In article ,
Phil Nelson wrote:
Hate to be a wet blanket, but how do you know that half of the stuff on BAMA
is not pirated and should never have been posted there in the first place?

Not all old schematics & manuals are in the public domain. For instance,
SAMS Technical Publishing, http://www.samswebsite.com/photofacts.html , is
still alive and well, and they have an understandable interest in keeping
people from distributing free, unauthorized copies of their Photofacts to
the world.

Just because you buy a copy of something, scan it, and upload to the
Internet, doesn't mean that it is "yours" to give away to the world.

If I scan the latest Tom Clancy novel and post his book on the Internet, I
am violating his copyright, pure and simple.

The only exceptions would be if :

[A] I have Tom Clancy's permission to distribute free copies of his latest
novel on the Internet,

or,

[b] I can prove in a court of law that Tom's copyright has expired or been
abandoned for some reason.

Not quite right. Unlike trademark, copyrights _cannot_ be 'abandoned'. A
copyright owner can have failed to go after any infringer for 50 years, and
then decides to go after _you_. "But everybody else is doing it, without
being sued" is NOT a defense.

In the U.S. (although _not_ in many other countries), it is possible for a
copyright holder to 'disclaim' their copyright rights, via an express statement
that they are placing the work "in the public domain". That disclaimer, once
made, cannot be withdrawn. Nor can the author prosecute for copyright
infringement any action that occurs after the disclaimer.


If I don't have [A] or [b] on my side, then Tom kicks my butt and closes me
down.

Almost correct. Qualify it with "if he so chooses", and it is exactly
correct. Given the probable dollar value losses due to the unauthorized
copying, "if he so chooses" is a VIRTUAL CERTAINTY. And I'm picking a nit
that "effectively" makes no difference. grin


I'll just add the following caveats:
1) "Anonymous" works -- with no author named, *are* protected by copyright.
2) An inability to identify the current holder of the copyright does *NOT*
mean that one is free to copy that material. To avoid potential problems
one _must_ have the permission of the copyright holder(s).
3) When a company goes "out of business", *somebody* gets ownership of
the property that that company owned. That which is not sold is
distributed among the remaining owners of the company. In the case
of a corporation, this is anyone who still held shares at the time of
the dissolution. This gets *real* messy for intellectual property,
see item 2 above.
4) to be 'safe', if you don't have copyright owner permission, you better
be able to *prove* that copyright has expired, or has been disclaimed.

On Sat, 14 May 2005 11:04:02 UTC, "No One You Know"
wrote:

One way to stop these thieves is to have the BAMA site print on every
page in bold letters "THIS MANUAL IS FROM THE BAMA MANUAL ARCHIVE" or
some other wording. This placed on the front cover and table of
contents might at least slow down the stupid thieves.

Any other legal ideas?


well, you have it backwards. Ignoring the issue of who owns the
copyright to manuals that are no longer available from the vendor
(sounds like they abandoned the copyright to me), the problem isn't
that some guy who is short on cash is downloading and selling copies
of the manuals, the problem is that no one has unloaded the entire
site to CD and isn't selling the "Hallicrafters 1959-1969", "The
Collins compendium" or "all tube SSB transmitters 1960 - 1979" or
whatever fills 500 meg of CD. Ten Bucks shipping included.

Some guy is selling Heathkit schematics on CD. I bought a disk and
the first week, needed a piece of info from it.

The first person who sells full 500 meg CDs at a low price puts
everyone else out of business AND solves the bandwidth problem on
BAMA.

I would pay 10 or so bucks for a FULL CD figuring that one manual on
it might be useful to me someday.

de ah6gi/4 Heathstuff (and some Collins 75S-1's, oh and an SX-100
too.

Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:

If you think you can get past the .44 magnum, go ahead.



Apparently you have trouble telling the difference between a hypothetical
situation, and an offer to burglarize your house.


As long as you keep it hyothetical you are safe.

So, tell me, why do you feel so threatened that you need to announce
to the world (that is the audience here) that you are armed and looking
for a fight?

There was nothing in my post that could possibly make a literate person
believe I was planning to burglarize *your* home, and yet your first
instinct was to thump your chest and warn off all potential intruders.

The point being made, before you got scared, was that if you steal material,
it really makes no difference legally whether you give it away, or sell it.

This applies to copyright infringement, as well as to physical possessions.

-Chuck

Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote:


So, tell me, why do you feel so threatened that you need to announce
to the world (that is the audience here) that you are armed and looking
for a fight?

There was nothing in my post that could possibly make a literate person
believe I was planning to burglarize *your* home, and yet your first
instinct was to thump your chest and warn off all potential intruders.


