. Incidentally, I would urge the various Tamiya forum sites like TC to compile all the manuals on a zip file & make them available from a downloading service while it lasts.

    It's likely Tamiya took offense at paying for the higher resolution manuals. They still haven't tried to take down the sites hosting manuals for free download, have they?

    "Fair use in the USA is a horribly vague law, is tested case by case depending on what is being copied, how much is being copied, who copies it and how it is distributed, but I would not be taking the risk in this scenario." It's "horribly vague" because of the ethical & practical issues mentioned above.

    Copyright law in general is written in generalities, because otherwise society would get completely locked up in copyright wars. You could not even buy a carrot because someone would insist that you paid royalties for the process the whole carrot went through from field to shop...


  2. HPI makes 200 mm shells for FWD cars, IIRC.

    With regards to your home-made chassis, why place the motor at a 90 degree angle? The torque will cause a load of torque steer, something you want to avoid in a dragster. The motor axle should be parallel to the drive axles.

    Using a F1 gearbox is not viable because some minor amount of steering is required, and the axle of the F1 won't permit that. Rear wheel steering would be the only option, a bad idea for a high speed car.

    FF-03 could probably be tuned up to go 100 km/h, but perhaps you should consider tracking down a Yokomo YR-F2 (just Google it), which has almost a direct drive transmission...


  3. No, that's not what I meant. The F103 and F102 chassis are exactly the same wheelbase (26 cm) and width (20 cm). The F103L has a wheelbase of 27 cm, I believe.

    The Group C cars used a FRP/ABS spaceframe/tub instead of the single chassis plate of the F102. The tub has three sets of holes that allows two additional wheelbases (27 and 28 cm). Without the Group C specific chassis parts you won't be able to realize those two wheelbases using the F102 front and rear end and F102 chassis.

    You should measure the wheelbase of the body. If it's 28 cm you're out of luck, unless you can find the group C chassis parts.


  4. I accept many 3rd party companies make after market parts which are very similar and again these being used on any model is not a problem. If the part is posted as a trade then we take a look and make a decision obviously if its a recognised part or company then no action will be taken. If its a 'back bedroom manufacturer' no-one has every heard of and it looks like its a direct rip-off of some Tamiya work then we probably will delete it.

    I am sorry I cannot give you all a black and white rule, its obviously impossible - i think most are understanding the position we are in and what we are trying to do though. If you are really concerned as with every other rule ASK BEFORE POSTING or at the very least don't be offended if you post and your item is removed. This is not a case of trying to work out ways around this rule. If people are sensible, are posting pictures of legitimate items in all faith its ok then the chances are there will not be an issue. If you find yourself thinking "how do I get around this" or "I'm not sure if this is ok" there there is more likely to be an issue. At the end of the day if you make a mistake the mods will just clean up after you and let you know why they did. No hard feelings and nothing personal.

    Okay, many thanks for the clarification. Can we assume that 1980s copies of Tamiya buggies are also safe, or are they banned?

    Would it help you if a list of aftermarket manufacturers was compiled? Obviously some manufacturers are very obscure and it cannot be expected that the TC staff knows them all by heart.


  5. I also read once that the Group C cars are closer to the F102 than the F103 in their structure, but I'm not 100% sure <_<

    Group C use the F101/102 front suspension and F102 t-bar/rear pod, with a different chassis with adjustable wheelbase.


  6. We also wont remove things like the alluminium bumpers, wild wendys, metal skid plates etc - but we will remove 1:1 resin copies of Tamiya parts.

    Can I please point out (please don't take offense) that there are a few legit aftermarket companies out there that make parts that are very similar to the original parts because they have to fit into a certain location or because they have certain mechanical requirements? E.g. nylon replacement gears, suspension parts, universals...

    An example would be aftermarket spur gears for Tamiya's F1 cars, which have a very specific design and may look almost exactly the same as the original parts. Only a close comparison may show some very minor differences. Often the only difference is better materials, which you may not be able to see on a picture.

    Will those be removed too, or is there an exception for such parts?

    If someone wants to make decals sheets and sell them for any models that is also fine as long as there is nothing on them which could be conceived to be originating from Tamiya copyrighted material (There is a good chance we will be making something along these lines at some point in the future) This is no different to any other third party decal provider.

    Can this be clarified? Does 'originating from Tamiya' refer to, for example, the slogans on the rear wings of buggies? Hopefully it doesn't refer to generic sponsor decals that may also happen to be included on some of Tamiya's decal sheets...


