Date   

Re: No full-proof copy protection

Dave Nelson <muskoka@...>
 

Anthony Thompson wrote:
Whether new copyright rules
will eventually provide a balance between personal use and copyright
protection is unclear. The "Mickey Mouse law" of 1998 (it's actually
known as the Copyright Term Extension Act or CTEA) on electronic
copyright errs, in my view, in totally subsuming fair use to
corporate protection. I hope the pendulum swings back.

Indeed.

IMO the current term of copyright is an obscenity. These words that I'm
writing are automatically protected under current copyright law for the term
of my life plus 75 YEARS. Whereas a patent for, say, "The Cure For Cancer",
when discovered, will get 17 years, less however long it takes the FDA to
get around to saying it's ok to sell. Somebody explain to my why this
posting gets lifespan+75 years and some drug gets fewer than 17.

I'll be honest here: I have no respect for any of the recent changes in
copyright law, specifically if it is held by the corporations who pressed
for these changes. So I download music and I download video and have no
guilt whatsoever for doing so (FWIW I also buy music and video).

As for other stuff... For me: 28 years, period. I don't give a plugged
nickle for the notion somebody can copyright today a creative work that's
more than 28 years old. 28-56 years old? Did it have meaningful value at
the half way point? If I figure it did, I figure it got renewed (only about
15% of what was copyrighted ever got extended). Otherwise I figure it
lapsed and is in the public domain.

Moving on to freight cars and such. I do respect the property value of
persons/libraries/museums who have found something interesting and want to
sell copies to the general public. Doesn't matter to me if it is under
copyright or not, I respect the seller for what they're doing and so in this
regard, I do follow a different set of rules and so I *do not* go into the
replication business using their product.

Yeah, hard to square the circle of these paragraphs in any principled way,
except perhaps by looking at who is doing the selling, respecting the little
guy, and sticking to the law as it was when it made sense.

I'm just being open and frank here...getting something off my chest so to
speak and not looking to debate anything.

Dave Nelson
P.S. Shawn, sorry to say it bud, but f*ck Disney for what they did.


Re: Fair use and the sharing of information

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Tom Madden wrote:
. . . But John's hypothetical response is no different from Tony referring questioners to his PFE
book, or to Vol. 17 of the SP Rolling Stock Series. Is it because John lacks the cachet of the Signature Press publishing empire?
Gosh, now I now know far the series goes <g>. Glad to hear of the cachet, though.

Whatever the reason, if we can no longer upload scans of purchased prints without concern, list members are going to have to accept references to commercial sources without grumbling. Referring
questioners to Bob's Photos will be tricky, since you can only buy from him at shows.
Like Richard does with jpegs, sending an individual copy is permitted. Often a Xerox will show what you want, too. But the danger with a jpeg is that an unscrupulous recipient may post it on the web without telling you. I'm a little more reluctant to send such images.

I have dozens of prints from the CSRM Library, and literally thousands of microfilm images, scans and paper copies of Pullman drawings and documents from the Newberry Library. . . it's pretty clear in talking with them that even "one copy for a friend" is frowned upon.
If the agreement you signed says this, then yes, you are so bound. But the copyright law does NOT have any such restriction, nor can an archive claim one on that basis.

One unintended consequence of all this may impact clinic handouts. I commonly take over 100 handouts to Martin's and Mike's meets. Guess I can show images of protected material in the presentation but can't include them in the handouts. Can o' worms!
This is indeed a gray area. Where does "educational" or "personal" use stop and "publication" begin? The Signature Press attorney stated to me that he doubted use of images in Powerpoint or comparable uses would be a problem, but handouts are problematic, as Tom says.
The way around it, of course, is to get permission. The foregoing comments only relate to images used WITHOUT permission.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: No full-proof copy protection

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Pete Brown wrote:
Except that 1 copy for your friend is also typically illegal. You can't share an MP3 with a friend, and I can't use the same copy of Windows for my wife's computer without breaking the law.
You are right about files like MP3. That appeared in the 1998 law. But that law did NOT change the rules for print publications, photographs, art, etc. Incidentally, restrictions on copying software are in the contract you accept when you install it. They are NOT copyright restrictions they are contract agreements, and you will find they differ from application to application.

