D&M Holdings crap

[SY]

Originally Posted by Extreme_Boky

I was wondering what is the Forum policy on including the web-links to personal web-sites by growing number of forum members and moderators. You have one at the bottom of your posts; many others have them too.

No problem at all unless it's a link to something objectionable (e.g., a torrent site offering copyrighted material without permission).

[DF96]

The words in a book don't have to be invented by the author in order to claim copyright. It is the arrangement of those words which constitutes the book. In a similar way, an arrangement of what may be perfectly standard circuits is copyright. All that is necessary is that the arrangement constitutes a 'work' i.e it is not completely trivial. It doesn't have to be complicated or clever.

Hiding, or charging large amounts for, a circuit diagram may be annoying but it is perfectly legal and moral. You are free to do what you like with your own property. They have the same rights over their property, both physical and intellectual.

Piracy (i.e. theft) is now so commonplace that some people seem to regard it as a right.

[SY]

Originally Posted by DF96

In a similar way, an arrangement of what may be perfectly standard circuits is copyright.

Only the drawing of it is copyrightable, not the circuit itself. Yes, every single one of those disclaimers that we see so often ("This circuit is for personal use only and may not be used for commercial purposes") is completely invalid unless the circuit is patented.

[DF96]

Maybe a difference here between US and EU law. My understanding (possibly a bit out of date) is that redrawing a circuit would still be a copyright infringement. Most circuits could not be patented in Europe, as they are insufficiently novel. We tend to use copyright in places where the US uses patents - software is an example.

[SoNic_real_one]

Well, I guess if a manual says that 1+1=3, then yes, it's "new art".
If a manual say that 1+1=2, then that informantion cannot be copyrighted per US law (and other countries I would guess).

US law doesn not allow copyright of schematics that are mere copies of others work either. Denon cannot copyright schematics that where published by TI before.
Sure, if the circuit is completelly new, never published by others, one can choose to patent the device that incorporates that circuit. It cannot patent the ideea behind that circuit thou (in US ideeas cannot be patented):

§ 102 · Subject matter of copyright: In general28
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original
works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known
or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise
communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of
authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

[SY]

Originally Posted by SoNic_real_one

If a manual say that 1+1=2, then that informantion cannot be copyrighted per US law (and other countries I would guess).

US law doesn not allow copyright of schematics that are mere copies of others (sic) work either. Denon cannot copyright schematics that where (sic) published by TI before.

Denon couldn't if it's the drawing published by TI. it isn't.

Information cannot be copyrighted. Text and pictures can be.

[SY]

Originally Posted by DF96

Maybe a difference here between US and EU law. My understanding (possibly a bit out of date) is that redrawing a circuit would still be a copyright infringement.

It could be if the copy closely follows the original drawing. If there are any changes or substantial added elements, then it's not a simple redrawing and it's a new work.

[SoNic_real_one]

I don't understand what you try to say.
You say that Denon uses a substantially different connection of the PCM1791 that was not described by TI? That they used a substantial connection of the OpAmps that was not shown in TI datasheet or OpAmp manufacturer datasheet or is not present in any previously published work about OpAmps? Denon used a new way of transforming AC into DC that is not published anywhere else?
All those elements cannot be copyrighted, even if included in a "service manual".

[DF96]

Yes, but the new work could then have joint copyright as the unchanged parts would still be owned by their original author. This is how translations work (here, at least). I believe there may be moves to make our IP law a bit more like US law, but not sure whether or when this will happen.

[SY]

Originally Posted by SoNic_real_one

I don't understand what you try to say.

I'm trying to say that you don't understand the basics of copyright law- or you do and you're desperately trying to rationalize your desire to steal.

Information cannot be copyrighted. Text and pictures can be.