On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:18:52 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

I somehow managed to avoid becoming a bitter
and pessimistic 'victim' of the big mean government men. Buck-up a
little fer cryin' out loud.

Hi Jim,

Frankly I don't have a single thought about government in this issue.
Unless, of course, you are from the school of what's good for (fill in
the corporate blank) is good for America kind of government. I
thought that got gummed up in the tar pits years ago.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Actually, I correct myself again, it looks like Termans' book is expired
copyright, if you look closely at the post above and the field:
" Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: "revisions and new material." "
you will see that this entry is actually a NEW copyright work, and that the
copyright is limited to ONLY the "revisions and new material."
However, as this guy (corporation, company, business, individual, etc.) has
done, a person could duplicate the "original text" of Terman without
violation of copyright law, AND also tag on some "new revisions and new
material" just to obsfucate what has been done! and obtain a copyright on
the "revisions and new material"-- fooling some into believing the old text
was still copyrighted...
At least, from consulting with others who claim to be more familiar with
such, that is the conclusion I draw.
Anyone here with more information, or who can correct my mistaken
conclusion(s)?

Regards,
John
--
I would like to point out, I do appreciate the "Been there--done that!"
posts. Indeed, now your observations, comments and discourse should be
filled with wisdom--I am listening!!!
"John Smith" wrote in message
...
I am just in the first stages of investigating this database myself. I am
not positive if I am interpreting the results correctly.
For example, I plugged Terman, Frederick, here is the result:

1. Registration Number: RE-187-468
Title: Electronic and radio engineering. By acFrederick E. Terman.
Edition: 4th ed.
Claimant: Frederick E. Terman (A)
Effective Registration Date: 2Dec83
Original Registration Date: 6Sep55;
Original Registration Number: A203084.
Original Class: A
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: "revisions and new material."

I am guessing, but this seems to confirm the materials' copyright expired
on 12/2/83 and there was no renewal and it now lies in the realm of public
domain--but am looking how to confirm this. I can find no other mention
of this work in the database...
Perhaps others can provide their knowledge/observations?

Regards,
John

--
I would like to point out, I do appreciate the "Been there--done that!"
posts. Indeed, now your observations, comments and discourse should be
filled with wisdom--I am listening!!!
"John Smith" wrote in message
...
If you are wondering about a certain author, work, etc...

Here is the page where you can conduct searches to answer your curiosity
on current copyrights:

http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html



Also, here is the Copyrights' Office page of circulars to answer various
questions:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/



Regards,

John


--
I would like to point out, I do appreciate the "Been there--done that!"
posts. Indeed, now your observations, comments and discourse should be
filled with wisdom--I am listening!!!
"John Smith" wrote in message
...
To all:

It is my understanding that all gov't materials, since paid for by
taxpayers, are non-copyright.
Also, any material before 1923 would have expired copyrights and,
undoubtably, a significant amount of material will have been published
"public domain"; so, does anyone have a list of non-copyright materials
pertaining to antennas? Or, any ideas of how to obtain the information
on
how to assemble one.
A website of non-copyright materials concerning antennas would be a
great
asset to this community...

Regards,
John
--
I would like to point out, I do appreciate the "Been there--done that!"
posts. Indeed, now your observations, comments and discourse should be
filled with wisdom--I am listening!!!

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:51:30 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

Anyone here with more information, or who can correct my mistaken
conclusion(s)?

Hi Brett,

Read up on "Fair Use." Wholesale reproduction is not going to market
anywhere where it won't be perceived as just that. Further, it can't
economically compete with the used book trade in the marketplace.

Beyond that, extensive quotations for the purpose of bolstering
arguments or illustrating concepts will only act as a soporific.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:22:59 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

Gets a "little complicated.." ??? Amen! The laws have been more like
"totally subverted" from their original intent.
Strange there is no way to search the database, specifically, for expired
copyrights! Huh, almost enough to trigger my "conspiracy theory"
tendencies! Of course, perhaps Micro$oft developed the database--that would
be one acceptable explaination...

Regards,
John

More to your original question, the Government Printing Office has a
website and a search engine -- but it brings up only some rather
mundane papers when searching for "antennas"...

bob
k5qwg

More to your original question, the Government Printing Office has a
website and a search engine -- but it brings up only some rather
mundane papers when searching for "antennas"...

bob
k5qwg

================================

Before anybody can get anything out of the Internet somebody has to be
paid to put it in.

Radio amateurs are but a small proportion of the world's population.
I'm for ever surprised at the quantity of information which is
availble.

