Tip: US Soccer "Unprintable" PDFs Cracked

[Footballer]

I don't know if I'm going to get into trouble for this but I feel compelled to share my discovery.

I've been diligently re-reading my "Advice" booklet. And I noted that I have a 2005 edition whereas on USSoccer.com (under Laws of the Game), there is a 2006 revision edition. So I naively downloaded it, thinking I can print it out, read the updates, and file it into my binder.

Can't print. No doubt this is a ploy to force us all to buy the booklet itself - which is alright. I mean I bought the 2005 edition. But being the nerd that I am I refused to take this as an answer this time around.

Without really searching for some software out there that can crack this security feature, I decided to try something. There are online file converter sites out there.

I used www.Zamzar.com. I downloaded the PDF and uploaded it onto Zamzar and converted it to Word format. Within seconds, I received a link in my inbox to go download my Word document.

I downloaded it and printed it ... voila. So there, my fellow referees.

[USSF REF]

Oh no...

More help with copywrite infringment. You know, it really is unlawful to do this...

I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade - but there is some principle involved here. As a person who creates some IP on occassion - I would like to discourage people from aiding and abetting copywrite infringement.

[Ref Flunkie]

Oh no...

More help with copywrite infringment. You know, it really is unlawful to do this...

I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade - but there is some principle involved here. As a person who creates some IP on occassion - I would like to discourage people from aiding and abetting copywrite infringement.

Ok here is my view on this. We are not selling the material. I just don't see how this is copywrite infringement if we are printing it for our own personal use. They are posting the text online for all to see.

[EJDad]

Ok here is my view on this. We are not selling the material. I just don't see how this is copywrite infringement if we are printing it for our own personal use. They are posting the text online for all to see.

And they lend books from the library- It doesn't mean you can go Xerox one!

[intechpc]

To be fair, this is a real grey area as it comes to copyright law. Unfortunately copyright law (even the Digital Millenium Copyright Act) is not advanced enough for this situation. The document is freely distributed on their website downloadable by anyone world wide. This puts in in the public domain. Now this doesn't allow you to sell or re-distrbute the document lawfully, however it does allow certain rights when it comes to personal use. Without a more restrictive statement of copyright terms of use, the lawful use of this would include reproduction for personal use (I don't want to get to deep into the discussion here, so trust me on this I've been down this path before).

The problem here is the USSF have not made a terms of use statement with regard to this document. Simply setting restrictions within an Adobe document is not a lawful way to make such statement. Now where I do think the problem lies is that this website, www.Zamzar.com, is violating the license surrounding the open PDF standard by not diligently enforcing the copy protection inherent in the document. I don't expect them to be around long if they're allowing this to be circumvented.

Now all that said, the true spirit of this is DON'T DO IT. Ultimately, the USSF do have the right to restrict distribution of their copyrighted material, even if there isn't a legal basis for the form in which they've chosen to do so. If you do bypass it, don't tell us on a public forum please.

Personally I think it's rediculous that the USSF doesn't follow the same free distribution model with this document that they do with every single other file available on their site. It's in their own best interests to get this information in the hands of as many referee's as possible. However this does not make the above actions right (even if there is a legal loop-hole).

BTW: EJ Dad, there is a huge difference in legal terms between this and copying a book borrowed from a library.

[DWickham]

INTECHPC's advice is accurate and wise. I had almost the same discussion about this with a litigator who specializes in copyright cases when this issue first came up.

As much as I am annoyed by the blocks on printing inserted by USSF, their alternative is to not post the ATR on the internet at all. It's such a terrific tool that we ought to do everything possible to ensure that it remains available to all, for free.

IMO. Breaking the copy protection is not the way.

[EJDad]

T

BTW: EJ Dad, there is a huge difference in legal terms between this and copying a book borrowed from a library.

Fair enough- I am no lawyer nor an expert in this field. My point was just that the argument that "it is free to read therefore free to copy" did not seem logically valid based on other examples.

Not to hijack the thread, or be argumentative but can you explain why it is so different? They are both items available to read with out charge, available to purchase if you wish but, it seems to me, not available to make a free copy to own with out breaking copyright laws.

[bluedevils]

There are other ways to change the read/write permissions on the file that do not involve what most people would consider 'computer hacking' and do not involve a 3rd party website.

I don't see how it could be considered illegal to download a file that is available for free to the public, change the properties of that file, and print it for personal use.
Ultimately, the USSF do have the right to restrict distribution of their copyrighted material.
They already are 'distributing' the material by allowing anyone to save a copy to his/her personal computer. And I am allowed to show this copy on my computer to other people, or share it with them. Does printing a physical copy for one's personal use constitute 'distribution'?? No way.

