Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
keith bowers
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist's Handbook 26 as an e-Book

A friend of mine recently sent me a heads up. Someone posted
Machinist's Handbook #26 on newsgroup alt.binaries.e-book.flood
on Dec. 18. as hundreds of ".rr" files. Not sure if they are usable or not.

The FAQ for those newsgroups is located at: http://ebook.23ae.com/

Enjoy.
--
Keith Bowers - Thomasville, NC
  #2   Report Post  
Jim Stewart
 
Posts: n/a
Default

keith bowers wrote:

A friend of mine recently sent me a heads up. Someone posted
Machinist's Handbook #26 on newsgroup alt.binaries.e-book.flood
on Dec. 18. as hundreds of ".rr" files. Not sure if they are usable or not.

The FAQ for those newsgroups is located at: http://ebook.23ae.com/


Copyright issues aside, I prefer one nice paid-for
book. I like the way it develops it's own index
marks to the tapping and threading pages (:


  #3   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"keith bowers" wrote in message
...
A friend of mine recently sent me a heads up. Someone posted
Machinist's Handbook #26 on newsgroup alt.binaries.e-book.flood
on Dec. 18. as hundreds of ".rr" files. Not sure if they are usable or

not.

The FAQ for those newsgroups is located at: http://ebook.23ae.com/

Enjoy.
--
Keith Bowers - Thomasville, NC


It may be useable or not, but it's highly illegal in either case. Industrial
Press is pretty serious about protecting their copyrights.

--
Ed Huntress


  #4   Report Post  
Richard J Kinch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ed Huntress writes:

It may be useable or not, but it's highly illegal in either case.


Malum prohibitum, not malum in se. The "highly" is a religious sentiment.

The US Supreme Court decided quite a while ago, you can't copyright facts,
collections of facts, arrangments of facts, diagrams of facts, tables of
facts, formulas, recipes, etc.

The text of MH is largely such material, interspersed with some original
commentary. The copyright covers only the latter.

The Internet calls even that much into question. Copyright in practice
only counts for some multiple of the cost of copying. The less it costs to
copy, the less things can be copyrighted. Publishing on paper or discs in
order to artificially boost costs is a hopeless copyright-reification
strategy.

The morality of copyright was based on (1) significant costs of copying,
and (2) somebody making money on unauthorized copies. Both have vanished.

The world has changed, Ed.
  #5   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
. ..
Ed Huntress writes:

It may be useable or not, but it's highly illegal in either case.


Malum prohibitum, not malum in se. The "highly" is a religious sentiment.

The US Supreme Court decided quite a while ago, you can't copyright facts,
collections of facts, arrangments of facts, diagrams of facts, tables of
facts, formulas, recipes, etc.

The text of MH is largely such material, interspersed with some original
commentary. The copyright covers only the latter.


No. It covers every representation of the data, including its organization,
selection, and (if this is really the MH's PDF version online, as someone
said it was a year or two ago), the specific graphics, the proportions of
the tables, and so on.

This is stuff I've lived with for years, Richard. I had to review the status
of copyright law just a couple of years ago. In publishing, we live and die
by this stuff.


The Internet calls even that much into question. Copyright in practice
only counts for some multiple of the cost of copying. The less it costs

to
copy, the less things can be copyrighted. Publishing on paper or discs in
order to artificially boost costs is a hopeless copyright-reification
strategy.

The morality of copyright was based on (1) significant costs of copying,
and (2) somebody making money on unauthorized copies. Both have vanished.

The world has changed, Ed.


Try it and see what happens. Make sure you have a good lawyer when you do.

--
Ed Huntress




  #6   Report Post  
Richard J Kinch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ed Huntress writes:

No. It covers every representation of the data,


Like I said, malum prohibitum, not malum in se. You're correct in the
sense of a legal theory, and a litigation tactic, only. But in conflict
with _Feist_. Data in a table of, oh, thread data, is in the public
domain. The aspect ratio of the table is an original work? Puh-leeze.

The tap-drill table in MH is the same as any other I've seen. Are you
claiming *that* is IP's property? Which mathematical formulas belong to
them?

Try it and see what happens.


No thanks, I don't have to. MH has been on a.b.e for years. Who has been
prosecuted?
  #7   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
. ..
Ed Huntress writes:

No. It covers every representation of the data,


Like I said, malum prohibitum, not malum in se. You're correct in the
sense of a legal theory, and a litigation tactic, only. But in conflict
with _Feist_. Data in a table of, oh, thread data, is in the public
domain.


The person who posted the message was not talking about thread data. He was
talking about a multi-part copy of _Machinery's Handbook_.

The tap-drill table in MH is the same as any other I've seen. Are you
claiming *that* is IP's property? Which mathematical formulas belong to
them?


I said representations. You can't copy their pages, whether they were
electronic or printed. I have the CD of the 26th Edition. The copyright
declarations are all over it, and the trademarks are registered.

How far do you want to try pushing it?

--
Ed Huntress


  #8   Report Post  
???
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Richard,

You seem to be educated; are you TRYING to confuse others into doing the
wrong thing?

Copyright protects the FORM of the presentation. The facts as presented in
Machinist's are not what is copyrighted, it is their PRESENTATION. If
someone copies the presentation (hwether in print or electronically) without
the beneift of a license, then they are operating illegally. End of story.

How in the world do you think any publication becomes a viable venture for
profit under your way of operating?

--
Regards,
Dewey Clark
http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen
Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
. ..
Ed Huntress writes:

No. It covers every representation of the data,


Like I said, malum prohibitum, not malum in se. You're correct in the
sense of a legal theory, and a litigation tactic, only. But in conflict
with _Feist_. Data in a table of, oh, thread data, is in the public
domain. The aspect ratio of the table is an original work? Puh-leeze.

The tap-drill table in MH is the same as any other I've seen. Are you
claiming *that* is IP's property? Which mathematical formulas belong to
them?

Try it and see what happens.


No thanks, I don't have to. MH has been on a.b.e for years. Who has been
prosecuted?



  #9   Report Post  
B.B.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
keith bowers wrote:

A friend of mine recently sent me a heads up. Someone posted
Machinist's Handbook #26 on newsgroup alt.binaries.e-book.flood
on Dec. 18. as hundreds of ".rr" files. Not sure if they are usable or not.

The FAQ for those newsgroups is located at: http://ebook.23ae.com/

Enjoy.


I found my copy at a used books store--got it for $8, IIRC.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net
http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/
  #10   Report Post  
Richard J Kinch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ed Huntress writes:

The tap-drill table in MH is the same as any other I've seen. Are you
claiming *that* is IP's property? Which mathematical formulas belong to
them?


I said representations. You can't copy their pages, whether they were
electronic or printed. I have the CD of the 26th Edition. The copyright
declarations are all over it, and the trademarks are registered.


Representations of public domain facts may or may not be protected,
depending on whether there is any original authorship in the presentation
per se. For much of the information in MH, there just isn't any genuine
originality possible for the presentation. There are not that many ways
to present a mapping of one set (standard tap sizes) to another set (118
standard drill sizes).

So one could theoretically (and I am certainly not the one to be attempting
this as the guinea pig) copy all the "facts" out of MH and present it as
the most plain of HTML tables on Web pages.

The argument reduces to which elements of the book are facts vs which are
original authorship. In _Feist_, it was a table of names vs phone numbers.
In MH, it is taps vs drills. I would expect you could publish, say, an
HTML version of that table on the Web all you like. Indeed, Google will
find many instances of identical tabulated facts on the Web.

Yet preceding that table are a few paragraphs of prose, discussing how
drilling and tapping is performed, how twist drills typically oversize the
hole, how reaming is better for larger diameters and finer threads, etc.
This sort of prose has some originality of authorship and might be
protected. Even then, the ideas therein are not protected and must be
freely publishible. The latitude of original expression in technical
information is highly restricted compared to ordinary literary works.

Agreed, one cannot now scan the paper MH and publish images of it,
verbatim, legally. Likewise the CD. But much of the content is just
facts, not original expression. One could publish a somewhat thinner book,
entitled, "Every Dry Fact in MH". The argument would be simply details
about which items were facts versus which were original, and that is an
impossibly complex judgment. Some publishers (not IP, of course) use
exactly that complexity to their advantage to bully the world into
accepting their text as the proprietary version. That is exactly what
_Feist_ was supposed to clear up, but apparently some haven't heard.