Tthe big question mark hanging over 'information" is Reliability? Can
you believe it? Google is anything but the Bible. Much information is
from sources as trustworthy as where the weapons of mass destruction
came from.

But searching is a pleasant pastime, is it not? And it's seldom a
matter of life or death.
----
Reg, G4FGQ

Reg Edwards wrote:
But searching is a pleasant pastime, is it not?

I was at work (GED teacher) the other day and wanted to
gin up an Excel program for converting series impedances
to parallel impedances and vice versa. I wanted to verify
my memory on those equations. I spent two hours trying to
find them on the web and never did. That search was not
pleasant. 99.9% of series to parallel stuff on the web
is digital.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:38:53 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

converting series impedances
to parallel impedances and vice versa. I wanted to verify
my memory on those equations. I spent two hours trying to
find them on the web and never did.

Google: converting series impedances
second response points at:
http://www.cebik.com/trans/zcalc.html

2 minutes tops

John Smith wrote:


However, there is another reason why many are not knowledgeable of the fact
knowledge itself was/is intentionally meant to, eventually, be placed within
the publics domain. This reason I tend to refer to as, "The Control Freak
Factor." A group of people who for one reason or another tend to attempt to
halt, make impossible, obfuscate, and hinder the attempts of others to
disperse knowledge and learning. Why they do this and what their motivation
is, is beyond my comprehension.

Indeed. Try creating something of your own, and see how you feel about
somebody coming along and claiming the product of your effort for
themselves. If you can't comprehend that, then consider what it might
be like for someone to put your house in their name and then sell it.
If you can't get a feel for that, then imagine somebody coming along and
taking food our of your child's mouth because it's 'the people's food'
and everybody has a right to eat it.

ac6xg

In article ,
John Smith wrote:

Actually, I correct myself again, it looks like Termans' book is expired
copyright, if you look closely at the post above and the field:
" Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: "revisions and new material." "
you will see that this entry is actually a NEW copyright work, and that the
copyright is limited to ONLY the "revisions and new material."
However, as this guy (corporation, company, business, individual, etc.) has
done, a person could duplicate the "original text" of Terman without
violation of copyright law, AND also tag on some "new revisions and new
material" just to obsfucate what has been done! and obtain a copyright on
the "revisions and new material"-- fooling some into believing the old text
was still copyrighted...

At least, from consulting with others who claim to be more familiar with
such, that is the conclusion I draw.

That isn't necessarily due to any intent to obfuscate the situation.

US Copyright law says that if a work is in the public domain, the work
itself cannot be re-copyrighted. However, anyone can then create a
"derivative work", using the public-domain work as starting material,
and then copyright the resulting derivative work. If, for example,
you start with a black&white news photo which is in the public domain,
do some simple Photoshop or GIMP processing on it to colorize it (or
include it in a collage or photomontage) you can copyright your own
version of the photo. The original photo remains in the public
domain, while your version (with your creative effort) is now
copyrighted.

As another analogy, one could take the text of Moby Dick (in the
public domain and freely available on the Net) and run it through a
creatively-programmed "English to Valley-speak" or "English to Jive"
translation filter. The result would probably be copyrightable, if
rather silly.

There are, I believe, various legal rules-of-thumb to determine
whether the creative effort involved in making a derivative work is
sufficient to support its being placed under a new copyright.

It's very possible (almost certain, in fact) that the 1983 version of
Terman involved sufficient creative effort to revise and enhance the
text of the 1955 edition, to justify the new version having its own
copyright.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

In article , Cecil Moore wrote:

I was at work (GED teacher) the other day and wanted to
gin up an Excel program for converting series impedances
to parallel impedances and vice versa. I wanted to verify
my memory on those equations. I spent two hours trying to
find them on the web and never did. That search was not
pleasant. 99.9% of series to parallel stuff on the web
is digital.

The easiest way I found to figure this out, is to start from the
basic Ohm's Law formula for two impedances in parallel:

Zt = (Z1)(Z2) / (Z1 + Z2)

Let Z1 be a purely real impedance (Rp + j0) and Z2 be a purely
imaginary impedance (0 + jXp) and calculate from there.

It was a fun bit of scratchpad-and-pencil-in-the-afternoon to start at
Ohm's Law, and end up with a pretty decent understanding of how L- and
T-match antenna tuners (transmatches for the purist) actually do what
they do.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Richard Clark wrote:
Google: converting series impedances
second response points at:
http://www.cebik.com/trans/zcalc.html

2 minutes tops

The firewall at the GED office doesn't allow access
to Google. I was using the Netscape search engine
searching for "series to parallel impedance conversion"
which yielded http://www.cebik.com/gup/gup23.html. Those
equations are NOT on that page.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Richard Clark wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:50:32 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote:


One example, the people whose names follow the "created by" credit on
a successful (and copyrighted) tv series have been known to make
mountains of money.


