This is an implied lie: Bratzi tries to claim the property dies with
the property owner. Actually, the copyright survives to to the full
term and may be, and in this case was, transferred to a new owner:
cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997

Like most of the classic RCA and GE tube manuals
and educational materials published before about 1962-64 the copyright
was not renewed at the time and because of US law and laws elsewhere
is effectively out of copyright.

This is a whole bunch of lies and ignorant statements compounded. For
a start, we're not talking about the US, we're talking about the
thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky Prodanovic who stole in Canada
the RDH4, and claim the protection of Canadian law (which they
deliberately lie about) for their theft. I'll get to the USA thefts
later if their posters don't in the meanwhile take them down.

Andre's opinions not withstanding are
irrelevant.

This is a double negative from a semi-literate solder sniffer trying
to sound sophisticated. What do you mean to say, Bratzi?

Surely, since I am the only one here who actually knows anything about
copyright, courtesy of having earned my living by copyright for half a
century, my knowledge and opinions are the most relevant?

The fact that the book was reprinted is irrelevant. In fact, I
suspect Newnes never would have bothered reprinting it if it were
subject to copyright.

Holy Moses! And this scumball Bret Ludwig holds himself up as a
copyright expert! Yo, moron, Newnes reprinted exactly *because* they
owned the copyright:
cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997


They owned the same "copyright" that Lindsay Publications owns on all
the out of copyright books that they reprint: that additional or
changed material they have added, or if they have edited or deleted
things the exact things they have edited or deleted. Anyone else
besides Lindsay Publications may do the same thing Lindsay has done,
reprint a book in the public domain. They cannot add, for example,
Lindsay's foreword or addenda he puts in.

Even a King James Bible has a copyright statement: they are seeking
to protect the formatting and extra materials such as maps they put
in. Although some do not even bother anymore with that.

Believe me, Newnes knows a great deal more than either of us about
copyright and copyright enforcement and they would have long ago put
the kibosh on these sites if it were improper.