How far do you want to try pushing it?


Not very far at all.

I am perplexed by how a book that is 4/5 public domain facts and 1/5
original prose can leverage that 1/5 to make itself the sole publication of
its type. You would think that the 4/5 would be freely available.

I'm also perplexed as to how the old theories of copyright can survive,
because they are based entirely on copies costing something to make, and
money changing hands for copies being made, neither of which is the case on
a.b.e.


  #11   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
.. .
Ed Huntress writes:

The tap-drill table in MH is the same as any other I've seen. Are you
claiming *that* is IP's property? Which mathematical formulas belong

to
them?


I said representations. You can't copy their pages, whether they were
electronic or printed. I have the CD of the 26th Edition. The copyright
declarations are all over it, and the trademarks are registered.


Representations of public domain facts may or may not be protected,
depending on whether there is any original authorship in the presentation
per se. For much of the information in MH, there just isn't any genuine
originality possible for the presentation. There are not that many ways
to present a mapping of one set (standard tap sizes) to another set (118
standard drill sizes).

So one could theoretically (and I am certainly not the one to be

attempting
this as the guinea pig) copy all the "facts" out of MH and present it as
the most plain of HTML tables on Web pages.

The argument reduces to which elements of the book are facts vs which are
original authorship. In _Feist_, it was a table of names vs phone

numbers.
In MH, it is taps vs drills. I would expect you could publish, say, an
HTML version of that table on the Web all you like. Indeed, Google will
find many instances of identical tabulated facts on the Web.

Yet preceding that table are a few paragraphs of prose, discussing how
drilling and tapping is performed, how twist drills typically oversize the
hole, how reaming is better for larger diameters and finer threads, etc.
This sort of prose has some originality of authorship and might be
protected. Even then, the ideas therein are not protected and must be
freely publishible. The latitude of original expression in technical
information is highly restricted compared to ordinary literary works.

Agreed, one cannot now scan the paper MH and publish images of it,
verbatim, legally. Likewise the CD.


Well, Richard, that's exactly what's been done here. And that's a violation
of copyright. That's the event being referred to, that's what happened, and
that's what I'm reacting to.

Industrial Press, like others who find themselves in this situation,
probably feels it isn't worth pursuing. You could get a cease-and-desist,
but money isn't being charged, so you aren't going to get anything back.
You've lost sales to a thief but you have no way to recover; you really have
no way to prove it; and it's going to cost you even more money trying.

So, once again, the Internet provides moral cretins with a way to steal from
people with no recourse. C'est la vie.


I am perplexed by how a book that is 4/5 public domain facts and 1/5
original prose can leverage that 1/5 to make itself the sole publication

of
its type. You would think that the 4/5 would be freely available.


It isn't "original prose" that's at issue. It's the research, and the
compilation, and the fact-checking, and the proofreading, and the printing
and distribution and...

You get the picture. McGraw-Hill once asked me to update _The American
Machinist's Handbook_. Since I wouldn't steal from _Machinery's Handbook_,
and since M-H hadn't updated the _AM Handbook_ since 1955, I decided it
wasn't going to be worth it, at then-current prices, to re-research and
re-compile the book. That was in 1981. Today, I wouldn't even dream of
depending upon royalties in an environment in which people find such theft
so easy to justify, and so easy to do.


I'm also perplexed as to how the old theories of copyright can survive,
because they are based entirely on copies costing something to make, and
money changing hands for copies being made, neither of which is the case

on
a.b.e.


Not. They are based on compensation for work, for creative production, and
for return on an investment. If I spend a year to two years updating _AMH_,
I expect to be compensated, not to have my work stolen, whether it's
published on paper or on a disc.

I assume you do the same.

--
Ed Huntress


  #12   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:56:24 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Ed Huntress writes:

The tap-drill table in MH is the same as any other I've seen. Are you
claiming *that* is IP's property? Which mathematical formulas belong to
them?


I said representations. You can't copy their pages, whether they were
electronic or printed. I have the CD of the 26th Edition. The copyright
declarations are all over it, and the trademarks are registered.


Representations of public domain facts may or may not be protected,
depending on whether there is any original authorship in the presentation
per se.


This is true as far as it goes, but the Supreme Court's test for
'original authorship' in compilation copyrights sets the bar pretty
low.

From the court decision in Feist:
Factual compilations, on the other hand, may possess the requisite
originality. The compilation author typically chooses which facts to
include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected
data so that they may be used effectively by readers. These choices as
to selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently
by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity, are
sufficiently original that Congress may protect such compilations
through the copyright laws. Nimmer ss 2.11[D], 3.03; Denicola 523, n.
38. Thus, even a directory that contains absolutely no protectible
written expression, only facts, meets the constitutional minimum for
copyright protection if it features an original selection or
arrangement. See: Harper & Row, 471 U.S., at 547, 105 S.Ct., at 2223.
Accord, Nimmer s 3.03.

(See http://stellar-one.com/copyright_and...logy/feist.htm
for an analysis and the decision)

I think you're being misled by the rather peculiar nature of the
situation in Feist. The data involved in Feist, a list of names and
associated phone numbers, is very reductionist example. Most
compilations of facts aren't nearly that bare and there is almost
always some selection involved.

For much of the information in MH, there just isn't any genuine
originality possible for the presentation. There are not that many ways
to present a mapping of one set (standard tap sizes) to another set (118
standard drill sizes).


No, but if you've got a number of such tables, the elements of
'selection and originality' can well begin to come into play in
choosing which tables to present.

So one could theoretically (and I am certainly not the one to be attempting
this as the guinea pig) copy all the "facts" out of MH and present it as
the most plain of HTML tables on Web pages.


I wouldn't bet on it. Consider this example from the legal analysis
presented on Bitlaw:

A database of facts is also protected as a compilation, assuming the
grouping contains enough original expression to merit protection (see
the discussion of Feist below). An example of a protectable grouping
of facts would be a database of Internet locations for selected legal
articles. Each location consists merely of factual information, namely
that a particular article can be found at a particular URL location on
the Internet. There is no copyright protection for each location.
Therefore, while the individual locations can be copied by others, if
an entire database of locations (or a substantial portion of the
database) were copied, the copyright in the compilation would be
infringed. The creative, original expression that is being protected
is the selection of locations for the database. If the locations were
divided by topic in the database, the organization of the database
would also be protected.

http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html#Feist

The argument reduces to which elements of the book are facts vs which are
original authorship.


Well, yes, but the court has held that selection and arrangmenet of
the facts can constitute an act of original authorship.

In _Feist_, it was a table of names vs phone numbers.
In MH, it is taps vs drills. I would expect you could publish, say, an
HTML version of that table on the Web all you like. Indeed, Google will
find many instances of identical tabulated facts on the Web.


Yep. However the situation becomes more complex when you consider a
whole set of such tables.

One of the confusing things in all this is that while a compilation
copyright protects the compilation it does not protect the underlying
facts if they are not otherwise protected.

From the Bitlaw article:

Thus, a database of unprotectable works (such as basic facts) is
protected only as a compilation. Since the underlying data is not
protected, U.S. copyright law does not prevent the extraction of
unprotected data from an otherwise protectable database. In the
example of a database of presidential quotations, it would therefore
not be a violation of copyright law to extract (copy) a quotation from
George Washington from the database. On the other hand, it would be
violation to copy the entire database, as long as the database met the
Feist originality and creativity requirements.

Yet preceding that table are a few paragraphs of prose, discussing how
drilling and tapping is performed, how twist drills typically oversize the
hole, how reaming is better for larger diameters and finer threads, etc.
This sort of prose has some originality of authorship and might be
protected.


There's no 'might be' in that case. That explanatory material _is_
protected. That's a well established principle.

Even then, the ideas therein are not protected and must be
freely publishible. The latitude of original expression in technical
information is highly restricted compared to ordinary literary works.


