Overmod... We actually were named in a tragic personal-injury case where a child had debilitating brain injury from being hit riding an ATV we had sold. The father when he bought it insisted on the very cheapest helmet in the store, but that didn't stop his lawyer trying to deep-pockets us "in part for not talking him into a more capable type or refusing the sale". The mere letter of the law helps no more with PPE than it does with effective face masks for COVID-19...
We actually were named in a tragic personal-injury case where a child had debilitating brain injury from being hit riding an ATV we had sold. The father when he bought it insisted on the very cheapest helmet in the store, but that didn't stop his lawyer trying to deep-pockets us "in part for not talking him into a more capable type or refusing the sale". The mere letter of the law helps no more with PPE than it does with effective face masks for COVID-19...
In your suit - did the helmet that was sold meet the applicable DOT standard in effect at the time? Did the helmet meet and contain the applicable 'protection' sticker.
My racing organization requires that helmets used in competition must be of the two most recent Snell (a international classification organization) ratings which are published on a 5 year basis. The 2020 Snell requirements have yet to be published, currently helmets with Snell 2010 and 2015 stickers with the SA qualification are legal. The SA qualification is 'Special Application' and pertains to fire protection abilities of the helmets interior materials. There are helmets manufactured a M standard nominally for motorcycle and other forms of use. The Snell standards were created after the death of sports car race Pete Snell in 1956 of head injuries when his helmet failed. The testing done to create the standard is done by the Snell Memorial Foundation (a non-profit). Helmet manufacturers are required to have one of EACH size and style of helmet they sell tested to see that it meets or exceeds the required standards before Snell certification (and stickers) will be granted - it is my understanding that the Snell Foundation will also buy and test helmets from retail outlets to insure that manufacturers continue to manufacture the helmets to the same standard that were certified.
Wikipedia Safety[edit] Snell Standards significantly surpass those set by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), ASTM International (ASTM) and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's 16 CFR Part 1203.[citation needed] Snell Standards are updated about every five years. These updates are based on new scientific research and improved, available manufacturing technologies. As such, and in addition to other factors such as typical use wear and tear, Snell recommends that helmets be replaced approximately every five years to ensure good safety.
Snell Standards significantly surpass those set by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), ASTM International (ASTM) and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's 16 CFR Part 1203.[citation needed]
Snell Standards are updated about every five years. These updates are based on new scientific research and improved, available manufacturing technologies. As such, and in addition to other factors such as typical use wear and tear, Snell recommends that helmets be replaced approximately every five years to ensure good safety.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Per this: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/copyright-law-repair-manuals-circular-economy
I can understand the frustration some people may feel. I would guess that some folks would boycott Toshiba and others.
But Toshiba owns the rights to their designs and manuals. I imagine they make good money training authorized repair persons to work on their stuff; that's part of the business model. They are attempting to control and profit from the repair business. If someone wants to buy their products, take them apart, figure out how they work, and make a living at repairing them, I don't think that Toshiba can stop them. But Toshiba has no obligation to help them. Or help someone give out free advice.
Toshiba developed, maunfactured and marketed and distributed the products. Then they spent more money hiring technicians and writers and illustrators and printers to create the manuals. It's their property. Some guy who comes along and thinks he has a right to the information for free is naive at best, and simply wants something valuable without having to pay for it. He could go to Toshiba's school and become an authorized repair shop; then he'd have rights to use the manual. (And I'm pretty sure he would have zero right to reproduce the manual.)
A lot of people think intellectual property is inherently less valuable than physical property. In my years as a photographer I was constantly asked by people to let them use photos free or dirt cheap. Everything that went into making the photos, from my education, to my huge investment in gear, workshops (and related travel expenses) I had to pay for to keep up my skills, my hotel and restaurant bills and the gas and the time consumed when out on the road shooting stock photos, the marketing of myself and my work ... some people act like that stuff never happened. I think writers and photographers are perceived by some as having "fun jobs;" and since they're having so much fun, what they produce cannot be very valuable.
You may be starting to understand why I initially shied away from from getting involved in this discussion!
Here's an example for you. A relative of mine who I'm guessing made over $250K annually was sailing on his boat one day when he noticed a helicopter hovering above. A couple of weeks later he got a 5x7 print in the mail. The letter said he could have that print free, but if he wished to have more, or get bigger ones, see the enclosed price sheet. And there was boilerplate language about how the pic was copyright protected. So, my relative promptly took the pic down to some lab, and had it copied, and large prints made for his home and office. He thought absolutely nothing of this, despite the fact that he worked in medical device R&D, and I can guarantee you his work was highly protected. Now, in over thirty years of sailing, I have never had the opportunity to get a shot of my boat from above, at full sail; and I'd love to have one. This guy, who made three times the money I did, plus had all these great benefits (medical insurance, profit-sharing, all his travel paid for, all his workshops and conferences paid for) had the opportunity to get such a pic from a good pro shooter dropped in his lap, and all he needed to do was pay a very reasonable price for prints beyond the free one ... so, he decided to rip off the photographer. "This was sent unsolicited; I can do what I want with it."
The photographer hired a chopper that was good for photography, probably a Bell Jet Ranger (way back then it was $500/hr.). Then spent the afternoon, purely on speculation, shooting boats. Then he laboriously tracked down the owners from public records, based on the registration on the boats' bows. Then he made, or had made, the 5x7s. Then he put together his professionally-designed mailing packets. Then he paid all the postage. Then he waited and hoped. And a well-off guy like my relative stole his work, as I'm sure some other boat-owners did as well. Fun.
Art and intellectual property has worth. It's real stuff. It's creators deserve protection from theft.
Overmod SD70dude If the factory manual contains a mistake wouldn't that affect licensed repair facilities as well? How would you know? You can't force discovery of what wasn't provided to you merely for comparison, I think.
SD70dude If the factory manual contains a mistake wouldn't that affect licensed repair facilities as well?
How would you know? You can't force discovery of what wasn't provided to you merely for comparison, I think.
My point was that if there was a mistake in the factory manual it should be caught and fixed fairly quickly, and the problems resulting from any such error would not be confined to users/owners who attempt their own repairs.
I feel your pain about modern user "manuals", and the tiny print and sometimes poorly translated English does not help.
Overmod Of course the issue since at least the '70s has been what is NOT in the manuals; the precedent set by the moron using his mower as a hedge trimmer was in no small part based on the manual not telling him not to. Factory tech manuals aren't going to waste time repeatedly warning about shock or ESD or swallowing small parts, and very likely won't have warnings about how to read a schematic, contain detail about when to use common-sense replacements for factory parts, feature long safety discussions in every mL or procedure, etc.
Of course the issue since at least the '70s has been what is NOT in the manuals; the precedent set by the moron using his mower as a hedge trimmer was in no small part based on the manual not telling him not to. Factory tech manuals aren't going to waste time repeatedly warning about shock or ESD or swallowing small parts, and very likely won't have warnings about how to read a schematic, contain detail about when to use common-sense replacements for factory parts, feature long safety discussions in every mL or procedure, etc.
http://www.protectconsumerjustice.org/no-no-one-has-ever-filed-a-lawsuit-after-using-a-lawn-mower-as-a-hedge-trimmer-yet-the-story-keeps-being-told.html
I would think that good enough warnings and disclaimers could easily be included at the start of the manual, and in a few appropriate places within it.
While it is not a true factory service manual, I regularly maintain my car using information from the Haynes manual (put those pitchforks and torches away, I bought it at Canadian Tire), and it is full of disclaimers and warnings. Has anyone ever tried suing Haynes after a repair attempt gone wrong?
Overmod SD70dude If I hurt myself, say, not wearing gloves or glasses while repairing my chainsaw, can I sue Husqvarna for damages? No, because you were warned. But what if you used 3mil vinyl food-service gloves and inferior glasses? We actually were named in a tragic personal-injury case where a child had debilitating brain injury from being hit riding an ATV we had sold. The father when he bought it insisted on the very cheapest helmet in the store, but that didn't stop his lawyer trying to deep-pockets us "in part for not talking him into a more capable type or refusing the sale". The mere letter of the law helps no more with PPE than it does with effective face masks for COVID-19...
SD70dude If I hurt myself, say, not wearing gloves or glasses while repairing my chainsaw, can I sue Husqvarna for damages?
No, because you were warned. But what if you used 3mil vinyl food-service gloves and inferior glasses?
Newer manuals specify thick gloves and safety glasses, or some form of CSA-approved appropriate PPE. I think a court could quite easily determine what is and isn't "appropriate" if I was dumb enough to sue them.
It is unfortunate that the winner of such a lawsuit is not automatically awarded legal costs in your system. I think that would help deter frivolous lawsuits.
In the tragic case of the child, wouldn't the other driver who hit the ATV have been at fault? Or perhaps the parent(s) would be if the child was operating the ATV unsupervised? At any rate I am disappointed but not surprised at that lawyer's actions.
How did that case turn out? Were you working at the store or the ATV manufacturer?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Lithonia OperatorThe photographer hired a chopper that was good for photography, probably a Bell Jet Ranger (way back then it was $500/hr.). Then spent the afternoon, purely on speculation, shooting boats. Then he laboriously tracked down the owners from public records, based on the registration on the boats' bows. Then he made, or had made, the 5x7s. Then he put together his professionally-designed mailing packets. Then he paid all the postage. Then he waited and hoped. And a well-off guy like my relative stole his work, as I'm sure some other boat-owners did as well. Fun.
"If you're good at something, never do it for free." - The Joker.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Lithonia Operator Per this: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/copyright-law-repair-manuals-circular-economy I can understand the frustration some people may feel. I would guess that some folks would boycott Toshiba and others. But Toshiba owns the rights to their designs and manuals. I imagine they make good money training authorized repair persons to work on their stuff; that's part of the business model. They are attempting to control and profit from the repair business. If someone wants to buy their products, take them apart, figure out how they work, and make a living at repairing them, I don't think that Toshiba can stop them. But Toshiba has no obligation to help them. Or help someone give out free advice. Toshiba developed, maunfactured and marketed and distributed the products. Then they spent more money hiring technicians and writers and illustrators and printers to create the manuals. It's their property. Some guy who comes along and thinks he has a right to the information for free is naive at best, and simply wants something valuable without having to pay for it. He could go to Toshiba's school and become an authorized repair shop; then he'd have rights to use the manual. (And I'm pretty sure he would have zero right to reproduce the manual.)
I don't think that I should be able to get the manual for free.
I think I should be able to purchase the manual at the market price, or pay a fee to view it. What Toshiba is doing is refusing to sell the manuals, presumably so consumers have to buy new Toshiba products instead of fixing the ones they have. Or take it to a licensed repair facility and pay a high price; which is the strategy John Deere has adopted.
This is the crux of the "right to repair" movement. And why I have no sympathy in this area for big corporations.
If someone else posts the manual publicly and I find it through a Google search, what stops me from reading it? How do I know that they didn't properly license that information from Toshiba?
SD70Dude... My point was that if there was a mistake in the factory manual it should be caught and fixed fairly quickly, and the problems resulting from any such error would not be confined to users/owners who attempt their own repairs. I feel your pain about modern user "manuals", and the tiny print and sometimes poorly translated English does not help.
I have been watching from time to time videos on YouTube produced by the 'South Main Auto Repair LLC' channel. It would appear, at least for non-dealer repair locations, most of the 'factory manuals' are being dispensed on various electronic devices that are able to gather data from the various forms of 'On Board Data' that have been standardized among all manufacturers in the form of OBD1 and OBD2 standards that have standardized connecters for the electronic devices to interact with the cars data generation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo2NfwhBGHo Is the most recent video presented.
Lithonia Operator A lot of people think intellectual property is inherently less valuable than physical property. In my years as a photographer I was constantly asked by people to let them use photos free or dirt cheap. Everything that went into making the photos, from my education, to my huge investment in gear, workshops (and related travel expenses) I had to pay for to keep up my skills, my hotel and restaurant bills and the gas and the time consumed when out on the road shooting stock photos, the marketing of myself and my work ... some people act like that stuff never happened. I think writers and photographers are perceived by some as having "fun jobs;" and since they're having so much fun, what they produce cannot be very valuable. You may be starting to understand why I initially shied away from from getting involved in this discussion! Here's an example for you. A relative of mine who I'm guessing made over $250K annually was sailing on his boat one day when he noticed a helicopter hovering above. A couple of weeks later he got a 5x7 print in the mail. The letter said he could have that print free, but if he wished to have more, or get bigger ones, see the enclosed price sheet. And there was boilerplate language about how the pic was copyright protected. So, my relative promptly took the pic down to some lab, and had it copied, and large prints made for his home and office. He thought absolutely nothing of this, despite the fact that he worked in medical device R&D, and I can guarantee you his work was highly protected. Now, in over thirty years of sailing, I have never had the opportunity to get a shot of my boat from above, at full sail; and I'd love to have one. This guy, who made three times the money I did, plus had all these great benefits (medical insurance, profit-sharing, all his travel paid for, all his workshops and conferences paid for) had the opportunity to get such a pic from a good pro shooter dropped in his lap, and all he needed to do was pay a very reasonable price for prints beyond the free one ... so, he decided to rip off the photographer. "This was sent unsolicited; I can do what I want with it." The photographer hired a chopper that was good for photography, probably a Bell Jet Ranger (way back then it was $500/hr.). Then spent the afternoon, purely on speculation, shooting boats. Then he laboriously tracked down the owners from public records, based on the registration on the boats' bows. Then he made, or had made, the 5x7s. Then he put together his professionally-designed mailing packets. Then he paid all the postage. Then he waited and hoped. And a well-off guy like my relative stole his work, as I'm sure some other boat-owners did as well. Fun. Art and intellectual property has worth. It's real stuff. It's creators deserve protection from theft.
I actually have a lot of sympathy for 'small time' folks like you.
You're right, you put a big investment into creating your work and you deserve to profit from it. It's not like I'm advocating for all copyright to be completely eliminated.
But do your heirs (children, grandchildren, maybe great-grandchildren) deserve to continue to exclusively profit from licensing out your work? They didn't create it, you did, and it's not like Heaven has ATMs.
In the case of the example of your relative, yes, he committed a copyright violation. But let's step back to reality for a minute here, what did the photographer think would happen? I'll bet he expects a certain minority of recipients to do what your relative did, but even more recipients must contact him and purchase photos, or else he wouldn't be in business. And I'll bet your relative's enlarged print doesn't have anywhere near the quality of the official ones he could have purchased.
The photographer in this case is basically a door-to-door salesman handing out small free samples to houses he has cherry picked from some recorded database (which, BTW, I find just a tad creepy).
Lithonia OperatorHere's an example for you. A relative of mine who I'm guessing made over $250K annually was sailing on his boat one day when he noticed a helicopter hovering above. A couple of weeks later he got a 5x7 print in the mail. The letter said he could have that print free, but if he wished to have more, or get bigger ones, see the enclosed price sheet.
I've heard of people doing this for homes, especially farms. It's a little easier to track them down, though.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Lithonia Operator... A lot of people think intellectual property is inherently less valuable than physical property. In my years as a photographer I was constantly asked by people to let them use photos free or dirt cheap. Everything that went into making the photos, from my education, to my huge investment in gear, workshops (and related travel expenses) I had to pay for to keep up my skills, my hotel and restaurant bills and the gas and the time consumed when out on the road shooting stock photos, the marketing of myself and my work ... some people act like that stuff never happened. I think writers and photographers are perceived by some as having "fun jobs;" and since they're having so much fun, what they produce cannot be very valuable. You may be starting to understand why I initially shied away from from getting involved in this discussion! Here's an example for you. A relative of mine who I'm guessing made over $250K annually was sailing on his boat one day when he noticed a helicopter hovering above. A couple of weeks later he got a 5x7 print in the mail. The letter said he could have that print free, but if he wished to have more, or get bigger ones, see the enclosed price sheet. And there was boilerplate language about how the pic was copyright protected. So, my relative promptly took the pic down to some lab, and had it copied, and large prints made for his home and office. He thought absolutely nothing of this, despite the fact that he worked in medical device R&D, and I can guarantee you his work was highly protected. Now, in over thirty years of sailing, I have never had the opportunity to get a shot of my boat from above, at full sail; and I'd love to have one. This guy, who made three times the money I did, plus had all these great benefits (medical insurance, profit-sharing, all his travel paid for, all his workshops and conferences paid for) had the opportunity to get such a pic from a good pro shooter dropped in his lap, and all he needed to do was pay a very reasonable price for prints beyond the free one ... so, he decided to rip off the photographer. "This was sent unsolicited; I can do what I want with it." The photographer hired a chopper that was good for photography, probably a Bell Jet Ranger (way back then it was $500/hr.). Then spent the afternoon, purely on speculation, shooting boats. Then he laboriously tracked down the owners from public records, based on the registration on the boats' bows. Then he made, or had made, the 5x7s. Then he put together his professionally-designed mailing packets. Then he paid all the postage. Then he waited and hoped. And a well-off guy like my relative stole his work, as I'm sure some other boat-owners did as well. Fun. Art and intellectual property has worth. It's real stuff. It's creators deserve protection from theft.
Several photographers photograph some of the races I participate in. Their business model is to send each participant multiple photos of his car on track - normally 4 to 8 photos are sent along with the request for $2 to $3 for 'each photo you decide to keep'; a product list is also included in the mailing for enlargements and other photo related products.
My understanding is that one is not oblighted to purchase unsolicited products (photos) and one can therefore keep the photos without purchasing them - of course the photographer, if he is of a right mind, will eliminate your name from his list to photograph in the future.
A number of competitors complain about this form of business plan.
I routinely purchase the proofs that are sent to me - after all I am spending $1500 to $2000 or more for each race I enter - what is another $30 to $40 to have a pictorial record?
One photographer sends 'worthy' photos and I continue to buy from him; another sent photos that were 'pedestrian' at best and most were not that good - I didn't buy and I have not gotten any more photos from that photographer.
My work is MY work, and nobody else has a right to it without permission from me or my heirs. Most money is not a tangible asset either, but folks can't take it just because they want it.
SD70Dude, I've had a lot of great interactions with you, and learned a lot from you about railroading, so I'd prefer not to sour things with this argument. Can we just agree to disagree?
In any event, I'll probably bow out here. I've had this discussion SO many times in the past ...
BaltACDMy understanding is that one is not oblighted to purchase unsolicited products (photos) and one can therefore keep the photos without purchasing them - of course the photographer, if he is of a right mind, will eliminate your name from his list to photograph in the future.
Your understanding is correct.
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0181-unordered-merchandise
Here's the actual law:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title39/html/USCODE-2011-title39-partIV-chap30-sec3009.htm
Your photographer better tread carefully with his wording (from the above law):
(c) No mailer of any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, shall mail to any recipient of such merchandise a bill for such merchandise or any dunning communications.
Lithonia OperatorMy work is MY work, and nobody else has a right to it without permission from me or my heirs. Most money is not a tangible asset either, but folks can't take it just because they want it.
The question is not that you don't have rights to your work, but after you leave this mortal realm, how long should those rights exist to your heirs?
Disney has been able to hold onto Mickey Mouse from Steamboat Willy for close to 100 years, and will proabbly be trying to extend it again before the copyright is set to expire in 2024.
zugmann Lithonia Operator My work is MY work, and nobody else has a right to it without permission from me or my heirs. Most money is not a tangible asset either, but folks can't take it just because they want it. The question is not that you don't have rights to your work, but after you leave this mortal realm, how long should those rights exist to your heirs? Disney has been able to hold onto Mickey Mouse from Steamboat Willy for close to 100 years, and will proabbly be trying to extend it again before the copyright is set to expire in 2024.
Lithonia Operator My work is MY work, and nobody else has a right to it without permission from me or my heirs. Most money is not a tangible asset either, but folks can't take it just because they want it.
If you make a beautiful desk, should your heirs have to give it away after you pass? Why must intellectual property be treated differently? It is every much a creation as something physical.
Perhaps a significant portion of this is enforcement. If someone is actively protecting a copyright, it's one thing. But if no one is doing so (or even cares), well...
charlie hebdo zugmann Lithonia Operator My work is MY work, and nobody else has a right to it without permission from me or my heirs. Most money is not a tangible asset either, but folks can't take it just because they want it. The question is not that you don't have rights to your work, but after you leave this mortal realm, how long should those rights exist to your heirs? Disney has been able to hold onto Mickey Mouse from Steamboat Willy for close to 100 years, and will proabbly be trying to extend it again before the copyright is set to expire in 2024. If you make a beautiful desk, should your heirs have to give it away after you pass? Why must intellectual property be treated differently? It is every much a creation as something physical.
A better analogy would be:
If you designed a beautiful desk, how long should everyone else wait before they are allowed to make their own beautiful desks without your permission, and without paying you royalties or licensing fees?
Of course, this desk example would probably fall under patent law instead of copyright. And patents expire far sooner than copyright.
The original 'master' desk would of course pass to your heirs, just like your money.
The law has always recognized that physical and intellectual property are different things. That's why copyright and patents don't last forever and are not infinitely transferrable, unlike ownership of land, objects and money.
I'll bow out here as well, this thread will probably get locked/deleted soon anyway, I'm actually quite surprised it has lasted this long.
I've written a book and hope to see it published in print. Say the printed copies sell out. So, the copyright remains valuable to both me and the publisher. So, after ten years there is a second edition. Say, time has marched on, the intended readership now has some newer and more relevant ideas, and a some books remain unsold for another ten yeas, but gradually there are only a few left. I become somewhat famous for one reason or another, but no publsiher feels the investment in republishing is profitable, and yet there is some demand for my ideas, whether or not I am still alive.
I think that under those specific circumstances, which is very similar to old railroad photos from out-of-print books, my best interests are served by freedom of distribution.
Harold E. Cox agreed, and I'll be glad to frward the Birney Book to anyone. There is a URL, which someone else can post.
Meanwhile, I've read a few more Frimbo pieces. Trying to have an open mind. That was mixed in with a political book, a tedious novel called Bastard Out of Carolina, and a really entertaining book about Parnelli Jones.
(Let's see if any of our younger readers ask, "Who is Parnelli Jones? Balt, don't spoil it!)
SD70 Dude: It's an interesting discussion and not needing to be locked. Purely a hypothesis, but I think the historical difference in the laws lagging reality relates to the increasing importance of non-tangible creations vs physical property as we moved from the 18th to 21st centuries. Given his undergraduate major, Overmod might have something to say here.
And yet Goodwill and Salvation Army resell copyrighted works that they came upon " for free", every day. I've found books that were selling new on store shelves, $200 for a two volume set, for a buck apiece at the Sallie.
It's also interesting how Amazon will describe books as "used" and then deeply discount them.....but once you get the book you can tell by the spline that no one had ever opened that book. I'm sure that is on the up and up, they just buy attic stock from pubishing houses that have lost interest in carrying the books in question, and then discount for a quick turnover.
I guess one could regard this as knowing how to shop for what you are looking for, which of course has a darker aspect, as well.
Goodwill and Salvation are not reproducing the works. There is no copyright issue here. There has always been a used book market. Books are material objects, and are sold new and used; the publisher paid for the right to publish the content. As used books are passed along, no additional books are produced. Those are the same books, but the readers have changed.
Let's say Trains buys rights to publish an article. The rights fee will have something to do with circulation. Now let's say that a lot more people read ("consume") one article that month than they do a different one of the same length and general type. That makes no difference; the writers were paid based on number of copies printed, and both writers got the same fee. And if the March 1989 issue has been re-sold a gazillion times at train shows, but the November 2012 issue was a dud, that makes no difference either.
(If you remember, the March 1989 issue had that pictorial of young, nude female engineers. )
Copyright is about reproduction, not sales. Literally the right to copy. Now, will the author of a book that's expected to sell a million copies command a bigger fee than I will for my upcoming Boring Tales From Lithonia? Yes.
I only jumped back in because I love buying books from Goodwill! They are a great organization, do a lot of good, and as far as I know, do not violate copyright law. And they certainly don't do that by selling used books.
Lithonia Operator Meanwhile, I've read a few more Frimbo pieces. Trying to have an open mind. That was mixed in with a political book, a tedious novel called Bastard Out of Carolina, and a really entertaining book about Parnelli Jones. (Let's see if any of our younger readers ask, "Who is Parnelli Jones? Balt, don't spoil it!)
Fun fact: One of his more famous rides used the same engine that was found in these:
https://railpictures.net/photo/444388/
charlie hebdo SD70 Dude: It's an interesting discussion and not needing to be locked. Purely a hypothesis, but I think the historical difference in the laws lagging reality relates to the increasing importance of non-tangible creations vs physical property as we moved from the 18th to 21st centuries. Given his undergraduate major, Overmod might have something to say here.
I agree, it is an interesting discussion, and we are far from the only people currently having it.
But it is not directly railroad-related and is most definitely political. That's why I'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked.
Lithonia Operatorcommand a bigger fee than I will for my upcoming Boring Tales From Lithonia? Yes.
LOL, I'm sure you will find someone willing to publish you,.... for a fee....
I tried to get someone to read my one interesting tale from Lithonia, but I got no takers ...
BTW, I don't see this discussion as political. Here I am on the same side of this as Twentieth Century Fox. Generally, we're no soulmates.
Lithonia Operatormy one interesting tale from Lithonia, but I got no takers ..
Aren't there places who will, for several thousand dollars, publish anything you care to submit?
Once you become published, then you can be cited as a source of authority on Wikipedia, almost worth the price of entry just on it's own. Especially for those having an agenda
charlie hebdo... I think the historical difference in the laws lagging reality relates to the increasing importance of non-tangible creations vs physical property as we moved from the 18th to 21st centuries. Given his undergraduate major, Overmod might have something to say here.
An interesting way to approach the issue, and much more important (sometimes in specific financial senses not immediately evident) that have changed in importance over the years. (Some of the history of digital-library access to journal content is relevant to the topic, but not interesting here...I suggest that one useful area in that extended topic we might discuss would be the traditional Patent Office precedent that your can't patent ideas, only things and methods' and the changes in the '80s and subsequent changes back related to software 'algorithms' and the whole issue of "look and feel" (specifically around GUIs for extended conceptions of OSes on personal 'computing and connection' devices, and then over browsers as 'gatekeepers' for access to 'the Internet'). Another might be the time-honored idea of 'software licenses' and the whole concept that what you 'buy' is just the media on which the content is expressed, not the material derived ... but with the odd conclusion that anything you produce with the content is yours, but you agree not to reverse-engineer the actual file structure in which your production has been made and stored (e.g. to get rid of what may be very extended 'undo' storage or proprietary formatting codes) or to circumvent security provisions.
I can't imagine why a fair market in used books isn't legal ... but has anyone been to a college library recently and tried to visit their reserve room? Apparently incentives like mine to have students 'bequeath' their "old" textbooks to reserve rooms and libraries of their choice, so students of 'limited means' won't have to pay hundreds on top of tuition to take courses, has terribly backfired into colleges no longer making textbooks available on reserve at all. (Let alone have 30 copies of each prior edition down in the stacks somewhere when they were no longer on noncirculating reserve...) The word for this practice would be 'sucks' except that this now-deprecated expression does not even begin to express how appalling the practice is to me.
SD70Dude Lithonia Operator Meanwhile, I've read a few more Frimbo pieces. Trying to have an open mind. That was mixed in with a political book, a tedious novel called Bastard Out of Carolina, and a really entertaining book about Parnelli Jones. (Let's see if any of our younger readers ask, "Who is Parnelli Jones? Balt, don't spoil it!) Fun fact: One of his more famous rides used the same engine that was found in these: https://railpictures.net/photo/444388/
PJ's ride was more nimble in the curves.
Edited. Zapped.
(My initial response was a result of my misreading CO's question.)
Lithonia OperatorI only want my work to be read by cantankerous railfans. if I go with one of the big publishers, who knows what sort of rabble will be pawing through my opus?
Most just want pretty pictures to look at. Words get in the way.
Lithonia OperatorWell, of course. But where's the challenge in that?
There are also specialty presses that can get a work out to where 'viral demand' grows for what may be multiple printings. Unfortunately many of these tend to be of the 'Imperium' or 'The Two Babylons' type ... but if your story or your writing is compelling, getting it out there is far more essential than impressing... well, the interns assigned to the slush pile of unagented submissions...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.