What about scanning old manuals and schematics?

Yes Pafasa scanning a GTB, Wms, Bly manual and trying to sell them on this site will get your post closed/deleted - hope this helps

that's what IPDB is for. If it's not supposed to be up there, it won't get posted

A note about copyrights: They suck!

A, G or G...nobody rides for free.

Ooooookay..

Didn't mean scanning them to sell. Just curious about creating a PDF to share with a few people active on a repair thread. What do you think?

the manual is something someone who own the game should have. Giving someone a free PDF of the manual doesn't cross any copywrite things. Plus your not selling it, so it wouldn't matter anyway.

Yeah I understand Pafasa

Not really. Copyright is enforceable irrespective if there was any received consideration for the copied work or if the receiving party would otherwise have rights to the work. For example, giving a friend a copy of a DVD when their original is unplayable is copyright infringement.

not if you own the source. If own a DVD, I can have it in several formats. Just like if you own the game, you have the right to have the manual.

You don't own the source - the copyright owner does. You have a license to use it. The argument currently in the courts is if you even have the rights to sell your license to the work (the DVD in the example) without the copyright owners permission.

Legally copyright is a huge grey area right now. It's best to keep things on back channels.

Copyright is only of interest if the owner has the financial resources to chase possible infringers.

I have a patent on a product in Australia that another company is blatently copying and they have stolen over $200K in sales from me.

I don't have the financial means to chase them and can't find a legal firm to take on a job on a 'share the winnings' basis so the other company continues to get away with it.

Such is the way of the world!

That's the thing, stuff like patents have to be defended. The game is rigged towards the biggest companies, the little guys without resources to defend themselves can take a flying leap.

Patent and copyright law are distant cousins, but your point about enforcement is still valid for both. Even a small change to a patented item might make it new and distinct (drug companies use this on their own products to extend their patents/profits). Copyright tends to be a bit easier to enforce as even a portion of a copyright work - even in a larger otherwise unique work - is (likely) infringement.

The desire and/or ability to enforce a copyright is ultimately going to be a matter of how the work was used (e.g., fair use cases). While its infringement to simply copy a work (DVD, book, music, software, etc) - even for your own use in some cases - providing it to a single friend is not likely to show up on a publishers radar whereas selling/posting it to the public without permission will generally draw some level of enforcement (letters/lawyers/threats/suits).

My understanding is that you can make copies for your personal use, after that its wrong. If you give a copy to a person that needs a copy you just killed a possible sale. It is better to try and support the guys trying to keep these things active. It is not free, most still loose money.

DMCA would disagree with you.

This is where the medium makes a difference - and language of any license comes into play. This has also been a significant point in many of the big copyright decisions. Technically making a copy of a commercial VHS movie onto a (personal) VHS backup is infringement based on the license of the movie (that FBI warning), but no court would (again) take such a case as its generally been considered a fair use. However, converting medium is generally considered an infringement. Nowadays publishers/producers often give or sell licenses of works on various medium - such as DVD and Blu ray discs of a movie that might also include a code for a mobile version - but a license on one medium doesn't give a license to the others. You can buy a music CD, but that doesn't automatically give you rights to the work on LP, MP3, cassette, etc. unless specified in a license. One can buy a physical book on Amazon, but will have to purchase the Kindle license/copy separately unless its provided.

Works/media such as DVD movies and protected software (games, high-end software) are generally illegal to copy even for personal use, not because of the copyright/fair use challenge, but because of the illegalities of circumventing the digital protections in place. Publishers of software that can be used to copy DVDs are located in places the US can't enforce because all within reach have been prosecuted already for circumventing the digital protections of these type of media.

As an author/publisher of written and software works - commercial and contract - as well as being involved in many aspects of the publishing of both for a few decades, I can see both sides of the copyright issues. An original creator of a work should have all the rights (and profits) of that work - in all presentations. However I find the fact that singing Happy Birthday at a chucky cheese for your kids birthday could be enforced as infringement as just an insane (especially since half of work was a rip off of another work) example of bad copyright law.

