Roy Lewallen wrote in
:

You can get information about copyrights at http://www.uspto.gov.
There's no doubt that the original copyright is still in force, since
the term of a copyright is much longer than 30 years. (They've changed
it recently -- I think it was from 75 to 125 years, under the urging of
Disney, whose early copyrights were expiring.) Unless sold, a copyright
owned by an individual becomes part of a deceased's estate, so if the
author held the original copyright, it's probably owned by the author's
heirs. If it was held by Ham Radio magazine, it might be owned by CQ,
who took over Communications Quarterly, the successor to Ham Radio; or
the ARRL, who took Communications Quarterly over from CQ. Or possibly
Craig Clark, who bought the Ham Radio Bookstore from Ham Radio years
ago. Or, the author might have had an agreement with the publisher to
have the copyright revert back to him from the publisher after some
period, in which case the heirs have it.

Of course, you can copy small portions for various uses under the "fair
use" doctrine. But copying the whole thing would almost certainly be a
copyright violation.

If you're really interested, I'd recommend seeing a qualified attorney
before you proceed. I'm not one, and what I say shouldn't be taken as
legal advice.



Here's what I don't understand about copyright law. If a hobbyist wants to
photocopy out of print work for his own use, or even to redistibute to
others with like interests, how is it a copyright violation unless he
either profits from it, or deprives the legal owner of the copyright from
profit?

I understand the concept - I just don't understand the way the law is
applied these days.

Need to apply the "Reasonable Man" theory. If it would be reasonable for
the copyright holder to profit, then he has been damaged. A copy,
distributed to a limited audience, for scientific use probably would fall
under a "fair use" exception. A "I have found this wonderful item, and
here it is" distributed to persons who would have purchased the item had it
not been distributed would be infringement. The subtle differences is why
we have courts, and a legal system.

--
73 es cul

wb3fup
a Salty Bear

"donut" wrote in message
...
Roy Lewallen wrote in
:

You can get information about copyrights at http://www.uspto.gov.
There's no doubt that the original copyright is still in force, since
the term of a copyright is much longer than 30 years. (They've changed
it recently -- I think it was from 75 to 125 years, under the urging of
Disney, whose early copyrights were expiring.) Unless sold, a copyright
owned by an individual becomes part of a deceased's estate, so if the
author held the original copyright, it's probably owned by the author's
heirs. If it was held by Ham Radio magazine, it might be owned by CQ,
who took over Communications Quarterly, the successor to Ham Radio; or
the ARRL, who took Communications Quarterly over from CQ. Or possibly
Craig Clark, who bought the Ham Radio Bookstore from Ham Radio years
ago. Or, the author might have had an agreement with the publisher to
have the copyright revert back to him from the publisher after some
period, in which case the heirs have it.

Of course, you can copy small portions for various uses under the "fair
use" doctrine. But copying the whole thing would almost certainly be a
copyright violation.

If you're really interested, I'd recommend seeing a qualified attorney
before you proceed. I'm not one, and what I say shouldn't be taken as
legal advice.



Here's what I don't understand about copyright law. If a hobbyist wants
to
photocopy out of print work for his own use, or even to redistibute to
others with like interests, how is it a copyright violation unless he
either profits from it, or deprives the legal owner of the copyright from
profit?

I understand the concept - I just don't understand the way the law is
applied these days.

Every once in a while I point out what the copyright or patent law says.
I almost always get responses from people who feel they should be able
to do something other than the law states -- for example, a lot of
people feel that they should be able to build a patented item for their
own personal use, while the law specifically forbids it. Or photocopy a
book that's out of print. And so forth. I think most people don't really
want to know what the law says -- they'd rather keep their notion of
what they think it should say.

I don't make the laws. I don't enforce them. And, shoot, I'm not even
qualified to say what they are or what they mean. Anyone really
interested in learning what the laws say can go to http://www.uspto.gov
or a bunch of other authoritative sources. Better yet, see a qualified
attorney, who can also tell you how they're enforced. Then do whatever
it is your conscience (or rationalization) lets you do. Most people are
probably going to do what they want anyway, no matter what the laws say,
and come with reasons to justify it.

