| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
NON-copyright material
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!!! |
"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, you're saying that anyone could republish a book like "Moby Dick" and sell it as their own since it was published before 1923 ? I'm no lawyer, but I believe copyright live on. Patents expire. If you're just wanting to build an antenna that someone else thought of first then you just 'do it' - just be careful about patent infringements if you try to sell those antennas. |
Here is one page on the net, from a university, if you research it, you will
find this page seems accurate. The library of congress page contains info to this also... http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm Indeed, the examples of non-copyrighted works is not complete, there are other ways a book is/remains un-copyright-ed. I think I did see Moby Dick as one ebook freely available on the net, and yes, I believe the copyright has expired on that book... 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!!! "Hal Rosser" wrote in message . .. "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, you're saying that anyone could republish a book like "Moby Dick" and sell it as their own since it was published before 1923 ? I'm no lawyer, but I believe copyright live on. Patents expire. If you're just wanting to build an antenna that someone else thought of first then you just 'do it' - just be careful about patent infringements if you try to sell those antennas. |
Since you mentioned Moby Dick, I went ahead and searched the University of
Virginias' ebook library, it is there. I think you will probably need the "Microsoft Reader", it is available from the microsoft site... if you need a URL just ask... Here is the URL to Moby Dick if you wish to download it: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin...&grouping=work You can search their library of 1800+ ebooks with expired copyrights at: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/ebooks/ 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 ... Here is one page on the net, from a university, if you research it, you will find this page seems accurate. The library of congress page contains info to this also... http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm Indeed, the examples of non-copyrighted works is not complete, there are other ways a book is/remains un-copyright-ed. I think I did see Moby Dick as one ebook freely available on the net, and yes, I believe the copyright has expired on that book... 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!!! "Hal Rosser" wrote in message . .. "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, you're saying that anyone could republish a book like "Moby Dick" and sell it as their own since it was published before 1923 ? I'm no lawyer, but I believe copyright live on. Patents expire. If you're just wanting to build an antenna that someone else thought of first then you just 'do it' - just be careful about patent infringements if you try to sell those antennas. |
Sorry to keep repling to my own posts, but like to give as complete info as
I can, I should have mentioned this above, it is a repository of over 15,000 ebooks, mainly in plain text format, and many classics with expired copyrights, and done mostly by volunteers... http://www.gutenberg.org/ With a scanner and "Fine Reader" software, copying any book to ebook format (.pdf, .lit, .txt, etc.) is a snap! I wonder how many hams are out there with relevant-expired copyright material right now? 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 ... Since you mentioned Moby Dick, I went ahead and searched the University of Virginias' ebook library, it is there. I think you will probably need the "Microsoft Reader", it is available from the microsoft site... if you need a URL just ask... Here is the URL to Moby Dick if you wish to download it: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin...&grouping=work You can search their library of 1800+ ebooks with expired copyrights at: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/ebooks/ 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 ... Here is one page on the net, from a university, if you research it, you will find this page seems accurate. The library of congress page contains info to this also... http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm Indeed, the examples of non-copyrighted works is not complete, there are other ways a book is/remains un-copyright-ed. I think I did see Moby Dick as one ebook freely available on the net, and yes, I believe the copyright has expired on that book... 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!!! "Hal Rosser" wrote in message . .. "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, you're saying that anyone could republish a book like "Moby Dick" and sell it as their own since it was published before 1923 ? I'm no lawyer, but I believe copyright live on. Patents expire. If you're just wanting to build an antenna that someone else thought of first then you just 'do it' - just be careful about patent infringements if you try to sell those antennas. |
In article ,
