Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DMCA Vs. The Sewing Underground

Posted by timothy on from the bold-new-law-enforcement dept.

Roundeye writes "So the folks at monsterpatterns.com dumpster-dive to get envelopes containing discontinued sewing patterns and sell the envelopes via their website. The sewing pattern company McCall invoked the DMCA to get the site shut down. Monsterpatterns is now suing to protect their 'fair use rights' to advertise and sell the discarded patterns. You might recall that this isn't the first time the sewing industry has cracked down on bootlegging grandmas and their suppliers."

96 of 545 comments (clear)

  1. How is this piracy? by BrynM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How can this be considered piracy? He isn't reproducing the patterns, he is selling hard merchandise. I understand that "He did not pay for these patterns" as Mr. Herman from McCall stated, but doesn't that make it theft? Where I live, dumpster diving is considered tresspass which could lead to theft charges, but Mr. Gendron claims "they are abandoned property" and he may be right if that is what Detroit law says. This was an underhanded misuse of an already bad law to get the site taken down. Gotta love that whole consequences before proven guilt thing the DMCA has going for it.

    --
    US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    1. Re:How is this piracy? by eyeball · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Furthermore, isn't the DMCA supposed to punish and prevent people from circumventing copyright protection? Are they arguing that the dumpster constitutes a copyright protection mechanism?

      --

      _______
      2B1ASK1
    2. Re:How is this piracy? by Zathrus · · Score: 4, Informative

      I suspect that what's occurred here is the hobby store (Jo-Ann's in this case it seems) wants to send the merchandise back to the manufacturer for a refund. The manufacturer issues the refund but tells the store to discard the excess material -- they don't want to store it either afterall.

      It's kinda similar to books with the covers ripped off, which are not supposed to be sold since they were written off by the publisher. But it still happens. And McCall is out on a weak limb here -- if they wanted to sue someone, they should go after the store for not properly discarding the material. Or maybe they should've had it shipped back to them (at their expense) so they could discard it properly (at their expense). Once it's in the trash, it's usually considered fair game.

      It really is another horrible example of the DMCA though. Yeah, I couldn't care less about the patterns, but as you said it's a law that assumes guilt (and while, admittedly, this would be a civil case where the burdon of proof is not as strong as in a criminal case, it's still a very wrong methodology).

    3. Re:How is this piracy? by Frymaster · · Score: 5, Interesting
      If I'm a musician and I throw out the master recordings from an album I've been working on, I would still own the IP to that material...wouldn't I?

      bzzt. incorrect analogy. the guy isn't photocopying the "master" pattern. he's selling the envelopes. a better analogy would be if you threw away your cd collection and somebody picked it up and sold it.

      --

      2 1337 4 u!

    4. Re:How is this piracy? by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, but if there are no dumpster-diving laws, someone could sell those original master recordings on eBay. They just couldn't make and distribute copies.

      --
      __
      Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
    5. Re:How is this piracy? by Kaeru+the+Frog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the point is that he's selling copyrighted material (the patterns) without the copyright holder's permission...

      You don't need the copyright holder's permission to sell. You only need permission to copy, perform, or create derivitive works.

    6. Re:How is this piracy? by cdrudge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People sell copyrighted material all the time without the express permission of the authors. Magazines, books, videos, the list goes on. There isn't a license agreement sticker on the patterns are there?

    7. Re:How is this piracy? by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 4, Informative

      If that were the case, then you couldn't sell your old movie collection at a yard sale.

      --
      YOU SUCK BALLS!
    8. Re:How is this piracy? by malfunct · · Score: 3, Informative
      I think this might be covered in the same way as "book destruction". When a bookstore "returns" its books to the distributor because it no longer wants to sell them, what it really does is rip the cover off and return that and throw the rest of the book away because the cost of returning the whole book is more than the cost to make a whole new book. Thats why (I think) buying a book with no cover is illegal.

      I don't know if there are laws for destruction of other works that are similar to the book thing but I think in general companies would like it to be illegal to sell product that has been "destroyed". That doesn't mean I like the DCMA being used to do this, it seems like a misuse of the law.

      On a completely different note but highly related I think that if a company will no produce another copy of a copyrighted work then they should lose the copyright at that point. I hate the fact that I can't buy old books/software/music that I'd like because the company that owns the copyright will no longer distribute it.

      --

      "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

    9. Re:How is this piracy? by sunya · · Score: 5, Interesting

      the D in the DMCA stands for Digital.. and opening the lid is digital, how ?

      --
      MLT - simple and robust open source multimedia framework for Linux
    10. Re:How is this piracy? by stanmann · · Score: 5, Funny

      I would assume he used his digits(fingers) to open the lid.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    11. Re:How is this piracy? by rifter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wondered the same thing, and was initially quick to jump up and shout "DMCA abuse," but as it turns out, from the article:

      The companies invoked the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which shields Internet service providers from liability if they comply with takedown requests. It seems the long arm of the DMCA, which has been used to crack down on file-swappers, printer cartridge makers and font creators, is now reaching into the competitive world of sewing patterns.

      So the DMCA does not in itself make what the dumpster-diver did illegal, but it does provide prssure to force the ISP to shut down his site. I agree with the other posters in that the outcome really is going to be determined by the salvage laws (eg the legal definition of whose property trash is) which have in recent decades been affected by police searches (some states have made your trash anyone's property to make it easier for police to search it, some states have said it is still yours so police cannot search it with no warrant).

      Honestly, I think if you threw it away you have no right to stop people taking it. Discouraging people from recycling garbage is irresponsible given the state of our landfills. I also say this is not a case about copyright at all and McCalls is way out of line. In fact, this stuff is not McCalls' property, anyway. It was sold to the Jo-Ann Fabrics Store and only the exact store he took the patterns from has any case at all.

      I also think it is absolutely wrong that any company can own and not distribute an idea. I think there should be some kind of timeframe during which they have to do something with the technology after which they have to license/sell it to someone else or give it away. If they are never going to use it (again) they do not have the right to destroy the idea for everyone else.

      In this case I think the main thing that got McCalls feathers in a ruffle was that they intended no one to ever be able to use these patterns again. They probably told the stores to throw them away and not sell them anymore. Who knows why they did that, but the fact they did is to me a gross abuse of the system of intellectual property law.

    12. Re:How is this piracy? by schon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      opening the lid is digital, how ?

      Well, either the lid is open, or it's closed.

      So that's a binary state. Is that close enough? :o)

      Seriously, though, the coverage of the DMCA probably has nothing to do with circumvention, but rather with the fact that the patterns are being sold on the internet.

