Skipp wrote:
Hello there,

I'm looking for you old tired stack of 73 and Ham Radio Magazines just to
read at my pleasure. I'll be scanning some of the better articles into pdf
files and making them available to others for free. Many of you have
already seen the www.radiowrench.com/sonic web page.
. . .

Have you obtained permission from the copyright owners to do this?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Skipp wrote:

Hello there,
I'm looking for you old tired stack of 73 and Ham Radio Magazines just
to read at my pleasure. I'll be scanning some of the better articles
into pdf files and making them available to others for free. Many of
you have already seen the www.radiowrench.com/sonic web page. . . .


Have you obtained permission from the copyright owners to do this?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL
I think the ARRL now has the rights to Ham Radio and you can buy
CD's from them. I don't know who has the rights to 73, but I suspect
Wayne never gave that up. Pop'tronics was part of Gensback up to a few
years ago (maybe he only got the right to the NAME and not the original
magazine contents.) Of the other electronics magazines which are
long out of bussiness .... who knows?

From: Ken Scharf on Wed, Feb 15 2006 9:49 pm

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Skipp wrote:

Hello there,
I'm looking for you old tired stack of 73 and Ham Radio Magazines just
to read at my pleasure. I'll be scanning some of the better articles
into pdf files and making them available to others for free. Many of
you have already seen the www.radiowrench.com/sonic web page. . . .

Have you obtained permission from the copyright owners to do this?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

I think the ARRL now has the rights to Ham Radio and you can buy
CD's from them.

Not quite. Communications Technology, Inc. (parent to Ham Radio
Magazine) was sold to CQ in 1990. CQ scanned and produced the
3-volume set of CDs containing all 22 years of HR's articles.
ARRL resells a lot of products. That doesn't mean they "own"
the copyright. ARRL resells a lot of RSGB publications but
doesn't own the copyrights of the Radio Society of Great Britain.

I don't know who has the rights to 73, but I suspect
Wayne never gave that up. Pop'tronics was part of Gensback up to a few
years ago (maybe he only got the right to the NAME and not the original
magazine contents.) Of the other electronics magazines which are
long out of bussiness .... who knows?

Copyrights are valid from the first publication until 50 years
after the death of the copyright holder. [death of a corporation
presumably is the same as total quitting of it] "Publication" is
almost any form of media that is visible to the "public," and
that includes anything written on the Internet as an example.

One doesn't have to "file papers" to establish a copyright
although that is most convenient if some civil court dispute
comes to trial. Copyright suits are almost always held in
a civil court, not a criminal court; the federal government
can bring suit in a federal court for flagrant violations of
the copyright law.

The "copyright law" is in Title 17, United States Code. One of
the big revisions of United States copyright law was Public Law
94-553, 17 October 1976. In the USA, Congress maintains the
Copyright Office. Congress has a rather large website which
includes much information on copyrights (you can search under
"copyright law" to get the URL...nice FAQ on copyrights there).

Depending on the terms of a "work" sold to a publisher, the
publisher usually has first rights (as in copyrights) to that
work. The author may, depending on the contract (the monetary
compensation) may have the right to publish/distribute that
work AFTER the first-rights holder has published it. In my
case, I can repro and distribute any article that I authored
in HR as I wish...the conditions of my compensation contract.
I cannot do the same with any article I edited for them; such
is not considered "original work."

In short, you just can't willy-nilly repro any work from a
private/civilian-business publisher without their permission.
You CAN repro any work done by the United States government;
the US government is forbidden by law to hold copyrights.
Note: The US government CAN hold a patent, but patents are
a different category and handled by a different agency.

A grey area is the "fair use" part of the copyright law. A
"fair use" item is PART of the original work which can be used
by itself as a reference or partial reproduction in a news
article or textbook. Almost all textbooks contain such items
and it is politely customary to refer to the original if that
is done.



former Associate Editor at Ham Radio and sometime contributor

wrote:

From: Ken Scharf on Wed, Feb 15 2006 9:49 pm


Roy Lewallen wrote:

Skipp wrote:

Have you obtained permission from the copyright owners to do this?