Hal Rosser wrote: So, you're saying that anyone could republish a book like "Moby Dick" and sell it as their own since it was published before 1923 ? I'm no lawyer, but I believe copyright live on. Patents expire. Your belief is mistaken. Copyrights expire. They always have (under U.S. law). The duration of copyright varies, reflecting changes in the law. Get the details (at least as far as U.S. law is concerned) at the Federal Government's copyright-office web site: http://www.copyright.gov/ If a work was originally created after 1/1/1978, its copyright applies for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. Works created prior to 1/1/78 were originally granted a copyright of 28 years, which could be renewed for an additional 28 years. The 1976 Copyright Act extended the duration of the renewal period to 47 years. There are further complexities (many of them) as Congress has seen fit to (some would say "has been bribed with large campaign contributions to") further extent and expand copyright protection over the past few years. Works which were originally created prior to 1922 - i.e. more than 56 years prior to 1/1/78 - have falled into the public domain, as both their original 28-year copyright, and a subsequent 28-year renewal would have run out prior to the date on which the laws changed. Many works created in the 1940s and 1950s have also fallen out of copyright protection, as their original 28-year copyright terms were not renewed. Automatic renewal of copyright didn't kick in until the 1990s. [Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer.] -- 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! |
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... 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 , Hal Rosser wrote: So, you're saying that anyone could republish a book like "Moby Dick" and sell it as their own since it was published before 1923 ? I'm no lawyer, but I believe copyright live on. Patents expire. Your belief is mistaken. Copyrights expire. They always have (under U.S. law). The duration of copyright varies, reflecting changes in the law. Get the details (at least as far as U.S. law is concerned) at the Federal Government's copyright-office web site: http://www.copyright.gov/ If a work was originally created after 1/1/1978, its copyright applies for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. Works created prior to 1/1/78 were originally granted a copyright of 28 years, which could be renewed for an additional 28 years. The 1976 Copyright Act extended the duration of the renewal period to 47 years. There are further complexities (many of them) as Congress has seen fit to (some would say "has been bribed with large campaign contributions to") further extent and expand copyright protection over the past few years. Works which were originally created prior to 1922 - i.e. more than 56 years prior to 1/1/78 - have falled into the public domain, as both their original 28-year copyright, and a subsequent 28-year renewal would have run out prior to the date on which the laws changed. Many works created in the 1940s and 1950s have also fallen out of copyright protection, as their original 28-year copyright terms were not renewed. Automatic renewal of copyright didn't kick in until the 1990s. [Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer.] -- 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 Sun, 10 Apr 2005 21:30:04 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: You can search their library of 1800+ ebooks with expired copyrights at: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/ebooks/ Hi All, There are nearly tens times that many at: http://www.gutenberg.org/ Instead of guessing about copyright, simply visit: http://www.copyright.gov/ (Most/All of what has been said has been in error.) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Dave Platt wrote:
. . . The duration of copyright varies, reflecting changes in the law. . . . Just about all you need to know is when Mickey Mouse was copyrighted. When it was about to expire, the folks at Disney, with the help of generous campaign donations (known elsewhere as baksheesh) of $6 million, got a nice bill through Congress (the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act) to extend the term of protection by 20 years for works copyrighted after (hee, hee) January 1, 1923. Mickey's copyright of course began after this date. Copyright holders who own fewer Congressmen or are unfortunate enough to have copyrights that predate Mickey will just have to live with shorter terms. Hey, it's the best government money can buy. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:16:53 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote: Dave Platt wrote: . . . The duration of copyright varies, reflecting changes in the law. . . . Just about all you need to know is when Mickey Mouse was copyrighted. When it was about to expire, the folks at Disney, with the help of generous campaign donations (known elsewhere as baksheesh) of $6 million, got a nice bill through Congress (the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act) to extend the term of protection by 20 years for works copyrighted after (hee, hee) January 1, 1923. Mickey's copyright of course began after this date. Copyright holders who own fewer Congressmen or are unfortunate enough to have copyrights that predate Mickey will just have to live with shorter terms. Hey, it's the best government money can buy. In a similar light, and remembering that all politics are local, I never cease to be amazed at how inexpensively one can buy a local county board of supervisors member. We really do have democracy; almost anyone can afford one. |
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 ... 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! |
