> From Dave & Marianne Lyons
> I am very confused by the discussion about the rulebook. I do not
> understand the relevance of the rules being the "intellectual
> property" of anyone, or how they can actually be "intellectual
> property." They are rules. There's nothing secret about them. If
> there is, then no one can follow them. They are a description of what
> must be / can be done if you wish to participate in an SCCA event. If
> the rules set is not easily available to members, if not the public,
> then how does the SCCA expect any entrants?
Looks like you don't understand the term "intellectual property". All it
means is that it is property that is of an intellectual rather than physical
nature.
The specific wording of the rules is owned by the SCCA rather than the
actual books, just like any other book or any movie.
The SCCA created a set of rules that act as a whole. By default, the
copyright is owned by the SCCA. The SCCA owned the copyright as soon as the
rules were written, even if they never registered them or put any mark on
the book.
However, owning the copyright does not say that the SCCA has to prevent
anyone from copying it for their own use.
My feeling is that it is in the SCCA's best interest to allow people to make
copies of part or all of the rules for use as copies and identified as the
SCCA's rules. According to one person on this list, the SCCA has said that
they did not intend to block copying the rules. That is a policy that may
need to be clarified.
How many of the people who are up in arms over the ASSUMED policy of
blocking the copies have written to the SCCA to tell them how useful it
would be if they could be copied?
If they really want (which has not been shown by anyone, only ASSUMED) that
they wanted to make money from them, it would be very easy to REQUIRE that
all competitors have an SCCA printed book or SCCA created CD-ROM with them.
They do have a valid interest in the identification of them as the SCCA
rules. If I start up a competing organization, I should not be allowed to
just skip the effort that was needed to create the rules by copying them and
claiming them as mine. That is what the intellectual property laws were
created to prevent.
> As to the printability / etc of the CD files, it has been mentioned
> that the "protection" is an accident of manufacture. If so, why does
> the rulebook include mention of that "protection?"
>
> > I cannot find where, in the rulebook it specifically mentions the
> > Security setting in the PDF file. Could you tell me where that is?
You seem to have ignored that question other than to make claims one way
without the requested clairification.
> Now, if I want to print a section of it for reference / to write on /
> because the font size in the book is too small / because I want to
> read it while working on my car without getting grease all over my
> "good" copy, what's the problem? How does that infringe whatever
> "intellectual property rights" the SCCA might have?
It doesn't. The laws allows copying of items for some uses. HOWEVER, it
doesn't say that the author has to HELP YOU copy the material. You have
every right to take your rule book and use a copier to enlarge the pages to
give you more writing space or to do an end run around the no copy
properties of the file, AS LONG AS you are using it for the allowed purpose.
> I simply cannot understand how the SCCA can think that restricting
> access to the rules benefits them in any way.
THAT is a big ASSUMPTION that people have made but has not been confirmed in
any way by the SCCA.
I agree with you that they should make the rules easy to find and use. I
just don't necessarily agree with some of your assumptions about the motives
of the SCCA. You seem to be confusing the two.
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|