73 Magazine: All issues now online

There's a justified pride and staisfaction in being the steward of a collection, which unfortuantely doesn't often resonate with XYL's; grown up kids; and so on. What you have is rare and I am glad it gives you pleasure

I had a library of 11,000 books that took 40 years to collect, which i forced myself to thin the last 3 years. I have reduced it down to about 1200, mostly technical. I was lucky in being able to sell some of the very rare ones, and gave away some of the others. Others just went to third world countries as paper fodder, I suspect. Better to control this now rather than having it all dumped on Storage Wars 2o years from now!

I switched over to ebooks 2 years ago...and just got speech recognition (for XMAS!) So I have cut the cord and the keyboard (to some degree). This is the world we now live in;-)

73,
Chip W1YW

 

By the way I am now using speech recognition and and miles away from the keyboard.

Now we should work on telepathically placing the 73 magazine collection into the brain

At least that way there's no copyright problems exclamation!

73 and Merry Christmas to all,

chip W1YW

 

Anyone got a real live link with the 2012 issue of 73 .

ONline reading not PDF please ?

Not interested in reading the articles from lat year or 5 years ago.

ZS6AF

 

From his writings old and new, my guess is that most of the time he was/is simply pushing a point of view. Whether that point of view was/is based on facts and sound reasoning was beside the point - to him, anyway.

A bit like this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915#

That's great - but how do you know QST wouldn't have published it? Did you submit it to QST and have it rejected?

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

This whole business about copyrights got me thinking about why copyrights are important in the first place.

It seems to me that there are three basic reasons why someone would care about their work being copyrighted, and the rights enforced:

1) They want to be paid for their work. Nothing wrong with that. This includes control of imitator publications, such as the fake Harry Potter books. (JK Rowling successfully sued the publishers of unauthorized imitator books).

2) They want to control who else gets paid for their work. Few authors are also publishers, so a bunch of people stand to gain from an author's work.

For example, an author may wish to deal only with certain publishers and not with others, regardless of what the author is paid for publication.

3) They want to hide some of their work from publication.

For example, a famous author might not want people to see his/her early work, which was really quite awful, and which would damage the author's reputation.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

Johan, 73 Magazine went out of publication many years ago. 2003, I believe. The only ham publication online or online only is Worldradio, as far as I know.

By the way, the picture on your qrz.com callsign page is very beautiful.

Bob

 

That's a fascinating question, Jim.

I can think of about ten other reasons, but the bottom line is how to maximize value of the portfolio.

There is a famous case, for example, by the SciFi author P. Schuyler Miller from his story " The Sands of Time". It has been consistently voted as one of the best SciFi stories of all time--but was unavailable for a long time, and folks only knew about it through the anthologies, which came much later. In fact, the anthologies really only took off with the new 'media' of the paperback, essentially a 1950's innovation.

The story was published in th April 1937 ASTOUNDING. I am looking at that issue as we speak. You would think such a famous story would be jumping from the cover...but alas, no: it shows up on p 116, buried. It is overshadowed by CAMEL ads; the story WATER FOR MARS; and ads exhorting you to go to correspondence school and stop being skinny.

The story has been extrapolated to screen several times, most notably in Jurassic Park ,and Indiana Jones. Not the same stories, but obviously using some of its elements. I believe SANDS OF TIME has been licensed for film rights directly several times.

Other stories that come to mind are TOTAL RECALL--which was from a Dick story 40 years ago.

Collections have more value than single articles themselves, BTW.

Another example? Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer, which was issued as a FREE book to kids to draw in shoppers to Montgomery Ward in the 1930's. It was not republished, at least in that form. Instead it was extrapolated to the song--which arose from the book--and revised as a new book much later. The big money came from the song (1949) and the TV shows (circa 1963+) as licensed derivatives. But good luck finding the original book from 1939. Rare now.

Most authors with a portfolio have some control of their materials--or try to get it back.I guess my point is that sometimes it takes many decades to recognize the worth of copyrighted materials. The US copyright system obviously recognizes that by allowing up to 70 years for death of authors to prevent it from going into the public domain.

The reputation speculation sounds pretty funny. If its that bad maybe we should throw the bums in jail! !

73,
Chip W1YW

 

I am confused: why would he need to submit to QST first?

Obviously lots of folks were comfortable being in 73.

Why not?

73 readers chose the magazine; QST is member-publication. You don't choose to get it. The reason the ARRL doesn't allow membership only--without magazine--is they have to keep the print run high to justify ad costs, and get additional revenue that way.

73,
Chip W1YW

 

The claim was that "QST would never have published [the article]". But the only way to really know whether or not that was true was to submit it.

And CQ, and QST, and ham radio, and Popular Electronics. No problem! The point was about what QST would or would not have published.

QUOTE=W1YW;2419769]
73 readers chose the magazine; QST is member-publication. You don't choose to get it.[/quote]

Yes, you do. A person chooses to join ARRL, or not.

Actually, a ham can be an ARRL member without getting QST through family membership. Blind hams can membership without QST too.

As for ad revenue, much of what paid for 73 was ads, too. In fact, declining ad revenue was cited as a main reason 73 stopped publication.

Just for fun I looked at my 1967 QST - ARRL membership was $6.50 back then. (1967 was the year I became a ham). 73 was $5.