Every instance I've had at contacting original writers has said yes and
publishers have simply not responded, or responded with unintelligible
legalise CYA BS.
As has been explained to me that published articles become the domain of
the publisher and the original writer has no legal say. Who knows what
their 'contributing writer' contract says.
Given the small niche of reproduction as compared to 'the law'...just do
the drill and if someone says stop, then stop. Keep about $3 in a legal
escrow for the one asshole guy who would make a case out of it.

- exray - wrote:

Every instance I've had at contacting original writers has said yes and
publishers have simply not responded, or responded with unintelligible
legalise CYA BS.
As has been explained to me that published articles become the domain of
the publisher and the original writer has no legal say. Who knows what
their 'contributing writer' contract says.
Given the small niche of reproduction as compared to 'the law'...just do
the drill and if someone says stop, then stop. Keep about $3 in a legal
escrow for the one asshole guy who would make a case out of it.

I suggest keeping more like $20,000. The last time I checked with my
lawyer, that was the maximum penalty for willful copyright infringement,
in addition to any monetary damages which could be proved. All that's
necessary to get the $20k, I was told, is to prove that the infringement
was willful, not that any financial damage occurred. But that was quite
a number of years ago, and in any case this shouldn't be taken as legal
advice or fact. Anyone contemplating willful infringement would be well
advised to check with his own lawyer. Tangling with that "one asshole
guy" could be an experience to remember.

People seem to have less and less compunction against stealing
intellectual property, I suppose because it keeps getting easier to do.
Rationalizations are as diverse and original as fertile minds can
create. The ultimate result will be that eventually, nobody will bother
creating anything original.

Incidentally, I was told by the ARRL that authors of articles in all
their publications are given blanket permission to put a copy of
articles they've written on their own web site, with appropriate
acknowledgment that the ARRL owns the copyright and reproduction is by
permission. That's generous of them.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Hi Roy,

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
I suggest keeping more like $20,000. The last time I checked with my lawyer,
that was the maximum penalty for willful copyright infringement, in addition
to any monetary damages which could be proved. All that's necessary to get
the $20k, I was told, is to prove that the infringement was willful, not
that any financial damage occurred.

This might be better posted at college libraries in the copy rooms where
students routinely Xerox entire books ostensibly because they can't afford the
real thing (which I suspect is rarely true, and it's usually more a case of
wanting to spend the money on an Xbox rather than a book)... rather than at
some ham who's scanning old magazines as a form of public service when the
originals are difficult to obtain for an audience that generally would pay for
them if they were.

People seem to have less and less compunction against stealing intellectual
property, I suppose because it keeps getting easier to do.

I agree with you in general, although I think that scanning old magazines and
books falls into a gray area where one is -- in all likelihood -- breaking the
letter of the law but generally not its spirit. I accept rationalizations
along those lines, just as I can't really fault someone who decided so travel
100Mph through some utterly uninhabited random road in Eastern Oregon. :-)
Still, anyone who is hauled into court can't really complain, but personally
I'd hope that some lawyer hoping to make an example would choose someone
posting to alt.binaries.e-book.technical (where 99% of the posts are clear
violations of the letter and spirit of copyright law) rather than the OP.

Rationalizations are as diverse and original as fertile minds can create.
The ultimate result will be that eventually, nobody will bother creating
anything original.

Only in some sort of idealist world. In the real world, original creations
will be generated so long as doing so puts bread on the table. Would you
rather sell 1,000 copies of a 99% copy-proof program at $10,000 each or
1,000,000 copies of a pretty-readily-copyable program at $100 each? Bill
Gates clearly prefers the later.

As you're probably aware, Don Lancaster makes a good point that the
oft-heralded intellectual property protection device of the patent really
doesn't do you much good in the real world, at least until you're a very large
company. Tektronix seemed to be using this approach decades back when the
comprehensive use of T-coils to obtain wider frequency respones was a
well-protected inside secret, no?

Incidentally, I was told by the ARRL that authors of articles in all their
publications are given blanket permission to put a copy of articles they've
written on their own web site, with appropriate acknowledgment that the ARRL
owns the copyright and reproduction is by permission. That's generous of
them.