      Besides the provisions covering circumvention, the DMCA also describes processes under which a copyright holder can request removal of material from websites. (ISP 'safe harbour' statutes - if the ISP removes the allegedly offending material, the DMCA grants them immunity from prosecution.)

    13. Re:How is this piracy? by DdJ · · Score: 4, Interesting
      a better analogy would be if you threw away your cd collection and somebody picked it up and sold it.
      Now let's make the analogy more precise. You sell me your CD collection. I've paid for it. But then I say, "instead of shipping it to me, email me the MP3s you ripped, but as far as the physical media, just set fire to it and piss on the ashes -- I've got the MP3s, I don't need the physical media, I just need to ensure that nobody else but me, anywhere, ever, uses that physical media, which can easily be ensured by just destroying the media entirely".

      And so you throw your CDs in a recycle bin, trusting that they'll be destroyed. But then some college students dig through your recycle bin and salvage the CDs, the CDs that someone else already paid for, the CDs that you have made a comittment to destroy.

      That is piracy, at that point.

      And that's how far you have to take tha analogy to make it accurate.
    14. Re:How is this piracy? by JUSTONEMORELATTE · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now let's make the analogy more precise. You sell me your CD collection. I've paid for it. But then I say, "instead of shipping it to me, email me the MP3s you ripped, but as far as the physical media, just set fire to it and piss on the ashes -- I've got the MP3s, I don't need the physical media, I just need to ensure that nobody else but me, anywhere, ever, uses that physical media, which can easily be ensured by just destroying the media entirely".

      And so you throw your CDs in a recycle bin, trusting that they'll be destroyed. But then some college students dig through your recycle bin and salvage the CDs, the CDs that someone else already paid for, the CDs that you have made a comittment to destroy.

      That is piracy, at that point.

      Ok, but who is the crook here? The dumpster-divers are just taking what they believe to be trash. You (the CD-thrower-outer) didn't follow through on your committment. Where do you get the right to call the dumpster-divers crooks?

      --

    15. Re:How is this piracy? by David+Price · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Even in paperback books with the covers ripped off, the language warning against stripped books doesn't mention copyright liability. Here's the language used by one publisher:
      The sale of this book without its cover is unauthorized. If you purchased this book without a cover, you should be aware that it was reported to the publisher as "unsold and destroyed." Neither the author nor the publisher has received payment for the sale of this "stripped book."
      Note the language here: "unauthorized." That literally means that the publisher does not authorize the sale. But so what? The publisher's authorization means nothing, unless I copy, perform, or create a derivative work of the book in question. When the bookstore cannot sell these legally made copies of the book in question, it tears off the covers and sends them back to the publisher. There is no doubt a contract involved in which the bookstore commits not to sell the stripped books, but if the bookstore violates that contract, or discards the books, then whoever bought the books or claims them from the refuse heap has not done anything wrong: they have acquired a legally produced copy, not stolen property. Unlike dollar bills in a bank's vault, copyrighted works do not magically lose their abstracted value by virtue of legal wand-waving.

      It's just the same in this case: the hobby store probably had an agreement to destroy unsold patterns, and violated that agreement by simply discarding the patterns. As a result of that violation, anyone who wanted to could legally take ownership of the discarded patterns - and this company did.

      That's the copyright case. The paracopyright (DMCA) case has no leg to stand on, because there was no actual copyright infringement. The right answer, before running off to court, is to send a DMCA counter-notice stating that McCall's does not own the copyright to the web pages in question. These pages are copyrighted, not by McCall's, but by Monsterpatterns; they do not themselves contain the copyrighted patterns. (If Monsterpatterns were disseminating the patterns themselves on their website, then this would constitute copyright infringement, since digitial distribution implies that a copy is made. The same is not true of distribution of envelopes that are not copied.)

    16. Re:How is this piracy? by cptgrudge · · Score: 2, Funny
      the D in the DMCA stands for Digital.. and opening the lid is digital, how?

      Well, assume the lid has two states, closed (0), and open (1). 0 and 1! Digital! Bingo!

      It could be argued that the lid has infinite intermediate states between open and closed, but a true digital signal doesn't really switch back and forth without being in between either, it's just a relatively short amount of time. Allow me to elaborate.

      1) Dumpster diver sees dumpster. Lid is at closed state, and has been for an hour.

      2) In a relatively short amount of time (3 seconds), the dumpster diver changes the dumpster lid to open state.

      3) The dumpster lid state stays open for a half an hour while the dumpster diver rummages about.

      4) Whether or not the dumpster diver finds what he is looking for, he will eventually remove himself from the dumpster. Hopefully he returns the lid to it's closed state, as to leave little evidence of his diving. It takes three seconds to close it.

      5) An hour later, his presence is noted, and the dumpster is in opened state for investigation.

      So, in summary, because the change in state happens quickly, the signal shown by the opening and closing of the dumpster lid would resemble a digital signal.

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    17. Re:How is this piracy? by GiMP · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The person who is claiming infringement simply needs to send a signed letter under penalty of perjury to the ISP. The ISP is then required to take the content down for a minimum of ten days and no longer than 14 days in such period the plaintiff must file for a court order. If a court order is made, then the ISP must continue to have the site content removed; otherwise, they must return the content no later than 14 days.

      This part of the DMCA is very good and very clear. It is unfortunate that it must give such power to plaintiffs; however, due to the penalty of purjury assumed by the plaintiff illegitimate accusations can easily cause a counter-suit and thus the system is balanced.

    18. Re:How is this piracy? by Angus+McNitt · · Score: 2, Funny

      Digital (as we were taught in school) just meant that is had two defined states, on or off. It didn't only mean a computer. So by that reasoning, a dumpster's lid also has a digital state, open and closed. So the lid is also a digital device. Huzzah, now you have a DCMA violation! Go on, try it with your friends today!

      --
      "To Do Is To Be" - Socrates, "To Be Is To Do" - Sartre, "Do Be Do Be Do" - Sinatra
    19. Re:How is this piracy? by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd argue you gave up your claim to it when you threw it out..

    20. Re:How is this piracy? by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is piracy, at that point.

      Breach of contract, I believe.

      To refine your analogy into, well, basically what is happening now. You own a store, and enter into an agreement with the publisher that you will attempt to sell their product, but if it doesn't sell they must refund your money and you will destroy the recordings. This is a very common arrangement in the publishing industry, where the publisher assumes some of the risk for a new product. The store fails to sell-through 90% of said product. You then tears off the covers to send to you as proof of sell-through rates, and instead of adequately destroying said material as per the contract you simply throws them in the garbage. Kids dive through your trash, and claim the abandoned material. Kids sell material to eachother and other kids.

