RadioBanter - View Single Post - FCC Assigns RM Numbers To Three New Restructuring Petitions

March 29th 04, 03:58 AM

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

The Dick Bash printing organization was a late-comer among
the general "Q&A" publishing group (never a large one).

Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical and
arguably illegal at the time.

So did the Q&A book folks.

How did the "Q&A book folks" gather their information?

The
surname has emotional connotations handy for those who
need to have something, anyone to "bash" due to whatever
frustration those people have.

Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical and
arguably illegal at the time.

So did the Q&A book folks.

How did the "Q&A book folks" gather their information?

Bash's actions were the equivalent of sneaking into a teacher's office and
copying tests before they were given, then selling the copies.

So did the Q&A book folks.

One more time:

How did the "Q&A book folks" gather their information?

Oddly, no one seems to bash
the ARRL for publishing essentially the same sort of material
long before the Bash company did its thing.

That's because ARRL obtained its material through proper channels. FCC
published a study guide of questions that indicated the mateiral that would
be
on the tests (but not the actual Q&A), and ARRL reprinted it, along with
other
information useful to someone seeking an amateur radio license. All with FCC
knowledge and approval. In fact, the License Manuals explain the source of
the study guides.

The Church of St. Hiram is sacrosanct, can do no wrong.

If you say so, Len ;-)

Bash obtained his materials by other methods, and his books did not explain
how the material was obtained.

So did the Q&A book folks.

How did the "Q&A book folks" gather their information?

In a way, buying a Bash book was akin to receiving stolen property.

Poor baby. You are mad as heck and you can't stand it anymore!

I'm simply stating an opinion on what Dick Bash did. Do you think his actions
were legal? Do you think they were in the best interests of amateur radio?

Take Bash to civil court then, nothing stopping you from trying.

Actually, there is:

- Statute of limitations
- Rules changes since then

Avenge all foes! Sound the hue and cry!! Love the ARRL!!!

Well, you're staying right on topic, Len. You're wrong yet again.

That done, maybe you can fight against "J. K. Lasser's Your Income
Tax" annual publications.

Why?

I really think you ought to review Title 17, USC, Copyrights. If you
do, you will find that the United States government cannot
copyright its own works.

It's not about copyrights at all.

That's been in the United States Code
for quite a while. The ARRL did not need to "seek any permission"
for republishing any FCC public material. They still don't need to,
just repro it and mention the source. No fees, nothing. Anyone
can.

Then what's your problem?

There's a legal area that is a "grey area" for many on what
constitutes "ownership" of test materials. I'll leave that up to
attorneys and judges to thrash out...

In the instructions for the by-mail test I took for Novice, their were explicit
directions not to copy or divulge the contents of the test. The signatures of
the applicant and the volunteer examiner certified compliance with all of those
instructions. Most of us took them very seriously. Bash didn't.

Of course you wouldn't know about that, never having had an amateur license of
any type...