The Dime, Quarterly

[okayfine]

Hello Ratsun,

 

It is unfortunate that my first Ratsun post had to be a take-down request. I have previously read posts appropriating DQ content and let it slide, however the actual posting of scans of a DQ article really stepped over the line. I'm not concerned with increasing DQ's subscriber base (despite my pitch below), but if these sorts of actions continue and increase, DQ will cease to exist, plain and simple.

 

The Dime, Quarterly, is the only technical resource out there for 510 enthusiasts. We put together top-notch issues full of relevant content and make sure the articles are proofed (which means they do what they claim and won't offend your English teacher) and photographed or illustrated as well as possible (no scribble illustrations, no blurry pictures). We don't do this for money as none of the DQ staff get paid. We do this so that there IS a technical resource out there for 510 enthusiasts.

 

You all might not think that DQ is all that, and that there's much information on Ratsun all by itself. The latter is definitely true, however I would ask if Ratsun has ever gone down, or had half the answer, or had crap/no pictures, etc. In any case, Ratsun could go off the air tomorrow, or your internet connection could be on the fritz the moment you try to find out the procedure on Ratsun. DQ issues, sitting on your bookshelf, will sit on your bookshelf whether Ratsun is up, down, or sideways. It's one reason we haven't gone digital.

 

A subscription to DQ is a paltry $15. That's the same price it has been since last century. Ressurrecting one 510 tach is easily worth the $4.50 for a back issue showing you how to do so. Moreover, supporting DQ via a subscription does provide funds to DQ to help support events like JCCS (we have been a sponsor of JCCS for some time, if not all five years) and helps pay the hosting fees for http://www.dimequarterly.com, where there is much content that we don't charge for.

 

Lastly, as there are a number of fine 510s and 510 owners that call Ratsun their home, I'd like to seek out you fellows to contribute to DQ. Whether you have a rare part, a regional club, a in-depth project, a finished 510, or a technical article, we have a column for each. DQ is all-volunteer and while we have incentives for contributors, the main idea is to get all the information into print so it will always be around and be properly documented for future 510 owners to reference.

 

Thanks,

Julian

DQed

[fisch]

Hi Julian, being a freelance illustrator I can totally understand where you are coming from, and understand your speaking up. If someone were to scan a book of mine and give it away on the internet, it would certainly not make me happy.

 

We should be wary of doing this guys. It is tough cause I know we just want to help our fellow Ratsun brothers out, and we are big into free flowing information sharing. If I had had the issue I might have done the same thing, not thinking of the creator of the information, just in my want to help!

 

But if I think about it, it really isn't much different than if someone had scanned one of my books. So I think we should respect DQs position on this and their want to preserve DQ.:)

[Charlie69]

Hi Julian,

 

Just wondering where on your site is the disclaimer warning people that the contents are protected, copywrited?

 

Also wondering if it is OK to link to various articles in the DQ on Ratsun?

 

I agree that material should not be plagiarized. Written material has been taken advantage of in the worst way since the internat came to be.

 

I am also curious how copywrights apply to out of print publications? Are copywrights on written material forever? Fisch you might be able to help on this question.

 

Also, do copywrights expire like patents and have to be reapplied for?

 

Just cause something is printed does that mean it is protected?

 

Please clear up these questions so all of the current readers and future readers have a better understanding and might help prevent this from happening in the future.

 

Thank you,

Charlie69

[Phlebmaster]

read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law :D

 

And this: http://www.copyright.umn.edu/laws.html

 

Copyright Laws & Guidelines

 

What is copyright?

 

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States to authors of "original works of authorship," including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished material. Copyright protection is automatic for any new work of authorship that exhibits minimal creativity and is in a fixed tangible form. Copyright registration and notices, though both beneficial and recommended, are not required under current copyright laws. To access actual U.S. copyright statutes, such as the TEACH ACT or Digital Millennium Copyright Act, follow these links or visit the U.S. Copyright Office's website.

 

 

What is public domain?

 

 

Works in the public domain are not protected by copyright laws and can be used freely. To fall into the public domain a work must have been published prior to 1923 (chronological chart of when works pass into public domain) or been created by an office or employee of the Federal Government. Public domain status is not automatic for products of state governments.

 

 

What is fair use?