Agreed, one cannot now scan the paper MH and publish images of it,
verbatim, legally. Likewise the CD. But much of the content is just
facts, not original expression. One could publish a somewhat thinner book,
entitled, "Every Dry Fact in MH". The argument would be simply details
about which items were facts versus which were original, and that is an
impossibly complex judgment.


This is a key misunderstanding. The creativity and originality can lie
in the selection and arrangment of the material as well as in the
material itself.

Some publishers (not IP, of course) use
exactly that complexity to their advantage to bully the world into
accepting their text as the proprietary version.


If they can show sufficent originality and creativity in the
selection, then they're entitled to a compilation copyright -- see the
Supreme Court decision above. (But also consider the limits imposed by
the _Warren_ case cited below.)

That is exactly what _Feist_ was supposed to clear up, but apparently some haven't heard.

The problem is that you're reading something into _Feist_ that just
isn't there.

How far do you want to try pushing it?


Not very far at all.

I am perplexed by how a book that is 4/5 public domain facts and 1/5
original prose can leverage that 1/5 to make itself the sole publication of
its type. You would think that the 4/5 would be freely available.


The underlying facts, if they are public domain, aren't copyrighted
and may be freely used. But originality and creativity, as the court
defined them, aren't limited to the facts. They also apply to the
arrangement and selection of the facts. If you copy the arrangement
and selection you may well infringe the compilation copyright.

For another look at the whole situation see _Warren Publishing vs
Microdos Data", a report of which can be found he
http://www.alschuler.com/print/artrje2.html

In this case, the court set out three principles for compilation
copyrights: (quoted with snippage)

Principle (1): A selection of data is not copyrightable where the
entire universe is "selected," even if the compiler is the first to
think of compiling the information and even if the compilation is
commercially useful. . . .

Principle (2): A selection is not copyrightable where it is not the
result of the compiler's own judgment, even if the compiler is the
first to think of making the selection in the particular manner. The
selection is not a true selection if there is no room for creativity;
a copyrighted "selection" must be the result of the compiler's opinion
about something subjective (e.g., the compiler includes in a trivia
book certain facts from the universe of facts because of a belief that
they are the most interesting facts; the compiler includes facts about
15 restaurants in New York City from the universe of restaurants in
New York City based on a belief that they are the 15 best restaurants
in New York City; or the compiler includes facts about ten cable
systems based on a belief that they will still be in business in the
year 2000).

Principle (3): A "system" of selecting is not subject to copyright
protection even if it is creative and original.

I'm also perplexed as to how the old theories of copyright can survive,
because they are based entirely on copies costing something to make, and
money changing hands for copies being made, neither of which is the case on
a.b.e.


How are copyright theories based on copies costing something to make?

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.
  #13   Report Post  
Richard J Kinch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The underlying facts, if they are public domain, aren't copyrighted
and may be freely used. But originality and creativity, as the court
defined them, aren't limited to the facts. They also apply to the
arrangement and selection of the facts. If you copy the arrangement
and selection you may well infringe the compilation copyright.


"Arrangment", is a non-issue, because in the case of books like MH,
there is minimal authorship involved in the arrangment (order of
chapters, layout of tables, ho hum), but in any case it is trivial to
come up with an different "original" arrangement.

"Selection" is also a non-issue exactly for this type of book, because
the selection of "an encyclopedia of everything known in this subject"
(which is the "handbook" or "definitive reference" claim to value) is
not original. The database model really doesn't apply here, because the
subject is a motley collection of sundry facts, and there isn't some
database antecedent to what is in MH anyway.

I'm also perplexed as to how the old theories of copyright can
survive, because they are based entirely on copies costing something
to make, and money changing hands for copies being made, neither of
which is the case on a.b.e.


How are copyright theories based on copies costing something to make?


That's a conclusion I've made from my own unpublished analysis, which I
can't really detail now. But try this thought experiment: Imagine
anyone could clap three times and *poof* a perfect copy of a book
appears for free, in the privacy of your home. No printing press, no
bindery, just *poof*, it's there. No effort or expense on your part,
just speak the title and clap. Everyone then becomes either a clapping
copyright
criminal, or somebody who drives to Barnes and Noble and spends $25 for
a best-seller, when he could have stayed home and just clapped. An
entire publishing
industry is then based on people doing something much more difficult and
costly than has to be, assuming anybody honors the malum prohibitum of
clapping.

In short, in the ancient idea of copyright (actually only a few hundred
years old), the notion of a tangible "copy" was implicitly something
that took effort and materials (because until recently, it always
did--paper, ink, film, vinyl, whatever), and if someone was going to
that significant trouble and expense, it was the author's right to say
who.

As copying becomes a vanishingly trivial event (in the physical sense),
then the author's right
to control your vanishingly trivial (physical) actions vanishes. As the
lawyers say, the law does not deal with trifles.

Copyright *never* extended to trivial actions of copying: When you read
a book, you are forming images on your retinas that are copies, yet not
protected; you can make these copies all you like. Libraries can
project copies of a single paper book into limitless eyeballs for free.
DVD movies are copied within the electronic player every time they are
played. Such exceptions prove that the basis of copyright is absolutely
not copying per se; it is mere economic expedience, fitted arbitrarily
to each circumstance, and exclusive of trivial
actions, not some high principle of property rights. This is also
exhibited in the 1700s constitutional language of "limited times" and
the more recent doctrine of fair use.

And copying has become non-copying, that is, an altogether trivial
event. A fraction of a square mm of microscopic, invisible, magnetic
polarization patterns change from one jumble of bits to another.
Nothing else in the universe changed. This is a crime?
  #14   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 04:52:57 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

The underlying facts, if they are public domain, aren't copyrighted
and may be freely used. But originality and creativity, as the court
defined them, aren't limited to the facts. They also apply to the
arrangement and selection of the facts. If you copy the arrangement
and selection you may well infringe the compilation copyright.


"Arrangment", is a non-issue, because in the case of books like MH,
there is minimal authorship involved in the arrangment (order of
chapters, layout of tables, ho hum), but in any case it is trivial to
come up with an different "original" arrangement.


hot button ON

You've never been involved in one of these projects have you?

Let me tell you a little story.
Last year I worked for a company that was in the Internet yellow pages
business. One of my projects was to develop an ontology
(classification scheme) of about 5,000 entries for the business
listings on the company's web site. It took something like a total of
three person-months to develop and do rough testing on that
'arrangement' -- and that was followed by a lot more field testing.

As the guy who actually put the damn thing together, I had to work
closely with our database designers on one hand and our sales and
customer service people on the other to come up with the appropriate
arrangement. And we won't go into how many 'discussions' we had or how
much research some of us did to come up with the best design.

This was purely a matter of arrangement of facts -- in fact mapping a
set of standard categories to the appropriate synonyms. But it most
definitely met the tests for compilation copyright.

Arrangement is anything _but_ a "non-issue" on nearly any non-trivial
collection/compilation and there's more than enough involved in almost
all of them to meet the Supreme Court's test.


"Selection" is also a non-issue exactly for this type of book, because
the selection of "an encyclopedia of everything known in this subject"
(which is the "handbook" or "definitive reference" claim to value) is
not original.


Nope. Not unless you're including the entire universe of known facts
about the subject -- which is an impossibility in such a book. See the
_Warren_ case I cited in another message in this thread.

The database model really doesn't apply here, because the
subject is a motley collection of sundry facts, and there isn't some
database antecedent to what is in MH anyway.


That's a rather strained distinction. One I suspect you'd be hard put
tp support. How do you intend to distinguish a 'database' from a
'motley collection of sundry facts'? And what makes you think it makes
any difference at all legally?

I'm also perplexed as to how the old theories of copyright can
survive, because they are based entirely on copies costing something
to make, and money changing hands for copies being made, neither of
which is the case on a.b.e.


How are copyright theories based on copies costing something to make?


That's a conclusion I've made from my own unpublished analysis, which I
can't really detail now. But try this thought experiment: Imagine
anyone could clap three times and *poof* a perfect copy of a book
appears for free, in the privacy of your home. No printing press, no
bindery, just *poof*, it's there. No effort or expense on your part,
just speak the title and clap. Everyone then becomes either a clapping
copyright
criminal, or somebody who drives to Barnes and Noble and spends $25 for
a best-seller, when he could have stayed home and just clapped.


