Don't bid on this Pilot TV

[Phil Nelson]

I wasn't trying to cause a flood of complaints against this guy, which would probably have no effect, anyway. In my limited experience, eBay only cancels an auction in blatant situations, and this guy brought it back into borderline by adding an indirect credit to my website (only after I complained).

There is basically no penalty for this kind of thing, other than the seller having the auction cancelled and needing to relist it.

As Steve said, the purpose of this kind of website is to provide information, so you take your risks. It just chapped my hide that this dude was too busy peddling his wares to even send a one-line reply to my message to him.

And now, on a happier topic, I need to get back to my recapped TV-37 and figure out why it mysteriously lost HV!

Phil

[Tony V]

I understand where your comming from Phil and if this would have happened to me, i would be irritated as well. I will ad though that i enjoy your website. Since i own many of the models that you have restored on your site, i visit it frequently. It has helped me get many of mine going and I wanted to thank you for the help you have given me through your detailed pages and pictures. When i see someone else having trouble with their restoration with a set that you have done, i refer them to your website.
-Tony

[andy]

...

[hposter]

I've copied bits and pieces in the past, and then referenced...the internet. If I wanted people to see a complete article or photo layout, I then put the link in.

Some people ask to reference or copy it, and I just say, sure--thanks for asking. I remember seeing one of my TV images on someone's blog..it made me steam for a bit...but not really anything you can do about it. Not much, anyhow.

On those "This site can not be copied"...oh yes, they all can be. I've decided not to even try the script lines. It really only takes a click and some creative work, to defeat this.

Besides, if you don't want someone to know something, or copy/plagiarize it, then you probably shouldn't post it. If I have a big secret (maybe I do, and maybe I don't), I'm not about to put it online. Plus, with the pictures, you can always use PhotoShop or similar, and drop your name or website across the image. That way, they'll be fine on your site, and if someone steals it, they'll be embarrased, or at least give you free advertising. If 2 million potential bidders from around the world see your website referenced, you know loads of people will take a look at your complete site, and many of those will bookmark it.

[Phil Nelson]

Originally Posted by hposter

If I have a big secret (maybe I do, and maybe I don't), I'm not about to put it online.

In followup email with this guy, it appears he's more an innocent dolt than an evildoer, so I tried to educate him a little and we have buried the hatchet.

More to the point . . . can't you tell us at least one of your secrets?

Phil Nelson

[Sandy G]

Feckin' guy's too lazy to take a pic of his own set he's tryin' to shill... And its NOT like TV-37s are so rare & exotic that you can't find a picture of one any number of places..I'd hazard a guess they are prolly the most common of the really "antique" sets-I've seen one "On Da Bay" almost every time I prowl thru there.

[andy]

...

[wajobu]

This text has been added:

"On Nov-15-08 at 16:22:42 PST, seller added the following information:
Some of the information about this item in the listing above was gathered from the website noted below: http://www.antiqueradio.org/PilotTV-37.htm"

Charming.

[kbmuri]

Phil -

Your contribution to this hobby is well above and beyond the call of duty. Your web pages are informative, enlightening, entertaining, and motivational. Your writing style is elegant and to-the-point. Your ability to explain complex concepts in easy terms is, well, Asimovian. Nobody doubts that "you 'da man" when it comes to your website. I personally thank you for providing the service, as others here at AK have thanked you (and I'm sure many more readers out there do too). Excelent work and Kudos.

The law is the law, however.

95% of the laws in this country are there for a reason, and for the most part they are good reasons. And if you disagree with a law there's a process in place to change it involving lawyers and judges and appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court. Copyright laws have been argued up the food chain ad nauseum and they're pretty well cast in stone at this point. You could try to argue this case if you wanted to, but you wouldn't get very far. There is a gray area but the eBay seller was nowhere near it.

Current US Copyright law contains a doctrine called "fair use". Contrary to your statements (and others) in this post, it is, in fact, not illegal to copy somebody else's copyrighted work. Not if it fits within the "fair use" clauses established in title 17 (chapter 107) of US the copyright code. The 4 clauses are outlined here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

The first clause might seem to be in your favor, as the guy posted your copyrighted words on eBay, but it doesn't matter that he happened to be engaging in commerce when he cited your words -- the actual use must have been commercial in nature -- i.e. he must have been selling or buying (or trading in) your words to violate this clause. He was selling a TV set. If he was selling a pamphlet about facts on a Pilot TV-37 and stole your words to put in the pamphlet, you might have had a case. As it is, he was using your words in an educational manner to inform his potential customers about the details of his TV. This is fair use. Any lawywer would argue thus, and any judge would decide in his favor.

