Page 1 of 1

Another dodgy auction?

Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 4:07 pm
by silent

Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 6:39 pm
by Iain
Looksa like it, it's the same guy who had a dvd up for sale last week.

He ignored my last email but this time, it might be time to have a word with eBay, although they generally do nothing.

Rob, wanna email him as well? :)

[update] it's actually the same auction as I discovered 4 days ago, so it's still only the one he's trying to flogg but we'll have to keep an eye on him![/update]

Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:52 am
by CraigGrannell
it might be time to have a word with eBay, although they generally do nothing
Why would they? You can't seriously expect eBay to cancel an auction because someone is selling pirated copies of what are effectively pirated scans. (And, yes, I realise that Roger is OK with the scheme, but even he/Thalamus doesn't actually own the rights to plenty of the Zzap! content anyway.)

I admire Mort's efforts and I'm not exactly thrilled that people are trying to profit from his work, but from a legal standpoint, you're screwed.

Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:03 pm
by Mort
I agree with Craig, Unfortuanately we have not a leg to stand on legally, but I find that if you call the auction a rom dvd or report it as that it tends to get it removed :wink:

Must find the keys to my Ferrari shaped like a 16 year old Nissan Sunny :P

Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:30 pm
by POB 72
Hold on a second.....

It may be a long shot (and I'm certainly no expert on this), but there are maybe a couple of arguments you could use:

Mort, you could argue that you own the copyright in

(1) the way scans are arranged when viewed; and/or

(2) the way the scans have been collected

rather than in the content of the scans themselves.

An example of the first right would be a recently published book with a Shakespear play in it. Although the copyright in the play itself has long since expired, the publisher owns the copyright in the typographical arrangement of the play.

The slight problem with this is that it tends to relate to 'typographical arrangements' rather than arrangements of, say, computer scans.

In relation to the second right, presuambly you've used some sort of database which the user accesses to get to the scans? The creation of this database involved 'labour, talent and judgment' (or something like that) and so could be copyright protected.

Like I said, it's a bit of a long shot, but if you mention these 'other' copyrights that you own (rather than those owned by Newsfield or whoever it is now), it might be enough to make these guys think, "Bollocks, I thought I'd be okay because I was just copying copies".


Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:51 pm
by CraigGrannell
From a legal standpoint, the arrangement argument holds no water whatsoever. If it did, the rather lucrative and entirely illegal comic book scanning market would be considerably less lucrative, but rather more legal! Similarly, it would be OK to scan books on to DVD and sell them.

As for the arrangement of files, they're simply in folders on the DVD/CD.

Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:53 pm
by POB 72
Hopefully, Craig, if Mort chooses to use those arguments with these guys, they won't be as legally eminent as you appear to be.