[Andre Jute]

RDH4 COPYRIGHT -- THE MASTER FACT FILE
by Andre Jute

COPYRIGHT AS PROPERTY
Copyright is property. Generally speaking, the author of a book
creates the copyright and owns it. In most of the civilized world the
copyright is protected by national and international law for the
author's lifetime plus 70 years from the year after the year in which
he dies. The countries in which this true includes those in the EU,
America, and many in the Commonwealth, including Australia. Copyright
across borders is protected both by international agreement and by
mutual reciprocity arrangements between nations.

THE CREATION OF COPYRIGHT: AUTOMATIC AND PRESUMPTIVE
Copyright is automatic and presumptive. Automatic means the work does
not have to be registered, or even covered by a copyright notice and/
or symbol, because the copyright protection comes into being the
moment the work is created. Presumptive means the law assumes the
creator or his successors own it, and all pretenders must prove
otherwise.

RDH4: AUSTRALIAN ORIGIN AND FIRST OWNERSHIP
The Radio Designer's Handbook is an Australian book. The Fourth
Edition, an entirely new book compared to the Third Edition, was
published in 1953 and followed at later date(s) with substantially
revised and enlarged edition(s). It is the work of ten authors and
twenty-three collaborating engineers. The Editor was F. Langford-
Smith, an employee of Amagamated Wireless Valve of Sydney, Australia.
Under Australian law AWV became the first copyright holder. Note that
Australian law the term of such a corporately held copyright runs not
from publication but for the term of the *author's life* plus 70
calender years.

IS THE RDH4 IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN?
No, of course not. Assuming that all the authors were dead at
publication (clearly very unlikely as they made revisions and addenda
for years afterwards!), 70 calendar years from 1953 will be 2024. So
the question of the RDH4 entering the public domain cannot even arise
until the end of 2024. The material in the later revised and enlarged
edition will be protected even beyond that.

WHEN WILL THE RDH4 ENTER THE PUBLIC DOMAIN?
The RDH4 will enter the public domain 70 years after someone proves
that the last of the authors is dead. Since there are at least 33 of
them, plus possibly additional parties who wrote revisions and made
additions, some of them perhaps newly graduated engineers in the dozen
or so years after 1953, the likelihood is that several of them are
still alive. (I wish them much longer life!) The question cannot even
begin to be asked until sometime between 2024 and 2038.

AWV NO LONGER EXISTS. DID THE COPYRIGHT DIE WITH THE CORPORATION?
Copyright of the RDH4 is tied to the life of the author; it cannot be
exhausted before 70 years after the life of the author has passed.
Someone *always* owns it. The AWV copyright was acquired by Reed-
Elseviers, a major publishing group. In 1997 the Newnes scientific and
engineering imprint of Reed published a facsimile edition of the last,
revised and expanded RDH4. Newnes proudly printed the copyright
holder's name in every copy:
cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997
Anyone who wants to exploit the RDH4 copyright requires a license from
Reed.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO DISTRIBUTE THE RDH4 ON THE INTERNET?
Unless they have a license from the copyright holder, they're thieves.
One set of thieves in Canada, for instance, lie about Canadian
copyright law to make it appear to the ignorant as if the RDH is out
of copyright (it isn't!) and then they cut off the title page and
copyright notice from the copy they offer in an effort to make their
lie work. Both these activities (lying about copyright, cutting off
title and copyright pages) are criminal acts, quite aside from the
theft of the copyright. The expensive typesetting of the book is
another piece of property, another theft when they scan it to PDF.

BUT THEY SAY OTHERS HAVE GOT AWAY WITH IT, SOMETIMES FOR A LONG TIME
The fact that they have stolen property repeatedly doesn't make it
theirs. Even the fact that the rightful owner doesn't object doesn't
excuse their crime, or act as a defense in law. The presumptive nature
of copyright ownership implies that the owner needs do nothing, until
one day he chooses to make an example of some thief. There are no
squatters' rights in copyright.

WHAT ABOUT THE MIRRORS OF THE NETTHIEVES OF THE RDH4?
The operators of the mirrors, and their ISP's, are guilty of copyright
theft under the laws of their own countries, and complicit in the
criminal act of cutting away the title page and copyright notice; they
are also complicit in the seperate crime of theft of the typesetting.

WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO REPRINT THE RDH4 ON CD ETC?
I imagine they have licences from Reed. That is standard practice for
respectable publishers. It is open to anyone to approach the copyright
holder with an offer to negotiate a license to publish the RDH4.

BUT THE LAW IN MY COUNTRY IS DIFFERENT
It may seem so. But usually, on deeper enquiry, you will discover a
reciprocity arrangement which, in the majority of cases, permit the
books of a foreign author or publisher to be treated in your country
as if the laws of the foreign country applies.

CAN COPYRIGHT LAW REALLY BE THIS SIMPLE AND STRAIGHFORWARD?
For honest people the answer, surprisingly, is yes! But it is true
that for the dishonest, who wriggle and turn and lie to try and claim
a book is out of copyright when it isn't, and of course for lawyers,
copyright can be subtle and sometimes tricky. Check out the bit above
where in Australia the term of a corporate copyright is the *author's
life plus 70 calendar years*; in America the corresponding term for a
corporate copyright is *95 years from publication*. In the global
village that sort of difference, and reciprocity agreements relating
to the treatment of such differences, can easily trip up the careless,
but only professionals really need to get in that deep.

I hope these notes help everyone understand why it is theft to give
away copies of the RDH4 on the internet.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
8 October 2007

© This text is copyright Andre Jute 2007. It is given as a public
service and may be freely reprinted in not-for-profit publications as
long as it is intact and this notice remains with it.

[sparky]

On Oct 7, 7:56 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
RDH4 COPYRIGHT -- THE MASTER FACT FILE
by Andre Jute

COPYRIGHT AS PROPERTY
Copyright is property. Generally speaking, the author of a book
creates the copyright and owns it. In most of the civilized world the
copyright is protected by national and international law for the
author's lifetime plus 70 years from the year after the year in which
he dies. The countries in which this true includes those in the EU,
America, and many in the Commonwealth, including Australia. Copyright
across borders is protected both by international agreement and by
mutual reciprocity arrangements between nations.