You're confusing the ability to commit an illegal act with making the
act legal. The fact that you can easily and quickly violate a
copyright does not invalidate the copyright. As a practical matter
ease of violation should (and usually does) eventually have an impact
on how the law is modified or interpreted, that does not effect the
underlying law itself -- which is why things like the DMCA are so
pernicious.

An entire publishing industry is then based on people doing something much more difficult and
costly than has to be, assuming anybody honors the malum prohibitum of
clapping.


You seem to be fascinated with the notion of malum in se versus malum
prohibitum. However I don't think you understand the distinction.
(Hint: All copyright law is malum prohibitum. Malum in se doesn't
enter into it.)

In short, in the ancient idea of copyright (actually only a few hundred
years old), the notion of a tangible "copy" was implicitly something
that took effort and materials (because until recently, it always
did--paper, ink, film, vinyl, whatever), and if someone was going to
that significant trouble and expense, it was the author's right to say
who.


Have you ever read any of the standard legal analyses of the notion of
copyright? Or the histories of printing, publishing and copyright? You
certainly don't seem to have any familarity with them.

The notion of copyright grew out of the idea that the author should
profit from his/her work. (Okay, that's a first approximation, but it
will do for this discussion.) The effort that was -- and is -- being
protected is the creative effort involved in creating the work in the
first place. The cost of reproducing the work does not and never has
entered into it.



As copying becomes a vanishingly trivial event (in the physical sense),
then the author's right
to control your vanishingly trivial (physical) actions vanishes. As the
lawyers say, the law does not deal with trifles.

Copyright *never* extended to trivial actions of copying: When you read
a book, you are forming images on your retinas that are copies, yet not
protected; you can make these copies all you like. Libraries can
project copies of a single paper book into limitless eyeballs for free.


They can in the United States because United States copyright law has
a specific exemption for libraries. This doesn't always exist in other
countries.

DVD movies are copied within the electronic player every time they are
played.


You might want to read up on the analysis of what is going on here.
And the hoops the courts have jumped through on this one.

Such exceptions prove that the basis of copyright is absolutely
not copying per se;


Utterly incorrect. Copying per se, when not covered by one of the
various exceptions in the law, is indeed copyright violation.

it is mere economic expedience, fitted arbitrarily
to each circumstance, and exclusive of trivial
actions, not some high principle of property rights.


Wrong. Copyright is a property right.

This is also
exhibited in the 1700s constitutional language of "limited times" and
the more recent doctrine of fair use.


Nonsense.

And copying has become non-copying, that is, an altogether trivial
event. A fraction of a square mm of microscopic, invisible, magnetic
polarization patterns change from one jumble of bits to another.
Nothing else in the universe changed. This is a crime?


You bet it is.

--RC


"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.
  #15   Report Post  
Richard J Kinch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Have you ever read any of the standard legal analyses of the notion of
copyright? Or the histories of printing, publishing and copyright? You
certainly don't seem to have any familarity with them.


You seem to assume that revolutionary thinking (and mine in 1987 on this
topic led to a major US software copyright case) must grow out of
ignorance of the status quo. Not so.


The effort that was -- and is -- being
protected is the creative effort involved in creating the work in the
first place.


Now I have to turn the jaundiced eye to your background, because here
you sound as if you hold to the "sweat of the brow" or "creative"
theory.

The cost of reproducing the work does not and never has
entered into it.


Implicitly, it did. The old laws only dealt with copies that cost
something (tangible media), not trivial copies (on retinas, in transit
through a DVD player, etc).

Such exceptions prove that the basis of copyright is absolutely
not copying per se;


Utterly incorrect. Copying per se, when not covered by one of the
various exceptions in the law, is indeed copyright violation.


Try to follow my line here. I challenge the idea that "copying" is the
action controlled by copyrights. Of course the spirit and letter of the
law refer to that term. Yet the exceptions and qualifications of what
copies doesn't count as infringing, are so shot through the dogma, that
it leads to the linguistic fallacy of "definitional retreat". You and I
casually understand a "copy" to be some kind of physical image of
something. Yet the law, which purportedly controls making "copies",
admits so many exceptions for non-infringing images, that what is being
controlled in fact is not copying in the usual sense. So the basis was
never image-making, it was only about a restricted, ad-hoc, legal
invention that was misleadingly termed "copying". And my conclusion is
that while downloading a book is surely making an image, which is to
say, a copy, this is not the "copying" which is the essence of
"copyright infringement".

I know it sounds scholastic.

Let me illustrate. Imagine we say "fishing" is immoral and should be
prohibited, and laws are passed against it. Then the law gets qualified
to permit "fair use" fishing if you don't actually catch anything, or
you catch something and immediately throw it back. You see, the
definition fishing-that-is-prohibited gets so qualified that it shows
the morality never involved fishing per se, it was only certain actions
that happened to involve fishing. When a new type of fishing appears,
you can't automatically conclude it is immoral.

Let me beg off any further rebuttals and close this by saying that the
paleo-conservative and strict-constructionist view should be that the
Constitution had it correct: it never uses the word "copy", and copying
is not what the clause addresses. "The exclusive Right to their
respective Writings" meant that consideration was necessarily involved,
not the case of casual image-making such as downloading.


  #16   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 11:01:15 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Have you ever read any of the standard legal analyses of the notion of
copyright? Or the histories of printing, publishing and copyright? You
certainly don't seem to have any familarity with them.


You seem to assume that revolutionary thinking


Your thinking isn't particularly revolutionary. It's just plain wrong.
Now if you want to put this forward as the basis of a novel proposal
for copyright modification, you're free to do so. But that is not how
the matter stands today.

(and mine in 1987 on this
topic led to a major US software copyright case) must grow out of
ignorance of the status quo. Not so.


Urk? Your particular statement was about the history of copyright. And
as a statement of the history it was flat wrong.

If you want to see how wrong you are historically, take a look at the
first copyright law -- the Statute of Anne in 1710 -- which
specifically states the purpose of the law was to protect authors from
unauthorized copying of their work.


The effort that was -- and is -- being
protected is the creative effort involved in creating the work in the
first place.


Now I have to turn the jaundiced eye to your background, because here
you sound as if you hold to the "sweat of the brow" or "creative"
theory.


Nope. I hold with the law and the long line of copyright decisions.

The "Sweat of the brow" doctrine doesn't come close to entering into
it. Do you even understand the terms you're blithely throwing around?

The cost of reproducing the work does not and never has
entered into it.


Implicitly, it did.


Wrong. If it had it would have been the publishers who would have been
protected, not the authors. Publishers have never been protected by
copyright, except as they may purchase the rights or hold a license
to the rights.

The old laws only dealt with copies that cost
something (tangible media), not trivial copies (on retinas, in transit
through a DVD player, etc).


What's the cost of performing a piece of music live? Where's the
tangibility of singing a song? Music was protected even before
recording technology.

Such exceptions prove that the basis of copyright is absolutely
not copying per se;


Utterly incorrect. Copying per se, when not covered by one of the
various exceptions in the law, is indeed copyright violation.


Try to follow my line here. I challenge the idea that "copying" is the
action controlled by copyrights.


Then you're simply wrong. This has been enunciated again and again in
the court decisions. Copying is specifically what is protected by
copyright.

Of course the spirit and letter of the
law refer to that term. Yet the exceptions and qualifications of what
copies doesn't count as infringing, are so shot through the dogma, that
it leads to the linguistic fallacy of "definitional retreat".


Well, no. You're making several completely unwarranted -- and untrue
-- assumptions here and you don't seem to know much about the theory
of copyright.

The theory is roughly as follows: A copyright is a monopoly granted by
the state. State-enforced monopolies are dangerous things and the
people who wrote the Constitution knew it. (Take a look at the
discussion of monopolies that surrounded the ratification of the
Constitution, including the anti-monopoly laws in several of the
states at the time.)

Yet granting a monopoly was recognized as a practical method of
allowing authors to profit from their work. So the United States
authorized a monopoly to the author. But it was a limited monoply,
limited both in time and in extent. This is anything but 'definitional
retreat'.