      If it is your job to destroy property X, and you fail to do so instead abandoning it, person Y has every right to pick it up and claim it. Piracy is the willful copying of an expressive medium for which you do not hold the right to do so. You were contractually obliged to destroy the medium upon which the copyrighted material was located, but failed to do so. In your MP3 situation, you violated copyright law by selling MP3's without adequately destroying the source material (abandonment does not equal destruction). In the above mentioned situation, and indeed in the one in real life, the company that threw away the patterns is guilty of breach of contract... failure to adequately destroy said property.

      The dumpster divers should be in the clear on this one, in my NSHO, but the company that threw it out needs to get an incenirator or contract to a garbage company who will come onto their property to collect the dirty goods.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    21. Re:How is this piracy? by Wavicle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, you are correct.

      Let's all write a letter to congress thanking them for passing a law which threatens ISPs with financial ruin if they do not comply with what a business says, but essentially holds those businesses unaccountable for abuse of that law.

      Any takedown notice issued by a company whose revenue exceeds $1 million should be accompanied by a bond for $100,000. If the target of the takedown contests the takedown, the issuing company should have thirty days to commence litigation or forfeit the bond in its entirety to the defendant. This bond amount should not limit in any way the ability of the defendant to sue for damages. The bond simply exists as a token to ensure that corporations will perform substantial legwork before issuing a DMCA based takedown notice.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    22. Re:How is this piracy? by klaun · · Score: 4, Insightful
      That is piracy, at that point.

      No, it's not piracy. Piracy involves people with one eye and a peg leg who go "har." Or perhaps more specifically, a robbery at sea, often accompanied by violence. Fight the co-opting of the term "piracy" for copyright violations. It is just meant to incorrectly associate a purely non-violent, non-threatening, non-property depriving (not revenue depriving, although I think that can be debated) crime with something that is far more serious and violent.

      Say "copyright violation" instead of "piracy" and no one pays any attention. And that's as it should be.

    23. Re:How is this piracy? by 8282now · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Altough I agree with most of your points, looking at the common practice in publishing where the discarded magazine is frequently distributed pro-bono to the public.

      Though this may not be "legal" does it not also reflect the lack of interest in the material (on the part of the publisher) to assure destruction of the material. Doesn't this imply "abandonment" on their part as well?

      Just a thought.

    24. Re:How is this piracy? by smiff · · Score: 3, Informative
      The person who is claiming infringement simply needs to send a signed letter under penalty of perjury to the ISP.

      The copyright holder's obligations are spelled out at the Chilling Effect Clearinghouse.

      The lawyer representing the copyright holder has to claim under penalty of perjury, that they are authorized to act on behalf of the person they claim to represent. That is the only statement they have to make under penalty of perjury.

      The takedown notice needs to describe the allegedly infringing activity, and the lawyers must state that they have a good-faith belief that the "use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law." [17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(v)]. They do not need a good-faith belief that the described activity is actually occurring.

      This RIAA takedown notice is an example of the law being abused.

      The ISP is then required to take the content down for a minimum of ten days and no longer than 14 days in such period the plaintiff must file for a court order.

      The ISP can only put the material back up if the subscriber files a counter-notice. In that case, the ISP must notify the complainant. Even if the ISP receives a counter notice, they can not restore the material until the complainant has had ten business days to respond to the counter-notice. If, after 14 business days, the complainant does not file suit, the ISP is required to restore the material.

      The requirements for a counter-notice are more stringent than the requirements for a take-down notice. To file a counter-notice, the subscriber must state under penalty of perjury that they have a good faith belief that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification. The subscriber must also consent to local federal court jurisdiction.

      For those of you thinking you could file a notice to shut down the RIAA's website for ten days, think again. The penalty for an ISP that fails to comply with a takedown notice, is that they cannot claim immunity from the infringing activity. I suspect the RIAA's ISP will take that risk rather than upsetting one of their well-endowed customers.

      IANAL

      This part of the DMCA is very good and very clear. It is unfortunate that it must give such power to plaintiffs; however, due to the penalty of purjury assumed by the plaintiff illegitimate accusations can easily cause a counter-suit and thus the system is balanced.

      I agree that the way you described it, the law would be fairly good (really the ISP shouldn't need to take the material down if they recieve a counter-notice). Unfortnately, the balance you refer to does not exist.

    25. Re:How is this piracy? by DdJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some people believe that taking things out of other people's garbage is stealing.

      If placing things in the garbage is, from a legal standpoint, a valid way to destroy them, then removing things from someone's garbage has to be illegal in at least some cases -- you are "un-destroying" something that has been legally destroyed. Cause a segmentation violation in the law's view of reality, go to jail.

      And, if placing things in the garbage is, from a legal standpoint, a valid way to destroy them, then many operations become cheaper to execute (eg. the "take the cover off the book and throw the rest away" maneuver that bookstores go through).

      So, there are real economic reasons for this to be the way things are set up from the standpoint of the law, even though it artificially creates a situation where rooting through random garbage can actually be labeled as stealing or piracy.

      The cost to society of having the law work this way may actually be lower than the cost to society of having the law be "sane". (Not saying that that's actually the case. Just pointing out that it might be the case -- it's at the very least not clear-cut.)

  2. I knew it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Damn midwestern grandmothers with their sewing circles. Up to no good! Oughta lock the whole lot of them up. Whole generation's going to hell in a handbasket.

  3. this... by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 2, Funny

    bodes ill for those of us who dumpster dive for fun. Screw the piracy and patent issues, I'm concerned about the negative image us dumpster diver enthusiasts will receive

    --
    YOU SUCK BALLS!
  4. Bootleg grandmas? by gpinzone · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wow, those Taiwanese can bootleg anything!

    1. Re:Bootleg grandmas? by Tyrall · · Score: 2, Funny
      Wow, those Taiwanese can bootleg anything!

      Ah, but do their bootleg grandmas have those great Engrish subtitles?

  5. The DMCA by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sew, it's come to this, has it?

    --
    Sigs are bad for your health.
    1. Re:The DMCA by schussat · · Score: 3, Funny
      Sew, it's come to this, has it?

      I see a real pattern of misuse of the DMCA.

      -schussat

      --
      The hour of noon has passed. Let us go and get some Kentucky Fried Chicken.
    2. Re:The DMCA by JabberWokky · · Score: 5, Funny
      I think this thread has come to an end. We can stop needling McCalls over this issue. I certainly pin my hope on it, else we destroy the fabric of Slashdot's community.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    3. Re:The DMCA by Fesh · · Score: 2, Funny

      Argh. Way to stitch together such a horrible patchwork of puns.