I suppose it is, but these days you can't make any decent money writing for
the ARRL or the magazines, and as such publications have to be pretty generous
in what they offer because they're effectively asking for significant
donations of intellectual property by their authors.

---Joel Kolstad

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:32:52 -0800, "Joel Kolstad"
wrote:

This might be better posted at college libraries in the copy rooms where
students routinely Xerox entire books ostensibly because they can't afford the
real thing (which I suspect is rarely true, and it's usually more a case of
wanting to spend the money on an Xbox rather than a book)... rather than at
some ham who's scanning old magazines as a form of public service when the
originals are difficult to obtain for an audience that generally would pay for
them if they were.

Just to add some fuel to the fire.

Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Limitations on exclusive
rights: Fair Use
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified in that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright."

73,
Danny, KMHE





email: k6mheatarrldotnet
http://www.k6mhe.com/

From: Joel Kolstad on Fri, Feb 17 2006 9:32 am

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message

I suggest keeping more like $20,000. The last time I checked with my lawyer,
that was the maximum penalty for willful copyright infringement, in addition
to any monetary damages which could be proved. All that's necessary to get
the $20k, I was told, is to prove that the infringement was willful, not
that any financial damage occurred.

People seem to have less and less compunction against stealing intellectual
property, I suppose because it keeps getting easier to do.

I agree with you in general, although I think that scanning old magazines and
books falls into a gray area where one is -- in all likelihood -- breaking the
letter of the law but generally not its spirit. I accept rationalizations
along those lines, just as I can't really fault someone who decided so travel
100Mph through some utterly uninhabited random road in Eastern Oregon. :-)

Unrelated "rationalizations." Breaking a law or rules or other
directives is still BREAKING something, purloining someone's
original work. Stealing.

In the exact words of THE LAW (copyright law in this case), it is
okay to make a copy FOR A VERY LIMITED USE such as a personal
reference or to help a friend. Where it becomes a BREAKING is if
it is done TO MAKE MONEY IN COPYING or gain something that
"belonged" to the original author (such as gain a reputation
without working for that "rep").

In Roy's case on EZNEC, he put in a lot of work in translation
of (totally copyable by law) U.S. government work into a useful
program of antenna analysis. Roy gets return on his investment of
time and uniqueness of result presentation on a computer by
selling copies of his work for money. There SHOULD be some
protection for such work by anyone in order to foster and preserve
original work...else there wouldn't be any point in doing original
work other than uncompensated personal pleasure in doing so.

Still, anyone who is hauled into court can't really complain, but personally
I'd hope that some lawyer hoping to make an example would choose someone
posting to alt.binaries.e-book.technical (where 99% of the posts are clear
violations of the letter and spirit of copyright law) rather than the OP.

No, such copyright-specialist attorneys wouldn't bother with such
small potatoes. They would go after the BIG violators...DVD
and CD copiers and those manufacturing firms making knock-off
copies of goods, the stealing of imagery (in graphics or words)
and trying to imply they are "as good" as a well-known brand.

Rationalizations are as diverse and original as fertile minds can create.
The ultimate result will be that eventually, nobody will bother creating
anything original.

ABSOLUTELY TRUE!

Only in some sort of idealist world. In the real world, original creations
will be generated so long as doing so puts bread on the table.

THIS is the real world. There's no "special case" that justifies
that idealistic rationalization you made...it is circular logic in
itself...in the real world.

"Originality" may occur in humans for a variety of reasons, usually
done to improve a personal situation, a way of doing things easier,
doing it better, so forth. However, the "originality" does NOT, by
itself, "put bread on the table." To do that requires much more
personal investment and effort to make the money that buys the
bread that is put on the table.

EZNEC is an example that applies here. The work that Roy did on
translation of (free) code, cleaning it up, making it presentable
in a meaningful manner to users, was considerable, much more so
than just getting the original program code to work. Why should
Roy give away such effort? To perform such a service "for the
good of hobbyists?" Hardly worth it to Roy. So, who else would
do so? Other than someone wanting a return on their investment
of time and effort?