Again, this follows in the tradition that goes back to the Statute of
Anne, where a time limit was set on copyright.

You and I
casually understand a "copy" to be some kind of physical image of
something. Yet the law, which purportedly controls making "copies",
admits so many exceptions for non-infringing images, that what is being
controlled in fact is not copying in the usual sense.


No. What is going on here is a balancing of rights for the greatest
public good. There are exceptions to the monoply granted by copyright
because making them serves either the interest served by the notion of
copyright -- the dissemination of knowledge (fair use) or equally
serious principles, such as equity.

So the basis was
never image-making, it was only about a restricted, ad-hoc, legal
invention that was misleadingly termed "copying".


Let me clue you in on a little secret. Laws are seldom, if ever,
absolute. There are exceptions and conditions to almost all of them.
Even our laws against murder have exceptions.


And my conclusion is
that while downloading a book is surely making an image, which is to
say, a copy, this is not the "copying" which is the essence of
"copyright infringement".


Your conclusion is wrong as a matter of law. Present that argument in
court and you're going to lose.

I know it sounds scholastic.


It sounds half-baked.

Let me illustrate. Imagine we say "fishing" is immoral and should be
prohibited,


This is the rationale for the law, it is not the law itself.

and laws are passed against it.


What gets written and enforced is the law, not the rationale. If some
bright boy can find a way to fish without violating the law on
fishing, then he's home free, no matter how immoral the result may be.

Then the law gets qualified
to permit "fair use" fishing if you don't actually catch anything, or
you catch something and immediately throw it back. You see, the
definition fishing-that-is-prohibited gets so qualified that it shows
the morality never involved fishing per se,


Whether or not morality is involved is immaterial if there is a law
against it, no matter what exceptions the law might make.

it was only certain actions that happened to involve fishing.

No, it was the act of fishing, as it is defined in the law.

When a new type of fishing appears, you can't automatically conclude it is immoral.


No but if the courts have held that it is illegal, then it is illegal.
In the case of electonic copying the courts have repeatedly ruled that
electronic copying can violate copyright. Playboy vs Webworld, for
example:

http://www.loundy.com/CASES/PEI_v_Webbworld.html

In other words, even if we buy your doctrine of 'definitional retreat'
the courts have decided that electronic copying falls squarely under
copyright law.

Let me beg off any further rebuttals and close this by saying that the
paleo-conservative and strict-constructionist view should be that the
Constitution had it correct: it never uses the word "copy", and copying
is not what the clause addresses. "The exclusive Right to their
respective Writings" meant that consideration was necessarily involved,
not the case of casual image-making such as downloading.


Nope. Remember the writers of the Constitution were working in a
fairly well-defined legal universe where concepts such as copyright
were perfectly well understood. They could, and did, stretch that
framework, or completely discard parts of it in favor of something
new. But concepts like 'copyright' were perfectly well understood, as
was the phrase 'the exclusive right to their respective writings."
They were giving the authors control over the copying and
dissemination of their work.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.
  #17   Report Post  
Peter H.
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"... The compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in what
order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be
used effectively by readers. These choices as to selection and arrangement, so
long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree
of creativity, are sufficiently original that Congress may protect such
compilations through the copyright laws. Nimmer ss 2.11[D], 3.03; Denicola 523,
n. 38. Thus, even a directory that contains absolutely no protectible written
expression, only facts, meets the constitutional minimum for copyright
protection if it features an original selection or arrangement ..."

Publishers are certainly aware of this, and will take PD data and, indeed,
organize it in a way which makes such data easier to use, on account of the
relationship of the data presented in the derivative work.

A friend made a very lucritive business out of taking raw census data,
obtainable on magnetic tape by anyone for a nominal duplicating charge,
operating on that data by rearranging it in certain sequences, and outputting
another magnetic tape which contained much if not all of the original data, but
in the new format.

The "originality" is in the format, not in the raw content.

  #18   Report Post  
Richard J Kinch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well, no. You're making several completely unwarranted -- and untrue
-- assumptions here and you don't seem to know much about the theory
of copyright.


You might want to take it easy on the know-it-all-or-not estimates,
especially when based on Usenet patter. It is a characteristic of wisdom
to hide itself. In the history of Usenet, never has an argument been won
by flashing credentials.
  #19   Report Post  
Rich
 
Posts: n/a
Default

At the risk of being labeled a thief and a cheat...
I'd like to ask: How DO you download and render these binary files?
Frankly, after seeing there are several hundred of them, I'm not sure
I'll have the patience to do so, but I'd like to try a few of them.

Now, for those who think this is an immoral thing to do (like my
top-posting), I'd just like to say that I OWN as copy of Machinery's
Handbook, and my use of these files would be to print out, perhaps
enlarged, selected pages for use in my shop... tap drill sizes or tubing
wall thicknesses or some such.

Rich

Richard J Kinch wrote:

Well, no. You're making several completely unwarranted -- and untrue
-- assumptions here and you don't seem to know much about the theory
of copyright.



You might want to take it easy on the know-it-all-or-not estimates,
especially when based on Usenet patter. It is a characteristic of wisdom
to hide itself. In the history of Usenet, never has an argument been won
by flashing credentials.


  #20   Report Post  
Rich Hare
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ignoramus25901 wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:29:06 -0500, Rich wrote:

At the risk of being labeled a thief and a cheat...
I'd like to ask: How DO you download and render these binary files?
Frankly, after seeing there are several hundred of them, I'm not sure
I'll have the patience to do so, but I'd like to try a few of them.

Now, for those who think this is an immoral thing to do (like my
top-posting), I'd just like to say that I OWN as copy of Machinery's
Handbook, and my use of these files would be to print out, perhaps
enlarged, selected pages for use in my shop... tap drill sizes or tubing
wall thicknesses or some such.



Forte agent can reassemble these articles and decode them.

I use my own perl scripts for it, but for you, forte agent is the way
to go. I already burned my CD-Rom with this wonderful handbook.

i


Thank you, i...
I got Forte agent and downloaded the 33 files. Then I got WINRAR to
decode and assemble them. NOW I am left with a single 460 meg file with
..bin filetype. I'm at the limit of my technical ability on THIS one!
What do I do next?

Rich
(Bottom posting out of courtesy to i.)



  #21   Report Post  
Rich
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ignoramus25901 wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:37:02 -0500, Rich Hare wrote:

Ignoramus25901 wrote:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:29:06 -0500, Rich wrote:


At the risk of being labeled a thief and a cheat...
I'd like to ask: How DO you download and render these binary files?
Frankly, after seeing there are several hundred of them, I'm not sure
I'll have the patience to do so, but I'd like to try a few of them.

Now, for those who think this is an immoral thing to do (like my
top-posting), I'd just like to say that I OWN as copy of Machinery's
Handbook, and my use of these files would be to print out, perhaps
enlarged, selected pages for use in my shop... tap drill sizes or tubing
wall thicknesses or some such.


Forte agent can reassemble these articles and decode them.

I use my own perl scripts for it, but for you, forte agent is the way
to go. I already burned my CD-Rom with this wonderful handbook.

i


Thank you, i...
I got Forte agent and downloaded the 33 files. Then I got WINRAR to
decode and assemble them. NOW I am left with a single 460 meg file with
.bin filetype.



good job. You should have a big .BIN and a small .CUE file, instead of
only one .BIN file as you are describing. If you do not have the CUE
file, I can email you one, but you'd be unlikely to not have it. You
now need to burn the CD with, say, Nero Burning ROM or some other
windows utility that burns those files and recognizes .BIN and .CUE
files. I am personally using linux and CDRDAO for recording, but as a
windows user, you need something windows specific. You are very close
to your goal, do not despair.


I'm at the limit of my technical ability on THIS one!
What do I do next?



See if your CD burning program supports burning BIN/CUE files. These
are very common format.

i

Yes Yes Yes Yes YES!
Did a little research on Google and now I understand BIN and CUE!
I have NERO!
BUT!
I have a corrupted file, somewhere.
Tomorrow, I will try to figure out how to re-download some of the .rar
files with Forte and see if I can salvage this out. I've got MANY hours
into this project at this time. All this because I bought a new HF lathe!