THE CREATION OF COPYRIGHT: AUTOMATIC AND PRESUMPTIVE
Copyright is automatic and presumptive. Automatic means the work does
not have to be registered, or even covered by a copyright notice and/
or symbol, because the copyright protection comes into being the
moment the work is created. Presumptive means the law assumes the
creator or his successors own it, and all pretenders must prove
otherwise.

RDH4: AUSTRALIAN ORIGIN AND FIRST OWNERSHIP
The Radio Designer's Handbook is an Australian book. The Fourth
Edition, an entirely new book compared to the Third Edition, was
published in 1953 and followed at later date(s) with substantially
revised and enlarged edition(s). It is the work of ten authors and
twenty-three collaborating engineers. The Editor was F. Langford-
Smith, an employee of Amagamated Wireless Valve of Sydney, Australia.
Under Australian law AWV became the first copyright holder. Note that
Australian law the term of such a corporately held copyright runs not
from publication but for the term of the *author's life* plus 70
calender years.

IS THE RDH4 IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN?
YES


. The AWV copyright was acquired by Reed-
Elseviers, a major publishing group. In 1997 the Newnes scientific and
engineering imprint of Reed published a facsimile edition of the last,
revised and expanded RDH4. Newnes proudly printed the copyright
holder's name in every copy:
cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997
Anyone who wants to exploit the RDH4 copyright requires a license from
Reed.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO DISTRIBUTE THE RDH4 ON THE INTERNET?
Unless they have a license from the copyright holder, they're thieves.
One set of thieves in Canada, for instance, lie about Canadian
copyright law to make it appear to the ignorant as if the RDH is out
of copyright (it isn't!) and then they cut off the title page and
copyright notice from the copy they offer in an effort to make their
lie work. Both these activities (lying about copyright, cutting off
title and copyright pages) are criminal acts, quite aside from the
theft of the copyright. The expensive typesetting of the book is
another piece of property, another theft when they scan it to PDF.

BUT THEY SAY OTHERS HAVE GOT AWAY WITH IT, SOMETIMES FOR A LONG TIME
The fact that they have stolen property repeatedly doesn't make it
theirs. Even the fact that the rightful owner doesn't object doesn't
excuse their crime, or act as a defense in law. The presumptive nature
of copyright ownership implies that the owner needs do nothing, until
one day he chooses to make an example of some thief. There are no
squatters' rights in copyright.

WHAT ABOUT THE MIRRORS OF THE NETTHIEVES OF THE RDH4?
The operators of the mirrors, and their ISP's, are guilty of copyright
theft under the laws of their own countries, and complicit in the
criminal act of cutting away the title page and copyright notice; they
are also complicit in the seperate crime of theft of the typesetting.

WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO REPRINT THE RDH4 ON CD ETC?
I imagine they have licences from Reed. That is standard practice for
respectable publishers. It is open to anyone to approach the copyright
holder with an offer to negotiate a license to publish the RDH4.
etimes tricky. Check out the bit above
where in Australia the term of a corporate copyright is the *author's
life plus 70 calendar years*; in America the corresponding term for a
corporate copyright is *95 years from publication*. In the global
village that sort of difference, and reciprocity agreements relating
to the treatment of such differences, can easily trip up the careless,
but only professionals really need to get in that deep.

I hope these notes help everyone understand why it is theft to give
away copies of the RDH4 on the internet.

Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
8 October 2007

© This text is copyright Andre Jute 2007. It is given as a public
service and may be freely reprinted in not-for-profit publications as
long as it is intact and this notice remains with it.



Do You really beleive all the drivel you post or do you just like
seeing your name on the screen?

[Stewart Schooley]

Your account doesn't take into consideration the "fair use" doctrine of
U.S. law.

The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works

Notice the words research and education.

Also this;

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Teaching, scholarship, and research

Stewart

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 7, 6:42 pm, Stewart Schooley wrote:
Your account doesn't take into consideration the "fair use" doctrine of
U.S. law.

The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works

Notice the words research and education.

Also this;

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Teaching, scholarship, and research

Stewart

Sure, all the relevant copyright laws include a fair use provision.
Fair use permits the use of modest extracts of a copyright works for
the approved purposes. It doesn't include reproducing complete copies
of books, it doesn't sanction giving away copies of copyright works to
all and sundry for unknown purposes, as those who post copies of the
RDH4 to the net do. That is not fair use but simple copyright theft.

RDH4 COPYRIGHT -- THE MASTER FACT FILE
by Andre Jute

COPYRIGHT AS PROPERTY
Copyright is property. Generally speaking, the author of a book
creates the copyright and owns it. In most of the civilized world the
copyright is protected by national and international law for the
author's lifetime plus 70 years from the year after the year in which
he dies. The countries in which this true includes those in the EU,
America, and many in the Commonwealth, including Australia. Copyright
across borders is protected both by international agreement and by
mutual reciprocity arrangements between nations.

THE CREATION OF COPYRIGHT: AUTOMATIC AND PRESUMPTIVE
Copyright is automatic and presumptive. Automatic means the work does
not have to be registered, or even covered by a copyright notice and/
or symbol, because the copyright protection comes into being the
moment the work is created. Presumptive means the law assumes the
creator or his successors own it, and all pretenders must prove
otherwise.

RDH4: AUSTRALIAN ORIGIN AND FIRST OWNERSHIP
The Radio Designer's Handbook is an Australian book. The Fourth
Edition, an entirely new book compared to the Third Edition, was
published in 1953 and followed at later date(s) with substantially
revised and enlarged edition(s). It is the work of ten authors and
twenty-three collaborating engineers. The Editor was F. Langford-
Smith, an employee of Amagamated Wireless Valve of Sydney, Australia.
Under Australian law AWV became the first copyright holder. Note that
Australian law the term of such a corporately held copyright runs not
from publication but for the term of the *author's life* plus 70
calender years.