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    4. Re:The DMCA by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 2, Funny

      don't ply me with your seamless attempts to buttress the material.

  6. DMCA confusion? by Ron+Harwood · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I thought the DMCA was about copyright control circumvention?

    What, are they claiming that a dumpster is copyright control?

    --
    BlackNova Traders
    1. Re:DMCA confusion? by Frymaster · · Score: 4, Funny
      it's the (wait for it)...

      dumpster millenium contorl act

      good god, i slay me.

      --

      2 1337 4 u!

  7. This just goes to show... by johnthorensen · · Score: 5, Funny

    That if you put "DMCA" in it, you automatically have something that will get posted by the editors of Slashdot.

    -JT

  8. Other Reasons for Decline by gerf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The old article stated that the Internet is responsible for declining sales of patterns for doilies and other sewing patters. Here's two reasons i think this is BS.

    1.) Given the median age of the people who still knit and sew, i'd say that few of them use a computer, much less the internet.

    1.) The people who do sew, are so old they're probably just dying off anyway, thus leading to the declining sales.

    1. Re:Other Reasons for Decline by quandrum · · Score: 3, Funny

      1.) They can't count past one, and therefore are confused by the instructions...

    2. Re:Other Reasons for Decline by sporty · · Score: 2, Funny

      No profit. :'(

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    3. Re:Other Reasons for Decline by Torgo's+Pizza · · Score: 4, Interesting
      You'd be surprised. I walked in my mother's house the other day and she wanted to show me her new sewing machine. Gee, how exciting. So I humored her and walked upstairs. Imagine my surpise when it had a LCD display and a USB cable to hooked up to her computer. All her friends at the local Sewing Guild (wow, a guild outside of Everquest!) all had similar models and she "needed to keep up".

      The latest model sewing and quilt machines can download patterns and sew just about anything. Why a guy can use one of these things and feel pretty good about himself! Ahem... not like I've done that or... anything.

    4. Re:Other Reasons for Decline by Zathrus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Shrug... my wife's step-mother sews. She also teaches computer classes. She has her own computer (separate from my father-in-law's) and it used to be located next to her sewing machines (they're currently moving, so who knows after they've settled in).

      And no, she's not that old... in her 50s I believe.

      I agree that the number of people who sew are on the decline, but I've known several people (all female, unsurprisingly) my age who sew, knit, or do other such things as hobbies. And they're all from large cities (2M+), not country bumpkins.

    5. Re:Other Reasons for Decline by gwernol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The old article stated that the Internet is responsible for declining sales of patterns for doilies and other sewing patters. Here's two reasons i think this is BS.

      1.) Given the median age of the people who still knit and sew, i'd say that few of them use a computer, much less the internet.

      Okay, bring on the data. What is the median age of people who knit and sew? What percentage of them use computers? What percentage use the Internet? Actual figures from a reliable source would be useful. I just don't buy this argument without seeing some evidence. After all if none of McCall's target audience used the Internet, they'd hardly be worried about a company that sold old sewing patterns on the Internet...

      1.) The people who do sew, are so old they're probably just dying off anyway, thus leading to the declining sales.

      That assumes that no-one new is taking up the pasttime. Again, do you have any evidence to substantiate this?

      --
      Sailing over the event horizon
    6. Re:Other Reasons for Decline by Gorm+the+DBA · · Score: 4, Funny
      So now this brings up several obvious challenges:
      • Who'll be the first to get Mom's Singer to boot Linux?
      • Who'll write the first sewing machine virus, which copies the contents of the pattern directory and sends it to a IRC bot in #SeW1NGH@CkOrZ
      • WHo'll be the first overclocker to break the 200Msz barrier (200 Million Stiches)? And will the machine be water cooled?
      • And, of course, the mandatory case mods so the lady next door's sewing machine is also her fishtank
      Hmm...this could almost be cooler than I thought at first...
    7. Re:Other Reasons for Decline by angeles13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I am definately not so old that I am going to die off, and have been sewing for more than 20 years (along with knitting and crocheting - something that alleves the carpel tunnel pain that is in my wrists from working on the computer!!)

      It is much easier to search the internet for patterns than going to the fabric store. (http://www.simplicity.com or http://www.voguepatterns.com) I can search several different sites that can create custom patterns that are the printed on plotters via AutoCad - http://www.cochenille.com is one of the best. For the patterns that have been discontinued - that has been one of the sour points of the industry. I find something that I like - and McCalls has allready discontinued it, or it's used as an example of restyling a design, can't be done.

      If it's been thrown away in the trash -- it's public. That's been proven in several U.S. courts (which is why the police do not need a search warrent to go through someone's trash).

      McCalls' -- get over it. Your patterns have not been the greatest for the past ten years. To blame your main customers for the decline is like the RIAA blaming their customers for producing insipid music and loss of sales!!!

      --
      design is art - art is design
    8. Re:Other Reasons for Decline by Red+Warrior · · Score: 3, Informative

      You may need to widen your circle of friends (or awareness of different subcultures). That isn't meant as a troll or swipe at you personally.
      I personally know 8 people who sew as a hobby. Only one is over 60. Two others are over 40. The other 5 are in thier 20s to mid 30s. Of the 8, 7 use a computer on a regular basis, 5 of them at home as well as work. 3 of them (that I know of) are part of online sewing/knitting groups. One of them is a software contractor. there is a (fairly large) niche market for pattern-making/designing software. There is also a fair-sized market in machines that you can program with said patterns. The 60+ YO's machine can do just about everything except go to the store and buy the fabric.

      I don't pretend to follow it all that closely, but the whole sewing/knitting hobby/subculture is alive and kicking. It probably rivals the Ham people in numbers.(Yes, yes, I know "Ham is dying, film at 11")

      That said, if the internet "is responsible" for declining sales, it's because they have failed to adapt to a changing business environment.

      --
      "If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone."
      ~Epictetus
    9. Re:Other Reasons for Decline by s20451 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who'll write the first sewing machine virus, which copies the contents of the pattern directory and sends it to a IRC bot in #SeW1NGH@CkOrZ

      ... or that takes over the machine and sews "ur sw34t3r 1s 0wnz0r3d" into whatever you're sewing.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    10. Re:Other Reasons for Decline by RatBastard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My wife is in her early 30's. She uses the Internet every day. She also knits like there's no tomorrow. She can't stand watching TV and not doing something productive at the same time. And she's not alone, either. Most of her knitting friends (and she has a lot of them) are all between teh ages of 15 and 40, and most of them are computer and Internet litterate.