Rich

  #22   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Rich" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus25901 wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:37:02 -0500, Rich Hare wrote:

Ignoramus25901 wrote:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:29:06 -0500, Rich wrote:


At the risk of being labeled a thief and a cheat...
I'd like to ask: How DO you download and render these binary files?
Frankly, after seeing there are several hundred of them, I'm not sure
I'll have the patience to do so, but I'd like to try a few of them.

Now, for those who think this is an immoral thing to do (like my
top-posting), I'd just like to say that I OWN as copy of Machinery's
Handbook, and my use of these files would be to print out, perhaps
enlarged, selected pages for use in my shop... tap drill sizes or

tubing
wall thicknesses or some such.


Forte agent can reassemble these articles and decode them.

I use my own perl scripts for it, but for you, forte agent is the way
to go. I already burned my CD-Rom with this wonderful handbook.

i

Thank you, i...
I got Forte agent and downloaded the 33 files. Then I got WINRAR to
decode and assemble them. NOW I am left with a single 460 meg file with
.bin filetype.



good job. You should have a big .BIN and a small .CUE file, instead of
only one .BIN file as you are describing. If you do not have the CUE
file, I can email you one, but you'd be unlikely to not have it. You
now need to burn the CD with, say, Nero Burning ROM or some other
windows utility that burns those files and recognizes .BIN and .CUE
files. I am personally using linux and CDRDAO for recording, but as a
windows user, you need something windows specific. You are very close
to your goal, do not despair.


I'm at the limit of my technical ability on THIS one!
What do I do next?



See if your CD burning program supports burning BIN/CUE files. These
are very common format.

i

Yes Yes Yes Yes YES!
Did a little research on Google and now I understand BIN and CUE!
I have NERO!
BUT!
I have a corrupted file, somewhere.
Tomorrow, I will try to figure out how to re-download some of the .rar
files with Forte and see if I can salvage this out. I've got MANY hours
into this project at this time. All this because I bought a new HF lathe!


How many hours? The CD for the 26th Edition is available on Amazon for
$61.17. Are you down to minimum wage yet?

"Steal a book for a man, and you'll keep him busy for hours. Teach a man to
steal books, and you'll keep him tied up for days." -- Anon. g

--
Ed Huntress


  #23   Report Post  
Rex B
 
Posts: n/a
Default


On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:29:06 -0500, Rich wrote:


At the risk of being labeled a thief and a cheat...
I'd like to ask: How DO you download and render these binary files?


I use BNR - Binary News Reaper. It's free, and it's designed specifically
for downloading binaries from newsgroups. You only have to typically flag
one title, and it collects all the needed files. You can even set up a
"Want" filter and it will search all the e-book groups daily for files with
the word "Machinery" in the subject line, and download and combine them
automatically in the folder you specify. You just check your PC
periodically and see what it's snagged.


  #24   Report Post  
Rich
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dirk Gently wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:29:56 -0500, Rich wrote:


I have a corrupted file, somewhere.



I downlaoded it from he
http://www.spanburgh.com/files/Machinery's%20Handbook%2026th%20Edition.zip

It's a ZIP file, UNzip it to its own drectory and open the PDF file, that's it.


Mr. Gently...
Thank you.
I now have the PDF on my computer.

Rich

  #25   Report Post  
Rich
 
Posts: n/a
Default


BUT!
I have a corrupted file, somewhere.
Tomorrow, I will try to figure out how to re-download some of the .rar
files with Forte and see if I can salvage this out. I've got MANY hours
into this project at this time. All this because I bought a new HF lathe!



Should be no problem. I also had a corrupted file. What you need is to
download PAR2, a program that repairs downloaded files. You should
have in your directory files xxxxx.1+2.PAR2, or some such.

Download par2 from par2.net, and run it. Try QuickPar for windows, I
have not tried it as I do not use windows. Par2 will repair it.

If you get very stuck, I can mail you a copy.

i


Mr. i ...
I thank you!
I have learned a bunch about .rar files and ebooks and stuff.
I'm afraid I had a corrupted file that I couldn't fix, and I accepted
Mr. Gently's offer of a zip file...
but it was a NICE trip, and I'm glad I went...
"Life is a process, not a destination..."
and I REALLY appreciate you trying to guide me...
AGAIN
I thank you... and wish you a 2005 filled with problems and solutions!

Rich



  #26   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:32:41 -0700, Dirk Gently
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:29:56 -0500, Rich wrote:

I have a corrupted file, somewhere.


I downlaoded it from he
http://www.spanburgh.com/files/Machinery's%20Handbook%2026th%20Edition.zip

It's a ZIP file, UNzip it to its own drectory and open the PDF file, that's it.


276 megabytes?????

Sigh..not on dialup....

Gunner

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling
which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being
free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
- John Stewart Mill
  #27   Report Post  
Jeff Wisnia
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ignoramus25901 wrote:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:29:06 -0500, Rich wrote:

At the risk of being labeled a thief and a cheat...
I'd like to ask: How DO you download and render these binary files?
Frankly, after seeing there are several hundred of them, I'm not sure
I'll have the patience to do so, but I'd like to try a few of them.

Now, for those who think this is an immoral thing to do (like my
top-posting), I'd just like to say that I OWN as copy of Machinery's
Handbook, and my use of these files would be to print out, perhaps
enlarged, selected pages for use in my shop... tap drill sizes or tubing
wall thicknesses or some such.



Forte agent can reassemble these articles and decode them.

I use my own perl scripts for it, but for you, forte agent is the way
to go. I already burned my CD-Rom with this wonderful handbook.

i




As someone who has first hand experience in doing all the detail work
required to prepare for printing educational materials for school aged
children and who clenches his jaw everytime he encounters a teacher
using a photocopy of one of our entire books........

Let me ask you one question to see If I can figure out where you (and
Richard Kinch as well) are coming from.

Do you also feel that buying a ticket to see a movie at a multiplex
cinema and then hiding in a restroom stall for a while so you can slip
in and see another movie which you note has plenty of empty seats while
you are there isn't a theft?

I'm not sure which saddens me the most, your stealing copyrighted
material or proudly admitting it on a newsgroup.

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia

(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)

"As long as there are final exams, there will be prayer in public
schools"
  #28   Report Post  
Richard J Kinch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jeff Wisnia writes:

Do you also feel that buying a ticket to see a movie at a multiplex
cinema and then hiding in a restroom stall for a while so you can slip
in and see another movie which you note has plenty of empty seats
while you are there isn't a theft?


Renting a seat (and then taking another) in someone else's room for two
hours is not comparable to rearranging bits patterns on your own hard
drive.

If you could magically wish for the light patterns on your retinas at
home, without paying for the movie ticket, would you consider that
"stealing"? Hypothetically speaking, of course.

I'm not sure which saddens me the most, your stealing copyrighted
material or proudly admitting it on a newsgroup.


(For my part, the thread was speaking abstractly, not in regard to
anyone's admission.)

No "material" is involved. States merely changed in a machine. You
might as well say someone owns a copyright on certain DRO positions on
your Bridgeport. One can conceive of information (in the Shannon
theoretic sense) as property, and in turn one can postulate the
transmission of such information as theft of property, but that does not
make it so, other than as a linguistic tautology.

Here, I will become the world's greatest thief ever:

main() { int i; for (;i++ } /* For arbitrary integer precision */

There, I have expressed a program which will generate literally every
book, movie, digital photograph, etc., that has ever been written or
ever will be. I am guilty of copying everything that has been or ever
will be copyrighted (*extends arms for handcuffs*).
  #29   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 16:45:26 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Jeff Wisnia writes:

Do you also feel that buying a ticket to see a movie at a multiplex
cinema and then hiding in a restroom stall for a while so you can slip
in and see another movie which you note has plenty of empty seats
while you are there isn't a theft?


Renting a seat (and then taking another) in someone else's room for two
hours is not comparable to rearranging bits patterns on your own hard
drive.


And morally, the difference is. . .?

We've already established your lack of knowledge about the legalities
of copyright. I'm interested to see just you justify your position
from a moral and ethical standpoint.

