[TowerTalk] Antenna Compendium Vol 6

[Jim Lux]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry K3BZ" <k3bz at arrl.net>
To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Antenna Compendium Vol 6


> Many laymen and even lawyers labor under this popular misconception. What
is
> intended is reproduction for profit, not the occasional sharing. Of
course,
> now an outcry will arise from those who believe the myth,  but it's
> essentially the same situation with music.  Nobody is chasing individuals
> who occasionally share with a friend, they are chasing those who copy in
> volume, for profit.
>
> 73,  Jerry K3BZ

What Jerry is talking about is "fair use", for which there IS a legal way to
copy. However, copying an entire article from a book or magazine is
generally not "fair use".  Stanford University has a great website on "fair
use", with excellent descriptions and examples of what is considered "fair"
and what's not.

The fact that nobody is chasing infringers does NOT mean that it's ok to do
it, anymore than the fact that I can run a stopsign without getting caught
is ok.  Likewise, copying music (or ripping an MP3) for a friend is a
violation.  Sure, you can try to rationalize it as "I wouldn't have bought
the album so there's no lost sales" or "The artist is getting free
publicity", but it doesn't change the basic "wrongness" of the act.

People who should know better (i.e. college professors) hideously abuse fair
use with things like "course packs" and photocopies of ostensibly out of
print books.  Hey, if I hold copyright, and for some peculiar reason, I
don't want people copying my work, however useful, then that's my
perogative. You can wait until it falls out of copyright, or beg me to give
you permission.

Sorry about the rant, but this is a "hot button" issue for me. You haven't
lived until you do a search for some information using google, and find
strangely familiar words (your own) in someone else's PhD thesis, copied
verbatim.

Frankly, most small copyright holders are more than happy to grant
permission to reproduce, especially for reasonably sized excerpts, as long
as credit is given.  The real trouble comes in with "entertainment" kinds of
things, where the mindset is "how can we make money from this, especially if
it wasn't covered in a gross points agreement with the original creator".
The other sticky one is where who, exactly, has the rights, is unclear
(maybe you want to use something published 30-40 years ago, and the original
publisher has gone out of business, and it's not clear exactly who you
should ask).

If you don't like how copyright law works, write your congressman and tell
them so. I find the perpetual extension of copyright term (e.g. the "Sonny
Bono memorial protect the rights of Disney forever" act) sort of
objectionable.  Pick a term and stick with it.