On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:16:53 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Hey, it's the best government money can buy.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy,

That used to be the exprestion, now it is just a goverment that money
can buy.

Danny, K6MHE

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:26:40 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

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'm not sure I understand your point about copyrights.

Even if a copyright has expired or never existed in the first place,
anyone who gives you a printed piece is going to charge for paper and
ink -- all the manufacturing costs involved in a printed piece.

Or, if you're just looking for web materials, it costs money to put up
a web site. You'll be charged to help defray those costs.

What are you expecting?

bob
k5qwg

Bob:
You are living in the past my friend!
1) It costs nothing to make works available to the gutenberg project.
2) There are other endeavors, such as gutenberg (some colleges request help
in obtaining materials, Virginia is only one)...
3) There are excellent peer-to-peer filesharing networks (Take a look at
Winmx--it guarantees no spyware or malware in the app)
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.)
5) There are free Web Hosting ISP's on which you can host data, files,
etc.--all you need to know is HTML markup language and an FTP client (ask
your kids/grandkids--they can set it up for you--if not, I will give some
assistance.)
6) Ebooks can be emailed and shared.
7) etc., etc., etc.
The only excuse of why not to is ignorance and lazyness...

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!!!
"Bob Miller" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:26:40 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

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'm not sure I understand your point about copyrights.

Even if a copyright has expired or never existed in the first place,
anyone who gives you a printed piece is going to charge for paper and
ink -- all the manufacturing costs involved in a printed piece.

Or, if you're just looking for web materials, it costs money to put up
a web site. You'll be charged to help defray those costs.

What are you expecting?

bob
k5qwg

Actually, books published from approx. 1938 back will have expired
copyrights (before 1923 is just an absolute!)--there are ways to research
any certain-given work (a search of the internet will provide these, and the
library of congress provides some help itself with answers to email
questions)--and I would most certainly suggest doing this before releasing
any document as public domain...

This idea takes some getting used to--we all learn old wives tales which, if
we are not careful, replace fact with fiction in our combined knowledge...

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.

Perhaps the reason is as simple as--given they feel such little control over
their own lives they seek to control others...



Think about it, I believe you will realize you have seen this behavior
before--both here and elsewhere...



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 09:11:37 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

Bob:
You are living in the past my friend!
1) It costs nothing to make works available to the gutenberg project.
2) There are other endeavors, such as gutenberg (some colleges request help
in obtaining materials, Virginia is only one)...
3) There are excellent peer-to-peer filesharing networks (Take a look at
Winmx--it guarantees no spyware or malware in the app)
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.)
5) There are free Web Hosting ISP's on which you can host data, files,
etc.--all you need to know is HTML markup language and an FTP client (ask
your kids/grandkids--they can set it up for you--if not, I will give some
assistance.)
6) Ebooks can be emailed and shared.
7) etc., etc., etc.
The only excuse of why not to is ignorance and lazyness...

Regards,
John

I'm sure all of the above exists, but it sounds like you are basically
for people working for free and not being compensated for their labor.
I'm about as damned-liberal as anybody on this group, but I believe
people who create intellectual property should be paid for it, and if
they want their kids and grandkids to benefit, so be it, and any
deadbeats outside the family who want to glom on to it for free, to
heck with 'em.

There are way too many folks who want free music, free film, free
books, free everything -- but if we stop compensating people who
create intellectual property, it will simply stop being created.

bob
k5qwg

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.

Tony

Bob:

You have a right to any opinion you so choose to hold, as an American
indebited to my forefathers sacrifices--I would defend such with my life...

Personally, I find you underhanded, subversive and purposefully obstructive,
I cite your posts, to this point, as proof, the rags you attempt to hide
such behavior behind are simply revealing to the point of being invisible!

NO ONE HERE has/is even hinted at illegal, immoral or unethical
practices--EXCEPT YOU!

I suspect your motives are much less than honorable and just an attempt at
interferring with the free exchange of information and knowledge...

There is a natural tendency of humans to help other humans. No where is
this better demonstrated than one amateur helping another; It is a notable
and highly redeeming quality of the human condition...

You my friend are one who is on the verge of being a "Control Freak!"

I suggest you re-analyze your motives, intentions and goals and certainly
how others will view an "unbridled tongue!"

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!!!
"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:11:37 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

Bob:
You are living in the past my friend!
1) It costs nothing to make works available to the gutenberg project.
2) There are other endeavors, such as gutenberg (some colleges request
help
in obtaining materials, Virginia is only one)...
3) There are excellent peer-to-peer filesharing networks (Take a look at
Winmx--it guarantees no spyware or malware in the app)
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.)
5) There are free Web Hosting ISP's on which you can host data, files,
etc.--all you need to know is HTML markup language and an FTP client (ask
your kids/grandkids--they can set it up for you--if not, I will give some
assistance.)
6) Ebooks can be emailed and shared.
7) etc., etc., etc.
The only excuse of why not to is ignorance and lazyness...

Regards,
John

I'm sure all of the above exists, but it sounds like you are basically
for people working for free and not being compensated for their labor.
I'm about as damned-liberal as anybody on this group, but I believe
people who create intellectual property should be paid for it, and if
they want their kids and grandkids to benefit, so be it, and any
deadbeats outside the family who want to glom on to it for free, to
heck with 'em.