You also can't xerox a whole book or magazine article and give that to a friend. I'm not sure where you got that information.
Again, you're right, and I don't believe I said otherwise. I was thinking of a Xerox of a photo or magazine article, not a complete book. One rule used by many libraries is that you can only copy a maximum of 10 percent of a publication. That number is not blessed in any legal sense but has become a widespread "safe" number. OTOH, I once asked a librarian, when discussing this issue, if there was a problem in my copying 10 percent now, 10 percent an hour hence, etc. She smiled and said she would not have any issue with that: it would be between me and my conscience.
Making paper copies for others HAS been tested in court, and does fall under fair use if a "reasonable" number of copies is made.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Steam Era Videos

Paul Hillman
 

Chet,

Thank you for the direction to the C&EI/L&N in the period of 1945-
1950 through these films/DVD's.

I will immediately seek out the "Green Frog Productions" DVD's.

Paul Hillman


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Chet French" <cfrench@...> wrote:

Group,
Part 2 is all shot in the Evansville, Ind. area. Coverage is
about
90% L&N and C&EI steam in the 1945-1950 period. Once again the
main
focus is on the passenger trains and the many engine moves between
the
Evansville station and the engine terminal at Howell Yard. But
there
are enough glimpses at freight cars to make it worthwhile. Bill
W.,
there is one scene where four FGEX wood reefers, at least two with
truss rods, are kicked down the lead at Howell Yard.


Re: No full-proof copy protection

Pete Brown &#92;(YahooGroups&#92;) <YahooLists@...>
 

Except that 1 copy for your friend is also typically illegal. You can't
share an MP3 with a friend, and I can't use the same copy of Windows for my
wife's computer without breaking the law.

The most you are typically allowed to do with any electronic media is make
one backup copy which cannot be used at the same time.

You also can't xerox a whole book or magazine article and give that to a
friend. I'm not sure where you got that information.

Pete
_____________________________________________________
Pete Brown - Gambrills, MD (Near Annapolis)
Visit my personal site : http://www.irritatedVowel.com
(wallpaper, western maryland ry, .net, photography, model rr)





_____

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Anthony Thompson
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 12:49 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: No full-proof copy protection


Jim Eckman wrote:
I remember reading on either the ALA or one of the GOV sites that any
work published before 1923 is public domain, period. Everything else
'depends' but probably any works published before 1949 like corporate
reports and stuff are probably fair game as well because it is unlikely
that the companies spent the money to renew the copyright a second
time.
In principle, you can check on renewals through the LOC but it is
not easy. You certainly would not do it for minor matters.

ALA.org (American Library Association) has a fair amount of stuff on
what constitutes fair use for libraries.
Jim raises a very important point: fair use. Making copies,
whether Xerox or electronic, for personal use has always been
permitted, and it extends to a copy for a friend, for HIS personal use.
For 100 friends, nope. Where is the boundary between 100 and one
friend? This is one of those "gray areas" in the law. Obviously more
copies become more problematic.
I think the reason many people react badly to restrictions
responding to the internet problem we are discussing is that your
viewing at home feels like a personal use, and downloading a copy for
printing out or electronic archiving feels the same way. But the
internet really is more like publication: it goes all over the world to
a potentially enormous number of "personal users." This seems likely to
exceed the number of 100 which I just mentioned <g>. That's why
"sharing images," an acceptable behavior under "fair use," becomes
something else when carried out on the internet.
Whether new copyright rules will eventually provide a
balance between personal use and copyright protection is unclear. The
"Mickey Mouse law" of 1998 (it's actually known as the Copyright Term
Extension Act or CTEA) on electronic copyright errs, in my view, in
totally subsuming fair use to corporate protection. I hope the pendulum
swings back.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Fair use and the sharing of information

pullmanboss <tgmadden@...>
 

Tony Thompson wrote:
I think the reason many people react badly to restrictions
responding to the internet problem we are discussing is that your
viewing at home feels like a personal use, and downloading a copy
for printing out or electronic archiving feels the same way.
The internet is certainly the Great Deceiver. Maybe it's the
solitude and supposed anonymity, but it can make middle-aged men
think teenage girls lust after them, that everything should be free
and freely available, and that the entire world is breathlessly
waiting to hear my opinions about something. :-) I harbor a number
of illusions, certainly that last one for sure but thankfully not
the first two. I set those aside weeks ago.