      The idea that knitters and sewers are dottering old ladies is just as much a myth as the idea that all Linux users are thieving communist hippies.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    11. Re:Other Reasons for Decline by Ioldanach · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I don't pretend to follow it all that closely, but the whole sewing/knitting hobby/subculture is alive and kicking. It probably rivals the Ham people in numbers.(Yes, yes, I know "Ham is dying, film at 11")

      My wife, for example, is a professional seamstress and in her late 20's. Her job is in the costume/theatre industry. At least half of all the costumes at every show across the country has been at least altered for the actor in that show, unless the show is set in the current day and the costume designer could walk down to wal-mart for the clothing. That's a lot of shows, and a lot of sewing. Within that, there's probably 1-5% new construction in costumes overall for a given show, with some shows being handled locally and some ordering garments. Nearly all of that is specialty, and someone had to sit at a sewing machine to do it. In small community theatres most costumes that aren't available off the shelf or ordered from a rental company are constructed locally, from patterns found in McCalls or other companies.

      In addition, and this is a big one, I'm also a member of a historical interest/research/education group with paid membership of over 24,000 nationally and unpaid individuals who also are active in the group numbering upwards of 3 or 4 times that. Of that, I'd say a good 10-30% of the active members (that's out of 100-125,000 people) make their own garments. There are a few catalog/mail order places, and a few merchants who sell clothing at our events, but on the whole the majority of the garments are made by the individuals wearing them or someone close to them.

      In fact, between the organisation I'm in and a growing interest in renaissance fairs nationwide, my wife and I have noticed the pattern catalogs carrying a much larger and more correct selection of historical (medieval and renaissance, in our case) patterns. Granted, they aren't perfect, and quite a few of the organisation's members can point out why, but they're a huge step forward from where they were just a few years ago.

      Thus, not only does McCalls have plenty of interest in its patterns, I can say firsthand that they're following the changing interests of their targeted consumers as a good business should.

  9. The Supreme Court ruled.. by MentLTheo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That once your garbage hits the curb, its public domain. I think this should constitute..

    1. Re:The Supreme Court ruled.. by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But, if your trash is on private property and NOT on the curb, its called trespassing at the very least.

      Perhaps even theft..

      But it don't have diddly to do with DMCA.. This is getting way out of hand.. 'guilty until YOU prove innocence'.. and no recourse for lost revenue during the process.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    2. Re:The Supreme Court ruled.. by clonebarkins · · Score: 5, Interesting
      That once your garbage hits the curb, its public domain. I think this should constitute..

      For my own curiosity, does this include dumpsters? I mean, technically, you could be taken for trespassers if the dumpster is on the property (which it probably is). A friend and I were caught dumpster diving a few years back, and though the cops didn't do anything except get our information (we had no ID on us, and they gave us a hard time about that, but since that's not illegal -- yet -- there was nothing they could do). But they told us that we were trespassing and if we did again they'd arrest us. I'm guessing they were bull-sh***ing us, but I don't really know.

      Anyway, I guess my question is, what's the definition of a "curb"? If you hire a dumpster, does that mean the stuff in the dumpster is PD? Or does it belong to the dumpster owner?

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

  10. sue 'em good by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If , as reported, they are selling actual patterns and not copies of same, then McCalls or anyone else has no business in using the DMCA in this, it just doesn't apply. Heck, it doesn't apply anyway, maybe copyright law would (for bogus copies, not for factory originals), but there is no digital security to defeat in any sewing pattern I've ever seen. Sounds like a more extreme abuse of DMCA that has ever been reported before, and there have been some good ones. Only thing they might have a leg to stand on is simply theft of property, but apparently they don't think they can support that. I hope McCalls gets sued real good on this one.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:sue 'em good by Cyno · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think what they are saying is that the trashcan was being used as something to protect their copyright. And by removing the item from their trashcan they broke their copy protection and thus the DMCA.

      Same thing as copying the DVD you purchased. You're removing the movie from some invisible trashcan stored on the DVD.

      Laws were meant to be broken.

  11. Supreme Court? by Captain+Rotundo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe since sewing grandmas don't have the same image as Eric Corley, this would be a good case to take the DMCA to the Supreme Court over?

  12. It Takes Something This Ridiculous... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Maybe finally we have something ridiculous enough to finally overturn or rewrite the DMCA.

    That's usually what it takes -- an application of the law so abusrd that even Joe Average realizes it's a bad law. Remember the Life Begins at Conception laws where people started claiming their unborn children on tax returns for the year where they were in the womb, and female prisoners claiming that their unborn children were unlawfully imprisoned because the mother was?

    Call it the Law of Unintended Consequences Applied to Law Law.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  13. Sewing Stealers by luckybob83 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I cannot stop laughing, I can imagine my grandma sitting in front of her Mac, "New Angel Pattern, SCORE, 3l33t" LMAO

    --
    If there is nothing left worth living, what are you willing to die for?
  14. Depends if the dumpster had lots of water in it by zptdooda · · Score: 2, Funny

    "asking a judge to declare his dumpster diving, and the selling of his treasures, legal."

    I think for international open-sea salvage laws to apply, they'd need to demonstrate dumpster diving was in fact some form of underwater diving.

    Any reference to treasures and pirates as in "Pirated sewing patterns" can only help Mosterpatterns demonstrate the applicability of sea-faring rules. Was there a captain in the dumpster at the time of the escapade?

    --
    Esteem isn't a zero sum game
  15. I'm glad to see this... by MoxCamel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...because it just goes to show how ridiculous the DMCA is. Eventually, it's going to be obvious even to lawmakers that it should be repealed. Not that we're even close to that point yet, but it's nice to see that we're headed that way.

  16. Wow Granny your 1337!! by Angus+McNitt · · Score: 3, Funny

    All this time I have pictured my Grandmom sitting home and sewing stuff for her grandkids, a fine upstanind citizen.

    Now, sitting here wearing a shirt she made me, I wonder: is this covered under fair use or are they going to take the shirt off my back? How does one check if a garment was reproduced from a licensed patern? You have to wonder how many copywritable permutations of the shirt there really are.

    Maybe this is why Granny wanted Kazaa loaded and that 120GB hard drive for Mother's Day?

    --
    "To Do Is To Be" - Socrates, "To Be Is To Do" - Sartre, "Do Be Do Be Do" - Sinatra
  17. how to ruin your own case by mblase · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For the same time period, both major pattern makers referred scores of customers to Monsterpatterns as a great source for discontinued patterns. These referrals came by way of email and telephone from Simplicity and McCall employees.

    While this doesn't qualify as official company policy (employees referring customers to the site on their own, rather than the company telling the employees to refer them), I think it badly undermines the pattern companies' case. Obviously they knew about the site for a long time, they knew what it did and what it offered, and they turned a blind eye towards it.