With pins, we certainly run into some of the untenable scenarios of copyright. Plastics from an old 40's pin are copyrighted works that cannot be reproduced without a license from the copyright holder. Like making a backup of the VHS in the above example, does making a replacement of a broken plastic that isn't produced elsewhere fair use - or does the conversion to digital medium to produce the replacement make it infringement? Its the various scenario like these where the legalities of copyright law make lawyers lots of money - and service providers like Robin very cautious.

There's always RGP to ask for something and Chinese or Russian hosting sites in the event someone needs a manual or schematic. Has Bob Fesjian of Gottlieb Development been very successful lately with his C & D emails to offshore website hosts?

They (and others) would be successful in the Netherlands - which is the point of Robins original post (that I sorta jacked...sorry Robin)

About the book thing. Lets say I buy a book. I later have problems with my
eyes, and cannot read the book. So I scan it, and read it on my computer
(enlarged print). Where would that sit? I changed media, but it is still for my
use in a way I can use it. Useless to me in book format. What if it isn't available
in an electronic format?

I scan my manuals to my computer. In 10 years, the paper manuals are falling
apart. Can I give a DVD of my scans to the new buyer?

Can I copy my ROMS to my hard drive for use later on, just in case?
What if I copy my ROMS to a different size (EP)ROM?

Just Askin' !

Everyone know's there's way more behind this thread than is visible, right?

Likely, yes.

I just received a Subpoena, for a single unauthorized download. Erroneous with proof,
but still had to hire an attorney. In short, yes copyright infringement is a hot button.
I believe the plethora of attorneys that need revenue, have found a new pond to fish in.
Sadly, we are at their mercy, and money wins. Not the place to rant, but whether it is pins,
movies, manuals, or healthcare, we have an Army of attorneys ready to push paper.
Perhaps a Sticky, Robin, this might be a "mountain of a thread"..... copyright 2012.

Please spell it out for the rest of us.

Hopefully your Counsel can sue for your legal fees to put a stop to all of this.

I, I did not know that. Then again, I'm not everyone.

Ideally you would then buy a magnifying glass or large print version

These really become a matter of exposure. absocountry2 largely hit it when saying that doing something for your own use is likely not going to get you in any trouble (albeit technically still infringing) since no one would know. But as soon as you give/sell it to another you're opening yourself up.

Its said that most people commit what could be interpreted as felonies three times a day without being aware. Copyright law is a good example of this. If someone were to search your home/computer for some reason, how many CDs have been copied or burned to MP3; how many movies copied or converted for use on a mobile device; scans/pictures of artwork; PDFs of written works (even pin manuals)? Each one is an infringement that could be prosecuted.

Neo, it's clear that you really have little clue about actual copyright law. As a general suggestion, you would do well to read what some others have posted and/or do some research on the realities of infringement and litigations that arise from it, rather than acting on your own "beliefs." (P.S. I do this stuff for a living, and actually have studied and am always dealing with many actual and potential IP infringement issues.)

@Robin: good policy. No need to get Pinside embroiled in any legal issues....

@StevenP Actually you haven't read any updates lately... The library of congress made DMCA exemptions to allow the cracking of DeCSS encryption on DVD's to rip for personal use. So yes, if you own a DVD you can rip it and have it in multiple formats. You are now allowed to break DRM for personal use provided you own the original media. (http://www.copyright.gov/1201/)

But lets be honest. Make it legal or don't, we'll be doing it anyways.

Would you like to know more?

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librarian-of-Congress-1201-Statement.html
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2012-26308.pdf (PDF WARNING)

Edit: They are sure to flip flop on this as MPAA/RIAA bribe money gets flowing. Currently it appears to be "legal" but again, the law isn't very relevant in this regard and is to be disregarded.

This might be something of a leap. While this ruling may mean one could break encryption to make a backup copy of the DVD, its implied that the backup would be like media - the argument being that one should be allowed to make and use a backup while the original stays protected from damage. I don't beleive this implies you can convert and use the license in other formats.

Most people don't realize that you have 'fair use' rights to material under copyright. For example, you are allowed to make backup copies of material for your own use. You're not allowed to sell (or give away) those copies, mind you. I have copies of about 100 of my audio cds that are covered under fair use; those are the copies I have in my car. If they get scratched or broken, I throw them away and make another. The same goes for keeping a copy of your EPROMs on your computer; that's your backup copy and it's perfectly legal.