  7. I can assure you, it does work that way. If you create a work, you are granted copyright to it by default. That's why we do need public domain licenses like the GNU license for software, since the license is as much about telling you what you can do with the work as it is about telling you what you can't do with it.

    And if you had read my post properly, you would have read that this was the point I was making.

    Tamiya's website and copyright notice don't say what you can do with the free manuals available there. There's nothing about non-commercial/non-profit use. In what size letter should I write that I am talking about the manuals that are available for free on Tamiya's site? If Tamiya doesn't want those free manuals to be redistributed by others for free, they should make that clear. They don't.

    Since they don't, what can a user do with these free manuals? Are they allowed to distribute them? This is not explicitly stated on Tamiya's website, nor is it stated that it is absolutely forbidden. So what is the juridical stus of these manuals. Tamiya owns the copyright and the right to commercially distribute them. Who has the right to distribute them non-commercially?

    Your interpretation of what sounds like Dutch fair use laws sound a bit free and easy to me. You can't possibly argue that republishing something on the web for every web user to see and copy with the intention that only your immediate household members download it comes under this law. Fair use laws typically only cover making a copy for your own personal use or people in your immediate household, eg format shifting. Making a copy of something available for public download by everyone most certainly does NOT come under fair use law, and is in fact redistributing it, whether it was your intention or not.

    Tell that to the judge who made the ruling.

    There's also this amusing incident with Scientology. Not that I am arguing that Tamiya manuals are on the same level as Scientology's stuff...

    5.4 Copyright owners of material in electronic form may also wish to attach electronic rights management information to their work or other subject-matter. The removal or alteration of this material is prohibited by the Copyright Act in certain circumstances. Copyright owners of material in electronic form can also protect their material by technologies such as password protection or software locks. The Copyright Act also prohibits the making and dealing in devices and services used to circumvent such protection in certain circumstances.

    This.

    But it still doesn't void the fact Tamiya created these manuals, and clearly owns the copyright for these manuals, and are entitled to protect their copyright. And note the disclaimer at the top of the page that offers the downloads:

    "R/C manuals for major Tamiya chassis are available for download. Please note that downloadable files may not be altered, resold or distributed without permission."

    Here's another one:

    "Below is a list Tamiya R/C Manuals for your reference. You may download or view them online, but please do not hotlink these files. You will find a search feature below for easier access."

    Okay, turns out that Tamiya's one end has different policies from the other end. Tamiya.com's English site shows the message given by HunterZero, TamiyaUSA shows the one I got.

    Digging a bit deeper shows that Dickie-Tamiya (the German Tamiya distributor) also offer manuals, with no license whatsoever on the page itself: http://www.dickietamiya.com/de/produkte/rcservicetamiya.htm:

    "Hier findest Du zahlreiche PDF-Dateien von Bauanleitungen, Tuningteillisten und Testberichten. Die Dateien sind nach Artikelnummern sortiert."

    (the copyright page does block reproduction)

    Three different licenses from one company, for the same files. :wacko: That's...not good.

    Edit: Oh Gods, it's even worse. Looks like every single Tamiya distributor has their own copyrights and licenses. French distributor T2M also offers the manuals, and has the following (essential bit: limited redistribution on paper allowed under certain conditions):

    "Droit d'auteur - Copyright

    L'ensemble de ce site relève de la législation française et internationale sur le droit d'auteur et la propriété intellectuelle. Tous les droits de reproduction sont réservés, y compris pour les documents téléchargeables et les représentations iconographiques et photographiques. La reproduction de tout ou partie de ce site sur un support électronique quel qu'il soit est formellement interdite sauf autorisation expresse du directeur de la publication. La reproduction des textes de ce site sur un support papier est autorisée, tout particulièrement dans le cadre pédagogique, sous réserve du respect des trois conditions suivantes :

    - gratuité de la diffusion,

    - respect de l'intégrité des documents reproduits : pas de modification ni altération d'aucune sorte,

    - citation claire et lisible de la source sous la forme suivante -par exemple - : "ce document provient du site Internet de T2M : http://www.t2m-rc.fr. Les droits de reproduction sont réservés et strictement limités". L'adresse Internet du site de T2M doit impérativement figurer dans la référence.

    Pour d'autres utilisations, veuillez nous consulter.

    Les marques éventuellement citées sur ce site sont déposées par les sociétés qui en sont propriétaires."

    So the rights a user has differ depending on the website the files are downloaded from. That's...stupid.