--RC


"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.
  #30   Report Post  
Jeff Wisnia
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Richard J Kinch wrote:
Jeff Wisnia writes:


Do you also feel that buying a ticket to see a movie at a multiplex
cinema and then hiding in a restroom stall for a while so you can slip
in and see another movie which you note has plenty of empty seats
while you are there isn't a theft?



Renting a seat (and then taking another) in someone else's room for two
hours is not comparable to rearranging bits patterns on your own hard
drive.

If you could magically wish for the light patterns on your retinas at
home, without paying for the movie ticket, would you consider that
"stealing"? Hypothetically speaking, of course.


I'm not sure which saddens me the most, your stealing copyrighted
material or proudly admitting it on a newsgroup.



(For my part, the thread was speaking abstractly, not in regard to
anyone's admission.)


Agreed, because I know you are too clever to publically admit to doing
anything like that, but the thread shows I was responding to a post by
that "ignoramus" person in which he/she wrote:

****************

I use my own perl scripts for it, but for you, forte agent is the way
to go. I already burned my CD-Rom with this wonderful handbook.

****************


No "material" is involved. States merely changed in a machine. You
might as well say someone owns a copyright on certain DRO positions on
your Bridgeport.


And what do you say about the copyrighting of music? Should everyone
with a good voice or who is a talented instrumentalist be entitled to
record copyrighted stuff and post it on the web for anyone else who
wants to enjoy it to grab?

One can conceive of information (in the Shannon
theoretic sense) as property, and in turn one can postulate the
transmission of such information as theft of property, but that does not
make it so, other than as a linguistic tautology.

Here, I will become the world's greatest thief ever:

main() { int i; for (;i++ } /* For arbitrary integer precision */

There, I have expressed a program which will generate literally every
book, movie, digital photograph, etc., that has ever been written or
ever will be. I am guilty of copying everything that has been or ever
will be copyrighted (*extends arms for handcuffs*).


I think some guy who first thought about a lot of monkeys, typewriters
and Shakespeare's plays beat you to that one. G

My comment relative to your hypotheticaly running that program and
creating a near infinitely long document is that it wouldn't bother me
because it would take you a near infinite amount of time to locate and
read anything I've got copyrighted. I doubt if it would bother any other
copyright holder for the same reason.

Next please?


--
Jeffry Wisnia

(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)

"As long as there are final exams, there will be prayer in public
schools"


  #31   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 5 Jan 2005 00:03:07 GMT, Ignoramus28225
wrote:

I am going to stay away from this thread because I do not want to be
embroiled in a huge "copyright is theft" flamewar. I want to use this
newsgroup for metalworking and machinery related conversations.

i

Too late. You are already doomed.
G

Gunner


On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 23:06:50 GMT, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 16:45:26 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Jeff Wisnia writes:

Do you also feel that buying a ticket to see a movie at a multiplex
cinema and then hiding in a restroom stall for a while so you can slip
in and see another movie which you note has plenty of empty seats
while you are there isn't a theft?

Renting a seat (and then taking another) in someone else's room for two
hours is not comparable to rearranging bits patterns on your own hard
drive.


And morally, the difference is. . .?

We've already established your lack of knowledge about the legalities
of copyright. I'm interested to see just you justify your position
from a moral and ethical standpoint.



"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.



It's not unwise to remember that Mother Nature is essentially a
murderous, sneakly, promiscuous bitch who has been trying to kill you
since your conception.

Eventually she will succeed, perhaps with the help of your fellow man.

Life consists in putting off the inevitable as long as possible and
taking what good and joy you can before her success.

Whether you attribute that situation to evolutionary forces, a fallen
nature after Adam and Eve screwed the pooch, or whatever, it's no less true.

Be friendly, pleasant, unaggressive, and honest toward all and be
prepared to ignore, avoid, or even kill anyone who is otherwise toward
you. Being ready doesn't mean eager, just ready. What true friends are
found in life will undestand and accept that fundamental rule of human
interaction." John Husvar
  #32   Report Post  
Richard J Kinch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jeff Wisnia writes:

And what do you say about the copyrighting of music? Should everyone
with a good voice or who is a talented instrumentalist be entitled to
record copyrighted stuff and post it on the web for anyone else who
wants to enjoy it to grab?


If it is a question of "ought", then my *personal opinion* hinges simply
on the making of money from others' works, vs casual use. If you're
going to sing a copyrighted work in the shower, then that's OK (despite
what the copyright fundamentalists say). If you're going to sell
recordings of your performance, or tickets to a live event, then no.
The author should have rights to any money, but casual use does not
involve money.

My comment relative to your hypotheticaly running that program and
creating a near infinitely long document is that it wouldn't bother me
because it would take you a near infinite amount of time to locate and
read anything I've got copyrighted.


Of course it isn't practical, but that misses the point of the
illustration. The copyright fundamentalists insist that the mere
generation of a copyrighted image is the crime, so a program that
generates all possible images must be the ultimate intellectual property
theft. The point being, image-making per se is not the allegedly
criminal act, it is arbitrary actions that when carefully defined lack
any consistent moral foundation.
  #33   Report Post  
Richard J Kinch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

We've already established your lack of knowledge about the legalities
of copyright.


Absurd.
  #34   Report Post  
Jeff Wisnia
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Richard J Kinch wrote:

Jeff Wisnia writes:



If it is a question of "ought", then my *personal opinion* hinges simply
on the making of money from others' works, vs casual use. If you're
going to sing a copyrighted work in the shower, then that's OK (despite
what the copyright fundamentalists say). If you're going to sell
recordings of your performance, or tickets to a live event, then no.
The author should have rights to any money, but casual use does not
involve money.


I guess that puts me among the fundamentalists, though I don't think
even I would have a problem with singing in the shower, depending of
course on who was in there with me doing the singing.

It's the part about the author having rights to money that bothers me. I
look at it from a credit/debit perspective, and when a person
photocopies copyrighted material because they want to read it, whether
for casual or for business use, they are potentially depriving the
author of a sale.

The copyright thief's oft expressed argument is, "Well I never would
have bought a copy, it isn't worth what they're asking, so the author
didn't lose a sale." That really yanks my chain, and I've gotten SWMBO
ticked at me more than once for telling people who are stupid enough to
say that in public what I think of them, the same way I usually put down
people who brag about their cheating the IRS at cocktail parties with,
"So I'm supposed to feel good about your being a crook, which means that
I'll have to pay more than my fair share in taxes?"

Jeff (Who didn't come here to be liked...)

--
Jeffry Wisnia

(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)

"As long as there are final exams, there will be prayer in public
schools"
  #35   Report Post  
Pat Ford
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jeff Wisnia" wrote in message
...
Richard J Kinch wrote:

Jeff Wisnia writes:



If it is a question of "ought", then my *personal opinion* hinges simply
on the making of money from others' works, vs casual use. If you're
going to sing a copyrighted work in the shower, then that's OK (despite
what the copyright fundamentalists say). If you're going to sell
recordings of your performance, or tickets to a live event, then no.
The author should have rights to any money, but casual use does not
involve money.


I guess that puts me among the fundamentalists, though I don't think
even I would have a problem with singing in the shower, depending of
course on who was in there with me doing the singing.

It's the part about the author having rights to money that bothers me. I
look at it from a credit/debit perspective, and when a person
photocopies copyrighted material because they want to read it, whether
for casual or for business use, they are potentially depriving the
author of a sale.

The copyright thief's oft expressed argument is, "Well I never would
have bought a copy, it isn't worth what they're asking, so the author
didn't lose a sale." That really yanks my chain, and I've gotten SWMBO
ticked at me more than once for telling people who are stupid enough to
say that in public what I think of them, the same way I usually put down
people who brag about their cheating the IRS at cocktail parties with,
"So I'm supposed to feel good about your being a crook, which means that
I'll have to pay more than my fair share in taxes?"

Jeff (Who didn't come here to be liked...)