Where did I say I was looking for a fight?

Right he


If I go into your house and steal all of your belongings, and then
give them to Goodwill, out of the goodness of my heart, then it's
ok, right?


If you think you can get past the .44 magnum, go ahead.

You are challenging me to burglarize your house so you can try and
shoot me.

My hypothetical question, shown above was an attempt to help you to
understand that it doesn't matter whether or not a thief sells, or
gives away stolen property, a crime has still occurred.

.... and I don't feel threatened,
you come burglarizing my home and you are the one looking for a fight
and will certainly feel threathened. You are the one who brought it up,
not me.

I brought up the hypothetical question because you seemed to have missed
an important moral lesson in your upbringing. I hoped that a simple
example, that most anyone would understand, would help you to the see
the parallel between giving away stolen property, and selling stolen
property (hint, the word stolen says it all).

It would appear that there were a few more lessons missed.

Good luck with your life,

-Chuck

On Sun, 15 May 2005 22:27:19 -0700, Gregg wrote:

Behold, KU2S scribed on tube chassis:

On Sun, 15 May 2005 22:26:55 -0400, Chuck Harris
wrote:

Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote:


If I go into your house and steal all of your belongings, and then
give them to Goodwill, out of the goodness of my heart, then it's ok,
right?


If you think you can get past the .44 magnum, go ahead.

Apparently you have trouble telling the difference between a
hypothetical situation, and an offer to burglarize your house.

... Actually, my opinion is that the .357 Magnum is a much better
handgun for personal protection... The .44 does indeed make a bigger
hole and has more impact energy, but the .357 creates much less flash
and recoil, making it easier to bring the .357 on target for a second
shot, should it be needed.

A .44 with that's been ported is MUCH more controllable ;-)

No arguments there!


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

On Mon, 16 May 2005 08:08:26 -0000,
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

In article ,
Phil Nelson wrote:
Hate to be a wet blanket, but how do you know that half of the stuff on BAMA
is not pirated and should never have been posted there in the first place?

Not all old schematics & manuals are in the public domain. For instance,
SAMS Technical Publishing, http://www.samswebsite.com/photofacts.html , is
still alive and well, and they have an understandable interest in keeping
people from distributing free, unauthorized copies of their Photofacts to
the world.

Just because you buy a copy of something, scan it, and upload to the
Internet, doesn't mean that it is "yours" to give away to the world.

If I scan the latest Tom Clancy novel and post his book on the Internet, I
am violating his copyright, pure and simple.

The only exceptions would be if :

[A] I have Tom Clancy's permission to distribute free copies of his latest
novel on the Internet,

or,

[b] I can prove in a court of law that Tom's copyright has expired or been
abandoned for some reason.

Not quite right. Unlike trademark, copyrights _cannot_ be 'abandoned'. A
copyright owner can have failed to go after any infringer for 50 years, and
then decides to go after _you_. "But everybody else is doing it, without
being sued" is NOT a defense.

In the U.S. (although _not_ in many other countries), it is possible for a
copyright holder to 'disclaim' their copyright rights, via an express statement
that they are placing the work "in the public domain". That disclaimer, once
made, cannot be withdrawn. Nor can the author prosecute for copyright
infringement any action that occurs after the disclaimer.


If I don't have [A] or [b] on my side, then Tom kicks my butt and closes me
down.

Almost correct. Qualify it with "if he so chooses", and it is exactly
correct. Given the probable dollar value losses due to the unauthorized
copying, "if he so chooses" is a VIRTUAL CERTAINTY. And I'm picking a nit
that "effectively" makes no difference. grin


I'll just add the following caveats:
1) "Anonymous" works -- with no author named, *are* protected by copyright.
2) An inability to identify the current holder of the copyright does *NOT*
mean that one is free to copy that material. To avoid potential problems
one _must_ have the permission of the copyright holder(s).
3) When a company goes "out of business", *somebody* gets ownership of
the property that that company owned. That which is not sold is
distributed among the remaining owners of the company. In the case
of a corporation, this is anyone who still held shares at the time of
the dissolution. This gets *real* messy for intellectual property,
see item 2 above.
4) to be 'safe', if you don't have copyright owner permission, you better
be able to *prove* that copyright has expired, or has been disclaimed.



Yep -- it's an interesting problem. I recently read an article
about all the good computer code buried, and no longer available, from
outfits like Lernout and Hauspie, which produced the best available
voice recognition products. When the outfit went under, someone
acquired the rights to all that code. Apparently they didn't know the
actual value of it, so they chose not to let anyone have it for fear
of being undercompensated for it.