There are way too many folks who want free music, free film, free
books, free everything -- but if we stop compensating people who
create intellectual property, it will simply stop being created.

bob
k5qwg

In article ,
John Smith wrote:

Dave:
Yes, I agree, your information seems very linear to my own understanding.
And, yes, I too am cynical of congress and its' motives here. I certainly
support an authors' sole ownership of his intellectual material, and I am
willing to acknowledge a right to his immediate/living family. When it gets
out to his grandkids, I believe there is a greater argument; that is the
publics right to amass knowledge is of a greater importance than giving the
grandkids a free ride and free money, not to mention the media organizations
who exploit these laws to the detriment of societies goals and needs...
A free ride by the grandkids is probably not to their benefit anyway--one
can only truly appreciate that which he/she has himself/herself earned....
But hey, that is only my personal opinion...

Well, that was pretty much the opinion of the Founders who set up the
legal structure for patent, copyright, and trade-secret protection.

The original motivation and justification for these sorts of law -
which have the effect of placing Government law-enforcement power in
the service of private individuals - was *not* to ensure the
enrichment of the inventors and authors. The original goal was to
increase the public good.

The reasoning is that by providing inventors and authors with a
*limited* protection of their creative works (i.e. exclusive rights,
for some period of time), it would motivate inventors to invent and
also to reveal their inventions to others in detail (the latter being
required for a patent) rather than keep their inventions secret.
Similarly, it would motivate people to write, create paintings, etc.

The legal protection was made limited in time... and I believe that
this was done specifically so that the inventions and creations
*would* continue to enter the public domain so that other people could
build upon them in the future, further enriching our cultural and
technical heritage.

A tradeoff was offered for those who wished to keep their inventions
secret, and maintain an indefinite "lock" on the exclusivity. The
alternate to a patent (which requires disclosure) is a trade secret.
The way that the law was originally structured, was that a trade
secret had to be kept *secret* in order to be protected... i.e. via
physical protection, legal nondisclosure agreements with the parties
to whom it was revealed, etc. A trade secret did not carry with it
any protection against independent re-invention or reverse
engineering. If you invent a better widget, keep its details secret,
make it for several years, and then somebody independently re-invents
the same device or process, you didn't have the legal right to
prosecute them or shut them down.

Unfortunately (in my opinion), both copyright and trade-secret
protection have been excessively widened over the past few decades.
Copyright has been repeatedly extended to the point that it's now
nearly unlimited in duration... literary inventions which have been
part of American culture for many decades are still "locked up" as the
commercial properties of the licensees of their authors. Similarly,
"trade secret" protection seems to have been widened, to the point
where companies feel free to ask the courts to shut down discussion
and distribution of information involving the independent re-invention
or reverse engineering of technologies that those companies feel is
proprietary, even if none of the people involved in the discussion or
reverse engineering are under any sort of trade-secret agreement.

Seems to me that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of
"protect the revenue of the inventors and authors" and too far away
from "promote the greater public good."

--
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 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

Dave:
THAT post if proof, at least to me, that you ARE a Great American!
I will remember your words my friend!

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

Dave:
Yes, I agree, your information seems very linear to my own understanding.
And, yes, I too am cynical of congress and its' motives here. I certainly
support an authors' sole ownership of his intellectual material, and I am
willing to acknowledge a right to his immediate/living family. When it
gets
out to his grandkids, I believe there is a greater argument; that is the
publics right to amass knowledge is of a greater importance than giving
the
grandkids a free ride and free money, not to mention the media
organizations
who exploit these laws to the detriment of societies goals and needs...
A free ride by the grandkids is probably not to their benefit anyway--one
can only truly appreciate that which he/she has himself/herself earned....
But hey, that is only my personal opinion...

Well, that was pretty much the opinion of the Founders who set up the
legal structure for patent, copyright, and trade-secret protection.

The original motivation and justification for these sorts of law -
which have the effect of placing Government law-enforcement power in
the service of private individuals - was *not* to ensure the
enrichment of the inventors and authors. The original goal was to
increase the public good.

The reasoning is that by providing inventors and authors with a
*limited* protection of their creative works (i.e. exclusive rights,
for some period of time), it would motivate inventors to invent and
also to reveal their inventions to others in detail (the latter being
required for a patent) rather than keep their inventions secret.
Similarly, it would motivate people to write, create paintings, etc.

The legal protection was made limited in time... and I believe that
this was done specifically so that the inventions and creations
*would* continue to enter the public domain so that other people could
build upon them in the future, further enriching our cultural and
technical heritage.

A tradeoff was offered for those who wished to keep their inventions
secret, and maintain an indefinite "lock" on the exclusivity. The
alternate to a patent (which requires disclosure) is a trade secret.
The way that the law was originally structured, was that a trade
secret had to be kept *secret* in order to be protected... i.e. via
physical protection, legal nondisclosure agreements with the parties
to whom it was revealed, etc. A trade secret did not carry with it
any protection against independent re-invention or reverse
engineering. If you invent a better widget, keep its details secret,
make it for several years, and then somebody independently re-invents
the same device or process, you didn't have the legal right to
prosecute them or shut them down.

Unfortunately (in my opinion), both copyright and trade-secret
protection have been excessively widened over the past few decades.
Copyright has been repeatedly extended to the point that it's now
nearly unlimited in duration... literary inventions which have been
part of American culture for many decades are still "locked up" as the
commercial properties of the licensees of their authors. Similarly,
"trade secret" protection seems to have been widened, to the point
where companies feel free to ask the courts to shut down discussion
and distribution of information involving the independent re-invention
or reverse engineering of technologies that those companies feel is
proprietary, even if none of the people involved in the discussion or
reverse engineering are under any sort of trade-secret agreement.

Seems to me that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of
"protect the revenue of the inventors and authors" and too far away
from "promote the greater public good."

--
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!