Glass's Gudie Fore Sale

On or around Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:35:45 -0000, "IanL"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>A moot point but it's done with all sorts of things all over the world.
>
>Were you aware that you shouldn't give away software
>Lend DVD's, Books Etc

yes, some of us are aware - and I think you'll find that you are allowed to
lend books. The full copyright statement says something along the lines of
"in any form of binding or cover other than the one it was originally sold
in and without a similar condition including this condition", in other
words, if you give it to someone else it's still copyright.

software is a different issue, although the restriction there is on use: if
I uninstall software from all my computers and then pass the original media
to someone else, they can I think use it legitimately. The rules are
against copying it and thereby dodging the royalties. I assume the same
applies to films - they're licensed for private use but provided you haven't
duplicated the DVD you don't do anyone out of royalties simply by giving it
to someone else.

However, Glass's do IIRC specifically forbid reselling it. Not sure about
giving it away free.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
If all be true that I do think, There are five reasons we should drink;
Good wine, a friend, or being dry, Or lest we should be by and by;
Or any other reason why. - Henry Aldrich (1647 - 1710)

On or around Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:19:13 +0000, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On 2006-11-14, Nullified <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Having shown yourself to be no respecter of others copyright, try not
>> to compound your errors by top posting ;o)
>
>Well, I suppose cheap shots are easier than answering a perfectly
>valid point..

It's not a valid point. The quote from the copyright statement is
incomplete.

I've not found one of the beg borrow or steal ones yet. Here's one which
seems a common form though:

"No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system
or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the
copyright owner"

selling or lending or giving away the original is not reproducing it.

here's the bit that normally goes with beg borrow or steal, in this case
appended to the statement above:

"nor be otherwise circulated in any form of binding or cover other than that
in which it is published and without a similar condition including this
condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser"

Again, selling or passing on the original (with its copyright statement
still intact) is not a breach - technically, if you were to re-cover it, I
suppose it would be.


From Glass's website:

Question :
Can I get hold of a Glass’s Guide?

Answer :
No. The Glass’s Guide is only available to motor industry professionals.

Question :
Do these values match those in Glass's Guide?

Answer :
No. The Part Exchange values on this site are not the same as those in the
Glass´s Guide. The values on this site are to provide private motorists a
realistic expectation of what their car is worth in a Part Exchange
scenario. Glass’s Guide is a confidential publication supplied to members of
the automotive industry to assist them in running their business.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms...
------------------------------------------------\
>> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them.
a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!

On or around Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:45:31 GMT, Nullified <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>(like many or maybe MOST copyright
>holders) explicitly forbid you from reselling their work to another.

sorry, not so. read a few copyright statements. I suspect that in the case
of Glass's, there's an additional condition precluding reselling, but
general copyright doesn't preclude it, as per my other post.

You're not allowed to *duplicate* things.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms...
------------------------------------------------\
>> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them.
a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!

On or around Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:18:32 -0000, "William Black"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>Person selling a copy of 'Glass's Guide': I have a guide for sale
>
>Mr Glass (or whoever) : You can't do that, it's against the terms of
>trade...
>
>Person selling copy of Glass's Guide: See you in court mate...
>
>Denying someone the right to sell what they have legally purchased is a
>'restraint of trade' and probably illegal.

not sure about that, TBH. They might not actually be "selling" the guide in
the first place. 's like the thing about micorsoft and other software, you
don't buy the software, you buy a non-transferrable licence to use it.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms...
------------------------------------------------\
>> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them.
a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!

On 2006-11-15, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> However, Glass's do IIRC specifically forbid reselling it. Not sure about
> giving it away free.

I don't know how they'd stand legally on that point, after all no
copyright infringements are being violated, and companies can't
criminalise an activity, only governments can. Breach of contract is
about the most that could be claimed I'd have thought.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On Wednesday, in article
<[email protected]>
[email protected] "Austin Shackles" wrote:

> On or around Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:35:45 -0000, "IanL"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >A moot point but it's done with all sorts of things all over the world.
> >
> >Were you aware that you shouldn't give away software
> >Lend DVD's, Books Etc
>
> yes, some of us are aware - and I think you'll find that you are allowed to
> lend books. The full copyright statement says something along the lines of
> "in any form of binding or cover other than the one it was originally sold
> in and without a similar condition including this condition", in other
> words, if you give it to someone else it's still copyright.

That clause apparently has its roots in the US market, where mass-market
paperbacks are on sale-or-return, and the return is done by ripping off
the cover and just sending that back to the publisher. So the lack of
the original cover matters a lot.

So you don't get so many "remaindered" books in the USA.