  8. Well, that's not what we were told in a professional context. If you're going to provide a work for free, and you want to prevent free redistribution (≠ copyright breach), you need to specify that in your license of use. If you don't, you're pretty much screwed in court. The only exception where you're not screwed in court is when someone uses your free products to damage your reputation. But that's not a copyright claim, that's defamation.

    If copyright worked in the way you just described, there wouldn't be a need for all those nifty open source licenses for digital works that regulate exactly those kind of uses by telling users what they can do and cannot do with software and data (and PDFs and scans count as data). Basic copyright, which applies to any creation by anyone, would provide enough protection. It doesn't.

    The way Tamiya's license reads is like a license for physical works should read. Unfortunately, that doesn't work that way on the internet, which crosses borders in a way that requires additional license clauses to cover use of your digital works in countries where part of your actual copyright notice doesn't work as it may in your home country.

    E.g. According to Dutch law and several court rulings I could host those Tamiya manuals (especially the out of print ones) in my country and provide them for free with likely no problems whatsoever, since digital distribution to people I 'know' (this includes peer-to-peer and forums) falls under the home copy rule.

    Obviously, if you alter the original file, things are different, since that probably breaches the rights of the original company. Except that Tamiya can't make that argument, since the manual scans are not the same files as the Tamiya PDFs in the first place, and can be considered two different works derived from the same source work. Which in turn means Tamiya can't use the scans of the manuals they currently don't offer as the base for PDFs, since that would violate the copyright of the scanners (which applies to the scans, not the actual contents of the images).

    The entire problem is that providing a work for free on the internet means certain rights by the original copyright holder are forfeited unless additional clauses regulating distribution are added. If the clauses explicitly mention 'profit', then they likewise cannot apply to free distribution of the original files. What Tamiya should do is expand their license to clarify such problems, otherwise it simply causes a juridical black hole where both sides are technically right.

    Here I can use my work as an example:

    For my work we need to make a massive amount of information previously published in books (for which we hold the copyright) freely available. Making it freely available means we need to provide a license telling people what they can do with the data, including further distribution. If we don't provide a good license, we're and our future users are in trouble because people might use our data in ways we didn't intend and we will be powerless in court to actually prevent them from doing so.

    Sound familiar?

    A small but important footnote:

    Most copyright claims involving a Cease & Desist end at the 'offender' pulling the offending work after receiving the C&D (whether it's right or not). Of those that go on to court, a lot are chucked out for being, well, wrong.


  9. Personally I really don't care if they force everyone to pull the manuals, as long as they are available from some source. I would even be willing to order one from them if it didn't cost too much. The Tamiya USA site has most of the ones I need, but there are still quite a few of the vintage manuals that are not there (the Falcon comes to mind.)

    They can't force people who provide the manuals for free to pull the manuals, unless they change the rules on their own sites and include something like "redistribution forbidden" (which is currently lacking). Even if they added such a clause, it might be invalid in certain countries.

    Also, there might be some issues (for Tamiya) with regards to forbidding making available scans from catalogues that were freely available in the first place.

    If Chris can prove that the membership fee is only there to cover server costs (and similar), and no profit is made, that could mean Tamiya's claims are invalid depending on how the UK's law works on that point.


  10. A lot of companies don't bat an eye at copyright violations as long as no money is made on them and they are relatively small-scale. If copies turn out to be very lucrative to people not part of the original company, then the original company can take action (rightly).

    Also, copyright doesn't stop when something is sold to the public. Public domain in copyright law is not "sold to the public", it is "company decides copyright will not be enforced anymore" - which is why it is seen as bad form to first release something into the public domain, and then later claim copyright over it anyway and try to force people to pay.

    The latter is not what happened in this case, because Tamiya never gave away the copyright (but it has started lapsing for their oldest products in recent years). Instead, people claimed it was released into the public domain (which it was not) because Tamiya didn't do anything with it. Which is fine as long as the items in question are provided for free or not produced for profit (on a small scale).

    So yeah, Tamiya have a point in threatening to prosecute repro-item sellers who make a profit over their items and produce items in very large quantities.

    However, since they provide manuals for free themselves (without clearly specifying what an user can do with the copies, like further distribution) they'll have a hard time proving that providing manuals for free by third parties is a copyright violation.

    So what's about the DVDs Tamiya Australia released and sold a few years ago with manuals, (ugly) RC Guide Books photos, decals and period promitional videos?

    Just wonderring... looks like there's some kind of lack of consistency in Tamiya's worldwide strategy

    They are made by Tamiya Australia for use in Australia. Tamiya Australia is a subsidiary of Tamiya Inc., and very likely have licenses to everything, so it's completely legal.