But by being an ARRL member I supported the field organization, W1AW, the ARRL Lab, representation in Washington and at the IARU, etc. Worth the extra $1.50 back then.

It would be interesting to compare the cost of ARRL membership to a 73 subscription over the years - and to see how much content (ads, editorials, technical content) each magazine actually contained.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

Usually, but not necessarily.

Imagine a struggling new author trying to get a book published. S/he finally gets a publishing house to put the book out, but they give it almost zero promotion and the contract gives the author only a tiny share of the proceeds.

But it turns out the book sells like crazy. The publishing house makes a ton of money, the author very little. But the author's reputation is started despite the publisher's actions.

So the author writes another book. Now all the publishing houses are competing for the rights, and the publishing house that did the author wrong offers the highest bid, lots of promotion, etc. But the author refuses to deal with them and accepts a much lower bid from another publisher - even though doing so lowers "the value of the portfolio".

It's not a speculation. Ever hear of someone named Ayn Rand? Some of her early stuff was unavailable for decades because she didn't want it out there. Only after she was dead did it appear It was pretty bad, too. (Yes, folks, she wrote stuff even worse than "Atlas Shrugged")...

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

Thanks for the calibration Jim. I imagine there are a few who feel that Atlas Shrugged is trash. I don't worship the book or the author, but I do feel it conveys a valuable viewpoint that was well-expressed. I also feel that one needs to have that sort of exposure.

Jim,IMO, you need to let go of your jaded edge. it's just not ham friendly. I am sorry , but it does shut down my interest in engaging you in discussion.

Expanding on my earlier point, copyrights are the right of the author(s). They may have many reasons to want to continue to hold onto them, but the bottom line is very, very, very few authors, who wish to make even a meager living from their works, allow copyright into the public domain in their lifetimes. I appreciate that 'sharing' in that way--placing in the pubic domain-- is the flavor of the month, but I have yet to see any argument that is pursuasive to do so. Please: don't try to re-hash them for 4 me.

Wishing you luck in 2012,

Chip W1YW

 

First of all, thanks to the folks who put in an obvioulsy tremendous effort to make the "73" archive available to all. Please take a bow! I for one had been looking for re-prints of 73 articles for projects, and now I have them.

73 Magazine was one of the most interesting, well balanced magazines in terms of over-all interest to "Joe Average Amateur", especially for entry-level folks.

What 73 magazine had way too much of, unfortunately, was Wayne Green.

At one point in time early in his 'career', Green had something to say and it made some sense. But the more rediculous his rants became and people tired of his "It's All The League's Fault" rhetoric, the more vile and irresponsible his "editorials" became.

In 1995, I sent Green three letters, two of which he responded to with profanity and suggestions of what I could do with my opinions and the dubious legitimacy of my parentage. And I am sure that I wasn't the only person that was subjected to similar barrages of profanity and threatening language. Therein lies the true character of the man.

The cause of those rants, by the way, followed some of Green's promptings in his "Never Say Die" column for the Amateur community in general to rise up and abandon the League. I suggested that he use his pulpit to create some alternative organization for the Amateur community that offered even a portion of the services and opportunities the League did. Of course Green always was a loud-mouth charlatan whose only interest was making more money for Wayne Green, and he said that his only "duty" was to stir the pot, not to contribute to it. It was "someone else's responsibility" to create that new organization, Green stated. He was only responsible for the idea of creating one.

Green was no more interested in the long term health or welfare of the Amateur Radio community than he was concerned about feminine hygiene products.

That Green was never sued by the League for more than a few of his moronic, pre-pubescent-like rants was (and still is) to me, remarkable. He deserved it on more than one occassion. Green may have had some publishing saavy, but his mouth and relentless tilting at windmills was his undoing.

I wrote to the League on one occassion about one of Green's blatantly deceitful and demeaning rants, and they (rightfully) said that the turmoil that a lawsuit against him would bring to the Amateur Radio community wasn't worth whatever compensation a civil judgement would bring. In retrospect, their decision to just sit back and thumb their noses at him was the right one to take. He was his own un-doing.

73 died an untimely and unnecessary death and Wayne Green was its executioner.

Steve, K4YZ

 

Chip, Old Boy, there's a 'jaded edge' there, OK, but it's not Mr. Miccolis'. Please avail yourself of the nearest mirror before making such rediculous assertions in the furture.

And I dare say that your reticence in engaging Jim in any discussions is the do to the likelyhood that he's going to sweep the floor with you in the process. Others have tried, and just wound up looking idiotic. Keeping your self-agrandizing to yourself will, in all likelyhood, mitigate the bruises to your ego.


Steve, K4YZ

 

Steve,

If I was jaded then I wouldn't be here. If you'd like to be more descriptive, please drop me an email, or let's make a sked on 20M to discuss it if you'd like.

Wishing you the best in 2012,

73,
Chip W1YW

 

I am sure we'd all like to publicly know who these folks are there Steve; why are they anonymous? Do you know who they are?

Why are you condoning apparent piracy--there is no evidence that the downloadable aspect of 73 on archive. org is authorized?

Making it available to read is fine, but distributing it without restriction, with request for 'donations'...how can that be construed as anything but theft? Enlighten me why its not.

73,
Chip W1YW