Clause 2 of the code refers to the nature of your work and essentially boils down to whether your copyrighted work is fiction, fact, or art. If the person using your work provides another outlet for viewers of your artwork, he probably violates this clause. Say, if he put a highly-detailed scan of the Mona Lisa on his eBay ad and said his TV was as pretty as a DaVinci, he might have violated clause 2 -- if his posting of the scan caused some people not to go to the Louvre to see the real thing.

If he uses your fiction, a lot less likely so -- say if he had excerpted his favorite passage of Moby Dick and said the TV makes him feel like sailing. Maybe a violation, maybe not.

If he uses your description of facts, most of the time a judge says "no". Facts is facts and repeating them usually isn't harmful to society.

Clause 3 deals with how much of your work is taken. Since he excerpted a few paragraphs from one page of your body of dozens or hundreds of pages, his intent was pretty clearly not to steal your work but to repeat a specific, small portion of it. His theft wasn't gross.

Clause 4 is usually the most important clause -- i.e. can you show "damages"? His intent clearly wasn't to steer viewers away from your work -- to devalue your work by competing with it. In fact (as was suggested by other posters to this thread) he very likely increased your audience by referring to your work (although he had no obligation to do so, because not doing so did not cause you to lose any audience members). So he in no way damaged your website's ability to accomplish its mission. You can't show any tangible damages. So no violation of clause 4.

The guy did nothing wrong. Absolutely not.

Did he engage in bad manners? Maybe so. But that's not illegal. The amount of bad manners displayed here on this thread? -- a lot!

"Innocent dolt"
"Feckin' guy's too lazy"
"Plagiarizing"
"this guy brought it back into borderline"
"people ripping off articles"
"Someone's in need of a serious beatdown"
"replace the Pilot TV page with porno"
"hey asshole, stop linking"
"well-meaning nitwit"

Well, the eBay seller doesn't have a monopoly on bad manners.

As far as:

It's not good enough for him to say he "gathered" information online. That's like me saying, "Please buy this novel entitled Jurassic Park by Phil Nelson. I gathered it by photocopying the novel Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton."

again, he wasn't selling your website, he was selling a TV, so the analogy fails.

And as far as:

Copyright infringement is a matter of degree

well, no, copyright infringement is very clearly black and white. It's Title 17, chapter 1 of US code. Rules are rules.

Lastly, please correct me if I'm wrong. Is the artwork in your avatar your own personal work? Or did you copy it? The eBay seller frankly did less if it is not. And I notice, even on your web page in question, you link to an RCA manual without citing the reference. Glass houses and throwing stones and all that.

It's ok, though. Avatars fall within "fair use". So does linking to an RCA manual to increase the value of your own work.

That's my rant for the day. On a much lighter note, I did buy the TV set. Mostly I just wanted to see the poor guy get a good price after the beating he took here, but I ended up winning too. Fair enough, I've been meaning to get a TV-37 for a long time anyway, and this one looks pretty intact (barring UPS manhandling in the next few days). I passed on one at the annual Lansing Antique Radio Swapmeet last summer and have been kicking myself since. This one will end up being only a few dollars more expensive, and now it has all kinds of cool sentimental value to me because of the "Phil Nelson Controversy". It should be a fun rebuild.

Hope this post was informative. I'm not into flame wars. Just saying my piece.

Cheers.

[jeyurkon]

I'm not commenting on whether this whether this was "Fair Use" or not.

I don't believe issues of copyright infringement are "black and white" though. Fair Use wasn't part of previous copyright law. It was codified into chapter 107 later as a result of various court decisions. The application of it still isn't easy to deterimine in many cases.

See http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

They, the Copyright Office, recommend always asking for permission.

John Y.

[Phil Nelson]

I didn't intend to open a black-hole debate on copyright law, so this will be my last comment.

kbmuri, thanks for your compliments, and congratulations on getting a good deal on your TV-37. Mine was working reasonably until it suffered a relapse. Kind of like my brain at times.

I have a fair amount of experience with copyright issues from past careers, but nobody cares about that. IMHO this guy crossed the "fair use" line when he copied a big chunk of my article without asking permission, and without crediting the source until after I complained.

Water under the bridge. I have made peace with the dude and I hope I convinced him to ask permission before copying -- just in case.

Everyone can learn more about copyright via http://www.copyright.gov/ . Anyone who would like to discuss this further is welcome to send me email via http://antiqueradio.org/contact.htm .

Regards,

Phil

[edison64]

I agree, Nuff said