    As I mentionned, these are guesses and speculation. But if this might be what's behind the legal actions that we can't understand because they primarly hit a "devoted" fan base. Next moves could be against cloners at industrial-scale. Think about 3rd party hop-ups for example: I'm talking about those "direct fit" parts such as "TT-01 Blue Aluminum Motor Mount" for example. They do use Tamiya brand name, logo and model/chassis names in their own product names and descriptions. If you were Tamiya, would this look like a copyrighted material abuse?

    Not gonna happen, unless Tamiya is really, really stupid and want some nasty court cases in which they are rebuked. Direct fit parts are not exact copies of the original parts, and the names are used to inform users of compatibility.

    This is comparable to software companies using the words "Microsoft", "windows", "vista" (etc.) to indicate that their software runs on Windows. It is not a copyright violation.

    On the other hand, those Chinese companies cloning whole cars in all details, and resellers outside China selling those? You bet Tamiya can.


  11. I've just checked out Tamiya USA's manual download page (https://www.tamiyausa.com/pdf/manuals/, which lacks a license of use :) .

    So I had a look at the Terms of use for the site (https://www.tamiyausa.com/terms.php), and they seem to only have a problem with commercial re-use:

    This license does not include any resale or commercial use of this web site or its contents; any collection and use of any product listings, descriptions, or prices; any derivative use of this web site or its contents; any downloading or copying of information for the benefit of another merchant; or any use of data mining, robots, or similar data gathering and extraction tools. This web site or any portion of this web site may not be reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold, resold, visited, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without express written consent of Tamiya America, Inc.

    There is no mention of making things freely available. So that ought to be okay.

    Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that the manual scans available at TamiyaUSA and TamiyaClub are not the same, since they were scanned by different people. What this means is that they should be considered two different things.

    On top of that, Tamiya USA is legally forbidden from making available manuals coming from TamiyaClub (should they feel like doing that).


  12. Come on , Out of the 30000 members there must be some lawyers in here . That could have a say ?. Maybe give some info of sorts . :) .

    Yes there are different country's with different laws . Can we put the manual data base in a different country that don't have the copyright law etc . :)

    Yes. And aside from ressorting to illegal means (hacking) Tamiya would be screwed if they tried to prevent it.

    I wonder if the manuals would fall under the Dutch copyright law's "home copy" ruling (which allows quite a lot).


  13. Out of curiousity, did the people who received Cease and Desist letters (not emails, I hope, because in some countries those have no legal value) get them from the local Tamiya department in their country, Tamiya Japan, or Tamiya USA? Because if you're in the UK, Tamiya Japan and Tamiya USA can't actually enforce anything, since UK copyright law is at play and not Japan or US copyright law (which only apply within said countries).

    The manuals could be brought back if all references to Tamiya were removed and small but crucial changes were made (let's say, change color from blue to red, change page format a bit), because under most copyright laws that would amount to creating a new product...and the manufacturer will have a very hard time to prove it is a copy.

    *****'s more badly reproduced bodies could actually be safe from persecution due to the lesser quality of the molds. :)

    What generally kills companies reproducing items is not being successfully convicted of copyright abuse, but the big bad complainer having enough funds to proceed and proceed and proceed against them. :)

    Anyway, the only thing this will cause is that repro-decals will soon come from manufacturers in countries where Tamiya can't do anything about (i.e. China), possibly in very large quantities.


  14. As I wrote in another thread, have that Cease and Desist checked out by a copyright lawyer. Most of those are actually pretty unenforceable, especially if the items in question (manuals) are provided for free, are not available elsewhere (from the manufacturer), and the copyright holder doesn't do anything with them (=abandonware).

    Also, I assume this C&D is a paper letter? If not, and it's an email not actually addressed to the website owner using his formal physical address, it's nonsense.

    Furthermore, copyright does not work the same way in all countries. What is illegal in some countries is perfectly legal in others. It's not possible to enforce copyright in one country based on copyright law from another country.

    A way around it would be to do the following: Take manuals scans, change the colors, slightly change the proportions of the pages, remove front pages and copyright notices. Result: 'new' product, no copyright misuse. This is the easiest way to circumvent copyright issues where a product is copied - just change it a bit, and the original manufacturer will have a very hard time to prove it is not a new product in the context of copyright law.

    Just repeating what my company's copyright expert told us during a course on the matter.

×
×
  • Create New...