If you want to throw the bullsh*t and call it a hypothetical Situation, Then
Hypotheticaly when you trespass onto his properity and into his domicile
He will "fear for his life" and blow your f*cking head off.

Hypothetically speaking that would be my approach to this issue..
As soon as I "fear for my life", in my own home or on my properity
as a result of your illegal entry, I WILL use Lethal Force to defend myself.

Just my opinion.

Bob

"Cmd Buzz Corey" wrote in message
...
Chuck Harris wrote:


So, tell me, why do you feel so threatened that you need to announce
to the world (that is the audience here) that you are armed and looking
for a fight?

You read it your way I will read it my way..in My opinion,
this is you..... Massachusetts, home of, anti gun, kennedy, faggot,
democrat, bleeding heart Liberals..


There was nothing in my post that could possibly make a literate person
believe I was planning to burglarize *your* home, and yet your first
instinct was to thump your chest and warn off all potential intruders.

Where did I say I was looking for a fight? and I don't feel threatened,
you come burglarizing my home and you are the one looking for a fight
and will certainly feel threathened. You are the one who brought it up,
not me.

Just My Opinion. G

Bob

Chuck Harris wrote:
Robert Hawk wrote:

If you want to throw the bullsh*t and call it a hypothetical
Situation, Then
Hypotheticaly when you trespass onto his properity and into his domicile
He will "fear for his life" and blow your f*cking head off.

Hypothetically speaking that would be my approach to this issue..
As soon as I "fear for my life", in my own home or on my properity
as a result of your illegal entry, I WILL use Lethal Force to defend
myself.


As will I.
...

So, tell me, why do you feel so threatened that you need to announce
to the world (that is the audience here) that you are armed and looking
for a fight?



You read it your way I will read it my way..in My opinion,
this is you..... Massachusetts, home of, anti gun, kennedy, faggot,
democrat, bleeding heart Liberals..


Hmmm? Let's see, I have only been in Massachusetts twice. I am an NRA
life member. I think Teddy Kennedy is a murderer. I am a hetrosexual,
a Republican, and a conservative. You missed on all counts... So much for
your ability to devine.

This was a discussion about BAMA, ebay and manuals.

And then you brought up the subject of burglarizing someones home. Quite
a bit different than downloading some manuals that are even questionable
as to who may or may not have copyrights.

Chuck Harris wrote:
Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:

Chuck Harris wrote:


Right he


If I go into your house and steal all of your belongings, and then
give them to Goodwill, out of the goodness of my heart, then it's
ok, right?


If you think you can get past the .44 magnum, go ahead.

You are challenging me to burglarize your house so you can try and
shoot me.



Get a life chuckie, I in no way was 'challenging' you to burglarize my
home, you are the one that first mentioned burglarizing. I simply said
if you do, then be prepared to face the consenquences.


No, you said if I think I can get past your 44 magnum, go ahead.

That is a challenge.

Only if *you* make it a challenge. I just stated what would happen if
you were to actually carry out your hypothetical question.


My hypothetical question, shown above was an attempt to help you to
understand that it doesn't matter whether or not a thief sells, or
gives away stolen property, a crime has still occurred.



And as I said, as long as it remains hypothetical, then you have
nothing to worry about.


I never worry about people who tell me what violent things they are going
to do to me.

As long as you don't do something to warrent those violent things, then
you have nothing to worry about.

That is usually just bravado from cowards spouting off.

Anyone who should attempt to break into my home and I am there, will
find out for sure. That isn't hypothetical, that is a fact.

Robert Hawk wrote:
If you want to throw the bullsh*t and call it a hypothetical Situation, Then
Hypotheticaly when you trespass onto his properity and into his domicile
He will "fear for his life" and blow your f*cking head off.

Hypothetically speaking that would be my approach to this issue..
As soon as I "fear for my life", in my own home or on my properity
as a result of your illegal entry, I WILL use Lethal Force to defend myself.

As will I.
....

So, tell me, why do you feel so threatened that you need to announce
to the world (that is the audience here) that you are armed and looking
for a fight?


You read it your way I will read it my way..in My opinion,
this is you..... Massachusetts, home of, anti gun, kennedy, faggot,
democrat, bleeding heart Liberals..

Hmmm? Let's see, I have only been in Massachusetts twice. I am an NRA
life member. I think Teddy Kennedy is a murderer. I am a hetrosexual,
a Republican, and a conservative. You missed on all counts... So much for
your ability to devine.

This was a discussion about BAMA, ebay and manuals. For some reason, you
guys want it to be about posturing and not so veiled threats. I hope you are
more calm in real life.

Y'all carry on.

-Chuck