Layson's Restoration Busted at Carlisle by Police!!

[TK73]

......if i download a tune from a friend, for my own personal enjoyment, am i stealing? or is it just as if he is letting me enjoy a book that he has? when i was young and we bought 45's and 33's, people would lend them back and forth, and the music people didn't make a peep...

Difference being you are "copying" when "downloading" from a friend... not "borrowing" the original copy... 

[ACUDANUT]

Copying and reproducing is all China does.  Sad thing is,  they can't even get that right.

[Kevin68N71]

It's not GREY at all.  Hell, it's not even charcoal.

If you download a song without permission from the owner, you are stealing intellectual property.  As the other writer said, this is intrinsically different than borrowing a book from a friend to read.  That friend has already purchased the item. 

An equivalent would be if you were to hack into a pay online reading site or download book site, and download the books there.  Or hack into IMEEM or the Apple music site and download the music without paying for it.  It's ILLEGAL.

Let's say you are a producer of a movie.  You do your math and figure that you need to sell 300,000 DVDs before you recoup your investment and start to make money.  So you use your talent, sweat and work and crank out a movie, and start selling them.  Then people start downloading it, say after you sold 250,000 copies.  You never get your profit out of it.  Of the people downloading, I would generously say maybe 5% would then go and buy it to get the pictures that come with it.  You never make your money.  Is that fair?  If you think it is, send me some of your endless supply of money, as I have some GREAT investment opportunities for you.

As for comparing it to libraries, the libraries BOUGHT the material, and having other people borrow it is under fair use laws and no one has a problem with it.  So its not a valid comparison.  The library did not illegally download it and share it with people.

I don't understand what is grey about it.  Borrow from a friend or library, legal.  Downloading it for free from an unauthorized source, illegal.

[Steve P.]

It's not GREY at all.  Hell, it's not even charcoal.

If you download a song without permission from the owner, you are stealing intellectual property.  As the other writer said, this is intrinsically different than borrowing a book from a friend to read.  That friend has already purchased the item. 

An equivalent would be if you were to hack into a pay on line reading site or download book site, and download the books there.  Or hack into IMEEM or the Apple music site and download the music without paying for it.  It's ILLEGAL.

Let's say you are a producer of a movie.  You do your math and figure that you need to sell 300,000 DVDs before you recoup your investment and start to make money.  So you use your talent, sweat and work and crank out a movie, and start selling them.  Then people start downloading it, say after you sold 250,000 copies.  You never get your profit out of it.  Of the people downloading, I would generously say maybe 5% would then go and buy it to get the pictures that come with it.  You never make your money.  Is that fair?  If you think it is, send me some of your endless supply of money, as I have some GREAT investment opportunities for you.

As for comparing it to libraries, the libraries BOUGHT the material, and having other people borrow it is under fair use laws and no one has a problem with it.  So its not a valid comparison.  The library did not illegally download it and share it with people.

I don't understand what is grey about it.  Borrow from a friend or library, legal.  Downloading it for free from an unauthorized source, illegal.

I agree completely. You read the book from the library. I don't think anyone ever spent much time copying page after page. If they had it would have been illegal.



Back to the logo and Laysons, I also agree that if they DID in fact place a logo on parts not belonging to them or having license to, they should pay a healthy price. Royalties are not the only reason for this. Let's say JOE BLOW makes seat belts and puts a Chrysler logo on it. It looks just like a factory Chrysler part and has the logo. Now Little Susie takes dad's hot rod out for a spin and wrecks. The seat belt fails to do it's job and little Susie gets hurt or worse. Maybe DAD wasn't the guy who put the belts in and knew nothing about them. He just sees his baby girl hurting or worse and decides to go after Chrysler.. Should Chrysler Corp. have to defend or pay out anything due to some OTHER company printing the Chrysler logo on it? 

[69CoronetRT]

......if i download a tune from a friend, for my own personal enjoyment, am i stealing? or is it just as if he is letting me enjoy a book that he has? when i was young and we bought 45's and 33's, people would lend them back and forth, and the music people didn't make a peep...

Difference being you are "copying" when "downloading" from a friend... not "borrowing" the original copy... 

And with records, you did not have the ability to stamp more records or a sales distribution chain in order to profit from the copying. With file sharing, there is no tangible original product. It's only a file that can be mass distributed in minutes.

[craigandlynda]

when a library buys a book, and lends it out, thousands of people get the enjoyment.....yet, only one book has been bought....do you think that is wrong and unfair to the author? are there any authors out there who would comment on this?