Hi Bob,

I dare say, if I paid attention to that (and I do, as it is part of my
work), that I would not find you or Jim's name there.

You'd be looking in the wrong place as part of your work, Richard.
Though I did get credit in the Bett Midler film "The Devine Miss M", and
have quite a few album credits.

ac6xg

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:36:28 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

You'd be looking in the wrong place as part of your work, Richard.
Though I did get credit in the Bett Midler film "The Devine Miss M", and
have quite a few album credits.

Hi Jim,

Well, you need to have www.imdb.com update their credits list:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116313/fullcredits
I don't see your name in the 60-odd performers credited, nor do I see
it in the list of 120-odd crew and other artists. The closest match
against your name is Paul Kelly. There is only one Jim Kelley (with
all variant spellings considered) in their database:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0445920/
he died 72 years ago. However, there are 430 Kelley/Kelly entries if
you were not working under the name Jim/James:
http://www.imdb.com/find?q=kelley;tt=on;nm=on;mx=20

Could it be that you supplied the working title against which "The
First Wives Club" was released makes some difference? Or is this more
an issue of "you" having credit is a metaphor for a company name you
worked with or owned?

To lighten up, as you once advised me, when I was mixing a radio play
that I and my partner wrote, I boosted the mike levels when my name
was given credit.

The producer caught that and mixed it back down before broadcast. :-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:29:10 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
The firewall at the GED office doesn't allow access to Google.
Google Education Deficient?

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
The firewall at the GED office doesn't allow access to Google.

Google Education Deficient?

They don't want the students reading alt.sex.kinky
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

That ALWAYS worked for me... if the adults ever put anything out of my
reach--I just did without it! sly-grin

Regards,
John

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
The firewall at the GED office doesn't allow access to Google.

Google Education Deficient?

They don't want the students reading alt.sex.kinky
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Richard:

In the back of my mind I am picturing a library of collected works with
expired copyright/public domain/orphaned works...
Something akin to the gutenberg project, but not on such a large scale; but,
a technical library is what I imagine...
Surely there are more than just me which can see such a tool as a noble and
just cause.

Companies, corps, etc. I have worked for usually have a policy and make
known basic facts about "fair use" and how you can duplicate limited
portions as an aid to ones' own speechs, documents, study materials,
etc.--when giving the author(s) full credit...
I wish I had paid more attention, I tend to just digest material and
"reguritate" it in my own words and suppling my own pictures, charts,
diagrams, etc.-- that itself is so easy--why bother stealing anothers words?

However, a library of expired copyrights is really a tribute to the
individual(s) who have created the work(s), and is an important effort at
passing on learning, knowledge and wisdom--as such, its' very nature stands
alone as nobel cause...

Regards,
John

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:51:30 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

Anyone here with more information, or who can correct my mistaken
conclusion(s)?

Hi Brett,

Read up on "Fair Use." Wholesale reproduction is not going to market
anywhere where it won't be perceived as just that. Further, it can't
economically compete with the used book trade in the marketplace.

Beyond that, extensive quotations for the purpose of bolstering
arguments or illustrating concepts will only act as a soporific.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:15:34 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:


Absolutely every application that is mainstream can be replaced and upgraded to
for FREE.


Hi All,

In today's news, from the Seattle Times:
"'My belief is that open-source software is going to help drive
the acquisition cost of software down toward zero,' he said, a
shift that will require software companies to move 'over to a
maintenance and support model.'"
and this is a quote from Martin Taylor, Ballmer's chief of staff at
M$.

KWAAANNNNG! (or other odd sound as you see fit)

Yes indeed, it just may drive software companies to adopt a different
paradigm. It is about time!

Right now, it would seem we need a new improved operating system every
two years, according to the comapnies that make such things.

We need a "new improved" word processing software, laden with "features
that no one will use, according to those same companies.

When in fact, what I want is an operating system that simply works, and
allows me to see my files and work with them.

And programs that work. Which we will not see until we DON'T have a new
operating system every two years.

