Hey Unregistered it seems that you haven't posted a message in our forums yet. Please join in on the fun and post a message! Click on Forum, then click the name of the appropriate forum such as "Cayman Chat" and then click the New Thread icon (looks like a Cayman door and side grill). Enter your message in the message editor and press submit and you are on your way!
Your Donation Will Be Used To Pay For our ever increasing bandwidth costs, our hosting Service, domain registration, software licensing fees, maintenance costs and product evaluations Only!
Please enter your donation amount above, and then click on the donate button below.
Trying to keep another thread about 2009 997's getting DFI, yet providing a forum to comment and explain differing views on NDA's/copyright, etc. I've put it under forum feedback because I believe this is feedback in relation to how the forum is managed wrt understanding views and opinions of the various members. Mine is just one view.
The initial issue: a member enters a post with a link to possible copyrighted information. A moderator, etc asks to have the link removed, or removes it, or the originator of the 'copyrighted' material asks to remove it. In any case, the link is removed.
Ok, the above sets up differing dynamics in the varying individuals: moderators, owner, members, etc. Each one of these is an individual with differing values, drivers, consequences, etc wrt the retraction of said link.
You can all add your views, flame me, ignore me, whatever turns your crank. Here's mine: I understand reasonably well the issue of copyright, its history, cultural attitudes towards it, how it effects differing areas, etc. Yes, it is a legal definition with legal consequences. There is also a cultural aspect toward copyright that crosses national, age, sex and countless other boundaries.
For me (and this will be different for everybody), copyright is varying shades of grey, with some distinct black and white. Can I make exact replica's of another manufacturers car and sell it for my own? No. What about Andy Warhol's various paintings? Should I get the printing press out and make some up for retail? Nope. Where the line blurs for me is so called intellectual property, and I lump the written word, and to some degree, music, movies, etc. in this category.
Now, if you are what I call a 'sheep' (based on a Leiden University study on process safety in hazardous industries), you will take the law as a strict definition and never be tempted to reproduce anything for fear of not abiding. A so called 'wolf' will look at the same law and go 'yeah, that law applies to me too, but nothing is black and white and I'm going to do some interpretation'. I'm probably a little closer to a 'wolf' than a 'sheep' in some respects, and when it comes to copyright in this instance.
Do companies misuse copyright (and trademarks, patents, etc) to further their cause - yep. Do consumers - yep. In this instance, Porsche had put out some document, release, whatever that contained certain information. Was it a trade secret from what I can ascertain? Not that I know of but then I never did get to see the document in question, so I must say I had to do some assuming of which there is risk involved.
Did Porsche know what was in that release and the consequences to Porsche of that information getting into the public domain? Darn tootin' they did - either that or there PR and mgmt are a bunch of slackers - which I highly doubt.
So Porsche, in this case, has a leg up on the public as to the value of that information. And it very well appears that this information was all over the net by the time requests were made to pull the 'original'. So what purpose was the 'retraction' request serving? Not sure. One assumption, which is reality in more and more instances, is that said retraction can cause more wanted PR. Does Porsche like that? Sure. Can it threaten others, even remotely, that they should comply to the retraction request? Yep. Will they comply? More than likely. Now, my consequences for not complying are surely different than the website owners. Does that cause me to have a different reaction, based on either lack of sympathy or empathy? Yep.
Therefore, differing attitudes based on differing views and level of risks being accepted. In my mind, this is not right or wrong but society pushing back and adopting. American history is full of instances where laws were broken, misdeeds done, etc that eventually molded the future with positive consequences. If some members are asked to do something that they may agree with or empathize with, but would like to rally against the bigger picture while doing it, so what? Let them. Are they hearing or understanding the position stated by the moderator? They may well be, but they just may not really sympathize towards it in the same manner - and chastising or repeating the same logic will probably not go anywhere except to further raise resistance.
So reply, argue, flame what I have said (I would ask that some individuals restrain themselves from the tiring view of 'do you think you're going to change history through the net? What, are you stupid?' - maybe, maybe not).
Thx for reading this to the end if it makes any sense. This is not aimed at any one individual, btw, it is more aimed at the general communication flow on the site - which is still an excellent site!
DFI
Direct Fuel Injection (DFI), is a new technology that Porsche states can cut fuel consumption by up to 15 percent, while increasing power by up to 13 percent. DFI cuts emissions by warming up the catalytic converter more quickly, and ensures a sharper throttle response. Better for your right foot - and the planet, then.
DFI allows much more precise measurement of fuel supply and injection at pressures up to 120 bar; it has numerous combustion modes, with different cycles for cold-starting, low-speed driving and performance driving.
