On Oct 6, 3:51 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
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:

Then you, Bret Ludwig, or the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky
Prodanovic, or the thieves who operate their mirrors, must prove that
70 years have elapsed since the death of the last author of the RDH4.

That is clearly impossible for a book published as recently as 1953,
with a revised and expanded edition published possibly as late as 1967
creating yet another of authors and copyrights.

You're wanking hysterically, Ludwig:

that additional or
changed material they have added, or if they have edited or deleted
things the exact things they have edited or deleted.

Are you blowing smoke, Ludwig, or are you growing incoherent in your
hysteria? The Newnes edition of 1997 is a facsimile edition of the
last, 1967 edition under the old copyright holder AWV. Nothing has
been added or subtracted. All that has happened is that the copyright
passed from AWV to Reed, mother company of Newnes. Copyright, for your
information, isn't a magical incantation, it is just property, exactly
like an amplifier or real estate.

Anyone else
besides Lindsay Publications may do the same thing Lindsay has done,
reprint a book in the public domain.

Once the book is in the public domain, sure. But the RDH4 cannot even
begin to come into the public domain until 2014 at the very earliest
(if all the authors were dead at publication, which we know isn't so
because there were revised and expanded editions after that) and most
probably until 2038.

Assertion doesn't put a book in the public domain, Ludwig: proof is
required, and you haven't even tried to get the necessary proof.

They cannot add, for example,
Lindsay's foreword or addenda he puts in.

What has Lindsay got to do with the RDH4? Are you drunk or doped up
again, Ludwig?

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.

Everyone knows the writers of the King James Bible are dead for
several centuries now. You, Bret Ludwig, and the thieves Gregg, Tim
Williams and Choky Prodanovic have yet to prove the authors of the
RDH4 are dead, and have been dead for 70 years. You can't, because
only forty years has passed since the last revised and expanded
edition of the RDH4. Tough luck, sonny.

Believe me, Newnes knows a great deal more than either of us about
copyright and copyright enforcement

They certainly know more than you do, Ludwig, because you know
nothing, as is illustrated by your mantra:

and they would have long ago put
the kibosh on these sites if it were improper.

"We have stolen the book so often, it is now ours."

Unsigned out of contempt for thief and a pimp for thieves