 

 

Fair use (statute) is essentially a limitation on the exclusive rights of the copyright holder to reproduce a protected work. In other words, fair use allows you to reproduce copyrighted material without obtaining the rightsholders consent. To determine whether or not a use is indeed "fair", four factors must be considered: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the work, the amount and substantiality of the work, and the effect of the use on the market. Evaluating the four factors can be very difficult, even the courts rarely agree, as they were purposely written ambiguously to apply to a wide range of applications and scenarios. Therefore, although this exemption can prove invaluable for educational purposes, any adaptation or reproduction of copyrighted works without consent is a risk and caution should be used when claiming fair use. The chart below should help you determine if your use constitutes fair use and alleviate certain scenarios, however, don't hesitate to contact our office with questions.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Phlebmaster

[fisch]

I am also curious how copywrights apply to out of print publications? Are copywrights on written material forever? Fisch you might be able to help on this question.

 

Also, do copywrights expire like patents and have to be reapplied for?

 

 

It is a little confusing even to me! But essentially even if something is out of print, if it was created by a sole individual, like say one of my kids books, it is protected for my lifetime + 70 years!

 

If it is a work for hire, or an anonymous work, it is protected for like 95 years from its first publication.

 

But these laws came into play for things published after 1978. Before that I am not sure what the laws were.

 

In the case of artwork, it is protected as soon as it is created. You don't even have to register it! (But the lobbyists for places like Google, are trying to change the laws right now with legislation called 'the orphan works act' so that I would have to pay to register every piece I do. Geeze I hope that doesn't happen!)

 

But here is an example of an infringement that happened to a friend of mine. He did a beautiful painting of a woman's head, as a personal piece actually. Well a few years later he sees his painting used as a 12 foot set piece in a TV show, who's parent company is a BIG hollywood studio. He got a lawyer, and even though he never registered the painting, the studio settled for almost 30k. Because it was automatically protected after creation.

 

The twist is, if he had registered it with the copyright office, he could have sued for damages on top of that 30k. But as it was he could only sue for lost wages. (What he would have been paid to do the job.)

 

I am not 100% how this applies to writing.

 

Now in the case of my Ratsun art. I am ok with them spreading around the internet. I love it when they hit another forum! Though I like it when they mention me or Ratsun at least. I don't really even mind when people post art from my website in other places. This is why I only post low rez images. Just so they can't be made into illegal posters and such.

 

BUT if someone, like a store or something, were to take my little jpg and alter it and ad their store logo and use it as a banner with out my permission, I would be pretty ticked!

 

I've sometimes had to sell my copyright to get a gig. Where it really bit me was in my early days when I did a piece for like $150 for some book. I sold the copyright too. Then I see it later on the cover on a Nintendo Gameboy gamebox!! A gig like that could have paid me 10k! But I only got that first $150. :(

Edited October 7, 2009 by fisch

[Cuts metal like mad]

How many of the articles appearing in DQ were previously printed in 510again, or UFO? I wager theres more than a few. How many of those gave credit to the originator of those write-ups? How many were done without credit paid or permission given?

[datzenmike]

Seems that by the strict definition of the law this post is technically illegal:

 

 

 

Information Copyright © 1995-2009 http://www.dimequarterly.com

All Rights Reserved.

 

Reproduction of material presented here is strictly prohibited without written permission.

 

___________________________________________________

 

If I post a link to the same page so you can view the same thing... it's OK?

 

(click on ELECTRICAL then wire diagrams.)

 

Downloadable black/white wiring diagrams, pointers to color-code wiring diagrams, simplified color-code starter / charge system diagrams.

 

http://dimequarterly.tierranet.com/

 

"510 Tach Repair and Upgrade... Article by Randy York" is there as well.

Edited October 7, 2009 by datzenmike

[Charlie69]

Ok I found the DQ's copywright statement.

 

Fisch, the example of your friends art work is a good one. But I am wondering if his case was won partly do to it being reprinted and used for monetary gain?

 

Is it against copywright law/protection to copy something for personal use?

 

Example, If I were to copy an electrical diagram out of a repair manual that I purchased to use while trouble shooting the wiring in my truck would I be in violation of copywright law/protection?

 

Basically if I am not reproducing for redistribution or sell am I violating copywright law/protection?

 

Pleb, great links and info.

 

Datzenmike, I understand that it was against the copywright to reproduce the wiring diagrams, but from what I saw of Atoms write up he expanded on information from the DQ article with his own (I think) pictures and wording. So would Atom's pictures and wording violate copywright laws/protection?

 

Thank you all for helping us to understand better so we do not overstep these boundaries again.