IS THE RDH4 IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN?
No, of course not. Assuming that all the authors were dead at
publication (clearly very unlikely as they made revisions and addenda
for years afterwards!), 70 calendar years from 1953 will be 2024. So
the question of the RDH4 entering the public domain cannot even arise
until the end of 2024. The material in the later revised and enlarged
edition will be protected even beyond that.

WHEN WILL THE RDH4 ENTER THE PUBLIC DOMAIN?
The RDH4 will enter the public domain 70 years after someone proves
that the last of the authors is dead. Since there are at least 33 of
them, plus possibly additional parties who wrote revisions and made
additions, some of them perhaps newly graduated engineers in the dozen
or so years after 1953, the likelihood is that several of them are
still alive. (I wish them much longer life!) The question cannot even
begin to be asked until sometime between 2024 and 2038.

AWV NO LONGER EXISTS. DID THE COPYRIGHT DIE WITH THE CORPORATION?
Copyright of the RDH4 is tied to the life of the author; it cannot be
exhausted before 70 years after the life of the author has passed.
Someone *always* owns it. The AWV copyright was acquired by Reed-
Elseviers, a major publishing group. In 1997 the Newnes scientific and
engineering imprint of Reed published a facsimile edition of the last,
revised and expanded RDH4. Newnes proudly printed the copyright
holder's name in every copy:
cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997
Anyone who wants to exploit the RDH4 copyright requires a license from
Reed.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO DISTRIBUTE THE RDH4 ON THE INTERNET?
Unless they have a license from the copyright holder, they're thieves.
One set of thieves in Canada, for instance, lie about Canadian
copyright law to make it appear to the ignorant as if the RDH is out
of copyright (it isn't!) and then they cut off the title page and
copyright notice from the copy they offer in an effort to make their
lie work. Both these activities (lying about copyright, cutting off
title and copyright pages) are criminal acts, quite aside from the
theft of the copyright. The expensive typesetting of the book is
another piece of property, another theft when they scan it to PDF.

BUT THEY SAY OTHERS HAVE GOT AWAY WITH IT, SOMETIMES FOR A LONG TIME
The fact that they have stolen property repeatedly doesn't make it
theirs. Even the fact that the rightful owner doesn't object doesn't
excuse their crime, or act as a defense in law. The presumptive nature
of copyright ownership implies that the owner needs do nothing, until
one day he chooses to make an example of some thief. There are no
squatters' rights in copyright.

WHAT ABOUT THE MIRRORS OF THE NETTHIEVES OF THE RDH4?
The operators of the mirrors, and their ISP's, are guilty of copyright
theft under the laws of their own countries, and complicit in the
criminal act of cutting away the title page and copyright notice; they
are also complicit in the seperate crime of theft of the typesetting.

WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO REPRINT THE RDH4 ON CD ETC?
I imagine they have licences from Reed. That is standard practice for
respectable publishers. It is open to anyone to approach the copyright
holder with an offer to negotiate a license to publish the RDH4.

BUT THE LAW IN MY COUNTRY IS DIFFERENT
It may seem so. But usually, on deeper enquiry, you will discover a
reciprocity arrangement which, in the majority of cases, permit the
books of a foreign author or publisher to be treated in your country
as if the laws of the foreign country applies.

CAN COPYRIGHT LAW REALLY BE THIS SIMPLE AND STRAIGHFORWARD?
For honest people the answer, surprisingly, is yes! But it is true
that for the dishonest, who wriggle and turn and lie to try and claim
a book is out of copyright when it isn't, and of course for lawyers,
copyright can be subtle and sometimes tricky. Check out the bit above
where in Australia the term of a corporate copyright is the *author's
life plus 70 calendar years*; in America the corresponding term for a
corporate copyright is *95 years from publication*. In the global
village that sort of difference, and reciprocity agreements relating
to the treatment of such differences, can easily trip up the careless,
but only professionals really need to get in that deep.

I hope these notes help everyone understand why it is theft to give
away copies of the RDH4 on the internet.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
8 October 2007

© This text is copyright Andre Jute 2007. It is given as a public
service and may be freely reprinted in not-for-profit publications as
long as it is intact and this notice remains with it.

[glenbadd]

On Oct 8, 9:56 am, Andre Jute wrote:
RDH4 COPYRIGHT -- THE MASTER FACT FILE
by Andre Jute

COPYRIGHT AS PROPERTY
Copyright is property. Generally speaking, the author of a book
creates the copyright and owns it.

There are essentially 2 copyright regimes, the copyright of
literary expression (the words) and the copyright of the
presentation (the printing of the book). The author generally
owns the former, the publisher generally owns the latter.
An editor of a book (eg. F L-S) generally does not own
anything. The copyright can be freely assigned and
traded to other people and organisations. Its hard to say
who owns copyright of old books without contacting
the cited owner and following the trail of ownership
to the present day.

My 2c, Glenn.

[Stewart Schooley]

flipper wrote:
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 21:42:25 -0400, Stewart Schooley
wrote:


Your account doesn't take into consideration the "fair use" doctrine of
U.S. law.


The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works

Notice the words research and education.

Also this;


Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Teaching, scholarship, and research

Stewart



Not applicable

It is applicable because the OP didn't give a complete accounting of
copyright law.

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 7, 8:03 pm, glenbadd wrote:
On Oct 8, 9:56 am, Andre Jute wrote:

RDH4 COPYRIGHT -- THE MASTER FACT FILE
by Andre Jute

COPYRIGHT AS PROPERTY
Copyright is property. Generally speaking, the author of a book
creates the copyright and owns it.

There are essentially 2 copyright regimes, the copyright of
literary expression (the words) and the copyright of the
presentation (the printing of the book). The author generally
owns the former, the publisher generally owns the latter.
An editor of a book (eg. F L-S) generally does not own
anything. The copyright can be freely assigned and
traded to other people and organisations. Its hard to say
who owns copyright of old books without contacting
the cited owner and following the trail of ownership
to the present day.

My 2c, Glenn.

Tres exactement!

However, in this case of the RDH4 each of the points you make is
resolved and important in its resolution.

The editor, Langford-Smith, and other contributing authors, are
important because under Australian law the *term* of a corporate
copyright is tied to their lifetimes, i.e. 70 calendar years from when
the last one dies.

In this case it is easy to determine who owns the copyright of this
important old book, the RDH4, because when Newnes brought out a
facsimile edition in 1997, they trumpeted their mother ship's
ownership fo the copyright to the skies by printing in every copy:
cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997

Your point about the copyright and the setting being separate pieces
of property: that's significant, and the copyright thieves who make
PDFs to offer over the net perforce steal the setting too. An example
is the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky Prodanovic who offer a
stolen RDH4 from a Canadian netsite; they have cut away the title page
and the copyright notice in an effort to disguise which edition and
whose typesetting they stole. But there was ever only one typesetting
which the present copyright owner bought together with the copyright,
so the thieves shot themselves in the foot, because the deletion of
the title page and copyright page confirm their intention of stealing
the copyright.

By the way, the editor doesn't always own nothing, especially if he is
more accurately described as a compiler. In the middle nineties I
conceived and packaged a set of books for Batsford and acted as
general editor, and retained a third of the royalties even on those I
didn't write, because the overall concept and ideas for the books were
mine. Each case must be judged on its merits,

****

RDH4 COPYRIGHT -- THE MASTER FACT FILE
by Andre Jute

COPYRIGHT AS PROPERTY
Copyright is property. Generally speaking, the author of a book
creates the copyright and owns it. In most of the civilized world the
copyright is protected by national and international law for the
author's lifetime plus 70 years from the year after the year in which
he dies. The countries in which this true includes those in the EU,
America, and many in the Commonwealth, including Australia. Copyright
across borders is protected both by international agreement and by
mutual reciprocity arrangements between nations.

THE CREATION OF COPYRIGHT: AUTOMATIC AND PRESUMPTIVE
Copyright is automatic and presumptive. Automatic means the work does
not have to be registered, or even covered by a copyright notice and/
or symbol, because the copyright protection comes into being the
moment the work is created. Presumptive means the law assumes the
creator or his successors own it, and all pretenders must prove
otherwise.

RDH4: AUSTRALIAN ORIGIN AND FIRST OWNERSHIP
The Radio Designer's Handbook is an Australian book. The Fourth
Edition, an entirely new book compared to the Third Edition, was
published in 1953 and followed at later date(s) with substantially
revised and enlarged edition(s). It is the work of ten authors and
twenty-three collaborating engineers. The Editor was F. Langford-
Smith, an employee of Amagamated Wireless Valve of Sydney, Australia.
Under Australian law AWV became the first copyright holder. Note that
Australian law the term of such a corporately held copyright runs not
from publication but for the term of the *author's life* plus 70
calender years.

IS THE RDH4 IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN?
No, of course not. Assuming that all the authors were dead at
publication (clearly very unlikely as they made revisions and addenda
for years afterwards!), 70 calendar years from 1953 will be 2024. So
the question of the RDH4 entering the public domain cannot even arise
until the end of 2024. The material in the later revised and enlarged
edition will be protected even beyond that.

WHEN WILL THE RDH4 ENTER THE PUBLIC DOMAIN?
The RDH4 will enter the public domain 70 years after someone proves
that the last of the authors is dead. Since there are at least 33 of
them, plus possibly additional parties who wrote revisions and made
additions, some of them perhaps newly graduated engineers in the dozen
or so years after 1953, the likelihood is that several of them are
still alive. (I wish them much longer life!) The question cannot even
begin to be asked until sometime between 2024 and 2038.

AWV NO LONGER EXISTS. DID THE COPYRIGHT DIE WITH THE CORPORATION?
Copyright of the RDH4 is tied to the life of the author; it cannot be
exhausted before 70 years after the life of the author has passed.
Someone *always* owns it. The AWV copyright was acquired by Reed-
Elseviers, a major publishing group. In 1997 the Newnes scientific and
engineering imprint of Reed published a facsimile edition of the last,
revised and expanded RDH4. Newnes proudly printed the copyright
holder's name in every copy:
cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997
Anyone who wants to exploit the RDH4 copyright requires a license from
Reed.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO DISTRIBUTE THE RDH4 ON THE INTERNET?
Unless they have a license from the copyright holder, they're thieves.
One set of thieves in Canada, for instance, lie about Canadian
copyright law to make it appear to the ignorant as if the RDH is out
of copyright (it isn't!) and then they cut off the title page and
copyright notice from the copy they offer in an effort to make their
lie work. Both these activities (lying about copyright, cutting off
title and copyright pages) are criminal acts, quite aside from the
theft of the copyright. The expensive typesetting of the book is
another piece of property, another theft when they scan it to PDF.

BUT THEY SAY OTHERS HAVE GOT AWAY WITH IT, SOMETIMES FOR A LONG TIME
The fact that they have stolen property repeatedly doesn't make it
theirs. Even the fact that the rightful owner doesn't object doesn't
excuse their crime, or act as a defense in law. The presumptive nature
of copyright ownership implies that the owner needs do nothing, until
one day he chooses to make an example of some thief. There are no
squatters' rights in copyright.

WHAT ABOUT THE MIRRORS OF THE NETTHIEVES OF THE RDH4?
The operators of the mirrors, and their ISP's, are guilty of copyright
theft under the laws of their own countries, and complicit in the
criminal act of cutting away the title page and copyright notice; they
are also complicit in the seperate crime of theft of the typesetting.

WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO REPRINT THE RDH4 ON CD ETC?
I imagine they have licences from Reed. That is standard practice for
respectable publishers. It is open to anyone to approach the copyright
holder with an offer to negotiate a license to publish the RDH4.

BUT THE LAW IN MY COUNTRY IS DIFFERENT
It may seem so. But usually, on deeper enquiry, you will discover a
reciprocity arrangement which, in the majority of cases, permit the
books of a foreign author or publisher to be treated in your country
as if the laws of the foreign country applies.

CAN COPYRIGHT LAW REALLY BE THIS SIMPLE AND STRAIGHFORWARD?
For honest people the answer, surprisingly, is yes! But it is true
that for the dishonest, who wriggle and turn and lie to try and claim
a book is out of copyright when it isn't, and of course for lawyers,
copyright can be subtle and sometimes tricky. Check out the bit above
where in Australia the term of a corporate copyright is the *author's
life plus 70 calendar years*; in America the corresponding term for a
corporate copyright is *95 years from publication*. In the global
village that sort of difference, and reciprocity agreements relating
to the treatment of such differences, can easily trip up the careless,
but only professionals really need to get in that deep.

I hope these notes help everyone understand why it is theft to give
away copies of the RDH4 on the internet.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
8 October 2007

© This text is copyright Andre Jute 2007. It is given as a public
service and may be freely reprinted in not-for-profit publications as
long as it is intact and this notice remains with it.

[[email protected]]

In rec.antiques.radio+phono Andre Jute wrote:
In this case it is easy to determine who owns the copyright of this
important old book, the RDH4, because when Newnes brought out a
facsimile edition in 1997, they trumpeted their mother ship's
ownership fo the copyright to the skies by printing in every copy:
cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997

So, I presume you asked them what their position is on this copyright
before posting your rants? If so, what is their position? If they still
own this copyright, that is, since your information is 10 years old.

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 8, 2:45 am, wrote:
In rec.antiques.radio+phono Andre Jute wrote:

In this case it is easy to determine who owns the copyright of this
important old book, the RDH4, because when Newnes brought out a
facsimile edition in 1997, they trumpeted their mother ship's
ownership fo the copyright to the skies by printing in every copy:
cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997

So, I presume you asked them what their position is on this copyright

Presumption is no substitute for understanding the facts and the
implications. Why should I ask the copyright holders anything? I don't
intend taking a license to republish. I am merely indicating to
thieves who lie that the RDH4 is out of copyright where they can
discover the true position. Since you're so keen, perhaps you should
ask the thieves Gregg, Tim Williams and Choky Prodanovic to withdraw
the stolen RDH4 from the net while they enquire into the copyright
position.

before posting your rants?

Why is set of relevant facts published as a public service a "rant"?
Or is your abusive terminology merely symptomatic of your choice to
side with thieves, a reaction to seeing them exposed as thieves?

If so, what is their position?

If you are interested, you should ask them. But if you had read and
understood "RDH4 COPYRIGHT -- THE MASTER FACT FILE", you would
understand that the copyright owner's "position", or lack of one, or
lack of expression of one, is irrelvant to the facts and morality of
these thefts of RDH4 copyright. Read the section about copyright being
presumptive in law once more, and ask someone with good English
comprehension to interpret it to you.

If they still
own this copyright, that is, since your information is 10 years old.

There is no known reason to suppose they no longer own the copyright.
There is in the practice of publishing no obvious reason for them to
have passed it on. It is furthermore irrelevant whether they passed it
on: when you approach a previous copyright holder he merely tells you
he sold the rights on and who to, and you move along the chain. Once
you understand that, the key fact is not how old my information is but
that the copyright of the RDH4, in the ownership of whosoever, cannot
be exhausted before 2024 at the earliest, and possibly much later, and
therefore any unlicensed use is ipso facto theft. In short: There is
no way the RDH4 copyright can be without an owner, therefore any
unlicensed use is theft.

Here, for your convenience, are my notes again in full:

****

RDH4 COPYRIGHT -- THE MASTER FACT FILE
by Andre Jute

COPYRIGHT AS PROPERTY
Copyright is property. Generally speaking, the author of a book
creates the copyright and owns it. In most of the civilized world the
copyright is protected by national and international law for the
author's lifetime plus 70 years from the year after the year in which
he dies. The countries in which this true includes those in the EU,
America, and many in the Commonwealth, including Australia. Copyright
across borders is protected both by international agreement and by
mutual reciprocity arrangements between nations.

THE CREATION OF COPYRIGHT: AUTOMATIC AND PRESUMPTIVE
Copyright is automatic and presumptive. Automatic means the work does
not have to be registered, or even covered by a copyright notice and/
or symbol, because the copyright protection comes into being the
moment the work is created. Presumptive means the law assumes the
creator or his successors own it, and all pretenders must prove
otherwise.

RDH4: AUSTRALIAN ORIGIN AND FIRST OWNERSHIP
The Radio Designer's Handbook is an Australian book. The Fourth
Edition, an entirely new book compared to the Third Edition, was
published in 1953 and followed at later date(s) with substantially
revised and enlarged edition(s). It is the work of ten authors and
twenty-three collaborating engineers. The Editor was F. Langford-
Smith, an employee of Amagamated Wireless Valve of Sydney, Australia.
Under Australian law AWV became the first copyright holder. Note that
Australian law the term of such a corporately held copyright runs not
from publication but for the term of the *author's life* plus 70
calender years.

IS THE RDH4 IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN?
No, of course not. Assuming that all the authors were dead at
publication (clearly very unlikely as they made revisions and addenda
for years afterwards!), 70 calendar years from 1953 will be 2024. So
the question of the RDH4 entering the public domain cannot even arise
until the end of 2024. The material in the later revised and enlarged
edition will be protected even beyond that.

WHEN WILL THE RDH4 ENTER THE PUBLIC DOMAIN?
The RDH4 will enter the public domain 70 years after someone proves
that the last of the authors is dead. Since there are at least 33 of
them, plus possibly additional parties who wrote revisions and made
additions, some of them perhaps newly graduated engineers in the dozen
or so years after 1953, the likelihood is that several of them are
still alive. (I wish them much longer life!) The question cannot even
begin to be asked until sometime between 2024 and 2038.

AWV NO LONGER EXISTS. DID THE COPYRIGHT DIE WITH THE CORPORATION?
Copyright of the RDH4 is tied to the life of the author; it cannot be
exhausted before 70 years after the life of the author has passed.
Someone *always* owns it. The AWV copyright was acquired by Reed-
Elseviers, a major publishing group. In 1997 the Newnes scientific and
engineering imprint of Reed published a facsimile edition of the last,
revised and expanded RDH4. Newnes proudly printed the copyright
holder's name in every copy:
cReed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd 1997
Anyone who wants to exploit the RDH4 copyright requires a license from
Reed.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO DISTRIBUTE THE RDH4 ON THE INTERNET?
Unless they have a license from the copyright holder, they're thieves.
One set of thieves in Canada, for instance, lie about Canadian
copyright law to make it appear to the ignorant as if the RDH is out
of copyright (it isn't!) and then they cut off the title page and
copyright notice from the copy they offer in an effort to make their
lie work. Both these activities (lying about copyright, cutting off
title and copyright pages) are criminal acts, quite aside from the
theft of the copyright. The expensive typesetting of the book is
another piece of property, another theft when they scan it to PDF.

BUT THEY SAY OTHERS HAVE GOT AWAY WITH IT, SOMETIMES FOR A LONG TIME
The fact that they have stolen property repeatedly doesn't make it
theirs. Even the fact that the rightful owner doesn't object doesn't
excuse their crime, or act as a defense in law. The presumptive nature
of copyright ownership implies that the owner needs do nothing, until
one day he chooses to make an example of some thief. There are no
squatters' rights in copyright.

WHAT ABOUT THE MIRRORS OF THE NETTHIEVES OF THE RDH4?
The operators of the mirrors, and their ISP's, are guilty of copyright
theft under the laws of their own countries, and complicit in the
criminal act of cutting away the title page and copyright notice; they
are also complicit in the seperate crime of theft of the typesetting.

WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO REPRINT THE RDH4 ON CD ETC?
I imagine they have licences from Reed. That is standard practice for
respectable publishers. It is open to anyone to approach the copyright
holder with an offer to negotiate a license to publish the RDH4.

BUT THE LAW IN MY COUNTRY IS DIFFERENT
It may seem so. But usually, on deeper enquiry, you will discover a
reciprocity arrangement which, in the majority of cases, permit the
books of a foreign author or publisher to be treated in your country
as if the laws of the foreign country applies.

CAN COPYRIGHT LAW REALLY BE THIS SIMPLE AND STRAIGHFORWARD?
For honest people the answer, surprisingly, is yes! But it is true
that for the dishonest, who wriggle and turn and lie to try and claim
a book is out of copyright when it isn't, and of course for lawyers,
copyright can be subtle and sometimes tricky. Check out the bit above
where in Australia the term of a corporate copyright is the *author's
life plus 70 calendar years*; in America the corresponding term for a
corporate copyright is *95 years from publication*. In the global
village that sort of difference, and reciprocity agreements relating
to the treatment of such differences, can easily trip up the careless,
but only professionals really need to get in that deep.

I hope these notes help everyone understand why it is theft to give
away copies of the RDH4 on the internet.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
8 October 2007

© This text is copyright Andre Jute 2007. It is given as a public
service and may be freely reprinted in not-for-profit publications as
long as it is intact and this notice remains with it.

[Stewart Schooley]

flipper wrote:
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 23:12:20 -0400, Stewart Schooley
wrote:


flipper wrote:

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 21:42:25 -0400, Stewart Schooley
wrote:



Your account doesn't take into consideration the "fair use" doctrine of
U.S. law.



The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works

Notice the words research and education.

Also this;



Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Teaching, scholarship, and research

Stewart



Not applicable

It is applicable because the OP didn't give a complete accounting of
copyright law.



That is a non-sequitur. Just being a 'part of the law' somewhere
doesn't make it applicable and there is a lot of copyright law that
hasn't been mentioned... reason being it isn't, as I said, applicable.

Read the OT again and you'll see that it is presented as a tutorial on
copyright law and near the end we read this comment;

CAN COPYRIGHT LAW REALLY BE THIS SIMPLE AND STRAIGHFORWARD?

The purpose of my post was to point out that there is another part of
copyright law that can be very ambiguous at times. This was for readers
that may not have researched copyright law. The fair use doctrine came
about because of lawsuits and court decisions. Today, spoof, parody, and
sarcasm are pretty well protected so the question becomes how much of a
copyrighted work can be excerpted for scholarship and research.

Consider this, if an electronics teacher uses RDH4 as a resource for his
classes over an entire semester, at what point does he violate copyright
laws?

I don't think that anyone would doubt that copying an entire book would
be breaking the law.

I will grant you that my response to you should have been; It is
applicable to this thread because the OT didn't give a complete
accounting of copyright law.

Stewart

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 8, 2:42 pm, Stewart Schooley wrote:
flipper wrote:
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 23:12:20 -0400, Stewart Schooley
wrote:

flipper wrote:

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 21:42:25 -0400, Stewart Schooley
wrote:

Your account doesn't take into consideration the "fair use" doctrine of
U.S. law.

The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works

Notice the words research and education.

Also this;

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Teaching, scholarship, and research

Stewart

Not applicable

It is applicable because the OP didn't give a complete accounting of
copyright law.

That is a non-sequitur. Just being a 'part of the law' somewhere
doesn't make it applicable and there is a lot of copyright law that
hasn't been mentioned... reason being it isn't, as I said, applicable.

Read the OT again and you'll see that it is presented as a tutorial on
copyright law and near the end we read this comment;

CAN COPYRIGHT LAW REALLY BE THIS SIMPLE AND STRAIGHFORWARD?

I think Flipper is right, actually; there is no way, nor any need, to
include all of copyright law. I also say, though admittedly near the
end, "I hope these notes help everyone understand why it is theft to
give away copies of the RDH4 on the internet." That makes clear what I
consider the limits of my piece to be. On the other hand, one doesn't
want to label honest teachers or critics thieves, or gratuitously give
them cause to worry, so I have taken your suggestion and published a
revised version to include fair use. It is in a separate thread called
"RDH4 COPYRIGHT -- THE MASTER FACT FILE -- reprised".

The purpose of my post was to point out that there is another part of
copyright law that can be very ambiguous at times.

Fair use doesn't have to be difficult for those of honest purpuse and
the slightest discrimination. It is only when people on either side
push their luck and behave unreasonably that difficulties arise.

This was for readers
that may not have researched copyright law. The fair use doctrine came
about because of lawsuits and court decisions. Today, spoof, parody, and
sarcasm are pretty well protected so the question becomes how much of a
copyrighted work can be excerpted for scholarship and research.

Consider this, if an electronics teacher uses RDH4 as a resource for his
classes over an entire semester, at what point does he violate copyright
laws?

Ha! You *would* choose a rather difficult example. But, hey, I'm
always game.

I don't think that anyone would doubt that copying an entire book would
be breaking the law.

The RDH4 is made up of chapters collected from different authors, so
clearly a whole chapter or a substantial part of a chapter would be
excessive. On the other hand, the chapters are long and the print
fine, so perhaps as much as a third to half a page of extract or
quotation from any chapter would be considered reasonable as long as
you added several times that much material of your own to your
finished piece. I reckon a teacher could teach a semester or even two
out ot the RDH, taking one or two third-page extracts or maybe one of
those dense graphs or tables, each week from a *different* chapter as
the basis for a 50 minute lecture, without doing violence to fair use
for each of the units he extracted from. The difficulty would arise
were he to distribute an entire chapter as the basis for any unit of
work, or any substantial part of any chapter even piecemeal over a
period of a year, or take even half a page from *each* of the
chapters, all the time edging closer to unfair practice. This is your
question, so where would you draw the line of judgement?

I will grant you that my response to you should have been; It is
applicable to this thread because the OT didn't give a complete
accounting of copyright law.

I'm happy to include fair use because it is the decent and
constructive obverse of immoral copyright theft, but I don't pretend
to a complete accounting of copyright law in the compass of a few
hundred words.

Stewart

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Stewart Schooley]

Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 8, 2:42 pm, Stewart Schooley wrote:

flipper wrote:

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 23:12:20 -0400, Stewart Schooley
wrote:

flipper wrote:

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 21:42:25 -0400, Stewart Schooley
wrote:

Your account doesn't take into consideration the "fair use" doctrine of
U.S. law.

The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works

Notice the words research and education.

Also this;

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Teaching, scholarship, and research

Stewart

Not applicable

It is applicable because the OP didn't give a complete accounting of
copyright law.

That is a non-sequitur. Just being a 'part of the law' somewhere
doesn't make it applicable and there is a lot of copyright law that
hasn't been mentioned... reason being it isn't, as I said, applicable.

Read the OT again and you'll see that it is presented as a tutorial on
copyright law and near the end we read this comment;


CAN COPYRIGHT LAW REALLY BE THIS SIMPLE AND STRAIGHFORWARD?


I think Flipper is right, actually; there is no way, nor any need, to
include all of copyright law. I also say, though admittedly near the
end, "I hope these notes help everyone understand why it is theft to
give away copies of the RDH4 on the internet." That makes clear what I
consider the limits of my piece to be. On the other hand, one doesn't
want to label honest teachers or critics thieves, or gratuitously give
them cause to worry, so I have taken your suggestion and published a
revised version to include fair use. It is in a separate thread called
"RDH4 COPYRIGHT -- THE MASTER FACT FILE -- reprised".


The purpose of my post was to point out that there is another part of
copyright law that can be very ambiguous at times.


Fair use doesn't have to be difficult for those of honest purpuse and
the slightest discrimination. It is only when people on either side
push their luck and behave unreasonably that difficulties arise.


This was for readers
that may not have researched copyright law. The fair use doctrine came
about because of lawsuits and court decisions. Today, spoof, parody, and
sarcasm are pretty well protected so the question becomes how much of a
copyrighted work can be excerpted for scholarship and research.

Consider this, if an electronics teacher uses RDH4 as a resource for his
classes over an entire semester, at what point does he violate copyright
laws?


Ha! You *would* choose a rather difficult example. But, hey, I'm
always game.


I don't think that anyone would doubt that copying an entire book would
be breaking the law.


The RDH4 is made up of chapters collected from different authors, so
clearly a whole chapter or a substantial part of a chapter would be
excessive. On the other hand, the chapters are long and the print
fine, so perhaps as much as a third to half a page of extract or
quotation from any chapter would be considered reasonable as long as
you added several times that much material of your own to your
finished piece. I reckon a teacher could teach a semester or even two
out ot the RDH, taking one or two third-page extracts or maybe one of
those dense graphs or tables, each week from a *different* chapter as
the basis for a 50 minute lecture, without doing violence to fair use
for each of the units he extracted from. The difficulty would arise
were he to distribute an entire chapter as the basis for any unit of
work, or any substantial part of any chapter even piecemeal over a
period of a year, or take even half a page from *each* of the
chapters, all the time edging closer to unfair practice. This is your
question, so where would you draw the line of judgement?


Yes, it is my question and I really don't know the answer. I think the
teacher should atribute his source, but all in all, if I were the
teacher I think I would require the students to have the RDH. If they
lifted it free off the Internet, it would be their offense and not mine.
I know, I know. A clear case of moral tap dancing.

Stewart




I will grant you that my response to you should have been; It is
applicable to this thread because the OT didn't give a complete
accounting of copyright law.


I'm happy to include fair use because it is the decent and
constructive obverse of immoral copyright theft, but I don't pretend
to a complete accounting of copyright law in the compass of a few
hundred words.


Stewart


Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Steven]

Stewart, will you kindly Shut The **** Up about this shrivelled p----
and his game and deal with topics that you can actually deal with?

Thank you kindly

[Steven]

On Oct 8, 7:11 pm, Stewart Schooley wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 8, 2:42 pm, Stewart Schooley wrote:

flipper wrote:

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 23:12:20 -0400, Stewart Schooley
wrote:

flipper wrote:

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 21:42:25 -0400, Stewart Schooley
wrote:

Your account doesn't take into consideration the "fair use" doctrine of
U.S. law.

The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works

Notice the words research and education.

Also this;

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Teaching, scholarship, and research

Stewart

Not applicable

It is applicable because the OP didn't give a complete accounting of
copyright law.

That is a non-sequitur. Just being a 'part of the law' somewhere
doesn't make it applicable and there is a lot of copyright law that
hasn't been mentioned... reason being it isn't, as I said, applicable.

Read the OT again and you'll see that it is presented as a tutorial on
copyright law and near the end we read this comment;

CAN COPYRIGHT LAW REALLY BE THIS SIMPLE AND STRAIGHFORWARD?

I think Flipper is right, actually; there is no way, nor any need, to
include all of copyright law. I also say, though admittedly near the
end, "I hope these notes help everyone understand why it is theft to
give away copies of the RDH4 on the internet." That makes clear what I
consider the limits of my piece to be. On the other hand, one doesn't
want to label honest teachers or critics thieves, or gratuitously give
them cause to worry, so I have taken your suggestion and published a
revised version to include fair use. It is in a separate thread called
"RDH4 COPYRIGHT -- THE MASTER FACT FILE -- reprised".

The purpose of my post was to point out that there is another part of
copyright law that can be very ambiguous at times.

Fair use doesn't have to be difficult for those of honest purpuse and
the slightest discrimination. It is only when people on either side
push their luck and behave unreasonably that difficulties arise.

This was for readers
that may not have researched copyright law. The fair use doctrine came
about because of lawsuits and court decisions. Today, spoof, parody, and
sarcasm are pretty well protected so the question becomes how much of a
copyrighted work can be excerpted for scholarship and research.

Consider this, if an electronics teacher uses RDH4 as a resource for his
classes over an entire semester, at what point does he violate copyright
laws?

Ha! You *would* choose a rather difficult example. But, hey, I'm
always game.

I don't think that anyone would doubt that copying an entire book would
be breaking the law.

The RDH4 is made up of chapters collected from different authors, so
clearly a whole chapter or a substantial part of a chapter would be
excessive. On the other hand, the chapters are long and the print
fine, so perhaps as much as a third to half a page of extract or
quotation from any chapter would be considered reasonable as long as
you added several times that much material of your own to your
finished piece. I reckon a teacher could teach a semester or even two
out ot the RDH, taking one or two third-page extracts or maybe one of
those dense graphs or tables, each week from a *different* chapter as
the basis for a 50 minute lecture, without doing violence to fair use
for each of the units he extracted from. The difficulty would arise
were he to distribute an entire chapter as the basis for any unit of
work, or any substantial part of any chapter even piecemeal over a
period of a year, or take even half a page from *each* of the
chapters, all the time edging closer to unfair practice. This is your
question, so where would you draw the line of judgement?

Yes, it is my question and I really don't know the answer. I think the
teacher should atribute his source, but all in all, if I were the
teacher I think I would require the students to have the RDH. If they
lifted it free off the Internet, it would be their offense and not mine.
I know, I know. A clear case of moral tap dancing.

Stewart





I will grant you that my response to you should have been; It is
applicable to this thread because the OT didn't give a complete
accounting of copyright law.

I'm happy to include fair use because it is the decent and
constructive obverse of immoral copyright theft, but I don't pretend
to a complete accounting of copyright law in the compass of a few
hundred words.

Stewart

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps athttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Stewart Schooley]

Steven wrote:
Stewart, will you kindly Shut The **** Up about this shrivelled p----
and his game and deal with topics that you can actually deal with?

Thank you kindly


You stupid son of a bitch, you have no idea how many times copyright has
been discussed on RAR+P. Do a Google groups search on copyright and you
will get 1,030 results.

Discussions here about copyright several years ago led me to research it
so don't you dare say that I can't deal with it.

Stewart - Who is ****ed at himself because he aknowledged the existence
of Steven

[glenbadd]

One should also bear in mind that copyright law, like any law, only
takes effect when someone (the copyright owner) cares to take legal
action because they feel their rights and entitlements are being
infringed to their detriment (eg. loss of income), the legal action
goes to a court of law, and a prosecution is successful, and the
punishment made.

The current copyright owners of RDH4 may or may not know that pirate
PDF scans or CD-Rs exist on Internet, or if they do know, they may not
care. If people want to buy a legitimate hard cover volume (which is
in many ways is better reading dodgy scans via Adobe Reader), they
will actively seek out a book shop on online book seller who has it.

I have 3 different hard cover originals of RDH4, as well as hard
covers of RHD3, 2 and 1. I'm happy.

Glenn.

[Steven]

On Oct 8, 7:58 pm, Stewart Schooley wrote:
Steven wrote:
Stewart, will you kindly Shut The **** Up about this shrivelled p----
and his game and deal with topics that you can actually deal with?

Thank you kindly

You stupid son of a bitch, you have no idea how many times copyright has
been discussed on RAR+P. Do a Google groups search on copyright and you
will get 1,030 results.

Discussions here about copyright several years ago led me to research it
so don't you dare say that I can't deal with it.

Stewart - Who is ****ed at himself because he aknowledged the existence
of Steven

I don't care about that. Stop arguing with Andrew. I'm tired of
everyone stringing HIM ALONG.

You should only be ****ed because you're being really naive and
arguing with a serial arguer and you haven't noticed we've been trying
to get past him for quite a while. I'm just sick of looking at the
threads return so much.

Ken G. is trying to be happy and others look at him like he's bizarre
and HE'S RIGHT.

GET A GRIP KIDS. I've got 5 other groups full of morons and 1 with the
same dumb Q's over and over (it's peer help for Google Groups even)
and somehow I can deal with all that. Get back to work at WHAT WE DO.

We fix stuff. We aren't writing books (unless we are Alan Douglas,
FWIW). We don't babysit Andre Jute and we don't have a group to speak
of right now.