Want to know why the law says what it does? Ask your congressperson.
Have a complaint? Tell your congressperson. But be warned -- people who
like sausages or have respect for the law shouldn't look too closely at
how either is made. And it ain't pretty.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

donut wrote:

Here's what I don't understand about copyright law. If a hobbyist wants to
photocopy out of print work for his own use, or even to redistibute to
others with like interests, how is it a copyright violation unless he
either profits from it, or deprives the legal owner of the copyright from
profit?

I understand the concept - I just don't understand the way the law is
applied these days.

Need to apply the "Reasonable Man" theory. If it would be reasonable for
the copyright holder to profit, then he has been damaged. A copy,
distributed to a limited audience, for scientific use probably would fall
under a "fair use" exception. A "I have found this wonderful item, and
here it is" distributed to persons who would have purchased the item had it
not been distributed would be infringement. The subtle differences is why
we have courts, and a legal system.

--
73 es cul

wb3fup
a Salty Bear

"donut" wrote in message
...
Roy Lewallen wrote in
:

You can get information about copyrights at http://www.uspto.gov.
There's no doubt that the original copyright is still in force, since
the term of a copyright is much longer than 30 years. (They've changed
it recently -- I think it was from 75 to 125 years, under the urging of
Disney, whose early copyrights were expiring.) Unless sold, a copyright
owned by an individual becomes part of a deceased's estate, so if the
author held the original copyright, it's probably owned by the author's
heirs. If it was held by Ham Radio magazine, it might be owned by CQ,
who took over Communications Quarterly, the successor to Ham Radio; or
the ARRL, who took Communications Quarterly over from CQ. Or possibly
Craig Clark, who bought the Ham Radio Bookstore from Ham Radio years
ago. Or, the author might have had an agreement with the publisher to
have the copyright revert back to him from the publisher after some
period, in which case the heirs have it.

Of course, you can copy small portions for various uses under the "fair
use" doctrine. But copying the whole thing would almost certainly be a
copyright violation.

If you're really interested, I'd recommend seeing a qualified attorney
before you proceed. I'm not one, and what I say shouldn't be taken as
legal advice.



Here's what I don't understand about copyright law. If a hobbyist wants
to
photocopy out of print work for his own use, or even to redistibute to
others with like interests, how is it a copyright violation unless he
either profits from it, or deprives the legal owner of the copyright from
profit?

I understand the concept - I just don't understand the way the law is
applied these days.

Every once in a while I point out what the copyright or patent law says.
I almost always get responses from people who feel they should be able
to do something other than the law states -- for example, a lot of
people feel that they should be able to build a patented item for their
own personal use, while the law specifically forbids it. Or photocopy a
book that's out of print. And so forth. I think most people don't really
want to know what the law says -- they'd rather keep their notion of
what they think it should say.

I don't make the laws. I don't enforce them. And, shoot, I'm not even
qualified to say what they are or what they mean. Anyone really
interested in learning what the laws say can go to http://www.uspto.gov
or a bunch of other authoritative sources. Better yet, see a qualified
attorney, who can also tell you how they're enforced. Then do whatever
it is your conscience (or rationalization) lets you do. Most people are
probably going to do what they want anyway, no matter what the laws say,
and come with reasons to justify it.

Want to know why the law says what it does? Ask your congressperson.
Have a complaint? Tell your congressperson. But be warned -- people who
like sausages or have respect for the law shouldn't look too closely at
how either is made. And it ain't pretty.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

donut wrote:

Here's what I don't understand about copyright law. If a hobbyist wants to
photocopy out of print work for his own use, or even to redistibute to
others with like interests, how is it a copyright violation unless he
either profits from it, or deprives the legal owner of the copyright from
profit?

I understand the concept - I just don't understand the way the law is
applied these days.