    Suddenly, some lawyer realizes it might be grounds for a quick courtroom profit and announces they're suing under (of all things) the DCMA. As if throwing boxes in the trash could possibly constitute encryption....

  18. So let me get this straight... by Newer+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. I find a bunch of old magazines in someone's trash.


    2. I take the magazines and list them on my web site hoping to sell them.


    3. I'm guilty of a DMCA violation?? This doesn't make sense! People are using the DMCA as a 'catch all' law to make EVERYTHING online illegal. This law must go away!

  19. Re:sad, really by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 4, Funny
    Oh, I don't know; I doubt Ashcroft would really do anything that would keep kids from wearing images of elephants - heck, a few more years and it might be expected of them. Now, wearing hand-sewn donkeys might get third-graders designated as terrorists...

    ;)

  20. LEAVE MY GRAMAMA ALONE B*#@&! by rulethirty · · Score: 5, Funny

    If she can find it cheaper on MonsterPatterns.com then maybe she can afford to give me two shiney quarters for cleaning out her gutters!

  21. This is good... by Bull999999 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We need lawsuits like this to show the world how silly DMCA is. I thought that they crossed the line with toners and ink cartridges but this one tops them all.

    At least there's one Senator that wants to limit DRM and DMCA.

    http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-1013037.html?ta g=fdfeed

    --
    1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
  22. Bad for Karma, but I'm on McCall's side... by MyNameIsFred · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It is not uncommon for companies to have merchants dispose of surplus merchandise. For example, paperbacks have their covers ripped-off. The bookseller returns the cover for a refund. The rest of the book is not suppose to be sold or given away. This process is designed to keep costs low (they don't have to pay shipping for the heavy books).

    Apparently, McCall has a similar process for excess patterns. The understanding with the merchants is that the excess patterns are NOT to be sold. Monsterpatterns is disrupting this process. While other means could be used (e.g., shredding the patterns) this would increase costs for the merchants. And is not a good thing.

    So while DMCA may be hated on Slashdot, I believe McCalls has a right to protect their copyrighted materials, which they want to have removed from the marketplace.

    1. Re:Bad for Karma, but I'm on McCall's side... by janda · · Score: 2, Funny

      I disagree. To use your book example, who would buy (at full price, or even half off) a new book without the cover? Nobody would, that's why the practice works to a large part.

      If the pattern industry were going to do something similar, they'd require that the patterns be ripped in half.

      Regardless, if I have the physical material, I can sell it for whatever I can get. That's why it's called "owning" something.

      Also, once you stick it in the dumpster, it's fair game. You might be able to do the "trespassing" thing if you caught me dumpster diving, but that's not what this lawsuit is about.

      OBSCOComment: I wonder what SCO has done with their "trade secret" source code printouts and tapes over the years...

      --
      Karma: Food Fight (Mostly affected by Date Plate).
    2. Re:Bad for Karma, but I'm on McCall's side... by dwdyer · · Score: 3, Insightful
      So while DMCA may be hated on Slashdot, I believe McCalls has a right to protect their copyrighted materials, which they want to have removed from the marketplace.
      That's fine, but it's the invoking of the DMCA that makes this goofy. How does that affect grabbing something out of someone's trash and selling it? Granted, it might not be legal, but it doesn't appear to involve the DMCA except to get some press time.
      --
      -dwd-
    3. Re:Bad for Karma, but I'm on McCall's side... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It is not uncommon for companies to have merchants dispose of surplus merchandise

      In this case the merchant failed to dispose the merchandise properly. In some states, dumpster diving is illegal and considered theft. But theft of property is not why McCall and Simplicity wanted the website shutdown. They are claiming copyright infringement. If anything, McCall and Simplicity have a case against the company that didn't dispose of the patterns in the first place for negligence.

      I believe McCalls has a right to protect their copyrighted materials . . .

      True, but again Monsterpatterns.com never claimed that the pattern rights belong to them. They were merely re-selling a piece of cloth and using a website to display their merchandise.

      While other means could be used (e.g., shredding the patterns) this would increase costs for the merchants. And is not a good thing.

      Suppose a frustrated artist threw away one of his paintings in the trash. I come along and pick it up. If I try to sell it on ebay, would the artist have any claim to the money? No, because
      1) he discarded it
      2) if he didn't want anyone else to have it, he should have made sure it went to the landfill or damaged it enough so that it could not be used.
      In similar cases of discarded property where tresspassing was not involved, courts have consistently ruled that those who discard property have no claim on it later. It is up to them to dispose of material properly.

      Now if monsterpatterns.com wanted to put patterns on coffee mugs and sell them, then DMCA may apply.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Bad for Karma, but I'm on McCall's side... by cavemanf16 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is just like I have said for the stupid RIAA/MPAA groups. If you don't want it to get out in the open, don't produce it in a copiable format. But, since that's prohibitively expensive, and NOT consumer friendly at all, they choose to go the cheaper, customer friendly route. Just don't be surprised when because people can make do with less (like cheaper, outdated patterns in this case) that they will. Your average consumer is smart, and cheap. Very cheap.

      So make sure if you're gonna charge "too much" for your patterns, that you make sure they are disposed of properly, or else people will find a way to make them cheaper! Just like with mp3's and the like.

      'Nuf said.

    5. Re:Bad for Karma, but I'm on McCall's side... by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 2, Insightful
      McCalls LOST control of the patterns the instant they sold them. The copyright holder DOES NOT have any say in the fate of that object beyond the right to sue if it is copied. "Doctrine of first sale" rules.

      Remember the hassle over used records an dthe stores that sold them? That's what McCall's is trying to do - prevent resale in order to keep profits up.

  23. It's not even a digital product... by gilesjuk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I guess they're using the DMCA because it's a website they're trying to shutdown.

    I don't see that resale of merchanside is hacking or infringing copyright.

  24. As this is what I do... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I do IT and such for a small crafting company.

    First - dumpster diving has nothing to do with the DMCA. Nothing. What monsterpackets is doing is no different from me grabbing a turntable that someone tossed and selling it on eBay.

    Second - if this is such a *huge* problem, why not FIX it?

    Sell the packets in bulk to monsterpackets or someone else. buy a shredder and destroy them.

    Shit, this DMCA crap is tired already - it took me two minutes to think of these things, and I haven't even started drinking yet.

  25. Sewing cost by phorm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not my first choice of purchase, but has anyone looked at the cost of sewing nowadays?

    I mean, supplies are expensive, the cost of sewing machines can be incredible (cheap ones in the hundreds, up to thousands for higher-end though), and patterns are definately a rip.

    Maybe we need an "open pattern site" - anyone got a link?