Companies don't want you to know you have that right, because they want to squeeze every last penny out of you that they can possibly get. Greedy bastards, I call them.

I would like to address another form of "copyright infringement" that was mentioned in the very first post… Mods. From what I remember from product design legal 101, and also from speaking with a patent attorney to try to get a business name copyrighted, the standard is, how common and publicly available are the "components" about which you are trying to share information?

Whether those components are words, or the product itself (like a mod) as long as the knowledge is part of the public domain, i.e. knowledge of electronics, knowledge of soldering, working with parts that are commonly available on the public market, there is no infringement on copyright to duplicate something like this. A perfect example is a company that takes a toy that can be bought from many retail stores, adds LEDs to it, and specifies where to place it on a particular pinball machine. Legally, they do not have exclusive rights to make that mod (unless they have obtained a patent for it.)

One pretty common example would be the Merlin mod for MM. That exact Merlin toy can be purchased online, and either making it yourself, or publicly sharing the information about how to add a color changing "crystal ball" is not proprietary. There are several people making this mod and selling it on eBay. However, this shouldn't preclude anyone here sharing information about how to make it themselves. Neither the toy or the knowledge of how to make it is proprietary.

I have seen some posts/videos which share information on how to make a unique mod, but I have also noticed that if a major company regularly stocks and resells that item, there seems to be a general attitude that this is taboo. Perhaps, there exists a mindset that it is an ethical breach to share how to make your own out of loyalty to the company that makes mass quantities of it? What about the pocketbook of the end user? Many of these mods can be made for a few dollars, but "the big company" sells it for $150. Is it unreasonable to make your own and/or share how to make it rather than pay an enormous amount to someone else to get it? (Obviously, this is not directed to people who don't have the time or aptitude to make it themselves, and are happy to pay someone else to make it for them.) What's the general consensus about this, especially the issue of posting instructions on how to "copy" a commercially available mod that does not have a patent?

I ran into this problem with the TZ piano mod I was making, but since the original piano mod was made from a McDonald's toy, I was allowed to continue. Also received permission from the original manufacturer as long as it didn't look like theirs.

PBSmith... Wow! You were "allowed" to continue?? Amazing! Does anyone know if that piano has a utility patent or design patent on it? If it does, well then this is understandable. If it doesn't… and if someone from Pinside would still not allow you to post your project?… IMHO this policy is infringing on our ability to share help, information and ideas. Everything that this forum is about!

Think about Lurch's limousine for TAF. That mod goes for $185. Not everyone can drop that much money on mods like that. For some of us, something that costs that much falls into the category of a Christmas present! I think we can all safely assume that the people making the limo aren't making the car itself. They're most likely buying the diecast scale replica from another source and then adding the LEDs for the headlights, etc. A diecast with that detail would probably be around $40 - $60. If that mod isn't patented, anyone can legally make it. Wouldn't it be great, if someone knew where to find that limo, for them to share where they found it and their tips on lighting it? Would this really be disallowed on this forum?

I don't know of any pinball mod that is patented.

The TZ tv mod uses copyrighted images and the Tron mini arcade mod uses a copyrighted computer program.

I don't see how you can patent something around an already existing copyright. However, I'm not a lawyer.

Are Cliffy protectors patent pending? In my opinion they should be, but I doubt it.

See here:
http://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/addams-family-limo-mod-building-my-own

Patents != Copyrights
Copyrights protect "artists" from duplication.
IE I design something and copy protect it so you can't duplicate work of art. Art is copyprotected even if it doesn't have a copyprotected license on it.
Computer programs fall under "art" and are copyprotected - generally aren't patented.
So; the idea to mount LEDs in a car's head lights *could* be "art"... but probably isn't enforceable in a court of law.

Cliffys could be patentable as in an application for specific uses of sheet metal brackets for the purpose of protecting areas from mechanical forces. However, it's all in prior art / has he applied.

As an artist and a modder; I find the whole conversation very uncomfortable.
On one hand; if someone is gonna steal my ideas/designs and PROFIT from them... then me and that person/entity are going to have WORDs at a minimum; legal proceedings at a maximum. However, if they ask me first... then maybe we can work something out.