[JimShine]

Most authors are not really into it for the money. While you hear about best sellers making millions, they are rare. Most authors only make an extra couple thousand bucks a year off their books. I bet more current books get read without buying at the book store than at the library. Most authors I know write because: they love the subject, want to contribute to their field of interest, desire the status of being a published author in their field of interest.

Musicians on the otherhand tend to look at album sales as a means of making a living or substantially supplimenting their income.

[craigandlynda]

kevin, steve, and others: you do have valid points, some i had not considered before...don't get me wrong, i don't condone the stealing and resale of someone else's music or other properties; i'm not convinced, that when a friend sends me a file and say's, "check this out," or "listen to this," and i record it to listen some, that i have done anything wrong....

i work parttime with a radio station....we pay "dues" to ASCAP ond others for permission to use their music...its kind of a blanket approach...they survey us occasioanlly to see exactly which music we are broadcasting, but they charge us based on our total annual revenues...they automatically assume the reason we get revenue is solely due to their music...we get revenue for other reasons, such as local sports and events, and promoting local businesses...but their demeanor and approach is, basically, that everything we have we owe to them....

and as far as the artists property, the actual artists get a very small amount of the money we send...the organizations suck up the lion's share....and THAT bothers me....

[SFRT]

Another legal reality to cosnider is this:

I is up to the Copyright/Trademark owner to be proactive in protecting the rights. They bear the burden. Failure to protect and enforce yout copyrights/trademarks can lead to another party taking them over.

So...if Chrysler failed to protest and use the law as a last resort over violations, after a while someone like Laysons can go to court and show no action to protect and then take them over.

I did this myself a few years back and successfully became the 'owner' of an old chewing gum company logo  that i subsequently used on a range of products and merch.

the burden of protection is on Chryler, so a 'bust' after several years of non response to 'normal litigation' ( letters, cease and desist orders etc) is correct, proper and necessary.

[craigandlynda]

but back to the layson's thing....if i have a pentatar part on my car that came from layson's, could i, technically, get in trouble? would i be obligated to tell the next owner about the "illicit" part? will chrysler have storm troopers swoop down and confiscate my parts?

[Kevin68N71]

and as far as the artists property, the actual artists get a very small amount of the money we send...the organizations suck up the lion's share....and THAT bothers me....

The artists sign a contract which tells them precisely what they will get.  Why shouldn't the record companies tie up the lions share, they are doing the recording, mastering, marketing, talent grooming, distribution, advertising, and everything else to get those songs out there.  They may be providing additional musicians, recording facilities, and they are doing this for many many bands that go nowhere.  It's a major, expensive gamble.

So say I go to you Craig and said, "Craig, I like your band.  I want to sweeten the sound up a little, give you some background.  I will take a chance on you with two albums.  I will give you $200,000.  You sign with me.

I do all the things listed above, your supply the voice.  You may or many not even supply the songs, I may have other paid songwriters do that.  You invest a few months of time and your voice.  I supply EVERYTHING else.

If it fails, you still have your $200,000.  I am out potentially many times more than that.  If it is a hit, you may be mad that I made all this money, but after you do your second album and I have made you a star, you can use that status to negotiate for millions.

It doesn't matter if the organizations "suck up the lion's share".  It doesn't legitimize stealing, nor were there artists forced into signing anything.  And as far as property is concerned, they very well may have signed that over to the company also, so it's not their's anymore anyway.

[craigandlynda]

sounds like you are knowledgable about the record business...do you know , how much out of every thousand dollars ASCAP collects, actually goes to the artists ? i am curious....

[Ghoste]

Keep in mind that Laysons were not loaning these parts out like a library or letting your friend hear the cd you just bought, they were selling them.  Not to mention they would be able to sell them at a higher profit if people thought they were a legit repop.

Disclaimer:  I still think sending in the ninja cops was asinine overkill.

[craigandlynda]

 i agree...i wonder what layson's defense will be?

[Kevin68N71]

i agree...i wonder what layson's defense will be?

I read in one of those links that their lawyer said they were selling two types of items, one, un-logo'd stuff that they made, and 2) logo'd stuff that they were reselling from other companies that were licensed to use the logos.

Ghoste--the music conversation was mostly a sideline and was only partially associated with the larger Layson's discussion. As I have said, I feel the cop thing was overdone and a waste of taxpayers' money, although I completely agree that if this company was selling merchandise fraudulently, they should be prosecuted.