  26. RTFA! by HopeUnknown · · Score: 2, Funny
    I think you guys are talking about the wrong DMCA here...this article is referring to the Dumpster-Diving Monsterpatterns Contraband Agreement.

  27. Maybe McCall should take a lesson from Madonna... by mykepredko · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just can't wait for McCall to take their lead from Madonna and put on the Internet some of their own "designs" to help thwart pirating of their intellectual property.

    The whole pattern pirating industry would be shut down in an instant as soon as some grandmother that downloaded a pattern called "Playful Kittens" and spent hours stitching it out, ended up with a pillow that says "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING?"

    myke

    --
    Mimetics Inc. Twitter
  28. So does this mean... by OrangeGoo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can I sue everybody everywhere who has ever made a profit just by claiming that I made the product originally, but threw it away? I've never really thought about it; I just kinda assumed that I was giving up rights to my trash. I'm generally more than happy to turn it over to the nice men who come twice a week to take it away. Are those sons-of-bitches getting rich at my expense?!

    I'm suing!

  29. IANAL, of course... by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The understanding with the merchants is that the excess patterns are NOT to be sold. Monsterpatterns is disrupting this process.

    But Monsterpatterns is not a party to the contractual agreement between the pattern manufacturer and the pattern retailer. If the retailer fails to execute their part of the agreement, no third party is bound to abide by the agreement in their stead.

    "They're doing something that's not illegal but it's messing up our business model" is not a justification to sue. It's a sign that the business model needs to be altered.

    ('altered', ha... tailoring humor... thank you, I'll be here all week)

  30. This is really weird by M.+Silver · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Okay, I may be one of the few slashdotters who sews (for a living, yet... it's slightly more profitable, in the right areas, than writing code from home. Go figure), and it's not really relevant to the issue itself, but...

    Monsterpatterns is selling stuff for "30-40% off retail"?? If that's cover price, that's highway robbery, never mind where the patterns came from. McCall, Butterick and Vogue patterns are *normally* sold for 50% off cover. Most places (JoAnn, Hancock, etc.) have rotating sales where one particular line is a buck a pattern.

    I guess Monsterpatterns (and the sewing stores) are targeting the folks that want a particular pattern RIGHT NOW and are willing to pay the fairly-outrageous cover prices ($9-15) on them.

    (In other Slashdot-relevant news, I'm trying to decide on an appropriate "open-source" license for sewing patterns.)

    --

    Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
  31. Re:What about home security cameras? by EvanED · · Score: 2, Informative

    The police have no additional rights to search and seizure than you or I unless they have a warrant.

  32. Thanks, Slashdot! Now I see... by Interrobang · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not "picking stitches" anymore, I'm "reverse engineering." I'm not "tailoring" anymore, I'm "setting my preferences," and I'm not "customizing a pattern" anymore, I'm "kernel hacking." Ah. Hmm, now that I can talk about it in 1337 code, I feel a lot better about admitting that I (can) sew!

    Let's just say I won't be buying any McCall's patterns for quite awhile. I think I'll stick to Burda. (Burda 0wNz0rZ j00!)

    --
    I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
  33. And will probably be registered by Buffalo Bill by The+Jonas · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wish their investigation would have played out something more like this:

    CLARICE Good afternoon... I wonder if you could help me. I'm looking for MacCall, the sewing pattern company?

    MR. GUMB They don't live here anymore.

    Mr. Gumb starts to close the door, only to have Clarice push back against it, politely but firmly. She holds up her ID.

    CLARICE Excuse me, but I really do need to talk to you. This was MacCall sewing pattern company. Did you know them?

    MR. GUMB Just briefly. What's the problem, Officer?

    Clarice and Mr. Gumb, still eyeing each other through the door crack...

    CLARICE I'm investigating a violation of the DMCA. Who are you, please?

    MR. GUMB Jack Gordon.

    CLARICE Mr. Gordon, do you know anything about MacCall dumpster-diving for sewing patterns?

    MR. GUMB No. Wait... Was it those stupid little drawings made up of broken lines? I may have seen them, I'm not sure...

    Mr. Gumb glances briefly over his shoulder, towards his kitchen, then turns back to Clarice with a smile.

    MR. GUMB MacCall had some employees, maybe they could help you. I have some cards somewhere. Do you mind stepping inside, while I looks for it?

    CLARICE Thanks.

    Moments later...
    CLARICE - looking up from the bottom of a hole in the basement.

    MR. GUMB It rubs the DMCA on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it is told.

  34. No, Of Course Not... by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Funny
    To apply the DMCA the patterns:

    1) Would have to be digital.

    2) Have a copy protection mechanism in place. My favorite dumpster copy protection mechanism consists of broken glass, rusty razor blades and animal dung. This will protect the contents of your dumpster from copying by all except the most dedicated of dumpster divers. It also really cuts down on the repeat offenders.

    IANAL yadda yadda.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  35. Right, but these aren't licensed copies by siskbc · · Score: 2, Informative
    You don't need the copyright holder's permission to sell. You only need permission to copy, perform, or create derivitive works.

    Quite right. However, your analysis applies to something that is legitimately licensed copies, which these sewing patterns are not. The question in this, which is what makes it so much of a brainbender: by using a non-licensed copy of something, are you a pirate?

    Ostensibly, the store is transferring the rights of the "original" back to the manufacturer - in effect, the product was "de-licensed," at which point it is supposed to be worthless, and is disposed of as such. Clearly, however, it wasn't rendered unusable. So, is using something that doesn't have a valid license the same or different from making a copy and THEN using something that doesn't have a valid license?

    I think it's much the same. Consider this - let's say I have a site-license for some software on my servers, and I let that license expire. Now let's say I use it. Note that I have not illegally copied the software - it was copied quite legally, when it was licensed, by the company who licensed it to me. But now, can I use it without breaking the law? Of course not.

    So, ultimately, it is ILLEGAL to use something that is not legitimately licensed, whether you or someone else made the copies. See the "stripped book" argument made by others in this thread.

    That's not to say the DMCA applies here - it's hard to suggest anyone's reverse-engineering sewing patterns or something - but it's very likely against the law to use or especially sell them.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    1. Re:Right, but these aren't licensed copies by nicomachus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is a used book a "licensed copy"? Can you sell a used book without the copyright owner's permission? If the answers to those aren't obvious, please remember that licensing of software was a mechanism invented by vendors to avoid the usual provision of copyright law that the buyer of the object (book, record, etc.) owns it and can resell it: the only thing copyright prevents the buyer from doing is copying it.