However, if one of you guys decided you wanted a Nixie Tube score display for your own pinball machine; I openly encourage it. Hell; that's why I shared the design/schematics in the first place. BUT, I draw the line at PinDisplay manufacturer from doing the same and selling them to you for a profit. Not their art, my copyright, and they would be violating said copyright.

I have seen some vendors here try to "enforce" prior art on common sense things. Putting language on their site saying it's copyprotected designs which by purchasing said item; you agree you won't use said items to "design" an "alternate" competing product. I personally view that as a FUD tactic intended to try to scare people into submission. I support the attempt; but Good luck with that.

In short; if you have the means to do something to save money by DIY - go for it. Share the ideas.
BUT don't take someone else's Copyrighted art, reverse engineer it and share said plans just to make it cheaper. It's morally wrong and well; just plain selfish.

This is fair warning

This really is a huge grey area depending on when something was manufactured or drawn.
Post 1982 EVERYTHING is subject to automatic copyright.. this precedence was made due a case of artistic copying where the original artist successfully sued and won the case. PRE 1982 copyright only exists if it was individually applied for.. if it wasn't applied for, it does not exist and this applies to a lot of pinball art. Seeing as those who own rights to SOME parts of a pinball wont tell us whats subject and what isn't, we walk in grey murky waters. Now those same people may well owns rights for specific parts and in a few cases also pretend to own rights to parts.. they will also grant you permission to produce and take a fee or percentage from you for those parts/ services.. but don't be fooled, it doesn't mean that have any right to allow you anything. if the manufacturer be it GOTTLIEB or Williams hasn't said those parts can be reproduced then the agents have no rights whatsoever to grant anything, sue you for anything, send Cease and Desist letters etc.
Smoke and mirrors...

I'm glad to see someone on pinside seems to understand there is a difference between a design and a utility patent. Most people seem to think if you change the smallest of things on something (ex: a square hole to a round hole) it is a legitimate way to get around a patent.

The short of it is, a design patent protects what something looks like and a utility patent protects a products use and purpose.

- Douglas A. Hanselman inventor of the "Pinball Speaker Light Plate" pat. pend.

I don't know where to begin , but anybody interested in intellectual property issues should completely ignore the above babbling. (I can come up with no better polite word for this nonsense.) "From what I remember from product design legal 101, and also from speaking with a patent attorney to try to get a business name copyrighted, the standard is, how common and publicly available are the "components" about which you are trying to share information?" --funniest thing I've read in a while. First, you can't "copyright a business name." And most patent attorneys know squat about trademark issues, although they're happy to charge you for tm filings.

There is no issue with buying toys off shelf, modding them, and reselling them. None. And I have seen such posts here. Forexample, the sword topper for Totan. People sell them with colored LEDs for around $150+. The sword cost less than $10. Source has been posted here, along with how to add LEDs for around $15 in parts. And it's all good. However, making a repro of something like the TZ piano or an AFM martian as part of a mod is a no-no, because those are copyrighted works. You are free to mod the originals, post instructions on how to mod the originals, etc.

Didn't catch Bisch's followup on copyright/backups from a year ago, but yes, you overstated what you're allowed under current law. wizzards had it more correct. And csprings, I suggest taking a deep breath, and going back and rwading to fin out exactly what a patent is and what it isn't.

Apologies for the pissy attitude, but it really annoys me when people post all sorts of 'legal' assessments and conclusions when they have no idea what they are talking about. ("Talking to a patent attorney about copyrighting my business name" -- gotta remember that one!)

The original piano mod was made from a McDonald's toy, but the one's that followed the first were made from molds of it. That's a big no-no too.

Good luck on that!

The TZ piano has a 2001 Disney copyright that was made exclusively for McDonald's only.

This makes duplication and modification unauthorized without permission from Disney.

Can you imagine the absolute hell it would be to get copyright permission from Disney in the first place? Wouldn't be worth it one bit regardless. That Disney, man. They'll get you.

That's my point!

A certain pinball parts company, whose name I won't mention, owes Disney 13 years worth of royalties.

It's been 13 years since that movie came out... What a ride those past 13 years have been.

Did Williams use actual McD's toys as the piano? Or copy it? Did they get permission if they did copy? Is there a copyright marking on the original TZ pianos? Just curious....