Maybe what we need to do more is something Tony has been doing all
along - tell inquirers where the information can be found rather
than laying it all out for them. For references that are out of
print or hard to come by, do what Richard does with photos - send a
scan by private email. Or mail a copy. There's nothing that says
requested information has to be delivered instantly and
electronically.

There's at least one attitude problem that will have to be overcome.
If photo seller John La Rue, whose commercial presence for most of
us is behind an album-filled table at meets, were to respond to an
STMFC question with "I have a photo that shows exactly what you
want, my catalog number XXX-YYY - drop a check for ten bucks in the
mail and I'll get an 8x10 off to you right away", he'd be accused of
crass behavior and witholding information. But John's hypothetical
response is no different from Tony referring questioners to his PFE
book, or to Vol. 17 of the SP Rolling Stock Series. Is it because
John lacks the cachet of the Signature Press publishing empire?
Whatever the reason, if we can no longer upload scans of purchased
prints without concern, list members are going to have to accept
references to commercial sources without grumbling. Referring
questioners to Bob's Photos will be tricky, since you can only buy
from him at shows. Someone in Corsicana, Texas might not find such a
reference very useful.

But the internet really is more like publication: it goes all over
the world to a potentially enormous number of "personal users."
This seems likely to exceed the number of 100 which I just
mentioned <g>. That's why "sharing images," an acceptable behavior
under "fair use," becomes something else when carried out on the
internet.
I have dozens of prints from the CSRM Library, and literally
thousands of microfilm images, scans and paper copies of Pullman
drawings and documents from the Newberry Library. I purchased every
one of them. None of them is copyrighted, but every copy request I
signed was really a contract stating that the material was for my
own personal use, and that I had not purchased any publication or
distribution rights. I have pretty congenial relations with the
Newberry folks and am a contributing member of that Library. Even
so, it's pretty clear in talking with them that even "one copy for a
friend" is frowned upon.

One unintended consequence of all this may impact clinic handouts. I
commonly take over 100 handouts to Martin's and Mike's meets. Guess
I can show images of protected material in the presentation but
can't include them in the handouts. Can o' worms!

Tom Madden


Re: YS&T tank cars

SUVCWORR@...
 

In a message dated 5/12/2006 4:30:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
smithbf@auburn.edu writes:

On May 12, 2006, at 10:10 AM, SUVCWORR@aol.com wrote:
In the meantime, could someone knowledgeable about tank cars tell
me the
type of car and any starting point for modeling GATX 18046 and GATX
18407?
Rich,

From my memory of those shots, these were both General American
built tank cars. At the moment, other then the RC brass model, we
have no good models of these cars in HO. I keep hearing hints that
this may change, so keep your fingers crossed.

Regards
Bruce



Thanks, Bruce. I wait and hope.

Rich


Re: YS&T tank cars

Bruce Smith
 

On May 12, 2006, at 10:10 AM, SUVCWORR@aol.com wrote:
In the meantime, could someone knowledgeable about tank cars tell me the
type of car and any starting point for modeling GATX 18046 and GATX 18407?
Rich,

From my memory of those shots, these were both General American built tank cars. At the moment, other then the RC brass model, we have no good models of these cars in HO. I keep hearing hints that this may change, so keep your fingers crossed.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" - Benjamin Franklin
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Steam Era Videos

Chet French <cfrench@...>
 

Group,

Yesterday I received 3 DVD's titled "The Golden Twilight of Postwar
Steam", parts one, two, and three. They came from Green Frog
Productions, which I have no interest in, other than being a customer.
The DVD's were produced from 16mm film shot by Gene Miller (not
familiar with him) during the 1945-1950 period and is about 75% in
color. As with most film, the main subject is the engines, but there
is enough freight cars to make it interesting. My only complaint is
that most run-bys only lasted long enough to see a few freight cars in
the trains. Mr. Miller seemed especially interested in the passenger
trains as he usually shot the entire train.

Part 1 focuses on the west end of the Pennsy in the Chicago (mainly
Englewood), Terre Haute, and St Louis areas. I would guess that about
80% of 54 minutes is dedicated to the PRR. The footage will make the
SPF's really slobber, and then some. I even came to attention when
several of the joint PRR-Wabash Chicago/Detroit trains passed by.

Part 2 is all shot in the Evansville, Ind. area. Coverage is about
90% L&N and C&EI steam in the 1945-1950 period. Once again the main
focus is on the passenger trains and the many engine moves between the
Evansville station and the engine terminal at Howell Yard. But there
are enough glimpses at freight cars to make it worthwhile. Bill W.,
there is one scene where four FGEX wood reefers, at least two with
truss rods, are kicked down the lead at Howell Yard.

Part 3 was shot in the St Louis area, and other locations in the
midwest. Then it is off to the West where a good portion covers the UP
mainly in the Denver area. This is one that our group leader will
want. Some Santa Fe including doubleheaded Pacifics at Dearborn
Station, and not enough SP. All were very entertaining and good
quality.

Chet French
Dixon, IL


Re: PRR Cabooses

Justin Kahn
 

Thanks to Chuck and Bruce for more information. I shall have to cogitate whether to re-do all of the details, as the Max Gray has the [rather crude] K brake cylinder, and I have a pair of archbars ready to go on it. By the N5, I assume Chuck means the QC photoetched brass and whitemetal kit for the N5c; I turned one up and have been slowly rebuilding it (the previous owner had not done so good a job as I would have liked) and was not very happy when I compared the kit cupola castings with prototype photos. When I am done, I shall have find a set of the Walthers decals prepared for it, as the ones on the kit car will not have survived. I also acquired one of the Max Gray N5c's, but that will probably stay pretty much the way it is, as I hesitate to diminish the re-sale value, not being sure whether I want to keep it.
The inspiration for all of this is an old, not very sharp, Max Miller print of an N6b at Rochester NY; no date, as I recall.

Jace Kahn, General Manager
Ceres and Canisteo RR Co.


May 10
Subject: Re: PRR N6b

Anything as old as the QC kit line has to suspect in terms of accuracy! I
know because I was truning out crummy drawings for model railraod
magazines.....which then showed up later in kit form or brass. Standards and knowledge
simply weren't much advanced back then. We simply didn't know any better and the
mfgrs generally took data from the mags or cycs.

My all time favorite is the brass model of a diesel that the Japanes mafgr
made using just a post card of the real thing!

I still have a QC N5 built up. I threw away the cupola castings and built a
new one from sytrene, figuring it was less work than trying to clean up and fit
those crude castings.

Chuck Yungkurth
Boulder CO

And Bruce alludes to something that
reminds me of the response when I asked about trucks for this car a
while
ago, that apparently the hand rails were changed when the cars were
rebuilt
and most received the distinctive PRR single coil-spring trucks at
the same
time. The views on the PRR railfan site also suggest there was
more than
just the one modification, perhaps as the brake wheel arrangements
were
updated.
Jace,

According to Bob Johnson, the modifications occurred as follows:
November 1943
- AB brakes
- cast side frame trucks

May 1944
- power hand brakes

July 1944 (note in my first post I said 1946, which was information
from Jack Consoli)
- high end railings

Cars having the original equipment still around in 1949 or later.
Bob's information was truly illuminating as it impacts directly on my
1944 time frame, where a good number of these cars will retain
archbar trucks, K-brakes and low end railings.

Regards
Bruce
_________________________________________________________________
Don�t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/


Re: No full-proof copy protection

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Jim Eckman wrote:
I remember reading on either the ALA or one of the GOV sites that any
work published before 1923 is public domain, period. Everything else
'depends' but probably any works published before 1949 like corporate
reports and stuff are probably fair game as well because it is unlikely
that the companies spent the money to renew the copyright a second time.
In principle, you can check on renewals through the LOC but it is not easy. You certainly would not do it for minor matters.

