If you look at this guys completed auctions you will find his sale=20
percentage is pretty low.

Agreed, they probably have a return percentage comparable to that of =
spam mail, with the difference they have to pay a fee to e-bay.

However a man who sells something that is freely available for everyone =
cannot be called a "thieve", he is just a poor man, who provides a =
"service" (that of downloading the file from BAMA, printing and =
advertising it over e-bay) to people accepting to pay something for =
that.

I would tend to rather be sorry with the buyers, than putting the blame =
on the sellers.

73

Tony, I0JX

In article ,
arne thormodsen wrote:

| What really annoyed me was it has my call letters on the front page.
| He was too lazy or did not know how to remove it.
|
| Next time try call letters plus "if this is being sold to you by other
| than the owner of these call letters a crime is being committed".

But what crime exactly is being committed?

He may be infringing upon National's copyright on the manual itself
(but the odds are good that National doesn't care -- I certainly have
not asked them), but I don't see how BAMA could have a copyright on
the item too. Merely scanning an item and making a PDF doesn't give
you copyright rights to it, and while you may call it stealing or
piracy (stealing from you) when they download it from your site and
sell it to somebody else, I don't see how the law could agree with
you.

Copyright covers `original works of authorship', according to
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/fa...l#what_protect.
Merely scanning something created by somebody else hardly makes it an
original work ...

If you want to claim copyright on something you've scanned, perhaps
you should write a poem about ham radio or boat anchors or something,
and put it on the very last page, along with the very clear `Copyright
2005 Bama' (which is not required, but it helps.) So even if the
manual itself falls under somebody else's copyright, your poem is
certainly yours, and you could prosecute for unauthorized reproduction
of that. (Of course, it also makes it easier for somebody to
prosecute YOU for unathorized reproduction of their manuals ...)

As for when exactly things fall into the public domain, this page is
very useful --

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

as I understand it, most copyrights were not renewed when they
actually had renewals, so the odds are somewhat good that things
written before 1963 are in the public domain (especially things like
manuals), and anything published before 1923 certainly is.

And no, I'm not a lawyer. And most of this is specific to the US, if
that's not already clear. If you really want to pursue this, I'd
suggest contacting a lawyer familiar with IP law.

| At least the SOB in question will have to do some work for their
| money... ;-)

.... and they probably wouldn't.

--
Doug McLaren,
Programming is an art form that fights back.

"Doug McLaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
arne thormodsen wrote:

| What really annoyed me was it has my call letters on the front
page.
| He was too lazy or did not know how to remove it.
|
| Next time try call letters plus "if this is being sold to you by
other
| than the owner of these call letters a crime is being committed".

But what crime exactly is being committed?


Now that you mention it this is a good question.


Copyright covers `original works of authorship', according to
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/fa...l#what_protect.
Merely scanning something created by somebody else hardly makes it
an
original work ...


It doesn't appear to be that simple. Google "facsimile copyright law"
and prepare to wade throught a dense maze of passages, all different.
Apparently a unique typographical arrangement of a public domain work,
for example, *can* be copyrighted. But only the layout itself, not
the words. And anyway don't take my word for it, it looks like a
complex topic.

--arne

In article ,
arne thormodsen wrote:

"Doug McLaren" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
arne thormodsen wrote:

| What really annoyed me was it has my call letters on the front
page.
| He was too lazy or did not know how to remove it.
|
| Next time try call letters plus "if this is being sold to you by
other
| than the owner of these call letters a crime is being committed".

But what crime exactly is being committed?


Now that you mention it this is a good question.

The answer is "copyright infringement." grin

Not necessarily of the copyright held by the owner of the call-letters.
but there *is* a copyright on the underlying work. Which the owner of
the call-letters *also* violated, in all probability.

If the person who produced the scans has made their work available 'for free',
*they* probably only have a civil 'tort' action against the party who is
selling their 'derivative work' (see below) without their permission.

The owner of the 'underlying' copyright, who was presumably 'making money'
from sales of the work, has a basis for a civil suit action, *and* basis for
a criminal complaint.

Of course, the underlying copyright owner also has basis for a civil action
against the derivative work "publisher", as well.

