Those Old Study Guides
 

On Jan 26, 9:25 pm, Dave Heil wrote:
If anyone has questions about how the license manual questions and
material have evolved through the years, I have the 1938, 1940, 1947,
1955, 1963, 1973, 1974 and 1975 ARRL License manuals and would be happy
to field questions.

Dave K8MN

Sheesh! It sure took you a lot of tries to become a ham.

Those Old Study Guides
 

John Smith I wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in news:SKyuh.17581$w91.2494
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

If anyone has questions about how the license manual questions and
material have evolved through the years, I have the 1938, 1940, 1947,
1955, 1963, 1973, 1974 and 1975 ARRL License manuals and would be
happy to field questions.


Are those things still under copyright Dave? Scanning them and
putting them on the web would be a tremendous asset, as well as
interesting. I could provide the space.

I'm pretty sure that they are still covered under copyright. The
scanning could take a long, long time.

Dave K8MN

Federal tests are copyrighted?

When ARRL, W5YI, and AMECO put their cover page on it... or provide
"explanation and/or interpretation" with the questions.

What is wrong with that picture? If they are using my tax dollars, they
are mine and everyone elses!

JS

What's wrong with scarfing up a dozen callsigns? The Government just
allocates more.

Those Old Study Guides
 

Dee Flint wrote:

...
Here's a site that summarizes if documents are still under copyright or not.

http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/tra...lic_Domain.htm

Basically if the work was published in 1923 or later, there is a potential
for it to be still under copyright. Copyright laws have changed a lot.

Dee, N8UZE



Dee:

I believe I was the first one here to point out the limitations of
copyright laws, and how Disney paid certain representatives of ours to
lengthen these laws to protect works which were still generating
substantial income ...

Google is publishing many works which are expired as is the gutenberg
project ...

But, in a nutshell, that rule above, you state, is a good "rule of thumb."

Regards,
JS

Those Old Study Guides
 

Dee Flint wrote:

...
Basically if the work was published in 1923 or later, there is a potential
for it to be still under copyright. Copyright laws have changed a lot.

Dee, N8UZE



Dee:

I forgot to mention, many works had expired their copyrights BEFORE the
representatives were paid off to lengthen that law--those works STILL
remain un-copyrighted. So, in effect, each older work has to be
researched to make a copyright determination--just another layer of
difficulty in an already difficult world ...

Warmest regards,
JS

Those Old Study Guides
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
But they did, didn't they?

Yes, they did. But their old clunker had thrown a rod the
last trip we made to Houston and they thought it might
happen again. My Mother (God rest her soul) harped at me
about breaking down for the entire six hour round trip. She
wasn't proud that I passed - she just asked if I scored 100.
I wonder how many hams rode to the FCC office in a vehicle
that was manufactured before they were born? :-)

I had a rough time talking my parents into getting me my first
radios. I had to convince them I was serious. Perhaps the same
situation existed for you?

My parents made me pay for my ham rig out of my grocery
store earnings before they would take me to get my license.
That was my test of seriousness. I already had an S-53, a
Globetrotter, and a 40m dipole before I took my Novice exam.
After I received my license, I couldn't get the Globetrotter
to load so I traded it in on a Globe Scout. All the Globetrotter
had for an output was a link coupling wound on the final tank
coil. Thank goodness, the Globe Scout had an adjustable pi-net
output. :-)

I bought my ham gear on time payments and was making 50 cents
an hour at the time working on Saturdays. Can you imagine an
out-of-state company trusting a 14 year old teenager on a time
payment contract nowadays with no co-signer?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Those Old Study Guides
 

John Smith I wrote:
Federal tests are copyrighted?
What is wrong with that picture? If they are using my tax dollars, they
are mine and everyone elses!

Can they be published under the freedom of information act?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Those Old Study Guides
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
But they did, didn't they?

Yes, they did. But their old clunker had thrown a rod the
last trip we made to Houston and they thought it might
happen again. My Mother (God rest her soul) harped at me
about breaking down for the entire six hour round trip. She
wasn't proud that I passed - she just asked if I scored 100.
I wonder how many hams rode to the FCC office in a vehicle
that was manufactured before they were born? :-)

I had a rough time talking my parents into getting me my first radios.
I had to convince them I was serious. Perhaps the same situation
existed for you?