ALA.org (American Library Association) has a fair amount of stuff on
what constitutes fair use for libraries.
Jim raises a very important point: fair use. Making copies, whether Xerox or electronic, for personal use has always been permitted, and it extends to a copy for a friend, for HIS personal use. For 100 friends, nope. Where is the boundary between 100 and one friend? This is one of those "gray areas" in the law. Obviously more copies become more problematic.
I think the reason many people react badly to restrictions responding to the internet problem we are discussing is that your viewing at home feels like a personal use, and downloading a copy for printing out or electronic archiving feels the same way. But the internet really is more like publication: it goes all over the world to a potentially enormous number of "personal users." This seems likely to exceed the number of 100 which I just mentioned <g>. That's why "sharing images," an acceptable behavior under "fair use," becomes something else when carried out on the internet.
Whether new copyright rules will eventually provide a balance between personal use and copyright protection is unclear. The "Mickey Mouse law" of 1998 (it's actually known as the Copyright Term Extension Act or CTEA) on electronic copyright errs, in my view, in totally subsuming fair use to corporate protection. I hope the pendulum swings back.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: ADMIN: STMFC Photo Policy

Garth Groff <ggg9y@...>
 

Friends,

To make sure we don't get into trouble, I have removed the Kraft reefer photo I posted a month or so ago. While I did not see a copyright on the company pamphlet from which this was copied, I would rather err on the side of safety.

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff



Re: USSteel-roads 50' gondolas

Gatwood, Elden J SAD <Elden.J.Gatwood@...>
 

All;

After a long hiatus working on coastal Mississippi damage (and Everglades
restoration)in my new job (24/7), I am back, like the proverbial bad penny.
I missed you all!

Several folks on this list have done some initial research into the
interesting group of "USSteel-road" 50' fixed end straight side fishbelly
center-silled gondolas that we discussed a number of months ago.

I was wondering, with (real) hopes of a future kit for these cars, if anyone
on the list was educated on the timelines and paint schemes for them?

I am aware that some believe that the original large group of URR cars
(6000-6999 and 9000-9999; presumably 2000 cars?)left the road some time
around 1950, but we do not know exactly where they all ended up, if indeed
they filled the entire number series (there was at least a 9762 photo in
Railway Age; Jan 1947?). There is clearly some strong evidence that the
Birmingham Southern, EJ&E, Lake Terminal, and B&LE had some of them, but it
also appears that the McKeesport Connecting kept all 100 of theirs from built
to scrapping and not part of the URR group. Any ideas why URR dumped theirs
so quick, and why a similar block does not appear anywhere after 1950? Did
URR have trouble with durability given their length and types of uses on the
URR, vs. less damaging (pipe loadings) usage on the McKCon?

Does anyone also know what issue of RwyCyc had the plans? I recall a photo
of a Lake Terminal gon of this type out there also. It is interesting where
these gons turn up in photos.

Thanks!

Elden Gatwood


ADMIN: Extension of Copyright & the STMFC Discussion

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Since Tony Thompson, who's views I specifically asked for regarding copyright issues, was unable to respond yesterday, I am extending the discussion about copyright as it pertains to photo useage on the STMFC through today.

This, however, does not preclude or dissuade discussion about frt cars <g>.

Thanks.

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner


Re: ADMIN: STMFC Photo Policy

Dennis Storzek <dstorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:


... was for 17 years but
it was renewable.
Don't know where you got this number, Rich, but the right number
is 28 years, renewable once. That's why 1922 is a magic year: 1922 +
two 28-year terms = 1978, the date at which a new law went into effect.
The old term for patents was 17 years, but patents were not renewable. People are always confusing patents with copyright.

Many thanks to Tony Thompson and Bruce Smith for interjecting some "true facts" into this discussion, as opposed to the kind that normally get endlessly repeated in the recent discussions of Trademark, Copyright, and Patent law.

Now, when you guys are done, substitute the phrase "make rubber molds of plastic parts and copy them" for "upload photos to the internet" and run it all again.


Dennis Storzek
Big Rock, IL


FREIGHT CARS?

bobbypitts44 <bobbypitts44@...>
 

Just curious, when are we going to start talking about FREIGHT CARS
again? Bobby Pitts


Re: No full-proof copy protection

SUVCWORR@...
 

