Who knew this problem existed and who really cared?

I hate to side with the DMCA goons, but just because dude found his patterns in the trash doesn't mean the copyrights to them are any less valid.

There are all sorts of things out there that are copyright protected yet are not in distribution. This doesn't give someone the right to profit off of something just because the rightful owner chooses not to.

Wh3n sewing is 0utlawed, 0n1y outlaws will sew.

so... we're all still waiting on the boobies it seems.

Can't stop laughing at the image of mad outlaw grannies sewing pirated patterns...

But, hey, at least those who steal music have a gripe, CD prices are fricking ridiculous and haven't dropped in the what, 15 years they've been around? I can't imagine these patterns are costing that much...or am I wrong?

Hmm a little investigation will ensue. BRB.

If he hadn't been selling the patterns, I doubt he's be in as much hot water as he is now. Distributing them is one thing, but profiting off of another company's work is always a sure-fire way of having the lawyers sent on you.

Another slow news day.....Wake me up when we lose another federal building to a jumbo jet

This is old news.

OK, I was right and wrong. Apparently prices are like $17-$20 for most patterns. However, there is a crap load of free pattern webpages out there. I also found a couple of strange pattern webpages in my search:

He was exhibiting a pattern of abuse. That is always a template for disaster. They just want him to cut it out.

wheres Lars Ulrich when you need him?
Speaking of Lars, the new metallica song sucks

Well I'm confused. Is he selling copies of the patterns he dumpster-dived for, or the actual patterns themselves?

Metallica lawsuit 5...4...3...

Was he selling the physical patterns that he found or photocopies of said garbage?

i'll bet if this guy didn't make too much money on this the companies wouldn't have cared. if they are discontinued and in the trash these patterns were useless to the company. at least until someone else figured how to make money on them. now i'll bet the companies will start their own websites selling the discontinued patterns. my grandmother was a seamstress and used to make clothes from patterns and the patterns were always shared among the women of the family. once the clothing is made how is the company going to know its a shared pattern? better not let the clothing companies know that, i take store bought clothes and cut fabric using the already made clothes as a pattern.

The point is not the illegality of posting the patterns. (which is undeniably infringement, although if the books were truly out-of-print, it's debatedly an abandoned copyright. But that's another issue) The point is the abuse of the DMCA. When it was first introduced, a number of activist groups and opposing lawmakers shouted to the heavens that the law - which was only supposed to help squash online piracy - was so broadly-worded that it could be used to suppress almost any online activity that corporate interests didn't like. The proponents of the bill, of course, claimed that Oh no, it'll never, EVER be used for ANYTHING besides shutting down those nassssttyy, dirrrty pirates! And now, several years later, you could write a book on all the various ways the DMCA has been abused and used as a shortcut around the legal system. This is just one in a long string of cases where the corporate interests have bypassed most of our judicial checks and balances by invoking the DMCA and scaring the ISP into cooperating - and THAT is an important and scary issue whether or not any given individual is breaking laws.

As a farkette who sews, this is, and isn't, a big deal.

It isn't a big deal - I can get patterns cheaply online! Yay!

It is a big deal - I've designed my own clothes before and coming up with a pattern is a lot of hard work. Knowing that someone is selling that work without my permission would irk me too.

I can understand why McCall's and Simplicity are upset - it takes a lot of work to design the original pattern and sewing isn't exactly a multi-billion dollar industry. However, they should stop freaking out and find a better way to still profit off of the discontinued items if it is really that big of a deal.

And now, several years later, you could write a book on all the various ways the DMCA has been abused and used as a shortcut around the legal system.

Too true, yet from what I hear, most people didn't put up much of a fight when the DMCA was being propsed. Sure, a number of people voiced their displeasure on the Internet, but I'd be surprised if more than a few percent actually tried things like writing letters, contacting groups like the EFF, or even bothering to read the proposal. Hooray for apathy!

Of course, here in Canada we don't have the DMCA yet. Unless folks get off of their asses and complain, though, I'm sure we'll have it soon enough.

It difficult to discern absolutely from the website, but it looks like the only thing he's "copied" is the front and back cover of the pattern, so it's a bit like a pic of the dust jacket on books at Amazon. Seems like fair use to me. Too bad the DMCA throws due process out the window.

Mopslik Unfortunately, the DMCA wasn't widely reported on at the time, and what reports there were tended to gloss over its less pleasant aspects. People had to seriously dig to find out just how nasty it was, and by the time word started to really get out, it was too late.

People had to seriously dig to find out just how nasty it was, and by the time word started to really get out, it was too late.

Agreed, a lot of the information was presented in traditional legal mumbo-jumbo form. Fortunately, I have a bit more hope for here. Hell, if we can reclassify pot possession as a ticketable offense, we can surely prevent some abuse from the (RI/MP)AA.

06-01-03 12:42:49 PM Mopslik

If he hadn't been selling the patterns, I doubt he's be in as much hot water as he is now. Distributing them is one thing, but profiting off of another company's work is always a sure-fire way of having the lawyers sent on you.