- Mike KB3EIA -

My post was simply abreviated, but points out:
1) It is possible to "create" a "new" work from an expired-existing one.
2) Care should be taken NOT to confuse the fact that the actual copyright on
the EXISTING work has expired and the "author" actually has NO copyright on
what was/is the existing material in question (may be freely copied,
duplicated and disseminated as desired.)
3) Some may find a way to use this as a SCAM; also, those who have not
examined the workings of this system closely can be easily deceived into
what, exactly, the material is they are receiving.

It is also interesting to note that this is a work from 1955 with an expired
copyright. I think one is likely to find that technical material is more
quicker to be come dated and orphaned (becomes expired copyright) than most
all other books, documents, music, pics, etc...

Regards,
John

"Dave Platt" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Smith wrote:

Actually, I correct myself again, it looks like Termans' book is expired
copyright, if you look closely at the post above and the field:
" Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: "revisions and new material." "
you will see that this entry is actually a NEW copyright work, and that
the
copyright is limited to ONLY the "revisions and new material."
However, as this guy (corporation, company, business, individual, etc.)
has
done, a person could duplicate the "original text" of Terman without
violation of copyright law, AND also tag on some "new revisions and new
material" just to obsfucate what has been done! and obtain a copyright on
the "revisions and new material"-- fooling some into believing the old
text
was still copyrighted...

At least, from consulting with others who claim to be more familiar with
such, that is the conclusion I draw.

That isn't necessarily due to any intent to obfuscate the situation.

US Copyright law says that if a work is in the public domain, the work
itself cannot be re-copyrighted. However, anyone can then create a
"derivative work", using the public-domain work as starting material,
and then copyright the resulting derivative work. If, for example,
you start with a black&white news photo which is in the public domain,
do some simple Photoshop or GIMP processing on it to colorize it (or
include it in a collage or photomontage) you can copyright your own
version of the photo. The original photo remains in the public
domain, while your version (with your creative effort) is now
copyrighted.

As another analogy, one could take the text of Moby Dick (in the
public domain and freely available on the Net) and run it through a
creatively-programmed "English to Valley-speak" or "English to Jive"
translation filter. The result would probably be copyrightable, if
rather silly.

There are, I believe, various legal rules-of-thumb to determine
whether the creative effort involved in making a derivative work is
sufficient to support its being placed under a new copyright.

It's very possible (almost certain, in fact) that the 1983 version of
Terman involved sufficient creative effort to revise and enhance the
text of the 1955 edition, to justify the new version having its own
copyright.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:59:01 -0700, Wes Stewart
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:19:27 GMT, Tony VE6MVP
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 06:29:43 -0700, Wes Stewart
wrote:

We really do have democracy;
almost anyone can afford one.

As a Canadian watching U.S. politics from afar I find this quote
particularly funny.

Hey, we think your government is pretty funny too :)

And just as corrupt:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

Download Slackware Linux and spend the time to learn it, you will NOT be
disappointed!
There maybe a "LUG" near you (Linux Users Group) they will be more than
happy to help your learning curve--and from time to time they host "Install
Fests." Just load up some old computer laying around (a 133 Mhz or better,
and "better" I do recommend) and you will go home from the install fest with
Linux on the machine!

Regards,
John

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Richard Clark wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:15:34 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:


Absolutely every application that is mainstream can be replaced and
upgraded to
for FREE.


Hi All,

In today's news, from the Seattle Times:
"'My belief is that open-source software is going to help drive the
acquisition cost of software down toward zero,' he said, a shift that
will require software companies to move 'over to a maintenance and
support model.'"
and this is a quote from Martin Taylor, Ballmer's chief of staff at
M$.

KWAAANNNNG! (or other odd sound as you see fit)

Yes indeed, it just may drive software companies to adopt a different
paradigm. It is about time!

Right now, it would seem we need a new improved operating system every two
years, according to the comapnies that make such things.

We need a "new improved" word processing software, laden with "features
that no one will use, according to those same companies.

When in fact, what I want is an operating system that simply works, and
allows me to see my files and work with them.

And programs that work. Which we will not see until we DON'T have a new
operating system every two years.

- Mike KB3EIA -

I use mirc... but all the clients you mentioned are workable...
have never looked on EFNET for ham chat... might just check it
out--thanks...

Warmest regards,
John

"ke6cqk" wrote in message
...
| "John Smith" wrote:
|
| 4) IRC allows direct DCC SENDS of data from one chatter to another. (this
| begs for someone to set up an amateur chat room anyway--MIRC is an
excellent
| IRC chat client.)
|
|
| I noticed there is a channel on EFnet, it is #hamradio. I use Pirch,
| but there is also xchat which is supposed to be a good program and has
| a windows version and one for Linux.