--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."

On 2006-11-15, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> Again, selling or passing on the original (with its copyright statement
> still intact) is not a breach - technically, if you were to re-cover it, I
> suppose it would be.

Not sure why you're disagreeing with me, that's the valid point I was
pointing out that the other chap was ignoring!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:18:32 -0000, "William Black"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>>
>>Person selling a copy of 'Glass's Guide': I have a guide for sale
>>
>>Mr Glass (or whoever) : You can't do that, it's against the terms of
>>trade...
>>
>>Person selling copy of Glass's Guide: See you in court mate...
>>
>>Denying someone the right to sell what they have legally purchased is a
>>'restraint of trade' and probably illegal.
>
> not sure about that, TBH. They might not actually be "selling" the guide
> in
> the first place. 's like the thing about micorsoft and other software,
> you
> don't buy the software, you buy a non-transferrable licence to use it.

And Micro$oft have been very careful NOT to sue anyone in an English
court...

English law is very specific. When you buy something then it's yours.

People trying to make you do stuff with it after you've paid for it are not
going to get much sympathy from a judge.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On or around Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:47:31 +0000, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On 2006-11-15, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Again, selling or passing on the original (with its copyright statement
>> still intact) is not a breach - technically, if you were to re-cover it, I
>> suppose it would be.
>
>Not sure why you're disagreeing with me, that's the valid point I was
>pointing out that the other chap was ignoring!

oh, OK, sorry. I got mixed up about who was claiming what.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent.
I shall attack. - Marshal Foch (1851 - 1929)

On or around Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:19:05 -0000, "William Black"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On or around Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:18:32 -0000, "William Black"
>> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>>>
>>>Person selling a copy of 'Glass's Guide': I have a guide for sale
>>>
>>>Mr Glass (or whoever) : You can't do that, it's against the terms of
>>>trade...
>>>
>>>Person selling copy of Glass's Guide: See you in court mate...
>>>
>>>Denying someone the right to sell what they have legally purchased is a
>>>'restraint of trade' and probably illegal.
>>
>> not sure about that, TBH. They might not actually be "selling" the guide
>> in
>> the first place. 's like the thing about micorsoft and other software,
>> you
>> don't buy the software, you buy a non-transferrable licence to use it.
>
>And Micro$oft have been very careful NOT to sue anyone in an English
>court...
>
>English law is very specific. When you buy something then it's yours.

true, but microsoft are very careful to say that you;re only buying the
licence. I daresay that you could get them on the non-transferrable bit; if
it's my licence, I can, if I wish, donate or sell it to someone else and
they can use it instead of, but not as well as, me.

I've often wondered this about the car park tickets, which allow you to park
for (say) 4 hours and are "non-transferrable". If I buy the ticket I have
the right to occupy a space for up to 4 hours. If I only use 1h50, and then
my friend comes along just as I'm leaving and I donate to him the remainder
of my ticket's duration, I bet they couldn't make it stick in court.
However, I can't afford to do a test case for it.




>
>People trying to make you do stuff with it after you've paid for it are not
>going to get much sympathy from a judge.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"The breezy call of incense-breathing Morn, The swallow twittering
from the strawbuilt shed, The cock's shrill clarion, or the echoing
horn, No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed."
Thomas Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I've often wondered this about the car park tickets, which allow you to
> park
> for (say) 4 hours and are "non-transferrable". If I buy the ticket I have
> the right to occupy a space for up to 4 hours. If I only use 1h50, and
> then
> my friend comes along just as I'm leaving and I donate to him the
> remainder
> of my ticket's duration, I bet they couldn't make it stick in court.
> However, I can't afford to do a test case for it.

I've never heard of anyone doing that and being fined.

I do know that the car park tickets where you had to put in your car index
number disappeared very quickly after they turned up so I imagine someone
somewhere decided they weren't legal.


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 07:07:30 +0000, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2006-11-14, Nullified <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> What was the valid point? Glass' (like many or maybe MOST copyright
>> holders) explicitly forbid you from reselling their work to another.
>
>Well, for a start, if he bought it from someone else then it would
>probably be hard to make that stick as he'd not be bound by the terms
>and conditions.
>
Hmmm, I dunno. I mean, yes, you're right in as far as he cant be bound
to the original t&c, but then the sale to him in the first place is
technically unlawful, so maybe that takes precedence.