As the name suggests, DFI injects fuel directly into the individual combustion chambers, instead of the intake manifold. The injector valves have an electromagnetic mechanism that controls each injection with astonishing precision, while a high-pressure pump provides the necessary pressure—up to 1,740 psi—to accompany the rapid fire of the fuel injection.
Precise geometry of the injector’s position and its spray pattern is a key factor in helping to improve power, torque and emissions of the engines. The specific placement of the fuel as it enters each chamber creates a swirl that improves the air/fuel mixture, and therefore the overall combustion process.
At engine speeds up to 3500 rpm, a double-injection process is used. In this mode, the required fuel volume is delivered in two successive injections per working stroke. The resulting benefits include faster catalyst warm-up and increased torque in the upper load range.
By forming the air/fuel mix directly in the combustion chamber, DFI contributes to engine cooling. As a result, it is possible to increase the compression ratio and with it the power and efficiency of the engine.
The direct injection process is continuously adjusted. The engine management system reads changes to throttle inputs and performance requirements and, as you drive, the air/fuel mix is monitored and adapted as required. Oxygen sensor circuits within the exhaust system provide accurate emissions control.
So Porsche, in this case, has a leg up on the public as to the value of that information. And it very well appears that this information was all over the net by the time requests were made to pull the 'original'. So what purpose was the 'retraction' request serving?
The relationship of this site and PCNA.
I understand your point, but it's no more complicated then the guy in the office next to you asking you to shut your door so he can't hear you radio / conversation / fingers on the keyboard. You have to sit next to him, so even if you don't want to, you do it to keep the peace.
Often when it comes to changes in the product line, a manufacturer manages the exact date of release of information to minimize causing people to defer their purchase to a subsequent year, leading to a decrease in current earnings.
Even when information gets out, it doesn't really mean everyone knows. True, people who search will know, but let's face it, we are more obsessed than the average porsche owner.
And the final reason is that sometimes a manufacturer is a) twicking the specs, or b) twicking the language on the PR. If they are twicking PR, their lawyers may be all over it saying it needs to be proofed and reviewed to avoid unintended representations or misstatements that they might be sued for later. If the are twicking the specs, similar issues.
Technically speaking, solely providing a link to a place where someone else hosts material has not been considered to be copyright violation. Posting definitely is. But as above, there are legitimate reasons for a company to not want even a link to material ( such as the information is not correct)
__________________ resident comedienne
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
2006 Cayman S - Speed Yellow, Black Interior, Yellow Seat Belts
Sports Chrono Package, 6 Spd, PASM/PSM, Bi-Xenon headlamps
Carrera S wheels 19" - Conti Sport 2, Colored-crest wheel cap
Auto climate control, Heated seats
PCM 2.1 Nav, Denision ICE-Ipod, Bose Surround
De-snorked, Evo V-Flow
Last edited by Yellowdragon; 05-02-2008 at 08:53 AM.
Let us not forget two huge facts:
1. This site IS and official Cayman register recognized by PCNA. So the level of moderation and control that needs to be applied is much higher than at some other Cayman site.
2. This site is owned and run by someone who is very intimately familiar with the law and repercussions of the way the lawyers for the other side interpret it.
I have learned in my career that when it comes to the legal matters, your opinions and perceptions are worthless. It is all about the way others interpret it and whoever has more money and perseverance will win. Piss off PCNA and say bye bye to this site. It is that simple.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Let us not forget two huge facts:
1. This site IS and official Cayman register recognized by PCNA. So the level of moderation and control that needs to be applied is much higher than at some other Cayman site.
I think you are confused about the relationship between PCA, the Cayman Register and CaymanClub.net. Read more about Registers here. Other than an approved Register's "advocate" (in this case Ken) having the responsibility to monitor for undefined "inappropriate material," content is unregulated by PCA, or for that matter by PCNA or PAG. Nothing restricts content that criticizes or denigrates any of those entities, of which there has been much, except Ken's discretion.
However, as the owner of this commercial, for profit website Ken is wise to restrict copyright violative content for which his business may have liability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apsinkus
Piss off PCNA and say bye bye to this site.
AFAIK PCNA provides no financial support for the site and has no control over it. I'm sure there is much on the site that has pissed off PCNA, but it's still here.
PCA - Porsche Club Of America
The Porsche Club of America - http://www.pca.org
CaymanClub.Net members who are also PCA members should request access to the PCA Member only forum by filling in their PCA Member ID# into their profile and then requesting a group membership addition, both of which can be done in the User Control Panel (User CP)
There is only one opinion that matters on the subject within the confines of this space and it isn't yours or mine.
For good or bad, may I add. Not knocking Ken with that but over regulation means eventual demise, as does under regulation. I agree that one has to walk a fine line, but my line, as with others, may be broader or thinner.
Jeez Dave - I just realized that everytime I see your name I now think of that zombie who fell from the building!
Until 
