Glass's Gudie Fore Sale

On or around Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:19:13 +0000, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:

It's not a valid point. The quote from the copyright statement is incomplete.

I've not found one of the beg borrow or steal ones yet. Here's one which seems a common form though:

"No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the copyright owner"

selling or lending or giving away the original is not reproducing it.

here's the bit that normally goes with beg borrow or steal, in this case appended to the statement above:

"nor be otherwise circulated in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser"

Again, selling or passing on the original (with its copyright statement still intact) is not a breach - technically, if you were to re-cover it, I suppose it would be.

From Glass's website:

Question : Can I get hold of a Glass?s Guide?

Answer : No. The Glass?s Guide is only available to motor industry professionals. Question : Do these values match those in Glass's Guide?

Answer : No. The Part Exchange values on this site are not the same as those in the Glass´s Guide. The values on this site are to provide private motorists a realistic expectation of what their car is worth in a Part Exchange scenario. Glass?s Guide is a confidential publication supplied to members of the automotive industry to assist them in running their business.

On or around Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:45:31 GMT, Nullified enlightened us thusly:

sorry, not so. read a few copyright statements. I suspect that in the case of Glass's, there's an additional condition precluding reselling, but general copyright doesn't preclude it, as per my other post.

You're not allowed to *duplicate* things.

On or around Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:18:32 -0000, "William Black" enlightened us thusly:

not sure about that, TBH. They might not actually be "selling" the guide in the first place. 's like the thing about micorsoft and other software, you don't buy the software, you buy a non-transferrable licence to use it.

That clause apparently has its roots in the US market, where mass-market paperbacks are on sale-or-return, and the return is done by ripping off the cover and just sending that back to the publisher. So the lack of the original cover matters a lot.

So you don't get so many "remaindered" books in the USA.

I don't know how they'd stand legally on that point, after all no copyright infringements are being violated, and companies can't criminalise an activity, only governments can. Breach of contract is about the most that could be claimed I'd have thought.

Not sure why you're disagreeing with me, that's the valid point I was pointing out that the other chap was ignoring!

And Micro$oft have been very careful NOT to sue anyone in an English court...

English law is very specific. When you buy something then it's yours.

People trying to make you do stuff with it after you've paid for it are not going to get much sympathy from a judge.

On or around Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:47:31 +0000, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:

oh, OK, sorry. I got mixed up about who was claiming what.

On or around Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:19:05 -0000, "William Black" enlightened us thusly:

true, but microsoft are very careful to say that you;re only buying the licence. I daresay that you could get them on the non-transferrable bit; if it's my licence, I can, if I wish, donate or sell it to someone else and they can use it instead of, but not as well as, me.

I've often wondered this about the car park tickets, which allow you to park for (say) 4 hours and are "non-transferrable". If I buy the ticket I have the right to occupy a space for up to 4 hours. If I only use 1h50, and then my friend comes along just as I'm leaving and I donate to him the remainder of my ticket's duration, I bet they couldn't make it stick in court. However, I can't afford to do a test case for it.

I've never heard of anyone doing that and being fined.

I do know that the car park tickets where you had to put in your car index number disappeared very quickly after they turned up so I imagine someone somewhere decided they weren't legal.

Hmmm, I dunno. I mean, yes, you're right in as far as he cant be bound to the original t&c, but then the sale to him in the first place is technically unlawful, so maybe that takes precedence.

I disagree - Ebay most certainly *do* take that seriously, because they always cancel all auctions that are reported to them as being unlawful. Too right they dont bother setting up traces to find them themselves, partly because they cant be bothered and partly because they generate an income from successful sales, but they do cancel if notified. TBH, I didnt bother reporting the auctions because I simply couldnt be bothered - I was merely pointing out that the OP's apparent generosity in passing on something he had was actually him trying to sell something he technically had no right to sell

Yeah, okay, strike that last paragraph. It was a particularly poor analogy

On or around Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:41:25 GMT, Nullified enlightened us thusly:

According to Glass's, selling it on is definitely in breach of their conditions of supply.

I'd take them more seriously if they had loads of case law backing them up.

If anyone can be bothered to read them, the Terms and Conditions relating to Glass's products can be found here:

On a quick look all the restrictions and penalties relate to the subscriber so if you can distance yourself from that contractual position they probably cannot touch you. The usual copyright etc. restrictions still apply but as someone mentioned earlier the straighforward sale of an unaltered document isn't usually a breach of copyright.

On or around Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:49:22 +0000, Dougal enlightened us thusly:

I agree - it all depends whether the seller is the subscriber. although the subscriber must have passed it on somewhere along the chain. Looking on ebay, I find quite a lot but not many current ones.

|| Let's save us seeing the same old stuff again .... || || How much did you raise in July? || ||

What's a "Gudie"?

It precedes 'two shoes'

Martin