Copyright covers `original works of authorship', according to
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/fa...l#what_protect.
Merely scanning something created by somebody else hardly makes it
an
original work ...


It doesn't appear to be that simple. Google "facsimile copyright law"
and prepare to wade throught a dense maze of passages, all different.
Apparently a unique typographical arrangement of a public domain work,
for example, *can* be copyrighted. But only the layout itself, not
the words. And anyway don't take my word for it, it looks like a
complex topic.

You've got the basics of it right. "complex" doesn't -begin- to cover it.

*ALL* copyright law is a _deep_ swamp. wry grin

Two sections of it are notably deeper, and populated with more, meaner,
alligators, than the other parts. One is "fair use" exemptions, the
other is "derivative works".

"derivative works" are works, involving some original/creative effort, but
'based on' the creative work of another.

The person who creates the 'derivative work' owns the copyright on
_their_ "creative effort" part of the final work, and that part *only*.

To reproduce that derivative work, you must have the consent/permission
of *BOTH* the creator of the derivative work, _and_ that of the owner of
the original, or 'underlying' work. Postulating that both copyrights are
still in effect. If the 'underlying' work _is_ in the public domain,
the derivative work copyright is _still_ valid.


A 'raw' scanned image of a page (or a series of scans of a booklet) does
not satisfy the 'creative' requirement for a derivative work.

A scanned image that has been 'cleaned up' -- rotated to square, de-speckled,
contrast-enhanced, etc. -- based on the esthetic judgement of a person,
*does* have creative effort involved, and 'derivative work' protection
applies.

If someone lawfully downloads something on the internet that is not
protected and sells it, and another person calls him a thief, or infringes
upon his right to sell that item, then the person who is harmed is the
seller - who in turn has a cause of action against the accuser for libel and
interference with the right to sell.

Be careful when accusing someone of being a thief, or they may take your
money from you.

Colin K7FM

KU2S wrote:

My recommendation would be "Stolen from (callsign)"

Raymond Sirois KU2S
SysOp: The Lost Chord BBS
607-733-5745
telnet://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6000


If you're going to have that attitude, why bother to upload it in the
first place? I keep the paperwork for the radios I restore. Some day
my collection will be sold off after I'm gone. How would it look for
the paperwork to be littered with "Stolen from" all over it? I'm sure
others do the same thing.

--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

COLIN LAMB wrote:
If someone lawfully downloads something on the internet that is not
protected and sells it, and another person calls him a thief, or infringes
upon his right to sell that item, then the person who is harmed is the
seller - who in turn has a cause of action against the accuser for libel and
interference with the right to sell.

Be careful when accusing someone of being a thief, or they may take your
money from you.

Colin K7FM


Oh come off it Colin. We all know that none of us has the real rights
to this material. What I'm saying is that if "I" go to the trouble to
scan in a 200 page manual and then upload for free use by others, I
have done most of the work and if someone downloads this work and sells
it they are stealing my work. In that regard the seller is a thief.
Maybe not in the legal sense but in a moral sense he is. THIEF he is
and THIEF I'll call him.

;-p wrote:

COLIN LAMB wrote:

If someone lawfully downloads something on the internet that is not
protected and sells it, and another person calls him a thief, or infringes
upon his right to sell that item, then the person who is harmed is the
seller - who in turn has a cause of action against the accuser for libel and
interference with the right to sell.

Be careful when accusing someone of being a thief, or they may take your
money from you.

Colin K7FM



Oh come off it Colin. We all know that none of us has the real rights
to this material. What I'm saying is that if "I" go to the trouble to
scan in a 200 page manual and then upload for free use by others, I
have done most of the work and if someone downloads this work and sells
it they are stealing my work. In that regard the seller is a thief.
Maybe not in the legal sense but in a moral sense he is. THIEF he is
and THIEF I'll call him.


What about the professional repair guy who downloads a copy of the manual
you scanned, and then **shudder** asks top dollar to repair a piece of
equipment using that manual? That manual has enabled him to make the repair,
and he has, in essence sold that manual to his customer. I bet he has made
more off of the free manual from BAMA than any of the ebay merchants.

(OBTW, I have been that guy.)

If you have conditions on how the manual you scanned is to be used, don't make
the manual publically available on BAMA. Go off and sell it yourself!