[intechpc]

Not to hijack the thread, or be argumentative but can you explain why it is so different? They are both items available to read with out charge, available to purchase if you wish but, it seems to me, not available to make a free copy to own with out breaking copyright laws.

With the USSF article, you are not borrowing someone elses property. You are receiving a "licensed" copy of the original work to be used for your own purposes. In the case of a library book, you are borring someone else's property and using that material for a limited time under their "license" for that material. It's a logically subtle but legally significant difference.

[LoewenBoy]

To be fair, this is a real grey area as it comes to copyright law. Unfortunately copyright law (even the Digital Millenium Copyright Act) is not advanced enough for this situation. The document is freely distributed on their website downloadable by anyone world wide. This puts in in the public domain.
Ah...no.:eek: Just because something is on a website available for download certainly does NOT put it in the public domain. That's like saying any photograph published in Sports Illustrated online is in the public domain because you can download it to your desktop. Certainly not!!! Almost EVERYTHING created by an artist, author, etc., is covered under US and International copyrights. Use is restricted and governed under these laws. If you read the fine print on the publications carefully you will see that they ARE covered under copyright law and their use or reuse is restricted. Now, there are varous "usage guidelines" whereby you CAN photocopy or reprint without breaking the law, which is usually contained within the copyright statement on any document.

As professionals and people who are supposed to set a higher standard, let's not just break the law because we THINK we know the rules. Doing so makes you no better than that coach or parent on the sideline who yells at YOU because they think they know the LOTG better. Get the rules, LEARN the rules, enforce the rules.

[LoewenBoy]

I don't see how it could be considered illegal to download a file that is available for free to the public, change the properties of that file, and print it for personal use.
Agreed on the download part. If it is available to download than clearly the author wants you to have an electronic copy. However, if the print feature is blocked, clearly they are sending the message that if you want a hard copy you need to BUY one.

Now, instead of outright cracking the PDF file open, unless there is an clear statement on reuse and distribution, a "screen scrape" of each page may (or may not) be included in such restrictions.

We can make this very easy, here is US Soccer's use restrictions:
Restrictions On Use of Materials

This site is owned and operated by U.S. Soccer. Any use of any of the materials on this site other than for private, non-commercial viewing purposes is strictly prohibited. The sale, auction, lease, loan, gift, trade or barter, or use of any of the text, graphics, photographs, audio and/or video material, or stills from audiovisual material or any other materials contained herein, for any other purpose, in any form, media or technology now known or hereafter developed, including the use of any of the aforementioned materials on any other web site or networked computer environment, without a prior written consent from U.S. Soccer, is expressly prohibited. The creation of derivative works based on the materials contained herein including, but not limited to, products, services, fonts, icons, link buttons, wallpaper, desktop themes, on-line postcards and greeting cards and unlicensed merchandise (whether sold, bartered or given away) is expressly prohibited. No material from this site or any web site owned, operated, licensed or controlled by U.S. Soccer may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, except that you may download one copy of the materials on any single computer for your personal, noncommercial home use only, provided you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices. Modification of the materials or use of the materials for any other purpose is a violation of U.S. Soccer's copyright and other proprietary rights. For purposes of these terms, the use of any such material on any other web site or networked computer environment is prohibited.

In the event you download software from the site, the software, including any files or images incorporated in or generated by the software, and data accompanying the software (collectively, the "Software") are licensed to you by U.S. Soccer. U.S. Soccer does not transfer title to the Software to you. You own the medium on which the Software is recorded, but U.S. Soccer retains full and complete title to the Software and all intellectual property rights therein. You may not redistribute, sell, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or otherwise reduce the Software to a human-perceivable form.

U.S. Soccer maintains federal and state trademark registrations, and has common law rights, in certain trademarks and service marks. Some of these marks may appear on U.S. Soccer's site(s). The use of any of these marks taken from U.S. Soccer's site(s) by you for any reason, including on any other web site or networked computer environment or for personal use, is strictly prohibited. All other trademarks, service marks and logos used on this Site are the property of their respective owners.

[bluedevils]

We can make this very easy, here is US Soccer's use restrictions:
Restrictions On Use of Materials
...

Well, you could make it very easy by showing me the part that talks about whether or not it is okay to print the doc for personal use. I speak good English, but after reading all that information I still do not know where or if they answered that question.

Regardless of the answer, I would not lose any sleep if I had a printed copy of this document in my personal referee materials.

[bluedevils]

...if the print feature is blocked, clearly they are sending the message that if you want a hard copy you need to BUY one.
Yes, that is probably the message that most people would infer. However, it could also be assumed that this was an accidental error or oversight; i.e. they screwed up when building the pdf and as a result, the file cannot be printed.

