Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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 =--- |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
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 =--- |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
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 =--- |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
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 - |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |