Philosophy Friday -- SOS! (Save our Sites) Managing Online MR Resources

[wm3798]

 I spent a lot of time building my site, and there's a ton of stuff on it that may or may not be of interest.  I'm an old print media guy, so it looks a lot like a magazine page layout.  But I try to cover a number of angles, ranging from general interest in the WM, model railroading in general, N scale model railroading, and then things that are specific to my layout.

 

www.wmrywesternlines.net

The "related links" tab takes you to many of the resources I used to research my content.  Sort of a bibliography, if you will.

As for the longevity of it, it's there until it's not.  I pay a modest annual fee to keep it going, which more or less is covered by the decoder installations and other odds and ends offered through the site.  I keep an html archive of all the pages, but I confess I haven't updated it in some time.  I'm sure I'll get to it just as soon as the server crashes and I lose everything!

Lee

 

[hminky]

 As I said earlier PDF sites. When I took my On30 site down I was surprised how many people had PDFed the articles. If you like 'em save 'em.

Harold

[galaxy]

jwhitten

"SOS! (Save our Sites) Managing Online MR Resources"

So Here are My Questions For Today:

How can the community act to save and preserve such sites? I know that in some cases there have been people and organizations who have come forward to pick up the reigns and take-over derelict sites.  But not all sites have been saved. And one question that should surely be asked is, are all sites even *worth* trying to save? What if its just a "photo site" of somebody's layout? Or a site that promotes an older or out-dated technique? Or a club site that no longer exists? Who decides? What's worthy? What's not?

John

Those, of course, are the good questions. Who decides? Is a big one. So is COST.

As you also mentioned early:  a server to host, cost of hosting, computer host server maintenance or upgrades, cost of this, Cost of that, etc, etc.

Ain't modern miracle electronics genius?

I worked for a small company that published Law Journals for a niche Law department classification for NYC. {City not Central tee hee}. I understand the owner is now phasing the business out as 1} Lawyers are not buying hardcover books anymore; 2} electronic research has taken over; 3} the cost of going electronic for him is too expensive for what the business was generating in income; 4} the cost of the proprietary server OR a hosted server was too high for the possible revenue he could gain; 5} YET one point thought of was that Possibly he could increase subscriptions numbers if he went to an electronic database for searches of his material of all legal cases regarding the niche market of Law specialized in- so would the increases possibly offset all the new {and expensive} costs??? He felt not weighing the pros and cons.

It would be nice if the electronic "phases" {sites, servers, computers etc.} could hold forever once put up and be maintained regularly, but unless one has a good sized IT departemnt and good funds and people to run it and host and serve, it will fade into electronic dust, unfortunately.

Talk amongst yourselves.

[jwhitten]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

jwhitten

Do we have a contract where the usage rights are specifically spelled out? Do you grant me certain rights to use in certain situations and contexts and explicitly retain any *other* usage rights for yourself?

Yes it is spelled out and it is the accepted industry standard. I am not an employee, I am a independent contractor. I own the design, you buy the right to use it to build buildings, you don't buy the rights to own the design unless you ask to buy them.

I can reuse, resell, modifiy or otherwise repurpose the design unless you want to pay more for that "ownership", which I would not do.

Sheldon

 

 

Then I'd say you've covered the bases-- but just from your reply above-- I'd say you pretty much understand and agree that just because you can view a thing doesn't automatically grant you all rights to a thing. For example, I can probably *display* the thing-- for example on-site, or else at city hall-- but you, as a viewer, don't have the right to *copy* what you're viewing, regardless of whatever else you decide to do with it.

 

John

[jwhitten]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

I don't personally download YouTube videos (biggest waste of time I have ever seen) or very many pictures.

 

 

I'm not the thought police and I really don't give a rodent's patootey what you download or don't. I'm just relating what I understand the issues are.

 

But I'd really like to push this conversation back to-- what could or should be done about sites that are dying or are done dead?

And URL's-- it would be great for folks to keep publishing URL's that they know about.

 

John

[jwhitten]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

Sir Madog

 John,

quite an issue! There are a zillion pages in the web, sometimes with dubious and unproven content. Just look at the many pages of the self-appointed model railroading gurus and their tutorials.

What I would like to see, is a database managed by professionals or experts, where I could be sure, that the content is true to a certain degree. Something like Wikipedia under the guidance of the NMRA? It´d be a tremendous task to set up something like this - it needs a lot of volunteer work, for it would never pay off on a commercial basis.

Who gets to decide who the "experts" or "professionals" are?, and what "qualifies" as important enough to save?

I like the free market, free society model better. Things survive or don't on thier own merrits alone.

Sheldon

 

 

That's a good question-- and I think folks are likely to have a number of answers, probably each equally valid for a specific point-of-view. Mine is that who gets to decide is-- You. you're the expert. You use the information or you don't. You like it or you don't. You patronize the site or you don't. And if the site goes down-- its up to you to decide you like it well enough to want to save it.

Now, right now-- today-- if you make that decision, then its up to you to dig into your pocket and produce the resources needed to continue it-- to say nothing of negotiating the rights and ownerships necessary to be able to legally do so. Even if the site has been completely abandoned-- under current (U.S.) copyright laws, its 70 years (IIRC) before it becomes legally "public domain" unless there is some specific written instrument that grants those rights sooner, or else gives up something akin to "salvage rights"-- I don't know the specific term for it-- but do know that the ability to save / salvage useful / required information is being incorporated into the mindshare of public information-- product manuals, for instance, when a company goes belly-up-- what happens to the manuals, support information, software drivers and updates, etc. This is another similar issue being faced by the modern digital society, and not that far removed from the one we've been talking about.

 

My own vision-- getting back to the subject-- is that perhaps there could be some sort of community-sponsored "rescue / salvage" program / organization created, perhaps under the auspices of the NMRA-- they certainly would be a good candidate-- or else the "beneficent" sponsorship of commercial entities, or well-to-do individuals, or even regular schmucks like you and me who just have some spare time on our hands and a willingness to lend a shoulder to the wheel.

My vision is that there could be some sort of community-sponsored program that could be engaged to save and salvage sites deemed useful, reliable, pertinent, critical, informative, historical, or whatever other terms other people want to use to determine which sites are worthy.

As one of the other respondents mentioned, talking about a site with pictures from the 1950's-- it wouldn't necessarily have to be big and slick and uber-popular to have useful, valid, relevant information worth saving. How many of us model the 1950's in some context? I'd say a lot-- possibly even the largest block of modelers at present. That's just my guess-- maybe I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will be delighted to let me know LOL!) But having that site to go to and review could be an enormous benefit to someone who is looking for material from the 1950's to get ideas and understanding to model that era. The same arguments and points could (and should) be made for materials of other eras as well.

Perhaps someone has a site that has useful formulas and equations for use by model railroaders. And the site creator has set up the site so that these formulas and equations can be accessed and used by anyone visiting the site in real time, such that it is very useful for people working on their layouts, or planning. That kind of site might be deemed of "community interest and importance" and be worthy of saving / salvaging. What if it was simply a site that had zillions of photos of other model railroads (layouts and such)? Even that site (heck, especially that site) could easily be deemed of "community interest" and be considered worthy of keeping around.

One of the points made by Sir Maddog previously was that it costs money to maintain sites, to feed them with data, etc-- and to that I agree. Someone has to do that work and that could potentially cost money-- or not, depending on where the data came from, who originally owns it, and whether or not there are interested and willing volunteers to do the work. Very little (if any) of the information on Wikipedia is paid content-- for example. It is all (to the best of my knowledge) created by people who are simply interested and knowledgeable about the various subjects and policed / error-checked by the rest of the community at-large, and of course by the knowledgeable peers and colleagues of the original author(s). And it has proven to be a very successful model. It is supported through donations and grants made by both regular individuals and corporate donors-- and probably (though I'm not certain) through additional grant types-- perhaps government grants of some kind.

So the economics don't have to be difficult or overwhelming, nor does the work. Though I admit that there would likely be some practical-related issues in the very early days of setting something like this up while the legal issues were worked out and resolved-- boilerplate documents, agreements, covenants, etc. drafted, tested and revised. There would necessarily have to be some sort of legal overhead structure as well as a practical day-to-day administrative structure put in place in order to manage the business of rescuing sites and incorporating them into the overall site compendium being created.

But, fwiw, Model Railroading is not the only arena (topic) in which people create sites that go dark or defunct. The same rescue strategies and legal structures would work fine for those sites covering those other topics as well. So it could easily be the basis of a very interesting and useful structure for the general rescue and preservation-- and even in some cases, the actual improvement of-- of sites circling the bowl.

 

John

[leighant]

I have not waded through ALL the pages of this thread, but I haven't seen anyone address this common situation--

I go to Schmaltzy Studios and have them shoot a portrait of me.  I get my proofs, select one, buy a big framed portrait and some little ones to send to cousins, and medium ones to put with my resume, or if I making a speech and the newspaper needs to photo to use with a publicity blurb.

But the photos I get from Schmaltzy are all marked copyright Schmaltzy Studios.  A year later, I need some more copies of the picture and I go to the photofinisher.  (This is theoretical I guess.  I don't know, with digital photography, if they even HAVE photofinishers any more!)  But the photofinisher tells me he cannot copy MY photo unless I have written permission from the photographer.

(Incidentally, I have publicity rights to my image.  The photographer can't use my portrait to advertise his business- or for some other commercial purpose- unless I give permission.  But he owns the copyright to the image and I cannot copy it.)

This came up when I worked at a TV station and an ad agency for an advertiser sent us a color slide of his logo.  Our station stopped using slides in 1990- the slide-to-video camera burned out and wasn't replaced.  We would put a printed copy of the logo in front of a studio camera to capture the image and edit into commercial, etc.  The commercial photofinisher refused to make a copy unless I had written permission.  We were making an ad for the company whose logo we wanted a copy of, but that wasn't enough.  We needed the okay of the photographer who had made that slide for the advertiser.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

jwhitten

Do we have a contract where the usage rights are specifically spelled out? Do you grant me certain rights to use in certain situations and contexts and explicitly retain any *other* usage rights for yourself?

Yes it is spelled out and it is the accepted industry standard. I am not an employee, I am a independent contractor. I own the design, you buy the right to use it to build buildings, you don't buy the rights to own the design unless you ask to buy them.

I can reuse, resell, modifiy or otherwise repurpose the design unless you want to pay more for that "ownership", which I would not do.

Sheldon

[jwhitten]

Arjay1969

 I'm not even going to touch on most of the points brought up in this thread so far, except for one...preserving pages.

One of the sites I use for ATSF information, http://www.qstation.org, has a message up on their main page requesting that if anyone runs a Santa Fe site and no longer wishes to maintain it, that the operators of Qstation would love to host it and archive it.  This way at least the page can be preserved relatively intact.  Since these are sites that are about very specific types of information, it's not likely that there would be a huge amount of bandwidth associated with them either.  

That is how I would suggest that pages be handled.  Have someone who operates a site (NMRA, for example) make a request that any informational site that is no longer being maintained be donated to them to be archived.  In most cases, the bandwidth usage would be minimal for a model RR site as opposed to, say, a site about 1:1 automobiles.

 

 

Yes, I agree with this sentiment exactly-- and is what I've been attempting to elicit and draw-out. I just wanted someone else to say it. I myself have web-hosting space and would be quite interested in saving railroad and model railroad-related sites, provided I am able to choose which ones I would like to preserve, and have the right / option to encapsulate them, infuse them with advertising, or other potentially revenue-generating means, or even edit / abridge / or compend them-- into a larger structure that I could potentially use to offset the cost of maintaining them. Which is to say I might do nothing at all and just let them sit in whatever state they came to me in for the rest of time (or until my funds run out, whichever comes first :-)

John

 

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

jwhitten

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

For what ever it is worth, there are some "differences" between downloading music from a thrid party site and saving a copy of information on a web site.

If the Beatles had a web site, and put songs on there, without some notice to the contrary, they have opened themselves up to copies - BUT if YOU put their song on a web site, even you obtained the song by "purchasing" it legaly, then you allow or promote the downloading of it by your site viewers, you are clearly in volation of the copyright law as I understand it.

 

 

So what about all the pictures you save from various web sites? Are you certain of the pedigree and usage rights to every single one? Are you allowed to view them? (That one seems obvious, but it may not be). Are you allowed to save them? What if there's a nominal attempt to keep you from doing it but your browser still lets you, or else you know of a simple technique to circumvent the simplistic protection? Are you sure the site owner has obtained all the correct permissions (in-writing) to display the photos -AND- that permission extends to *YOU*, the viewer?

John, I understand that there are new challenges brought about by all of this electronic data transfer. But again, until the courts rule otherwise, I will use my morals and my understanding of current law to guide my actions.

I don't personally download YouTube videos (biggest waste of time I have ever seen) or very many pictures. The few sites I do get pictures from on occassion have clearly posted their policies. AND, I don't repost or display those photos in any public way. I don't convert them for my gain, I only use them for "personal" use.

Still, current law revolves around "conversion", if I offer it to the public for free, the rules are different than if I say from the start that it is "for sale", like a professional recording artist or a motion picture.

Sheldon

[jwhitten]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

Another thought about the copyright issue.

In my work as a residential designer, lets say you commission me to design a house. I design it and deliver 12 sets of drawings to you. The drawings are yours, the design is mine, but is yours to "use".

 

 

Actually that is an excellent example you bring up-- because the simple answer to what you said above is "wrong". But the correct answer is a more nuanced "it depends". There are several layers to consider here-- the first one being what is our relationship? When I hire you to make me a drawing, are you my employee? Or are you only being hired to create and deliver a specific drawing in a specific manner? And when you do that work, are you using MY materials or your own? Are you sitting at MY table and chair or using your own? Etc-- the first question is whether you are doing work for hire, or being hired to do specific work. The answer to that question, before anything else-- or in the absence of anything else, grants the *employer* all rights to the work product. Unless you are NOT an employee, and then it gets complicated again...

Do we have a contract where the usage rights are specifically spelled out? Do you grant me certain rights to use in certain situations and contexts and explicitly retain any *other* usage rights for yourself? Or is the contract more open-ended where you simply agree to deliver me a drawing of what I want without specifying what happens in other situations? Have you explicitly forbidden me from selling the drawing? Or publishing the drawing? Generally speaking, unless you have explicitly barred me from displaying the drawing, that is my right-- I bought it-- commissioned it-- from you, what happens to it is up to me to decide-- unless you explicitly exercise your rights as the original copyright holder-- unless you're my employee in which case the original copyrights belong to me...

Simple, isn't it?

:-)

 

Oh, and it gets much more complicated than that even. You also have the rights to the performance, as in the event of a concert or some work performed in a public manner, I'm not sure of all the ins-and-outs on that-- but there are rights established there as well. As well as rights conveyed perhaps to a publisher, or distributor, or producer, or promoter-- that will spell out and cover what can be done in what type of circumstances, etc. It gets very complicated and I don't even *pretend* to know all about it. The only reason I even know what I do is because of my background as an ISP and Web-Hosting provider-- it was pretty much required reading, or else!

 

John

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Sir Madog

 John,

quite an issue! There are a zillion pages in the web, sometimes with dubious and unproven content. Just look at the many pages of the self-appointed model railroading gurus and their tutorials.

What I would like to see, is a database managed by professionals or experts, where I could be sure, that the content is true to a certain degree. Something like Wikipedia under the guidance of the NMRA? It´d be a tremendous task to set up something like this - it needs a lot of volunteer work, for it would never pay off on a commercial basis.

Who gets to decide who the "experts" or "professionals" are?, and what "qualifies" as important enough to save?

I like the free market, free society model better. Things survive or don't on thier own merrits alone.

Sheldon

[jwhitten]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

For what ever it is worth, there are some "differences" between downloading music from a thrid party site and saving a copy of information on a web site.

If the Beatles had a web site, and put songs on there, without some notice to the contrary, they have opened themselves up to copies - BUT if YOU put their song on a web site, even you obtained the song by "purchasing" it legaly, then you allow or promote the downloading of it by your site viewers, you are clearly in volation of the copyright law as I understand it.

 

 

So what about all the pictures you save from various web sites? Are you certain of the pedigree and usage rights to every single one? Are you allowed to view them? (That one seems obvious, but it may not be). Are you allowed to save them? What if there's a nominal attempt to keep you from doing it but your browser still lets you, or else you know of a simple technique to circumvent the simplistic protection? Are you sure the site owner has obtained all the correct permissions (in-writing) to display the photos -AND- that permission extends to *YOU*, the viewer?

What about videos that people upload, say on YouTube? Or shares with you in email. All of those examples are technically (and actually legally) covered by "intellectual rights" and copyright laws. And yet most people don't even realize there could even be restrictions on copying what you're allowed to view.

The same extends to text as well. Any work that is created, assembled or viewed, in any form or format or media, can be (is) covered by copyright and intellectual property laws. In fact, the very ACT of drawing a picture or writing down a story-- or even verbally TELLING a story-- grants you an *instantaneous* copyright on the work or performance. All registering the work does is help you *protect* your copyright in the event that there is ever a discrepancy or legal issue surrounding it. You do not technically have to file a thing or pay a dime to legitimately and rightfully "own" the copyright to something YOU created or performed. It can get trickier when your performance is based on someone else's work and copyright, but even there the performance itself is your own, even if you are legally entangled in someone else's copyright in the process.

Additionally, there are modes of distribution that also come into play. Whether or not you are a "Publisher", like Kalmbach for instance. In that event your rights and responsibilities are the most onerous-- you are absolutely responsible for everything you publish-- legally liable-- and in turn ought to cover your butt in the most vociferous manner by getting written permissions and such for *everything* that comes into your possession, much less anything you publish. And by extension, hold the rights for whatever you publish-- and nowdays-- that includes what type of *media* you publish it in. You might hold the rights to publish something in a *paper* medium, but what about online or on a CD or DVD? It gets complicated quick.

Another mode is that of the "Common Carrier", which was originally created to cover the situation of the telephone companies. How can they be responsible for content they don't even know about or realize is transiting through their systems? its a tricky question-- in one view, they could be considered a "publisher". In another a "consumer" and/or "re-distributor". However, the courts established and have held that their networks are most like a "public street" and thus they have no liability from the content that flows through their systems provided that: (a) they don't know about directly; (b) they do not contribute to it-- or attempt to censor it-- an important point! in any way; (c) do not attempt to control or regulate the content in any type of manner but simply exist to transport it from point A to point B. This is the mode of least liability, and also conveys to the phone companies (and other so-designated "common carriers") the *LEAST* rights to the works. And indeed, a common-carrier generally does NOT want to have any right to ownership for any of the data that traverses its networks. The biggest exception today are the great big telephone companies that have branched out into cable and online content aggregators. In the doing they are greatly muddying the waters surrounding their role and apparent complicity in "publishing" the data.

There are other modes as well-- feel free to peruse the area of copyright and intellectual property if you wish for more details. The issues are far from being settled however, and organizations like (but not limited to) the RIAA, the MPAA and others-- the Murdoch Group comes to mind, think "USA Today"-- are all actively working in courtrooms and legislatures all around the world, quite literally, to get the laws changed and the courts to render verdicts in the most favorable, for them, manner-- or put the other way, the most draconian onerous manner-- for the rest of us.

 

So even though you may be able to freely push a button or drag-n-drop or otherwise easily save a picture, some text, a video, a song, or any other type of media that crosses your monitor, speakers or other output device-- doesn't mean you automatically have the right to capture it, save it, or keep it in any format for any amount of time, in any circumstance or situation. While there are definitely "fair use" provisions, at least in U.S. copyright law, they may not cover the situations you think they do-- and they may not cover the ones they actually do for much longer if groups like the RIAA and the MPAA and others have their way.

Think this is a small matter of little regard? Think it will never happen in a free and modern America? Think the ubiquity of the Internet will protect you? Think again. Its happening all around you-- and in secret. The RIAA and MPAA are actively making major inroads into shaping the intellectual rights policies in places like Canada, parts of Europe, South America, and even here in the U.S. And there are *secret*-- that's right, you read it right-- SECRET negotiations going on between the major American (North and South American) countries to revise and revamp-- in SECRET mind you, no input from  the public AT ALL-- the international intellectual rights policies that they will promote and protect-- so that they can then be enacted by the various legislatures into law-- and thus doing an end-run around the usual legislative processes. I'm not making this stuff up-- go read about it for yourself. The strategy of the RIAA and MPAA is to get their goals implemented by *ANY* country that possesses what they call a "court of competent jurisdiction" and then they'll be halfway home. Once that happens, the other countries will be bound by *treaties already in-place* to support and enforce the policies (now laws) of the other country. And the door will be opened and the camel will worm his nose into the tent. And they will have won-- and the rest of us will have lost.

 

John

[Anonymous]

 John,

quite an issue! There are a zillion pages in the web, sometimes with dubious and unproven content. Just look at the many pages of the self-appointed model railroading gurus and their tutorials.

What I would like to see, is a database managed by professionals or experts, where I could be sure, that the content is true to a certain degree. Something like Wikipedia under the guidance of the NMRA? It´d be a tremendous task to set up something like this - it needs a lot of volunteer work, for it would never pay off on a commercial basis.

[jwhitten]

Sir Madog

I don´t store much info on my notebook. Twice I have lost the data gathered over years due to a hard disc crash. Whenever I need some info, I do a search, which often leads me to this place or any other of the "big" , MRR related sites. Interesting pages I do bookmark, though.

 

 

So in a sense, this puts you squarely in the "MR community" that has come to rely on various sites being online, and the notional argument that the sites have somehow "transcended" their original ownership and are now, at least in some sense, "owned" by the community. And I mean this more in the spirit of what can /should happen to the site if it goes stagnant or goes away entirely. Should the community be able to "rescue" the site and should there be more of an effort to do so, and if so how should it be set up and structured?

 

John

[Arjay1969]

 I'm not even going to touch on most of the points brought up in this thread so far, except for one...preserving pages.

One of the sites I use for ATSF information, http://www.qstation.org, has a message up on their main page requesting that if anyone runs a Santa Fe site and no longer wishes to maintain it, that the operators of Qstation would love to host it and archive it.  This way at least the page can be preserved relatively intact.  Since these are sites that are about very specific types of information, it's not likely that there would be a huge amount of bandwidth associated with them either.  

That is how I would suggest that pages be handled.  Have someone who operates a site (NMRA, for example) make a request that any informational site that is no longer being maintained be donated to them to be archived.  In most cases, the bandwidth usage would be minimal for a model RR site as opposed to, say, a site about 1:1 automobiles.

[St Francis Consolidated RR]

jwhitten

Over the years there have already been a number of sites that have foundered,

 

 

FRANKLY, I'M JUST HAPPY TO MEET A PERSON WHO KNOWS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FOUNDERED AND FLOUNDERED!!!! FLOUNDER IS A DARN FISH  FER CHRIST'S SAKE!! THANK YOU!!

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Sir Madog

I did use the MR magazine index to search for articles, but most of the time I was not able to obtain the back issue any longer.

That's why I have all those back issues I PAID good money for.

Sheldon

[HaroldA]

I must have been in the dark ages as I wasn't even aware that an index of MR information existed - so I guess I don't really miss it!! -

With regards to copyright, in my days as a church music director we were extremely careful on the issue of copying music.  In fact, we didn't do it period unless we had an equal number of copies on order from the publisher - and could prove it - or the music fell into the realm of public domain.  When we used professional musicians, we absolutely couldn't record their performance for public sale because they owned the copyright to their performance.  The only way we could do this was to pay royalty fees which in some cases were very expensive.  There is the doctrine of fair use but even that has been affected by the internet and has ended up in litigation.

With regards to John's original question, I think some of these information sites have a 'natural life' in that they are born, serve some useful purpose for a time and then just 'die' because they either become too unwieldy, corrupted, or the information isn't useful any longer only to be replaced by data that is more up to date and revelent.  Personally I don't save magazines for that very reason and I subscribe to about 5.  The information they have at the time may be up to date, but it will be repeated at some time in the future or it can be found in the internet.

[blownout cylinder]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

dehusman

Sir Madog

But why would I be wanting to look up an article written nearly 50 years ago? How to superdetail a Penn Line H-6 Atlantic? Penn Line, i.e. Bowser does not make the kits any longer, most of the parts mentioned are not around anymore.

But the positions and purpose of the parts haven't changed.  The cleanout plug will still be a clean out plug and the position on the prototype hasn't changed.  Plus a 1970's era article will be waaaaay more likely to have a prototype drawing along with it than a modern article.

I found this out a lot when researching the Moguls for example, the information came with drawings that showed where the pieces would fit. The other area that it was useful was in showing photos of towns and such during the 1950's and such as well. There were many drawings of buildings that we no longer see here. OK--so they started back to using the drawings but still-----

 

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

I use signal circuits from the 50's, with a control system from the 70's, modified with a circuit I designed 5 years ago, connected to a wireless radio throttle just redesigned less than 10 years ago. It is mostly all built from easy to obtain inexpensive components and works very well - wiring tips from the 50's useless?

And that's the thing of it. It still works regardless of how old the technology is. At work we still have a couple of older 166MHz systems running DOS 3.1 for pete sakes---still useful---

[Anonymous]

 Sheldon,

there is a lot to what you say, but ... 

Quite a bit of that stuff has been around sometimes and comes back frequently. Yes, a wash-out plug on a steamer will remain the same, because they don´t build steamers anymore. My issue is, that instead of wasting time and effort on an index database, it is much better to create a reference database, with the drawings, hints & tips etc. we are looking for. Most likely, this would be beyond any commercial interest - unless you pay for it. This could also resolve any copyright issue.

I did use the MR magazine index to search for articles, but most of the time I was not able to obtain the back issue any longer.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

John,

Another thought about the copyright issue.

In my work as a residential designer, lets say you commission me to design a house. I design it and deliver 12 sets of drawings to you. The drawings are yours, the design is mine, but is yours to "use".

You can build one house or 50 houses, you can copy the plans and GIVE them to all your builders, subcontractors, suppliers, and even to your brother-in-law for him to build a copy of the same house.

BUT as soon as you charge someone for those plans, you have harmed me, not necessarily in a monitary way, but in reputation. Or if you represnt that you designed the house, or if you put them in a "plan book" without asking me or compensating me, now you have harmed both my reputation and my pocket book - that is a copyright volation, you have converted them in a way that harms me.

Sheldon

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

dehusman

Sir Madog

But why would I be wanting to look up an article written nearly 50 years ago? How to superdetail a Penn Line H-6 Atlantic? Penn Line, i.e. Bowser does not make the kits any longer, most of the parts mentioned are not around anymore.

But the positions and purpose of the parts haven't changed.  The cleanout plug will still be a clean out plug and the position on the prototype hasn't changed.  Plus a 1970's era article will be waaaaay more likely to have a prototype drawing along with it than a modern article.

Sir Madog

Wiring tips from the 1950´s? Useless!

The basics are the same. 

 Track Plans from the 1950´s and 60´s? Today´s operation is very much more prototypical!

  OK, got me there.  Plus scenery has advanced greatly (one old book advises to add asbestos shorts to plaster to make it stronger).

To not rehash this intire conversation about the usefullness of old info, I will just say this:

I have MR and RMC back to the mid 50's. MANY times the "answer" I was looking for was some "lost" technology from the 50's, 60's or 70's.

As Dave has pointed out, some things DON'T change. OR, sometimes the old way was just as good as the "new" way and deserves re-examination.

So, you are all free to live in the electronic, instant gratification, attention deficet disorder, RTR, black box electronics world if you like, that is your perogitive, but I will keep a more open mind and respect the efforts of both my contemperaries and those who came before me.

I use signal circuits from the 50's, with a control system from the 70's, modified with a circuit I designed 5 years ago, connected to a wireless radio throttle just redesigned less than 10 years ago. It is mostly all built from easy to obtain inexpensive components and works very well - wiring tips from the 50's useless?

Dispite all the "advances" in the hobby, I think there are a lot of modelers who could learn a lot from the "old ways", even if they then "applied" that knowledge in new ways.

Sheldon.

[dehusman]

Sir Madog

But why would I be wanting to look up an article written nearly 50 years ago? How to superdetail a Penn Line H-6 Atlantic? Penn Line, i.e. Bowser does not make the kits any longer, most of the parts mentioned are not around anymore.

But the positions and purpose of the parts haven't changed.  The cleanout plug will still be a clean out plug and the position on the prototype hasn't changed.  Plus a 1970's era article will be waaaaay more likely to have a prototype drawing along with it than a modern article.

Sir Madog

Wiring tips from the 1950´s? Useless!

The basics are the same. 

 Track Plans from the 1950´s and 60´s? Today´s operation is very much more prototypical!

  OK, got me there.  Plus scenery has advanced greatly (one old book advises to add asbestos shorts to plaster to make it stronger).

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

John,

For what ever it is worth, there are some "differences" between downloading music from a thrid party site and saving a copy of information on a web site.

If the Beatles had a web site, and put songs on there, without some notice to the contrary, they have opened themselves up to copies - BUT if YOU put their song on a web site, even you obtained the song by "purchasing" it legaly, then you allow or promote the downloading of it by your site viewers, you are clearly in volation of the copyright law as I understand it.

Buying a movie or music and copying it for grandma is clearly a volation of the copyright law. Copying it to a different media for YOUR OWN use may be a grey area, BUT regarding computers and "printed" data, everyone clearly understands that computers are connected to printers.

It is my understanding that the point that all copyright law is based on is the legal term "conversion". At what point have I converted the property unfairly for my own gain beyond the intent of the person who created it?

If I write and preform music in an attemp to make a living, than the sale of every copy is important, at least to the point of ownership by additional individuals, so I don't nessesarally agree that music and movies are the same as books and/or "information".

BUT if I put information on the web that people can access for free, I have no expection of getting payed by each new person that comes to my site. So if that person visits my site 50 times or copies it and looks at it 49 times I have not been HARMED.

ONLY when that person converts my information into something they give out, sell, redistribute, missrepresnt as their own, etc, have I been potentially harmed.

That is different from the movie/music question. I am a big music and movie fan, BUT:

For whatever it is worth, I have no personal interest in the music/movie download question, never have. I own 1700 vinyl records, 500 compact discs, 300+ DVD's and VHS movies, all orginal store bought products. I have no interest in the poor sound quality of compressed crap downloaded from the internet.

So, at least until someone in a high court says otherwise, I have to assume that non "conversion" copying of PRINTED data is by all means legal.

Sheldon

 

[jwhitten]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

John, I'm not an attorney, or a copyright expert, but as an aurthor and a creator of "intellectual property" in my profession (residential designer), my understanding of the copyright law is that drawings, books, pictures, recordings. writings, etc, that I have come into possession of by legal means, can be copied by me for my personal use. It is only when I "convert" those copies for personal gain or personal credit or redistribute them without the owners consent, that I have then "stolen" that persons "intellectual property".

I cannot see how the internet would be any different. If people put up web sites for free, that's no different than the free local newspaper that is given out. Computers "capture" information from the web, the only question is what we do with it once its on "our" computer.

If I am wrong about this, I would like someone to explain.

 

I am not so sure the RIAA (Record Industry Association of America) or the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) would agree with your viewpoint. Though, just for the record, I'm not sure I agree with their viewpoint, and I'm pretty sure a lot of other people don't agree with their viewpoint either. But they have a lot of clout and are busy single-handledly tying the world's legislatures into knots trying to weasel out a new definition of "intellectual property" and one that does not include the idea of "fair use". Moreover, their view seems to be that content is decidedly not free (especially theirs) and not only that, the user should have to pay and pay and pay some more every time they encounter it for each *media type* they encounter it on. So if you, say, buy a song on CD you should have to pay if you copy it to tape, or onto MP3 to play in your car, or if you put it up on your web site to accompany your own content and materials.

To be sure, there are many people and groups who vehemently disagree with their positions to varying extremes. And some particular organizations, such as the EFF (Electronic Freedom Foundation) have been fighting them in court for years now. The RIAA and the MPAA are responsible for many of the heavy-handed court cases in which they have swooped in from seemingly out-of-the-blue and tried to pin massive copyright infringement claims on poor unsuspecting people. Sometimes they win, sometimes they don't. More often they get settlements negotiated out-of-court so their case law never or rarely gets tried.

And ironically, both the RIAA and the MPAA have demonstrated that they themselves are not above employing illegal tactics to snoop around inside people's computers and glean / capture information they feel backs up their position. So, in a very real sense, they are committing many of the very same acts that they accuse others of committing in their fanatical zeal to expose and prosecute (at least their brand of) copyright infringement.

It is also worth saying that they are among the most extreme proponents (or would it be better to call them 'antagonists') out there. But from their own point-of-view and perspective, they feel they are right. And maybe they are to a degree-- the question is, to what degree? They contend that everytime someone makes an (illegal, their characterization) copy of a song or a movie, the law is being broken, because they own (or more accurately, they represent the owners of) the copyrights and therefore are able to set the criteria and limits as to how the material may be used.

 

Its easy to dismiss the RIAA and MPAA-- heck, I could stop this sentence right there, couldn't I? 

Its easy to dismiss the RIAA and MPAA as being wackos and nut-jobs who wear their underwear too tight. And as much as I despise both organizations-- especially the RIAA-- they have a point. Whether you agree with all of it or some of it (or even none of it), they are making a legitimate claim of some sort. Its really a matter of new age digital law-- which like any law previously ever made, largely influenced by what the public will stand-- and will have to play out through the courts and the courts of public opinions.

When is making a copy "stealing"? There are definitely times when it is. If you happen to browse a site that is making available songs (for instance) to be downloaded and you download one-- even if you just stumbled across the site, had never seen it before, and had no knowledge of the controversy surrounding the issues-- and you downloaded one (made a copy), you have technically violated the law-- and the RIAA would like to have a chat with you and your checkbook.

 

Again, its easy to dismiss the RIAA as a bunch of uptight wackos who wear their underwear too tight. And its likewise easy to say in the back of your mind-- "Okay, but that just applies to music and movies-- I won't copy them and I'll be okay". But *technically*, if their argument is sound and legal (and remember, there are some gray areas that are being worked-out presently), then the *same* argument is true for the owner and creators of *ANY* other type of content. Anything you create can be copyrightable or patentable, and as such, you the owner have the right to set the criteria and boundaries for its use and dissemination.

Historically in the past, the law and the public mindset has always been liberal in its interpretation of how stuff can be used. And the law, even now as its being assailed and besieged, has built-in provisions for "fair use" and "derivative works", which indicate the manner and methods that people can use and incorporate copyrighted materials into their own works-- a product review perhaps, or a satire or parody, or as inspiration for something entirely new, etc. And the public has long felt / assumed / believed that if they buy a music album or a movie, they could make a copy of it and give it to a friend without running afoul of the law-- that is actually not true, it is technically illegal to do that, its just that nobody wants to prosecute "Grandma" for it. That's one of the critical junctures that the RIAA and MPAA are seeking to address and redefine.

 

So this whole notion that you can blithely copy anything you see or find on the Internet is very much naive in its basis. Either you don't know, or you don't care, or else you're part of the vast public mass who simply disagrees with the fundamental notion that "information is NOT free".

Its definitely going to be interesting to see how all this plays out in the courts and in the press over time. The issues are far from being settled, even if there are laws being busily erected against this aspect or that-- it all comes back to what the "people" collectively agree it is. What they will stand for. It is society, collectively, that makes the rules that governs society.

 

John

[YoHo1975]

 Granted some of the info is going to lose it's relevance, but not all of it. Zip texturing is still one of the most popular basic model railroad scenery techniques. And what about prototype drawings and scratchbuilding?

I'd argue that John Allen and Allen McClelland still offer and awful lot of incredible information to the modern modeler. Perhaps more than some of the current people.

Certainly McClelland. He's one of the people that advocated a significant part of the concept of a modern operating railroad.  He and Tony Koester. Tony still writes a column, but I'd say that the articles about his Allegheny Midland from when he was editor at RMC and the articles even in MR and his work with McClelland is as relevant today as it ever was.

[Anonymous]

 You have a point there, YoHo!

But why would I be wanting to look up an article written nearly 50 years ago? How to superdetail a Penn Line H-6 Atlantic? Penn Line, i.e. Bowser does not make the kits any longer, most of the parts mentioned are not around anymore. A lot of materials and building practices have changed so much in recent years, that a reference to the "good old" days of model railroading may not be worth it. Wiring tips from the 1950´s? Useless! Track Plans from the 1950´s and 60´s?Today´s operation is very much more prototypical!

Again, I think we have to get used to living in much faster times, which means that info can get lost for good, unless we pay for it.

I know I am taking up the role of an "advocatus diaboli" here, and I don´t mean to offend anybody, but it is my thinking, that MR (and others) should better dedicate their (limited) resources in creating up to date content, based on today´s practices, instead of maintaining a database for pure reasons of nostalgia. 

[YoHo1975]

 If you're looking for a you're looking for an article written in 1962, then a database that stopped updating 5 years ago is still an awesome tool.