--
Jeffry Wisnia

(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)

"As long as there are final exams, there will be prayer in public
schools"


I was trying to stay out of this BUT... If you own a "legal" copy of a
copyrighted item, in Canada you are allowed to make a backup copy. Under
"fair use" you can either make use of the original, or the copy but not both
at the same time. So if I owned the book, paid copyrightand put it on the
shelf and downloaded the ebook and used that isn't the end effect the same?
I would have a working copy and the original.

I asked the intellectual property guy here at work ( we have a guy who does
only IP stuff) if I'm allowed to have mp3s, he said if you have the
cd/vinyl/tape a back copy is legal, I don't have to make it, as long as only
1 copy is ever used at the same time.
Pat




  #36   Report Post  
Richard J Kinch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jeff Wisnia writes:

It's the part about the author having rights to money that bothers me.
I look at it from a credit/debit perspective, and when a person
photocopies copyrighted material because they want to read it, whether
for casual or for business use, they are potentially depriving the
author of a sale.


The "depriving someone of an opportunity" argument is simply begging the
question. Granted, the opportunity is lost when a casual copy is made,
but that doesn't address the question of whether that opportunity was
literally the property (as the copyright fundamentalists put it, the
chimera of "intellectual property") of the author. It is just as
logical to say that eating at a restaurant should be prohibited, because
it "potentially deprives" every other restaurant the opportunity of
selling me a meal, at least until I am hungry again. The mere
opportunity to make a hypothetical sale is not anyone's right.

The copyright doctrine generally excludes works that are "utilitarian".
The author of a literary work gets a copyright, but the author of a
gourmet dish or a brick wall does not. You can copy the meal or the
wall but not the book. Neither "original authorship" nor "sweat of the
brow" will in themselves yield a coprightable work. Copyrights are
arbitrary creations of government fiat for economic expedience, not
legal protections enforcing a moral property right.

.. the same way I usually put down
people who brag about their cheating the IRS at cocktail parties with,
"So I'm supposed to feel good about your being a crook, which means
that I'll have to pay more than my fair share in taxes?"


"Cheating the IRS" is an apt comparison in at least one regard.

The dollar amount of your taxes due is an arbitrary figure without any
moral basis. Perhaps you have heard how 10 differenet IRS agents will
come up with 10 different figures when calculating the taxes due on a
typical return. And the government changes the numbers from year to
year. For example, the death tax will disappear in a few years, yet
today it is as high as about 50 percent. So the concept of a "fair
share" is absurd; there is no such thing, the numbers are just made up
based on politics, and even then they are noisy. The "fair share" is
fallacious both as a reification and a quantification. And I can't
imagine that you're popular at parties preaching about it.

Now Jesus and Paul taught us to pay our taxes, to keep The
Man from hassling you. There's no moral duty to pay 2 drachmas, per
se.
  #37   Report Post  
Richard J Kinch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pat Ford writes:

I asked the intellectual property guy here at work ( we have a guy
who does
only IP stuff) if I'm allowed to have mp3s, he said if you have the
cd/vinyl/tape a back copy is legal, I don't have to make it, as long
as only 1 copy is ever used at the same time.


I can see why someone might feel that way, but being that copyrights are
arbitrary, both in basis and enforcement, who knows? I suspect RIAA would
say you need to pay for an MP3 re-encoding even if you own the PCM CD, you
didn't buy a license for re-encoding, and those rights belong to the
author, too. The dogma is that you don't own the music itself in any
Platonic-ideal sense, you only own the one copy of PCM bit patterns on the
CD, and (implicitly) a right to make unlimited copies (again, copyright is
not about making copies per se) consisting of vibrating air pressure, and
vibrations of your tympanic membranes, and neural copies in your brain
cells. However, the copies in vibrating air, tympanic membranes, and
neurons cannot be in a restaurant or retail establishment, unless you pay
yet another public-performance license.
  #38   Report Post  
Pat Ford
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
. ..
Pat Ford writes:

I asked the intellectual property guy here at work ( we have a guy
who does
only IP stuff) if I'm allowed to have mp3s, he said if you have the
cd/vinyl/tape a back copy is legal, I don't have to make it, as long
as only 1 copy is ever used at the same time.


I can see why someone might feel that way, but being that copyrights are
arbitrary, both in basis and enforcement, who knows? I suspect RIAA would
say you need to pay for an MP3 re-encoding even if you own the PCM CD, you
didn't buy a license for re-encoding, and those rights belong to the
author, too. The dogma is that you don't own the music itself in any
Platonic-ideal sense, you only own the one copy of PCM bit patterns on the
CD, and (implicitly) a right to make unlimited copies (again, copyright is
not about making copies per se) consisting of vibrating air pressure, and
vibrations of your tympanic membranes, and neural copies in your brain
cells. However, the copies in vibrating air, tympanic membranes, and
neurons cannot be in a restaurant or retail establishment, unless you pay
yet another public-performance license.


Ther law does allow the making of 1 backup copy. This came about from what
I was told, from software on mag media, where there was a need for companies
to be allowed a backup, and was later generalized to all recorded media.
Pat


  #39   Report Post  
Jeff Wisnia
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Richard J Kinch wrote:
Pat Ford writes:


I asked the intellectual property guy here at work ( we have a guy
who does
only IP stuff) if I'm allowed to have mp3s, he said if you have the
cd/vinyl/tape a back copy is legal, I don't have to make it, as long
as only 1 copy is ever used at the same time.



I can see why someone might feel that way, but being that copyrights are
arbitrary, both in basis and enforcement, who knows? I suspect RIAA would
say you need to pay for an MP3 re-encoding even if you own the PCM CD, you
didn't buy a license for re-encoding, and those rights belong to the
author, too. The dogma is that you don't own the music itself in any
Platonic-ideal sense, you only own the one copy of PCM bit patterns on the
CD, and (implicitly) a right to make unlimited copies (again, copyright is
not about making copies per se) consisting of vibrating air pressure, and
vibrations of your tympanic membranes, and neural copies in your brain
cells. However, the copies in vibrating air, tympanic membranes, and
neurons cannot be in a restaurant or retail establishment, unless you pay
yet another public-performance license.



I own most of Tom Lehrer's works on vinyl LPs, including his first
release on a 10" LP (Remember them?) They are stuffed in a carton with a
bunch of my other favorite LPs from the 50s and 60s, sitting on the
floor of a closet in our home.

I don't even own anything which can play LPs anymore, and I had no
compunction about downloading a bunch of his songs as MP3s through Kazaa
last year so that I could laugh at his wit again again and let friends
who were over hear them too.

I'm willing to take my chances with the copyright nazis over that.
Leherer and the recording companies got their pieces of silver from me
back when I bought the LPs new.

FWIW, at last count I heard that Tom Lehrer is still among the living
and teaches the occasional course at some Southern California college.
He's a contemporary of mine and I used to see him perform live in
Cambridge, Taxachusetts in my student daze.

I think I've about "saucered and blown" this topic, how about you?

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia

(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)

"As long as there are final exams, there will be prayer in public
schools"
  #40   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 16:38:50 -0500, Jeff Wisnia wrote:

I own most of Tom Lehrer's works on vinyl LPs, including his first
release on a 10" LP (Remember them?) They are stuffed in a carton with a
bunch of my other favorite LPs from the 50s and 60s, sitting on the
floor of a closet in our home.

I don't even own anything which can play LPs anymore, and I had no
compunction about downloading a bunch of his songs as MP3s through Kazaa
last year so that I could laugh at his wit again again and let friends
who were over hear them too.

I'm willing to take my chances with the copyright nazis over that.


What you describe is a completely legal and ethical use of those
materials. The fact that you're not the one who ripped the .mp3
isn't relevant; you've bought a license to that performance and you
are using it.

Leherer and the recording companies got their pieces of silver from me
back when I bought the LPs new.


Exactly. It'd be different if you didn't have those records, but
you do. No grey area at all.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: Semiconductor Data Books [email protected] Electronics Repair 1 April 28th 04 11:02 PM
New Book: A Guide to Work-Holding on the Lathe Fred Holder Woodturning 6 March 23rd 04 10:53 PM
"New" Krenov Book Out charlie b Woodworking 0 February 16th 04 06:01 PM
New Book John Jordan Woodturning 2 July 28th 03 05:06 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"