Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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 news 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!!! |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
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 =--- |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The FAQ (Well, Question 1, at least) | Homebrew | |||
The FAQ (Well, Question 1, at least) | General | |||
WTB Really Skinny Whip Material for 1/4 wave two meter | Antenna | |||
legal aspect of internet radio | Broadcasting | |||
Roger Wiseman material | Policy |