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:18:06 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote: but if we stop compensating people who create intellectual property, it will simply stop being created. Hi Bob, This assertion is untested by simple virtue of the extension of copyright, and the continued abuse of patents. Being untested does not mean that it defaults to being true. Insofar as left/right/liberal/conservative politics go, Ben Franklin was very much against patenting. In his era, plagiarism was rife, but its penalty was weighed against purpose and claims and punished in the form of opprobrium. You were far more likely to be sued for slander than stealing ideas. Back then, if you couldn't pay the fine, they threw you in the slammer. But back to the assertion, there is every proof that this is simply not the case. One of the chief contentions that America is shipping its software jobs east (the far east, not Jersey) is that Asians will soon crowd the field with better programmers (or simply more, cheaper programmers) who will flood the capitalist market with their product. Creativity being what it is, and what intellectuals do, such product that is free and unencumbered has already washed the Asians out like a tidal wave. I can point at one example of creativity that confounds the monetary need for patent or copyright: http://sourceforge.net/ where you and others may observe more than 98,000 software packages are being offered for free (this is NOT crippleware) that are being built by more than 1 Million designers (creative individuals). They do ask for pledges, but this is not a condition of use. The Chinese don't need more programmers to burn illegal copies of M$ Office, but neither do I need to fly to Shanghai to buy them. Instead I can download Open Office for free (and certainly at less hazard to asian infections). Do I breathlessly wait for the next iteration now called Longhorn? That horse is so lame, M$ hasn't realized that the field has left it behind. If a million Indian Engineers could put it on wheels with a hemi under the hood, it still wouldn't pay their wages in rice when it hits the market. M$ daily pays the cost for exclusivity that eclipes copyright or patent. As far as creativity go, copyright and patent offer abysmal return unless you are a one note symphony composer. The ONLY software I have ever purchased in the last 10 years was for Agent (the newsreader I am now using to post to this forum) and Outpost Firewall. Both items were to protect me from the third piece of software I bought, M$ Win2K Pro which could now be easily replaced with Linux (which I now build custom business systems on). Absolutely every application that is mainstream can be replaced and upgraded to for FREE. In the spirit of compensation, not to the individual(s) who designed Open Office, but to the community at large, I have contributed my own Web Search Engines for FREE. My effort to produce them expended as much time, but far less cash in my pursuit of 5 patents (ego certificates). If any want to argue that this is far different from Mickey Mouse protection, I would offer that even if his copyright expired, there would still be protection through Trade Mark, and Licensing agreements. Really, the laws are manifestly and explicitly for intimidation alone. You can be sued for distributing the image of Moe Howard, but sky through with Abraham Lincoln's mug on a T-shirt. This is not about creativity, merit, or intellectual worth. It is simply about government sanctioned monopoly (and again, manifestly and explicitly so). As TR observed 100 years ago, expanded monopolies are bad for America. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
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$. Now, taking that cue about future trends in protecting the rights of those who create intellectual property, you may notice that patents and copyright have ceased to have market leverage in an industry that is content dominated. On the other hand, maintenance and support are strictly labor centric. How long do you think 1million Chinese will take to hone their mid-west accent? How long do you think it would take you to brush up your Mandarin or Cantonese? The economy of off-shoring is not found in how many calls the Chinese Help Desk can answer, but in how many answers the Chinese Help Desk can make understandable. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Richard Clark wrote:
If any want to argue that this is far different from Mickey Mouse protection, I would offer that even if his copyright expired, there would still be protection through Trade Mark, and Licensing agreements. Why would anyone pay to license something for which the copyright has expired? Really, the laws are manifestly and explicitly for intimidation alone. No. They are also meant to encourage R&D, advance the state of the art, and promote entepreneurism. You can be sued for distributing the image of Moe Howard, but sky through with Abraham Lincoln's mug on a T-shirt. That's where the similarity ends. But where does it begin? This is not about creativity, merit, or intellectual worth. It is simply about government sanctioned monopoly (and again, manifestly and explicitly so). As TR observed 100 years ago, expanded monopolies are bad for America. The Truthspeak word for pessimist is realist. ac6xg |
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:57:52 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote: Why would anyone pay to license something for which the copyright has expired? Hi Jim, That is simply repetition. The extension of copyright makes that moot. Can you name a single Disney product with copyright that was not licensed as a trademark right? No one is seriously interested in Little Mermaid knock-offs but the Chinese. And how many dozen are Disney going to sell to Chinese at $20 a pop when they can only afford 25 cents? When the capitalists go into China with Hammer and Tong over copyright issues, they are not selling anything. And since the introduction of Linux as a substantial option, the Chinese have shown even less interest in M$. There's the payoff of investments in Hammer and Tongs on a sliding scale. Really, the laws are manifestly and explicitly for intimidation alone. No. They are also meant to