 

Charlie69

[Charlie69]

Lastly, as there are a number of fine 510s and 510 owners that call Ratsun their home, I'd like to seek out you fellows to contribute to DQ. Whether you have a rare part, a regional club, a in-depth project, a finished 510, or a technical article, we have a column for each. DQ is all-volunteer and while we have incentives for contributors, the main idea is to get all the information into print so it will always be around and be properly documented for future 510 owners to reference.

 

Thanks,

Julian

DQed

 

My last words on this matter, Julian DQed is this an invitation for us Ratuners to pettition on DQ for your members to become contributing members of Ratsun?

 

Charlie69

[fisch]

Ok I found the DQ's copywright statement.

 

Fisch, the example of your friends art work is a good one. But I am wondering if his case was won partly do to it being reprinted and used for monetary gain?

 

Is it against copywright law/protection to copy something for personal use?

 

 

That is a great point Charlie. I am not sure? It probably is an infraction even for personal use. But doubtful anyone would find out about it let alone persue it.

 

If we were denying the originator income he would have collected on a larger scale, by reproducing that material- that would be an issue. Even if the violator wasn't personally gaining from the infringement.

 

For instance if someone bought a high rez print from me, and to help his buddies out, scanned it and put it on a public forum for them to make their own prints, even if he weren't selling it, that would not be cool. It is potentially denying me income. Even if they were posting a high rez just to show in detail how much he liked my painting, without the intent of his buddies making prints, they still 'could' make prints and that would be a no-no.

 

Infringements happen all the time on a small scale.

 

Now if some one took the directions they got to fix something, reshot their own pictures, reworded the instructions so that it wasn't plagerism, I think they are safe. Even if at the core the information was the same, even if he were using another source as a guide. He created original material.

 

Laws get even trickier. Marvel comics is VERY protective of their super heros. If I did a 3 foot original painting of Iron Man, making every detail accurate, guess what, they couldn't do anything to me because it is protected under parody law. (The law is there to help protect fine art painters who use famous people or products to help make a statement. But applies to things like IronMan.) HOWEVER if I were to make prints of that same Iron Man painting, they would have their lawyers on me fast! That said if I had a whole website of nothing but MArvel characters in original paintings, advertising that I do nothing but marvel paintings, they would sick the lawyers on me. Mostly because I am showing that most of my income comes from Marvel properties. But I don't know what that percentage should be. I think the laws are cloudy on purpose so that cases can be judged on an individual basis.

 

If DQ is reproducing material from other sources w/o permission, and then getting upset about us doing the same, that seems kinda weird. I don't have an issue of DQ so have no idea if they ever have done that? But I imagine if they are, they have permission to do so, or are at least recreating the content?

 

And if they solicit here, it seems only fair that we could there? Kinda like a banner exchange for websites.

Edited October 7, 2009 by fisch

[banzai510(hainz)]

just send in the money. It does help.

I will when I get a chance.

I dont use DQ all that much anymore but the drawing is great and I post it all the time since people are to lazy/cheap to buy a Haynes manual.

 

But for entry level Datsun owners OLDDATSUNS>COM is a great site nomatter where the info came from. Jason Gray was great and great Mike Klotz has taken the site over from Brea510

[okayfine]

Hi Julian,

 

Just wondering where on your site is the disclaimer warning people that the contents are protected, copywrited?

 

The statement you found on our website regarding reprint/republishing is also printed in the newsletter, which is more to the point since the tach article was copied from a newsletter and not taken from the website. For those who missed it:

 

"All materials accepted become the sole property of The Dime, Quarterly, which reserves the right to reprint and/or republish any accepted materials."

 

 

Also wondering if it is OK to link to various articles in the DQ on Ratsun?

 

Linking to web-published articles at http://www.dimequarterly.com is more than fine. It's why the articles are posted online.

[okayfine]

How many of the articles appearing in DQ were previously printed in 510again, or UFO?

 

None were previously printed in UFO. I have the bound UFO collection purchased from Ray Johns and there is no overlap. We have printed one article that previously was printed by FTA, the 5-speed trans adapter piece, which was written by Randy York. I received permission and the materials from Randy. Permission from FTA came from Ray Johns himself, who posted on The Realm giving everyone permission to redistribute the FTA newsletters he was responsible for.

 

 

I wager theres more than a few. How many of those gave credit to the originator of those write-ups? How many were done without credit paid or permission given?

 

Please to be pointing them out before calling me a hypocrite. I wager you are incorrect.

[pl521sss]

I'm a DQ subscriber for the last 6 years or more.

Like to have my car featured on the yearly calendar 510 pics :D

[okayfine]

Is it against copywright law/protection to copy something for personal use?

 

There is what's called "fair use." There are certain requirements for that to be permissible. Copying an article for personal use doesn't fit. See all the hub-bub with the music industry.

 

Datzenmike, I understand that it was against the copywright to reproduce the wiring diagrams, but from what I saw of Atoms write up he expanded on information from the DQ article with his own (I think) pictures and wording. So would Atom's pictures and wording violate copywright laws/protection?

 

If this is all that had happened, I wouldn't have bothered with all this. Even if he posted the text from the online posting of the article I wouldn't have cared much - we put it online, we expect that to happen to a certain extent.

 

Posting of scans of the actual published article stepped over the line. Once you do that, what's the point in continuing DQ? If all the material will be available for free in it's published form, no one is going to pay for it.

[okayfine]

My last words on this matter, Julian DQed is this an invitation for us Ratuners to pettition on DQ for your members to become contributing members of Ratsun?

 

Charlie69

 

Why? :blink:

 

The point of that section of my post was to help preserve and document the information that has been developed by Ratsun members. I'm sure you guys have all sorts of stuff you have come up with. Getting it into DQ spreads the information to a wider audience, but it also provides a "backup" of sorts if that info has already been posted here.

 

The goal is preservation of the information. Ratsun.net may or may not be around forever (precident says not) and may or may not always be online when you need it (again, precident is that web sites go down without notice all the time). Printed DQ issues on your bookshelf will be there regardless of the state of technology.

 

There are more points I could make, but I get the feeling you're not interested. That's fine. I didn't expect a warm welcome given my topic du jour. The 510 community doesn't benefit from a mish-mash of technical content strewn to the four winds.

[okayfine]

Now if some one took the directions they got to fix something, reshot their own pictures, reworded the instructions so that it wasn't plagerism, I think they are safe. Even if at the core the information was the same, even if he were using another source as a guide. He created original material.

 

What's the difference between that and taking the Mona Lisa and adding in a mustache and some buildings in the background? Or taking one of your illustrations and making changes? He created original material, material that didn't exist previously, right?

 

But, in the case of DQ articles, what would be the point? The article was already written and photographed, why rewrite and rephotograph the article? Just to be able to post it on Ratsun without causing a fuss? Seems counter to the point of DQ existing.

 

That was actually done already here on Ratsun with another DQ article, the DIY grill piece I wrote. Someone posted here like they came up with it and didn't mention they got the idea from DQ until they were called out about it.

 

If someone wants to document working through a DQ article as such, no problem, but at least point to the DQ issue the original work appeared in instead of making it seem like they came up with it on their own.

 

If DQ is reproducing material from other sources w/o permission, and then getting upset about us doing the same, that seems kinda weird.

 

I agree. Fortunately, we do not operate like that. zuum510 doesn't have any examples he can point to of us doing so, and for the one article in which we did, we have all the permission it is possible to obtain (original author "ok," original publisher "ok.").

 

And if they solicit here, it seems only fair that we could there? Kinda like a banner exchange for websites.

 

Where is "there?" DQ has a forum, but it is lightly trafficed and none of the DQ staff frequent it. I believe "datsunfreak" is already a Ratsun member, but speaking for the rest of the staff they don't have the time or inclination to register here and post articles that we would otherwise print in DQ. That defeats the purpose of DQ, while the opposite does not defeat the purpose of Ratsun.

[datzenmike]

Julian I am interested that you are concerned about this. DQ should at the very minimum at least get the credit for their content. People download ring tones and music without paying the originator. It is a problem. Most of, or a lot of the DQ articles are posted by them anyway so all you have to do is download for your own use anyway. I understand they want protection from severe abuse, but just for fixing or explaning something I don't see a problem with it else why have it posted in the first place?

 

BTW $15 a year? who can't afford that?

[okayfine]

but just for fixing or explaning something I don't see a problem with it else why have it posted in the first place?

 

I completely agree.

[ichorid]

Buying all the back issues of dq and subscribing was the best money I spent on my dime to date. "you wouldn't download a car, would you?"

[qwik510]

I just want to clarify something here. The DQ has alot of the articles posted on their website and share them freely with the 510 community. Those articles can be shared with everyone as long as you just show a link or copy and paste the info and mention the info was from the DQ website.