-Chuck

On Fri, 27 May 2005 09:39:45 UTC, ";-p"
wrote:



COLIN LAMB wrote:
If someone lawfully downloads something on the internet that is not
protected and sells it, and another person calls him a thief, or infringes
upon his right to sell that item, then the person who is harmed is the
seller - who in turn has a cause of action against the accuser for libel and
interference with the right to sell.

Be careful when accusing someone of being a thief, or they may take your
money from you.

Colin K7FM


Oh come off it Colin. We all know that none of us has the real rights
to this material. What I'm saying is that if "I" go to the trouble to
scan in a 200 page manual and then upload for free use by others, I
have done most of the work and if someone downloads this work and sells
it they are stealing my work. In that regard the seller is a thief.
Maybe not in the legal sense but in a moral sense he is. THIEF he is
and THIEF I'll call him.

That's a little harsh. I've tried to download stuff off BAMA.
Success varies. If someone with more patience than I manages the
download, perhaps doing it at the wee hours, there is value in that.

Granted it seems unfair but I don't have to pay them, I can stay up
and try for an "opening".

Where there is an ethical problem (as in, ethics among intellectual
property thieves), is that the sellers on eBay aren't saying, "I got
this off the public Ham Radio manual site and burned it to CD for
you. Please bid appropriately."

and

"Those of you who don't have broadband or perhaps want the
convenience of CD's will appreciate this service."

I'm not saying that it's wrong to propagate manuals for 30 year old
radios. I recognize that it is outside the law but you lawyers out
there, libraries have copy machines in them, even the Library of
Congress.

Clearly the law is wrong about intellectual property rights in this
area.

de ah6gi, spiffing up Collins 75S-1 Serial Number 55, previously
owned by Dave.


--

In article . com,
;-p wrote:

| Oh come off it Colin. We all know that none of us has the real rights
| to this material. What I'm saying is that if "I" go to the trouble to
| scan in a 200 page manual and then upload for free use by others, I
| have done most of the work

Actually, the authors of the manual have done most of the work, NOT
YOU. Don't get me wrong ... I find resources like yours to be
extremely useful, and I'm glad you do it. And let me say `thanks for
doing it', because while I don't think I've used any manuals from your
site yet, I've used manuals from other similar sites, and I'm glad
they were there, and may use your site at some point in the future ...

But to claim that somebody else is stealing your work is a bit odd,
because unless the manual is really old, you are legally stealing it
from the authors.

In the US, if a manual was written after 1964, the odds are that it's
still covered by copyright (the only way it wouldn't be is if it was
explicitly entered into the public domain.). If it's written from
1923 to 63, it'll still be covered if the copyright was renewed. Few
are, but it's possible.

Granted, the manufacturer may be out of business. Or they may not
sell the manual anymore (as is very often the case.) And they may not
mind if you scan it and put it online -- it helps out their customers,
after all. But even if the manufacturer is out of business and you
can't even find who owns a given copyright, that doesn't mean that
nobody owns it, and it doesn't mean that you can legally scan it and
give it away as your own. Odds are that nobody will mind, but it may
bite you at some time in the future.

| and if someone downloads this work and sells it they are stealing my
| work. In that regard the seller is a thief. Maybe not in the legal
| sense but in a moral sense he is. THIEF he is and THIEF I'll call
| him.

He's no more a thief than you are, if the manual is still covered by
copyright. In that case, both him and you are `stealing' from the
owner of the copyright. Odds are that the owner doesn't mind, but
unless you have written permission, it may bite you at some point in
the future.

As was suggested, if you want to claim copyright on your scans, either
do more than just scan them -- clean them up, add searchable indexes,
OCR them and correct the results, etc., or do what I suggested -- add
a little poem at the end about ham radio or something. Either one
could give you some claim of copyright on the final result and could
give you legal recourse against whomever is violating _that_
copyright. (Of course, I'm no lawyer. You may want to talk to a
lawyer about it ...)

Or you can just scream until you're blue in the face about the THIEVES
STEALING YOUR WORK! It won't change anything, but maybe it'll make
you feel better.

--
Doug McLaren,
It's not easy being green. It takes way more food coloring than you'd think.