>Secondly, no-one bothers about that kind of crap anyhow, as it's right
>on the edge of legality.
>
I disagree - Ebay most certainly *do* take that seriously, because
they always cancel all auctions that are reported to them as being
unlawful. Too right they dont bother setting up traces to find them
themselves, partly because they cant be bothered and partly because
they generate an income from successful sales, but they do cancel if
notified. TBH, I didnt bother reporting the auctions because I simply
couldnt be bothered - I was merely pointing out that the OP's apparent
generosity in passing on something he had was actually him trying to
sell something he technically had no right to sell

>As for file sharing, it has no relevance here as that's clearly
>against the law as you are copying a piece of work, whereas this is
>akin to selling second-hand computer games and CDs, you in theory are
>forbidden to sell them by the manufacturer but it's not really legal
>for them to put that restriction on you despite their whingeing.
>There are shops dedicated to selling second-hand games, which is
>"explicitly forbidden" and therefore totally illegal in your view yes?

Yeah, okay, strike that last paragraph. It was a particularly poor
analogy

On or around Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:11:10 -0000, "William Black"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>I've never heard of anyone doing that and being fined.
>
>I do know that the car park tickets where you had to put in your car index
>number disappeared very quickly after they turned up so I imagine someone
>somewhere decided they weren't legal.

I just used to put 00000 in them anyway.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to
a great lie than to a small one" Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
from Mein Kampf, Ch 10

On or around Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:41:25 GMT, Nullified <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>Hmmm, I dunno. I mean, yes, you're right in as far as he cant be bound
>to the original t&c, but then the sale to him in the first place is
>technically unlawful, so maybe that takes precedence.

According to Glass's, selling it on is definitely in breach of their
conditions of supply.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Too Busy: Your mind is like a motorway. Sometimes it can be jammed by
too much traffic. Avoid the jams by never using your mind on a
Bank Holiday weekend.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:41:25 GMT, Nullified <[email protected]>
> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>Hmmm, I dunno. I mean, yes, you're right in as far as he cant be bound
>>to the original t&c, but then the sale to him in the first place is
>>technically unlawful, so maybe that takes precedence.
>
> According to Glass's, selling it on is definitely in breach of their
> conditions of supply.


I'd take them more seriously if they had loads of case law backing them up.


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black wrote:

> "Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On or around Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:41:25 GMT, Nullified <[email protected]>
>>enlightened us thusly:
>>
>>
>>>Hmmm, I dunno. I mean, yes, you're right in as far as he cant be bound
>>>to the original t&c, but then the sale to him in the first place is
>>>technically unlawful, so maybe that takes precedence.
>>
>>According to Glass's, selling it on is definitely in breach of their
>>conditions of supply.
>
>
>
> I'd take them more seriously if they had loads of case law backing them up.

If anyone can be bothered to read them, the Terms and Conditions
relating to Glass's products can be found here:
http://www.eurotaxglass.co.uk/PDFs/TermsConditions05.pdf

On a quick look all the restrictions and penalties relate to the
subscriber so if you can distance yourself from that contractual
position they probably cannot touch you. The usual copyright etc.
restrictions still apply but as someone mentioned earlier the
straighforward sale of an unaltered document isn't usually a breach of
copyright.

On or around Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:49:22 +0000, Dougal
<DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

>
>If anyone can be bothered to read them, the Terms and Conditions
>relating to Glass's products can be found here:
>http://www.eurotaxglass.co.uk/PDFs/TermsConditions05.pdf
>
>On a quick look all the restrictions and penalties relate to the
>subscriber so if you can distance yourself from that contractual
>position they probably cannot touch you. The usual copyright etc.
>restrictions still apply but as someone mentioned earlier the
>straighforward sale of an unaltered document isn't usually a breach of
>copyright.

I agree - it all depends whether the seller is the subscriber. although the
subscriber must have passed it on somewhere along the chain. Looking on
ebay, I find quite a lot but not many current ones.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"The breezy call of incense-breathing Morn, The swallow twittering
from the strawbuilt shed, The cock's shrill clarion, or the echoing
horn, No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed."
Thomas Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.

Dougal wrote:

|| Let's save us seeing the same old stuff again ....
||
|| How much did you raise in July?
||
|| http://tinyurl.com/y798zt

What's a "Gudie"?

--
Rich
==============================

2001 Disco II ES auto
1971 S2a 88" petrol
1991 Transit Camper

Take out the obvious to email me.

"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> Dougal wrote:
>
> || Let's save us seeing the same old stuff again ....
> ||
> || How much did you raise in July?
> ||
> || http://tinyurl.com/y798zt
>
> What's a "Gudie"?

It precedes 'two shoes'

Martin

>
> --
> Rich
> ==============================
>
> 2001 Disco II ES auto
> 1971 S2a 88" petrol
> 1991 Transit Camper
>
> Take out the obvious to email me.
>
>