My parents made me pay for my ham rig out of my grocery
store earnings before they would take me to get my license.
That was my test of seriousness. I already had an S-53, a
Globetrotter, and a 40m dipole before I took my Novice exam.
After I received my license, I couldn't get the Globetrotter
to load so I traded it in on a Globe Scout. All the Globetrotter
had for an output was a link coupling wound on the final tank
coil. Thank goodness, the Globe Scout had an adjustable pi-net
output. :-)

I bought my ham gear on time payments and was making 50 cents
an hour at the time working on Saturdays. Can you imagine an
out-of-state company trusting a 14 year old teenager on a time
payment contract nowadays with no co-signer?

Cecil:

My gawd man, I wonder what it took to build character like you have
demonstrated. Some of that might have killed me (that might not all be
a joke either.)

Good job man. Well done. I'd imagine your mother and father were damn
proud of you, whether they were ever able to state such or not ... my
own story would pale in comparison :(

Warmest regards,
JS

Those Old Study Guides
 

On Jan 28, 8:48 am, wrote:
On Jan 27, 10:04?pm, wrote: On Jan 26, 6:44 pm, wrote: On Jan 25, 7:52?pm, Cecil Moore wrote:


Being
the only ham in a room full of grumbling commercial guys was a bit
unnerving . . sorta like "OK kid just do it and hit the road."Those are just two data points, and if you went in the fall and
spring, you missed the big summer push.

Makes sense. I took both my Novice and General exams in the fall and
never even noticed any "big summer push".

Back then the shipping industry was advertising heavily for radio ops
and Philly was a big port. The guys taking the commercial tests tended
to be on the shaggy side like sailors rather than white-collar types
looking for jobs at broadcast stations. I've always thought that
somehow this is why I got swamped by 'em when I took my exams

In any event, work overload at FCC was the cited reason for the
change.

The reasons they cited and the reality of it were probably two
different critters. Even back then it was obvious that the FCC was
working on getting out of the ham testing biz.


All the ham licenses
except Novice cost money - you musta just missed the fee thing in '68.
I think it was $9 back then.

That was during the incentive licensing thrash when the regs changed
monthly. I guess I got lucky.

I swapped my old 2x3 3-land call for N2EY in '77 as well, when I moved
to the Empire State. Sequentially issued and free, not a vanity call.
Kept it when I moved back.

There's another example of rapid-fire changes in the regs. When I went
for my '77 casllsign swap you submitted a list of the specific calls
you would like to have, w3rv was not a sequentially issued callsign.
You had to comb thru the print version of the callbook to find open
1x2 callsigns before submitting your list. PIA. My first choice was
w3ru but somebody ahead of me in the line got w3ru so I got my second
choice and became w3rv.

I did the trip to Gettysburg with Nick k3nl. A couple years ago he e-
mailed me and told me w3ru had just become available and told me to go
for it.

Yeah, right. Not hardly!

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

b.

Those Old Study Guides
 

From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Jan 28 2007 9:04 am

"John Smith I" wrote in message

John,

Here's a site that summarizes if documents are still under copyright or not.

http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/tra...lic_Domain.htm

I would suggest going to the SOURCE of all US Copyright
information and protection:

www.copyright.gov

The Copyright Office has a number of quite-clear pages on exactly
what a Copyright IS, who is protected, what constitutes a
Copyright, etc.

Basically if the work was published in 1923 or later, there is a potential
for it to be still under copyright. Copyright laws have changed a lot.

Not quite correct. The first major upheaval in US Copyright
Law of "modern times" happened with Public Law 94-553
passed on 19 Oct 76.

As of 1 Jan 78, any work created on or after that date was
protected for "life plus 50," or the lifetime of the author
or corporate entity plus 50 years. This was later amended
to "life plus 70" [see PL 105-298]

Any work created BEFORE 1 Jan 78 had a number of different
protections, between 28 and 47 years after creation. After
the URAA (Uruguay Round Agreements Act) that was
amended to 75 years with a possible total of 95 years. To
pin those protections down to nit-picky detail would require
the aid of a Copyright attorney who must include changes
from Public Law 105-298. Legal help is suggested when
there is question of a change of ownership of Copyrights, a
subject much more convoluted in details.

In essence, by Law, government works CANNOT be
copyrighted. A corporate entity (such as the ARRL) CAN
copyright their works but there is a very grey area on who
owns what when such entities INCLUDE non-copyrightable
works such as government regulations.

For the complete regulations on Patents, Trademarks, and
Copyrights see Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations available
free for download from the US Government Printing Office
website.

Those Old Study Guides