 

Some of the articles on there are only partially posted. They only give you a little of the info. The staff of DQ do this for a reason. These articles are highly informative and are well worth the $4.50 price of a back issue to read the entire article. If you had a factory tach that was broken and wanted to upgrade it with parts from a more modern car, wouldn't it be worth $4.50 to have the correct procedure all spelled out for you with pictures and illustrations to show you step by step how to do it?

 

Any info that is not on the website and would need to be copied or scanned are the articles that should not be shared via reproduction. Sure you can loan your buddy your copy of that issue but you should not make a copy of it and give it to him or scan it and post it on the web for many to share it. This is what the issue is here.

 

I know $4.50 is alot to some of you but come on. Take a look at the DQ website. Look through some of the articles in the back issues section. Look at the way the information is presented. You will certainly agree that alot of this info would be very helpful to your dime and that it would be a sin to let a great resource like the DQ go away because you could not give up $15 a year for an annual subscription or $4.50 for the one back issue you need to complete that project.

 

I am sure most of you piss away more then $15 in a month. How about just $1.25 a month to receive the best technical 510 newsletter out there and help keep this valuable resource alive. I always look forward to getting the new issue of the DQ in my mailbox and I read it cover to cover as soon as it arrives. How many 510 publications are out there?

 

Just sayin'

[gokiburix]

I'm with Qwik510! Sure, you can get a lot of info from Ratsun or any other corner of the internet, but where else can you find good DETAILED, DOCUMENTED and PHOTOGRAPHED step-by-step information on how-tos and other ideas to make your dime better? It would be a total shame for that to go away because a few of us are too cheap to pay the admission. C'mon, its pretty cheap for all that info.

Its worth it...not to mention how excited you'd feel when you see something Datsun related in your mailbox...instead of bills bills and more bills :mellow:

proud DQ subscriber

-goki

[Charlie69]

The statement you found on our website regarding reprint/republishing is also printed in the newsletter, which is more to the point since the tach article was copied from a newsletter and not taken from the website. For those who missed it:

 

"All materials accepted become the sole property of The Dime, Quarterly, which reserves the right to reprint and/or republish any accepted materials."

 

 

 

Linking to web-published articles at http://www.dimequarterly.com is more than fine. It's why the articles are posted online.

 

Julian I am glad that you posted this reply, I myself have not had any experience until now with Dime Quarterly. And after finding out that if I submit materials to Dime Quarterly and Dime Quarterly accepts them that I surrender all rights to my material to Dime Quarterly I will not be submitting to Dime Quarterly. The reason being If I put material out on web my sole intention is that it be freely shared and not taken hostage by some entity that feels that if they accept my material it is now their material. I call this BULL SHIT THEFT. If you want to purchase said material fine but to commandeer it is wrong.

 

I understand that Dime Quarterly has a great following and is probably a well earned following. However you get your material for Dime Quarterly it will not be submitted by me.

 

One more thing Julian, sense you interpret questions as non interest :fu:.

 

Charlie69

[jovial_cynic]

Charlie69, you misunderstand the legal language of the copyright clause. Specifically, what's intended is that by submitting your article to the DQ, you're giving them legal right to use it any way they want, so that you can't later file suit against them for violating copyright of your material... that you submitted to them.

 

It doesn't mean that it's not "yours" anymore. You can always publish/republish your own works.

 

 

* also a DQ subscriber, although I have let a few issues lapse; I'll have to re-up my subscription. Thanks for the reminder, Julian. Love the DQ.

[Jesse C.]

Hey, I am always for supporting you Local Gunfighter and so far DQ has been the only one in print.

 

Back in the day we had UFO and then FTA and we supported them and anything that was related to what we liked. If Grassroots Motorsports came out with a Datsun issue, we bought it, Japanese mags with Bluebirds in them, we bought them, club or newsletter that covered what you wanted, I am in.

 

I know the internets and groups like this can be great for info but lets me honest, we don't know everything and not everyone caught the "How To" someone posted a few years back. This is where having it in print is very helpful and comes into play down the road.

 

I know not every issue has what you want or like, but then again, this is where you can make a difference and contribute what you know to pass it along to those who need the info like you did once! And as for them copyrighting my stuff, that is fine, I would not want my shit all over the net with no credit due and some dipshit taking credit for my work. Screw that, I have fucked up to much good shit to learn my stuff! But, there is always room to learn more.

 

Nuff said.