Anyone can get a copy of the Methods of Moments computer program
written for the U.S. government. For free (discounting cost of
on-line charges for accessing the few sites having it). I have
an older copy. BIG it is! HUGE. My old copy is written in
FORTRAN (which I happen to speak). What it does NOT have for free
is a way of showing the results in anything but tabular form, no
graphics to instantly show the antenna patterns, VSWR of feed
point, RF currents, etc. If you don't speak tabular, the original
becomes WORK in trying to "see" the results. WORK, mind-sweat,
slogging through numbers that are seldom intuitive to everyone
without the graphic presentation. Roy MADE the graphical
presentation possible through his efforts. So did others in their
different adaptations of Method of Moments analysis programs.

Would you
rather sell 1,000 copies of a 99% copy-proof program at $10,000 each or
1,000,000 copies of a pretty-readily-copyable program at $100 each? Bill
Gates clearly prefers the later.

Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Microsoft are IRRELEVANT here. There's
NO SUCH THING as a "copy-proof program." If it is a useable
program, then it CAN - eventually - be copied; the only true
"copy-proof program" is something that no one can use.

Microsoft became a software giant through lots and lots of OTHER
kinds of time/effort investment plus savvy in salesmanship...not
to overlook their Big Break in selling their operating system
(with THEM still owning the copyrights) to IBM for the IBM PC.

Without the protection of the copyright law, Microsoft could
never have made that Big Break that started their humongous
incoming cash flow.

As you're probably aware, Don Lancaster makes a good point that the
oft-heralded intellectual property protection device of the patent really
doesn't do you much good in the real world, at least until you're a very large
company.

Don Lancaster is a clever writer and marketer of himself, not a
guru of electronics. Patent Law is a separate issue from
copyright law. The protection of original work is the same in
principle.

Tektronix seemed to be using this approach decades back when the
comprehensive use of T-coils to obtain wider frequency respones was a
well-protected inside secret, no?

"T-coils?" Wide bandwidth video amplifiers were no big secret
in the later 1940s when Vollum got Tektronix started with the
first accurate, reproducible oscilloscopes...accurate in their
sweep timing as well as vertical volts per division scaling.
Note: I began electronics using a Tektronix 511AD after trying
to get a Dumont 'scope kluge to yield meaningful results. Not
the same animal. Lots and lots of OTHER innovations inside the
Tektronix 'scopes that made their reputation in later years.

Incidentally, I was told by the ARRL that authors of articles in all their
publications are given blanket permission to put a copy of articles they've
written on their own web site, with appropriate acknowledgment that the ARRL
owns the copyright and reproduction is by permission. That's generous of
them.

[no, NOT "generous"...see following]

I suppose it is, but these days you can't make any decent money writing for
the ARRL or the magazines, and as such publications have to be pretty generous
in what they offer because they're effectively asking for significant
donations of intellectual property by their authors.

ARRL is primarily a publishing house in order to make the rest of
their organization viable. As such, ALL work for them is on a
"first rights" basis. That is, they get first crack at publishing
a contracted work...AND the continued publishing of such work for
years without ANY extra compensation to authors. It's essentially
the same as the "ego press" (private publishers who are just
preparer-printers where the author pays for that printing service).

The only ones who make any money in hobby publications are the
publishers themselves. Look at the author's compensation statements
on the ARRL website to see how little money authors receive.
Authors
get mainly the ego-trip of Being Published. For some that is
compensation enough, but ego money doesn't put bread on the table.

Been there, done that, got the table and the bread.

Interesting stuff. What are some series resonant oscillators besides the
Butler?

JJ

Yes, where possible and practical I have. I always try to ask the
original authors direct for permission to repost articles and text
and we never sell anything. See you at Dayton Roy...

cheers,
skipp

: Roy Lewallen wrote:
: Skipp wrote:
: Hello there,
:
: I'm looking for you old tired stack of 73 and Ham Radio Magazines just to
: read at my pleasure. I'll be scanning some of the better articles into pdf
: files and making them available to others for free. Many of you have
: already seen the www.radiowrench.com/sonic web page.
: . . .
: Have you obtained permission from the copyright owners to do this?
: Roy Lewallen, W7EL