encourage R&D, advance the state of the art, and promote entepreneurism. This lies somewhere between misty-eyed dreaming and the soft-porn of industry pleas. There is absolutely no grant nor entitlement, much less funding that is vested into R&D by the government's supporting monopoly. Copyrights and Patents are boldfacedly proclaimed as rights of enforcement ONLY. No R&D lab I've been in had a legal department, and most companies that did have a legal department, bought their R&D and simply did the marketing. If ever there was a case study of this, it is M$. Chairman Bill's dad was NOT a mathematician NOR a scientist, he was a Lawyer. He couldn't care less about copyright of DOS1 because by the time any issue made its way through the courts, no one would be using it. Can you name the writer of DOS1? So much the value of copyright for a trillion dollar industry. An entrepreneur is the other guy with the money, not the one with the intellectual property. I've pitched against more than $100Million worth of these types, and most of them would stare daggers at you if you uttered you had Patent pending. They know how to do that themselves, and they certainly don't want competition seeing their names as assignees in public records. Jim, you got any of your own patents? Ever copyright any substantial work? How much did it tilt the balance ledger? There's reality. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:36:31 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote: Jim, you got any of your own patents? Ever copyright any substantial work? How much did it tilt the balance ledger? There's reality. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC One example, the people whose names follow the "created by" credit on a successful (and copyrighted) tv series have been known to make mountains of money. bob k5qwg |
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:36:31 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote: When the capitalists go into China with Hammer and Tong over copyright issues, they are not selling anything. And since the introduction of Linux as a substantial option, the Chinese have shown even less interest in M$. There's the payoff of investments in Hammer and Tongs on a sliding scale. Hi All, Now a quote from IBM (today, just as M$ quote was from today): "Earlier this year, I.B.M. made a broad gesture toward what it called a new era in how it controls intellectual property. It announced in January that it would make 500 patents - mainly for software code that manages electronic commerce, storage, image processing, data handling and Internet communications - freely available to others. "And it pledged that more such moves would follow. "This month, the company said that all of its future patent contributions to the largest standards group for electronic commerce on the Web, the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards, would be free. "I.B.M. is at the forefront, but companies in industry after industry are also reconsidering their strategies on intellectual property: What do you share? What do you keep proprietary?" In today's marketplace, the pampered notions and dreams spun into vague platitudes about protection are no defense to global cut-throat capitalism. These recent events throws the musty notion of patents being necessary to support R&D into a cocked hat. Franklin pointed out these false illusions long ago. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
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. Ever see a copyright notice on a TV scroll? The more important mark is the Screen Writer Guild's registration number. It's been 25 years, but I've done this too. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
SO - did you steal somebody's idea for an antenna, or what ?
Go ahead and make it - we won't tell. |
You are underhanded, subversive, and your manner is below one of minimal
human behavior--but I am positive--others have told you this--and obviously with little affect... Attacking me certainly does NOT endear your person to me. I am sure that other thinking individuals recognise you for what you are and fear any exchange with you, do you like to live in isolation? What is it that you have found in my posts which you fear and are attempting to divert attention away from? What has endangered you to the point of reducing yourself to a such a level as to make a "gutter attack" on anothers character? Not only your lack of education and proper upbringing is showing--your very lack of character is SCREAMING in agony! 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!!! "Hal Rosser" wrote in message . .. SO - did you steal somebody's idea for an antenna, or what ? Go ahead and make it - we won't tell. |
Richard Clark wrote: Really, the laws are manifestly and explicitly for intimidation alone. No. They are also meant to encourage R&D, advance the state of the art, and promote entepreneurism. This lies somewhere between misty-eyed dreaming and the soft-porn of industry pleas. I'm really just paraphrasing those laws we had been talking about. There is absolutely no grant nor entitlement, much less funding that is vested into R&D by the government's supporting monopoly. Copyrights and Patents are boldfacedly proclaimed as rights of enforcement ONLY. No R&D lab I've been in had a legal department, and most companies that did have a legal department, bought their R&D and simply did the marketing. Always with the negative waves, Mr. Clark. Jim, you got any of your own patents? Ever copyright any substantial work? How much did it tilt the balance ledger? There's reality. Yes, I have and it is. But apparently my expectations were more realistic than yours, and 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. ac6xg |