    2. Re:Right, but these aren't licensed copies by hazem · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There has been an interesting and similar situation with recyclers who handle the US Postal Service material. Many people join those book and CD clubs that automatically send stuff, hoping that you'll just pay for it. Many, though, return those to the company - or so they think.

      The book/CD goes back to the USPS, who then takes out the scrap of paper saying you returned it, and they toss the book/cd in the recycling bin. They would report to the publisher that the product was destroyed, but you would still get credited for returning it. It's amazing that it costs less to just discard the book/cd than resell it.

      So, the recyclers were getting these books and CD in their recycled material. Instead of just baling the books and cds, several I know were actually taking the books and cd's out and selling them on ebay and amazon!

      Lawyers eventually came to one of the recyclers I worked with. The laywers say they are only purchasing waste paper and plastic in the recycling, and that they cannot sell the products as books and CD. The recyclers say they bought the material and that they own it and can sell it as anything they want.

      Well, in my local case, the recycler decided not to fight due to the high court costs and the probability of losing.

      I would blame the USPS - they should be rendering the books and cd's unserviceable before selling them to someone else.

  36. needlework design generators? by bob_jenkins · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is there software for generating needlework designs? Both repetitive patterns, and rendering of scanned pictures? The problems of arranging circuits on chips and displaying words & pictures with pixels seem similar. Software can handle those problems quite well, sometimes better than any human can.

  37. Okay, let's get the story RIGHT, shall we? by M.+Silver · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ah ha. Doing a little more homework...

    McCall's isn't saying the patterns can't be sold. Wait. Let me say that a little louder.

    MCCALL'S ISN'T SAYING THE PATTERNS CAN'T BE SOLD.

    Their gripe is with Monsterpatterns putting pictures of the patterns on the website. You know: reproducing (as in making a COPY of) the copyrighted art/photographs on the cover of the patterns.

    It's still a bit underhanded, but it makes a certain sort of sense, far more than "you can't resell the physical pattern."

    Here's the forum message where the rep (owner?) says "Today The Mccall pattern company through their attorneys have told our web host company that we are 'infringing on their copyrights' by displaying pictures of patterns that we own."

    --

    Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
  38. Returned merchandise? by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm just speculating, but the problem may be related to the same problem that magazine publishers have with newsstands with regards to unsold issues. The newsstands get credit (or at least, used to) for the unsold issues-- at one time they would return the upper portion of the cover for proof, rather than send the entire issue back. Possibly what is happening here, is stores are getting credit for unsold patterns that the manufacturers don't want to pay to have returned, and expect the store to destroy them. If that is the case, then the stores are at fault for not sufficiently destroying them, but perhaps the pattern manufacturers realize that suing their stores is not particularly a good idea.

    I've seen the same thing happen to magazines-- magazines with portions of the cover removed do sometimes get sold anyway, but I don't know what the legality of this is. It's probably less of a problem with a magazine publisher where a back issue of a magazine doesn't compete all that much with the current issue-- old patterns, on the other hand, could concievably be quite competitive with new pattern lines, thus making it a more significant issue with the pattern manufacturers.

    In any event, it will be interesting to see how this one plays out...

  39. Boycott McAll's by BMonger · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yesterday I was at my grandma's and she was downloading some patterns off the internet... I asked her, "Grandma, isn't that illegal?" She shrugged stating, "I wouldn't have bought it anyway. Plus I don't like those top 40 patterns of old ladies with pineapples on their heads. When I stitch I like to stitch indie stuff anyhow which I can't find at the local needlpoint store." I thought it made sense but somehow... I dunno... it seems like I've seen that argument elsewhere... hmmmm...

    Anyhow to all you grandma's that read slashdot out there... don't buy McAll's patterns! Buy from your local neighborhood needlepoint store!

  40. Dare I say it... by sean.peters · · Score: 2, Funny

    Imagine a beo... naah, I don't dare. Sean

  41. Re:How is this piracy? (redux) by HardCase · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Let me try this again:
    Even in paperback books with the covers ripped off, the language warning against stripped books doesn't mention copyright liability. Here's the language used by one publisher:
    The sale of this book without its cover is unauthorized. If you purchased this book without a cover, you should be aware that it was reported to the publisher as "unsold and destroyed." Neither the author nor the publisher has received payment for the sale of this "stripped book."


    Many publishers amplify on this, stating that if you have purchased the book in question, it is stolen. Now, I don't know if the same rules apply in the case of the dumpster diver, but in the case of the stripped books, you are holding a piece of property that hasn't been paid for. It doesn't matter that you dug it out of a garbage bin or found it on the side of the street...if the bookstore reported it as unsold and destroyed to the publisher or distributor, then it cannot be sold. Does that mean that you are a criminal for possessing it? Beats me, but it seems to me that it puts you in a dubious position of being able to claim any right of ownership.


    The booksellers are authorized to destroy the books in lieu of returning them to the distributor, but the distributor retains the ownership of the book. The notice in the front of the book seems to me to be sufficient to inform you of just who owns the book. It's not a copyright issue at all - it's an issue a physical piece of property.


    Oh, and just to maintain a thread of topicality, in my city (Boise, Idaho), when you toss something into the dumpster, it becomes the property of the garbage company. Of course, "property", in the sense of the book issue described above seems to take on a rather confusing label. Maybe custody is a better term.


    -h-

  42. Perhaps I can invoke the DMCA on them! by mccalli · · Score: 2, Funny
    After all, they've circumvented my account name encryption of 'mccalli', purely to trade under my name...

    Cheers,
    Ian (McCall)

  43. DMCA does not apply by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The DMCA is only meant to prevent the decryption of digitally encrypted copyrighted content. Although there may be copyrighted content involved here, there is no digital encryption. The DMCA cannot apply.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  44. "Doctrine of first sale" applies: no infringement by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With few exceptions, once the item has "entered into the stream of commerce", the holder of copyright can not prevent further sale. See: USA Copyright law And it's backed up by a Supreme Court decision from 1905 or so.

    The doctrine allows the legitimate owner of a particular lawful copy of a work to "sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy" without the permission of the copyright owner, and produce images of it for purpose of aiding the sale. It does not permit copying the item in its entirety.

    If the city codes allow dumpster diving and if they declare that the contents are "abandoned property", then the divers ARE the legal owners of the patterns and can tell McCall's to take a flying leap.

    This issue comes up frequently on eBay. One $$$ fabric maker was invoking the DMCA to get auctions for items made of their fabric shut down. Their claim was that the photos showed their copyrighted fabric designs. It only took a few sellers ordering eBay to restore the content and to tell the fabric company that it was fair use (citing chapter, verse and Supreme Copurt decision number) and to go ahead and file to convince them they were out of line.