[moparsuebear]

I heard somewhere Warner Bros. has HLPAG under surveillance 

[Ghoste]

Wouldn't that be something.

[hemigeno]

i agree...i wonder what layson's defense will be?

I read in one of those links that their lawyer said they were selling two types of items, one, un-logo'd stuff that they made, and 2) logo'd stuff that they were reselling from other companies that were licensed to use the logos.

Mike Ross from BE&A had some very interesting things to say (on Moparts.com) about the supposed licensed items that Layson's had for resale.  He says the logo'd items aren't his, and that the illegal repros are made with resin rather than injection-molded.  That means the unlicensed repros will melt at a much lower heat.  If that is the case  --  and that remains to be seen  --  it'll be REALLY hard to argue much from Layson's perspective.

[4speed]

 

[aussiemuscle]

i suppose chrysler could also claim copyright infringement over the 'design' of the parts too? 

[Kevin68N71]

i suppose chrysler could also claim copyright infringement over the 'design' of the parts too? 

As I hinted at earlier, THAT is my biggest fear.  I doubt that would happen, but that could CRUSH the aftermarket industry and drive prices up into the heavens for us consumers.

That would be a horribly bad PR move by Chrysler.

[hemigeno]

i suppose chrysler could also claim copyright infringement over the 'design' of the parts too? 

As I hinted at earlier, THAT is my biggest fear.  I doubt that would happen, but that could CRUSH the aftermarket industry and drive prices up into the heavens for us consumers.

That would be a horribly bad PR move by Chrysler.

I can't see how they could do that at all, as I've never seen a copyright mark on a sheet metal piece.  Even the part numbers aren't really off-limits to someone that wanted to put it on there, although a few reproduction parts I've seen with part numbers (e.g. Charger trunk/fuel filler tube seal) used an incorrect number that made the part look semi-legit.  No Pentastar though, like the originals had.  The repro guys that don't want to license a particular part might play it safe and leave the numbers off altogether, or use an incorrect # like the trunk seal.

The only thing that Chrysler could (legally) complain about is the use of the Pentastar or other registered marques.  Everything else is fair game to reproduce AFAIK.

[GeneralLeeTESH]

Here is WHY...
http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,39354.0.html

[GeneralLeeTESH]

Bad...

[hemigeno]

Figured I'd cut/paste Mike's comments from the Moparts thread since they're germane to this thread's main discussion as well:

I have stayed far away from these threads, however, I will make these comments. B/E & A Restoration Parts, Inc. and PG Classis work very close together making the parts we produce. For public record, none of the PG parts have Penta Stars nor are they ever advertised as being "Authentic Restoration Parts". Any of the parts that support the Penta Star are licensed through and distributed by B/E & A Restoration Parts, Inc. and their dealers.

B/E & A Restoration Parts, Inc. has the exclusive licensing for many of the same parts that were of interest to Chrysler and none of those parts were supplied to that dealer by B/E & A Restoration Parts, Inc. or their dealers.

In reference to the licensing program, it is true, it does need some refinement no question. For the most part, many of the parts produced are policed by the licensed suppliers themselves. There does need to be a more aggressive method of validation for the licensed parts which David Hakim and Bob Horton are working on now. My suggestion to them is to work together with all the other suppliers and the "experts" (I hate that word) in the hobby to assist in the validation process so we all have a good restoration part to work with. My suggestion to the customers that have purchased parts that have fitment issues is to direct your comments to TRI. We all need to be aggressively positive about our parts and demand the quality we expect for the better of our hobby. We need to work together, customers and suppliers, and be wide open to constructive criticism.

With respect to the current situation, innocent until proven guilty, however, in my opinion, I think it favors the latter of the two. If a company is selling a particular part that is suppose to be from a licensed supplier you would think it to be made from the same injected acrylic and not a very inexpensive poured resin. Put them both in the oven at 150 degrees and let that be the test, I'll bet one of them melts.

I have to defend the position Chrysler has taken to protect their logos, along with it, they also have an obligation to their licensee that use the logo and pay a fee for it.

This has been a very unfortunate situation that I equate to kicking an elephant in the shin in the same spot over a long period of time, eventually there will develop a bruise, the elephant is going to pick up his foot and step on what is causing it.

These are my thoughts and opinions only and are not written as fact.


Michael C. Ross – Owner
B/E & A Restoration Parts, Inc.
www.beaparts.com
330-725-3990