|
Another BAMA Thief
Happened to come across this one this evening while looking for National
stuff. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...keTra ck=true The item he is selling is an NC-44 manual that I scanned and uploaded to BAMA. 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. |
wrote in message news:1Afhe.5018$Db6.690@okepread05... Happened to come across this one this evening while looking for National stuff. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...keTra ck=true The item he is selling is an NC-44 manual that I scanned and uploaded to BAMA. What really annoyed me was it has my call letters on the front page. He was too lazy or did not know how to remove it. Next time try call letters plus "if this is being sold to you by other than the owner of these call letters a crime is being committed". At least the SOB in question will have to do some work for their money... ;-) --arne |
If you contact FleaBay, they'll pull the auction.
-- Gregg "t3h g33k" http://geek.scorpiorising.ca *Ratings are for transistors, tubes have guidelines* |
This guy probably has downloaded most of the BAMA site. Check his other
auctions and there are many radio related manuals. Great find. Was it a surprise to find your call posted on his auction? |
"arne thormodsen" wrote in message ... wrote in message news:1Afhe.5018$Db6.690@okepread05... Happened to come across this one this evening while looking for National stuff. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...keTra ck=true The item he is selling is an NC-44 manual that I scanned and uploaded to BAMA. 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". At least the SOB in question will have to do some work for their money... ;-) --arne That's a good suggestion. I know that I have previously argued that charging a fee to further distribute BAMA archived files would be acceptable to me (so long as the charge was only to defray materials & postage). But this guy goes over my limit, asking a sale price of $7.50 to $9, plus he's requiring another $3 for shipping. For just 1 or 2 manuals on a CD, that's way out of line. And yes, it looks like his whole operation is along the same model.\ Sigh, 4000 happy customers. -- Ed WB6WSN El Cajon, CA USA |
Bill Cohn wrote:
wrote: Happened to come across this one this evening while looking for National stuff. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...keTra ck=true The item he is selling is an NC-44 manual that I scanned and uploaded to BAMA. 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. If you look at this guys completed auctions you will find his sale percentage is pretty low. Considering the cost of ad placement on e-bay I don't think this would be a very good business to get into. Maybe he will figure this out and stop sell things that are not his. 73 de N9MHT I did look at his completed auctions and it was pretty pathetic. I saw over 2000 completed auctions and I went through 10 pages and he sold less than 10% of what he had listed. With an average listing fee of 40 cents per auction, and a 10 % sell ratio that's a lot of money to throw out for listings. Not a very smart thief. Dave |
Bill Cohn wrote:
wrote: Happened to come across this one this evening while looking for National stuff. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...keTra ck=true The item he is selling is an NC-44 manual that I scanned and uploaded to BAMA. 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. If you look at this guys completed auctions you will find his sale percentage is pretty low. Considering the cost of ad placement on e-bay I don't think this would be a very good business to get into. Maybe he will figure this out and stop sell things that are not his. 73 de N9MHT I did look at his completed auctions and it was pretty pathetic. I saw over 2000 completed auctions and I went through 10 pages and he sold less than 10% of what he had listed. With an average listing fee of 40 cents per auction, and a 10 % sell ratio that's a lot of money to throw out for listings. Not a very smart thief. Dave |
I don't know if this manual heist would be considered 'stolen' but the link
for stolen property reports on Ebay is : http://pages.ebay.com/help/contact_u...n=Continue+%3E Might just get the attention of Ebay if enough people report him and other bipedal fecaloids attempting to profit from BAMA. "Gregg" wrote in message ... If you contact FleaBay, they'll pull the auction. -- Gregg "t3h g33k" http://geek.scorpiorising.ca *Ratings are for transistors, tubes have guidelines* |
On Sat, 14 May 2005 05:37:59 GMT, "arne thormodsen"
wrote: wrote in message news:1Afhe.5018$Db6.690@okepread05... Happened to come across this one this evening while looking for National stuff. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...keTra ck=true The item he is selling is an NC-44 manual that I scanned and uploaded to BAMA. 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". At least the SOB in question will have to do some work for their money... ;-) --arne 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 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. |
On Fri, 20 May 2005 12:20:18 -0000,
(Robert Bonomi) wrote: 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. By definition, the producer of a validly copyrighted derivative work does not need the permission of the owner of the underlying work. (See the "Gone With the Wind" controversy.) Hence, the reproducer of the derivative work need not go any farther back than the producer of the derivative 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. |
In article ,
wrote: "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. By definition, the producer of a validly copyrighted derivative work does not need the permission of the owner of the underlying work. BZZZT! thank you for playing. To produce a derivative work, no. To *reproduce* that derivative work for anything other than 'personal use', or for 'fair use' purposes. yes. (See the "Gone With the Wind" controversy.) Hence, the reproducer of the derivative work need not go any farther back than the producer of the derivative work. _Current_ copyright law *expressly* disagrees with you. As does a large body of case law on point. 17 USC 103 (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. But you are free to act as you please. I am not your lawyer, and I am not advising you on the matter. 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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com