He picked them out of the trash. Is it illegal to sell stuff you find?
For that matter, is it illegal to sell used stuff, too?

this is exactly what we need to crush DMCA at the jury level. Think of it, every panel will have that old lady, and now she knows.

/swearing I'll read the article soon

A_cure_for_gravity
He picked them out of the trash. Is it illegal to sell stuff you find? For that matter, is it illegal to sell used stuff, too?

I made no assertions as whether it was right or wrong to sell the items. I merely pointed out that by selling the patterns online, and profiting from another company's designs, lawyers were far more likely to pursue him. Would you debate that?

I doubt he was selling the physical patterns he dumpster dived for but rather was selling copies. If he was just selling what he found he could do that via ebay and not set up his own e-commerce site.

isn't selling stuff you find in trash what ebay is all about? are they next?

Much more information on the case

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/5/prweb67370.php

It looks like he's selling the items he got from the dumpster diving second hand, not selling copies...

It's obvious but...

DMCA=SHIATE

You think that's scary BS, check this article out;
Court confirms DMCA 'good faith' web site shut down rights

CB

That is remarkably gay. I will never understand why people can have pride to be in a place that puts morons into power that make decisions like that.

"Let's just trust them not to shut down stuff they aren't supposed to..." I mean, that gives the MPAA and other groups more power than we give the farkin' government

Thanks for the link, Panda. That changed my opinion entirely.

PRWeb article clickable

Dandamanfl takes the first swing and hits it right out of the park!

Continuing with the thread jack, new metallica sucks.

A radio caller in Columbus put it well: "Being a Metallica fan is like going to a whore house, sitting in the waiting room for six years, then having a fat ugly chick walk out" Thought it was apt.

Actually, what he's doing is illegal. The dumpsters belong to the fabric store, and if he's stealing from them he's actually stealing from the store. Once the trash gets taken to wherever it's going to go, it becomes the property of whoever owns the landfill (very few landfills are actully "public"). That owner has probably signed an agreement with the store that no one will be able to pick through his trash and that he will not resell anything of theirs. If he hasn't, and if he gives permission to the scavenger, THEN the scavenger can go dig through whatever he wants. By that time, however, he really won't want to.

Wow, I can't believe I know that much about trash removal.

/Me is very disturbed with myself.

Continuing with the thread jack, new metallica sucks.

Old metallica sucks. Nothing to jack, move along.

Pmegan:

It is theft; but not DMCA theft. I have no problem with him getting his ass busted for dumpster diving. How do you think Identity theft occurs? But the DMCA stuff is BS.

Good points, Pmegan. It now becomes real interesting to see why DMCA is involved with trash picking. Without DMCA then McCall/Simplicity could pursue this with more conventional means (local authorities regarding theft from the dumpster, traditional copyright laws that have been in place way before DMCA, etc.).

In short, it now seems ridiculous to me that DMCA is being used against the sale of the actual envelopes and patterns, rather than untold amounts of copies distributed via the internet as I originally suspected.

Clarification:
He's robbing the stores that throw away the patterns, not the pattern manufacturers. Had he obtained the pattens legally from the stores, the manufacturer's DMCA attack on him would still have occured. I don't think any farker approves of people stealing trash, since when you throw something away you don't always want people to find it, ya know?
But we also don't think it's a copyright infringment issue. Might be fencing stolen goods, or whatever, but that has nothing to do with the DMCA he's being prosecuted with. And since him saying he obtained the goods illegally isn't illegal (I can say I stole my computer right here - I stole my computer. That doesn't make it true or prosecutable.) he really can't be arrested for that, unless he testifes to that in court... which would be retarded, since he has the 5th amendment to hide behind there.

actually, I bet if they were "Dumpsters" (not "dumpsters") they belong to the trash company (mob) and the store justs rents them. Also, I thought there was good legal precedent for trash being free for the taking. OTOH, trespassing...

Selling stuff you find in trash isn't illegal; as far as I know once you throw something away anyone can come along and take it if they want (as long as your trash isn't on private property). But its the fact that he copied, reproduced, and sold in quantity the designs he found in the garbage. He could just as easily have bought the patterns in the store it would still be illegal to do with it what he did.

errmmm...why am I going into such deep thoughts about garbage...
/jumps out window

I claim copyright infringement on whoever stole my ugly couch I had sitting at the end of the driveway waiting for trash pickup.

But anyway, there was ultimately nothing "digital" about this case nor did the DMCA have any right to preemptively shutdown the website. But it happened because most people out there don't have enough money to fight the legal battles.

Isn't it great to live in a country where corporations dictate and enforce the law? (Though it's probably just revenge for all the jackasses who sued them for millions of dollars over the coffee being to hot or the m&m NOT having a peanut in it)

Hey ElBarto79, check out the link in my post ten up, you'll see it looks like he's selling the stuff in the trash and not copies.