In a message dated 5/12/2006 2:34:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
ronin_engineer@comcast.net writes:

Mike, don't feel bad if you can't figure out a way to make our photo
archives viewable without being copyable, it's not possible with the
current internet standards. If you find a way to do it, find some
venture capitalists and get rich!



You can copy anything on the internet with any computer out of the box.
Even protected files (HTML coding to turnoff "right click") you can still copy
the image. Every keyboard has a key which will copy the current screen into
memory (identity withheld . All you need to do is paste the information from
the clip board into a graphics program (even works with low end graphic
programs like Paint). Then edit the image of the screen to only keep the image
you want. The Quality will depend on the screen resolution and the
capabilities of the graphic software. The only sure way to stop copying from the
internet is to not publish the photo, encrypt all photos or password protect the
site (and most of these can be hacked). In the case of STMFC, there is some
protection since membership is required and moderated.

Rich Orr


YS&T tank cars

SUVCWORR@...
 

First, I want to apologize for stirring the pot to such an extent. That was
never my intention.

I did remove the photos when an objection was raised. If there is ever a
resolution which allows posting of these photos I will be glad to do so.

In the meantime, could someone knowledgeable about tank cars tell me the
type of car and any starting point for modeling GATX 18046 and GATX 18407?

The third car is PTX 1741. The first letter of the reporting mark may be
missing. This is a 5 section (4 bands of double rows of rivets evenly spaced
to form the tank) 8,256 gallon tank car. This is the car which is painted
silver.


Rich Orr


Re: ADMIN: STMFC Photo Policy

SUVCWORR@...
 

In a message dated 5/11/2006 11:02:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
thompson@signaturepress.com writes:

Rich Orr wrote:
Before the current law was adopted a copyright was for 17 years but
it was renewable.
Don't know where you got this number, Rich, but the right number
is 28 years, renewable once. That's why 1922 is a magic year: 1922 +
two 28-year terms = 1978, the date at which a new law went into effect.
The story on extensions and term changes in copyrights not yet expired
by 1978 is a nightmare if you don't love law books, so I won't try to
go there.




Tony,

I think I confused the length of patent rights with the length of copyright.
Prior to June 8, 1995 a patent was good for 17 years. Effective that date
the length was changed to 20 years.

On another note, there can be exceptions to the copyright law. I am a
member of an organization which is incorporated by an Act of Congress. In the act
creating the corporation, Congress granted patents and copyrights in
perpetuity for all logos, medals, symbols, publications to the corporation. A
search of Federal statutes and regulations regarding copyright and patent will
never reveal this. It simply hasn't been codified. Even though it cannot be
located easily, we have successfully protected a patent in Federal court based
on the language in the Congressional articles of incorporation. In fact, the
corporation which was importing replicas of our membership badge, was
prosecuted by the US Customs service.

Rich Orr



Rich Orr


Dig # 3138 / Subject: Re: ADMIN: STMFC Photo Policy

Tom <Konnichi-wa@...>
 

Group, whatever "the Law of the Land", when it is unenforceable it is null
and void from any practical point of view. Those who enact laws that are
unenforceable are the one's that show disrespect of the (principle of) the
law in the first place.
Then there is the principle of society being a free one, not only free to
pursue profit, but also free to read, listen, view things in the most
unimpaired way. Fairness has it that stuff one encounters when excersizing
the rights of a free citizen another person/legal body is the owner of, must
be "costed" to the user in whatever way. This entails paying for a newpaper,
being forced to view commercials in order to have a "free" soap etc But as
has remarked by many others many "gray zones" do exist. No copyright will
run for eternity (so when does it end?) and misuse of marketpower
(pricing-behaviour of the music industry comes to mind) will even induce
honest people to dilute their principles somewhat and start grabbing for
content off the web. The restricted photo-policy just announced seems to me
the correct way to go IF one wants to preclude running any legal risk,
notwithstanding the validity of the "loss of quality-argument" by posting
and copying. pictures. Only as time elapses and jurisprudence develops will
it become clearer what is allowed and what is not. Life is complicated at
times! Tom Hartman

138281 - 138300 of 192701