[LoewenBoy]

Well, you could make it very easy by showing me the part that talks about whether or not it is okay to print the doc for personal use. I speak good English, but after reading all that information I still do not know where or if they answered that question.
Easy, right here (see below). From a legal standpoint the intent is clear (well, in plain legal speak;) ) that you can download the content and keep it on your home PC in the form in which you downloaded it. Typically the term "reproduced" covers "reprinting" or "printing"; most better worded copyright clauses allow for "personal use" printing and state that explicitly.
No material from this site or any web site owned, operated, licensed or controlled by U.S. Soccer may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, except that you may download one copy of the materials on any single computer for your personal, noncommercial home use only, provided you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices.
Regardless of the answer, I would not lose any sleep if I had a printed copy of this document in my personal referee materials.
Well, if it is a for sale publication and one circumvents the law to get a printed copy, that's not kosher. Situational ethics aside, I find it odd that referees are splitting hairs to justify their violation of the law, and yet we get pissed off when people do it to us and our knowledge/application of the LOTG. Just very strange.

[LoewenBoy]

Yes, that is probably the message that most people would infer. However, it could also be assumed that this was an accidental error or oversight; i.e. they screwed up when building the pdf and as a result, the file cannot be printed.
Man, that's specious reasoning. :rolleyes: You mean to tell me that the fact that it IS blocked AND given the terms/conditions of use statement on the website (which you conveniently fail to mention), you naturally assume the mistake was made in your favor? Puleeeze! Where is the integrity? C'mon, I have seen post after post on this board about professionalism, integrity, honor, rising-above, blah, blah, blah. But we change our ethics to save a few $? We are better than that!

[USSF REF]

Our local referee unit decided that they should deactivate the link to the PDF version of the document to comply with IP concerns. They subsequently bought a bunch of copies (got the bulk deal) and then sold it to our members at a reduced price ($2 ea.) - US Soccer is happy, they got the price they set. Our members are happy, they get a copy for less (though they still pay dues, but the cost defrayed is still lower) and they don't have to pay shipping fees. And there are no copyright problems.

I like that they did this... still, I think it would be OK if they reactivate the link and just have it like to the US Soccer page where the file is contained, instead of a direct link to the PDF itself.

[bluedevils]

Man, that's specious reasoning. :rolleyes: You mean to tell me that the fact that it IS blocked AND given the terms/conditions of use statement on the website (which you conveniently fail to mention), you naturally assume the mistake was made in your favor? Puleeeze! Where is the integrity? C'mon, I have seen post after post on this board about professionalism, integrity, honor, rising-above, blah, blah, blah. But we change our ethics to save a few $? We are better than that!

I'm not assuming anything.

How many people ever read the terms of use on ANY website? Reality is reality. Are people printing the document because they lack integrity. My answer is no, yours is yes. They are printing the document because they want to be the best referee they can be.

[bluedevils]

Easy, right here (see below). No material from this site or any web site owned, operated, licensed or controlled by U.S. Soccer may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, except that you may download one copy of the materials on any single computer for your personal, noncommercial home use only, provided you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices.

Thanks for pointing it out. I think I read "copied, reproduced" and didn't think they were objecting to a single person printing it for personal use. Perhaps they are. But as you noted, Typically the term "reproduced" covers "reprinting" or "printing"; most better worded copyright clauses allow for "personal use" printing and state that explicitly.

Well, if it is a for sale publication and one circumvents the law to get a printed copy, that's not kosher.
Well, it is both a for-sale AND a free publication so that muddies the waters.

Situational ethics aside, I find it odd that referees are splitting hairs to justify their violation of the law, and yet we get pissed off when people do it to us and our knowledge/application of the LOTG. Just very strange.
Give me a break. Apples and oranges.

Why do you think the 2006 version was made available for free download, whereas the prior version was not?

Do you ever exceed the speed limit while driving a car?

[ref47]

my non-lawyer take on this is buy the copy if you need a hc. reality is many refs fail to read the book because they do not have access to a hc. ussf supplies the lotg and guide at recert. charge me a couple more bucks and throw in the atr, pls. ording a single copy runs about $12. (cost, s/h). not reasonable. we need to get the info to as many of us as possible.

[LoewenBoy]

I'm not assuming anything.

How many people ever read the terms of use on ANY website? Reality is reality. Are people printing the document because they lack integrity. My answer is no, yours is yes. They are printing the document because they want to be the best referee they can be.
:confused: How does ignorance of the law forgive breaking it? I understand your reasons for doing it, but it does not forgive it or make it right.:rolleyes: