It is hard to keep track of companies today. Heath was sold many years ago,
Zenith, and who knows where from there. I am sure Zenith was acquired by some
other company and so on. Look what happened to RCA.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [email@example.com] On Behalf Of
Saandy Eban [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 5:41 AM
To: Glen Zook
Subject: Re: [Amps] Heath copyright
yeees, that true in a way. but how you cope with something like the fact
that Heath is DEAD?
Who is the beneficiary of the intellectual knowledge of a defunct company?
Usually, a company is required by law to provide service and spares for its
products for a certain length of time, after having sold the product. if it
falls, i don't see a reason why the last resource remaining to keep the
product alive shouldn't pass in the public domain. It seems to me that it
should be part of the company's responsibility- well, it probably doesn't
exactly fit to Heath, since at the time electronic copies weren't available-
but but selling a TS-140 manual for 40$ IS forcing many of us to resort to
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Glen Zook <email@example.com> wrote:
> There are no "eternal" copyrights. Basically, under the Copyright Law of
> the United States of America an individual copyright is for the life of the
> author plus 70 years. For works "created for hire" (and the Heath manuals
> fit into this category) the length of the copyright is 95 years. There are
> other lengths of copyrights but those two are the most prevalent.
> Now trademarks are a "horse of a different color". If a trademark is
> defended and maintained then it will be in effect so long as the company
> exists. But, for copyrights, there is definitely a length of time before
> the document (etc.) passes into public domain.
> The Berne Convention has been in effect since 1886 and the world has
> survived without any major problems. Many of the people who object to
> copyright laws want to profit from the works of others without having to pay
> for the material. Although an individual may not think that they are
> profiting by ignoring copyright law, every single person who ignores the
> copyright law contributes to the loss of income rightfully due the holder of
> the copyright. It is up to the holder of the copyright to decide if they
> want to profit from the copyright or if they basically want to allow free
> use of the material and/or put it in public domain.
> Glen, K9STH
> Website: http://k9sth.com
> --- On Thu, 5/20/10, Jeff Carter <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> One of the things that really bothers me about current day America is how
> much we talk about freedom and then think talking about it is equivalent to
> actually having it.
> If freedom means being free from arbitrary government interference and free
> from protection/promotion of corporate interest over individual liberty,
> Americans are not free. I have had this pointed out to me by Russian hams,
> who love to tell Americans that they should come to Russia so they could be
> Lest any of you scoff, here is what freedom looks like in Russia:
> Nothing there is of any use to you unless you already own the hardware.
> >From my perspective, once you own the hardware, and have paid for it, it
> should be yours to do with as you please. If you want to mod it, or dunk it
> into the nearest toilet, you should have the freedom to do so. As far as I
> can determine, just myself and the Russians believe this nowadays, or at
> least we're the only ones saying it out loud.
> I am not a believer in eternal copyrights. I'm thinking that the lifetime
> of the author is plenty, and 25 years for a corporation is plenty. The
> direction that "Intellectual Property" law is headed into will eventually
> mean that all advances made by the human race will belong to some
> corporation in perpetuity, which in turn will generate engineering lockdown
> in the West outside of corporate R&D and signed NDAs.
> Amps mailing list
Amps mailing list
Amps mailing list