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 16:57:08 -0700, 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. No, but as an advertising copywriter for much of my life, a lot of my work was copyrighted -- not that that had anything to do with how much I was paid, but I did okay. Ever see a copyright notice on a TV scroll? The more important mark is the Screen Writer Guild's registration number. It's been 25 years, but I've done this too. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
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!!! |
No, stike that, looks like it was renewed... there are two registration
numbers... I am looking for now for some known works which have been renewed, that I can check against--I expected this info to be more organized... 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 17:18:06 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote: 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. IP lawyers agree with you. The open source software movement refutes you. |
"Hal Rosser" wrote in message . .. "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, you're saying that anyone could republish a book like "Moby Dick" and sell it as their own since it was published before 1923 ? I'm no lawyer, but I believe copyright live on. Patents expire. If you're just wanting to build an antenna that someone else thought of first then you just 'do it' - just be careful about patent infringements if you try to sell those antennas. There are several websites addressing copyright. Here in the US, copyrights before 1923 are indeed expired. Some copyrights after this date are also expired depending on renewal status at the times of various copyright law changes but that gets a little complicated. No they cannot publish the material as their own as that is plagiarism but they can publish it without permission of the original copyright holder and do not have to pay anyone for the right to print it. When a publishing house prints a new edition of "Moby Dick", all the money goes to the publishing house. None goes to the author's estate or heirs. |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... You are underhanded, subversive, and your manner is below one of minimal human behavior--but I am positive--others have told you this--and obviously with little affect... Attacking me certainly does NOT endear your person to me. I am sure that other thinking individuals recognise you for what you are and fear any exchange with you, do you like to live in isolation? What is it that you have found in my posts which you fear and are attempting to divert attention away from? What has endangered you to the point of reducing yourself to a such a level as to make a "gutter attack" on anothers character? Not only your lack of education and proper upbringing is showing--your very lack of character is SCREAMING in agony! John Calm down, bubbaboy. :-) a little touchy, aren't we ? I did not attach you. But you, in just a few lines, have managed to perform an attack of huge porportion. An attack not befitting a gentleman. You should now voluntarily turn in your gentleman credentials immediately. (But you can still go ahead and make that antenna). |
Really, if you jest, expect a jest in satire--in return lol
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!!! "Hal Rosser" wrote in message . .. "John Smith" wrote in message ... You are underhanded, subversive, and your manner is below one of minimal human behavior--but I am positive--others have told you this--and obviously with little affect... Attacking me certainly does NOT endear your person to me. I am sure that other thinking individuals recognise you for what you are and fear any exchange with you, do you like to live in isolation? What is it that you have found in my posts which you fear and are attempting to divert attention away from? What has endangered you to the point of reducing yourself to a such a level as to make a "gutter attack" on anothers character? Not only your lack of education and proper upbringing is showing--your very lack of character is SCREAMING in agony! John Calm down, bubbaboy. :-) a little touchy, aren't we ? I did not attach you. But you, in just a few lines, have managed to perform an attack of huge porportion. An attack not befitting a gentleman. You should now voluntarily turn in your gentleman credentials immediately. (But you can still go ahead and make that antenna). |
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 -- 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!!! "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "Hal Rosser" wrote in message . .. "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, you're saying that anyone could republish a book like "Moby Dick" and sell it as their own since it was published before 1923 ? I'm no lawyer, but I believe copyright live on. Patents expire. If you're just wanting to build an antenna that someone else thought of first then you just 'do it' - just be careful about patent infringements if you try to sell those antennas. There are several websites addressing copyright. Here in the US, copyrights before 1923 are indeed expired. Some copyrights after this date are also expired depending on renewal status at the times of various copyright law changes but that gets a little complicated. No they cannot publish the material as their own as that is plagiarism but they can publish it without permission of the original copyright holder and do not have to pay anyone for the right to print it. When a publishing house prints a new edition of "Moby Dick", all the money goes to the publishing house. None goes to the author's estate or heirs. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:27 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com