73 Magazine: All issues now online

Jim,

You are welcome to your opinion, but I am the copyright holder on my 73 articles. That is a fact. As I have mentioned, I cannot speak for others. 73 does not own the copyright on my 73 articles, despite the assertions of others. They are misinformed on this matter if they insist otherwise.

Perhaps other writers didn't work out an agreement on publication rights with the editor. I did.

73,
Chip W1YW

 

Actually , since many hams are into sci fi, they are well aware that republication in compilations (anthologies)is common, especially for older stories that originally were in the pulps. In general those authors are compensated during re-publication, for example 'Nightfall' by Isaac Asimov. I do have the original pulp, too.The paper flakes unfortunately. Over 70 years ago...

73,
Chip W1YW

 

I asked for a couple of reasons what your call was when you wrote the articles.

1) You indicated you were only concerned about *your* articles. On the calls I could find on your QRZ page I couldn't find any that were written by you in a manner the search engine would return. So if you are indeed only interested in *your* articles, I was wondering if all the response/angst is really for naught if none are posted.

2) I would have liked to read a couple.

As previously mentioned, I think your first approach would be to address any copyright concerns you have with them directly - http://www.archive.org/about/faqs.php#20

 

That's right; my concern is with my articles as those are the only ones I hold copyright on. Again, that's my concern.

IMO yours should be to enjoy the articles and find those that meet your interests. If one of those happens to be mine, I would be happy to send you a copy upon request. IOW, you certainly have access to my articles, if they end up being of interest to you.

73,
Chip W1YW

 

This isn't the first time I have dealt with these people at archive.org. That's all I will say. Assume I am satisfied with previous results.

73,
Chip W1YW

 

if you are willing to send us the articles to read, why don't you want us to read them where they are?
If they are removed from the archive, how will we know they were ever there or what they are about?

I have no idea what your articles are about. they may be fascinating and very pertinent to what I am looking for. But if we can't see them, they are invisible and inaccessible. So, until we know what they are, we can't request them or see them. Can't tell much from just a simple title.

When I look at an article, I mostly just look at the schematic to see if it uses the parts I want to use. This was so when I was building a 6 meter Power amp using 4CX250Bs. I looked at dozens of articles. Some used 572Bs, some 3-500Zs, some 6146s, and others transistors. So I had a specific thing I was looking for. I was able to find what I wanted cuz I could see what was IN the article and then copy it if it would help me with the project. Otherwise it was glanced at and not dealt with.

SO, the whole world would probably like to see what you wrote about, way back whenever, but with no clue on what it is, how will we know?

 

Never said that. You are not reading my posts.

Please read my posts.

The issue is DOWNLOADING--NOT reading.

Enough: there is no new info here and I have been exhaustive in articulating my point, whihc is, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT HURTS AUTHORS. Just because someone may have illegally made something 'available' doesn't mean you have a right to copy it.

73,
Chip W1YW

 

Chip,
Did you write any articles on Fractal Antenna Systems in 73 Magazine? Any articles in QST? Fractals are cool....

73 Dave

 

Everyone has an opinion. Copyright owners are able to take someone who infringes on on their copyright to court and receive an automatic "fine" of $125,000 — last I heard. But, because I "heard" it, please do not quote me. However, what is implied here is that because of copyright law, which is based on infringements on Eli Whitney's cotton gin, Tesla's radio invention infringement, and many others of similar nature, copyright law is indeed a concern. However, there is a "fix" that "providers" and including even those who claim to hold the copyright can provide that can simplify everything.

I also am a writer and have books copyrighted. I also believe that an author's work is his work and of late, it is not been necessary, from what I have seen, to get some government office to assign a copyright. It is enough for a person to write something and indicate it is copyrighted and this assertion must be honored.

Now, what is the proviso I indicated above? Is is often seen in downloadable articles on the Internet, even PDF files, that the person who downloads the information/data must agree/assert that it is for personal use only, not for distribution or commercial use or benefit. This would also preclude someone from going on the lecture circuit and using someone's intellectual material for the lectures without due process (or full attribution to the author, at least), it would keep a teacher from printing out something from a book (such as the vocabulary from a Spanish grammar) for use in the classroom, etc.

I believe it would show good faith in our hobby if someone who has articles of interest to a specific group, such as us here who are Hams, would show others a form of good will by making those articles available, even for download, if it is only for that person's use. Now, if there is a circuit involved, for example, this could preclude someone from using that circuit as part of a commercial venture, if this were stipulated in the download permission agreement. Also, in another concept, should one have material that is not directly appropriate to a specific group interest, then that unrelated material need not be included in this good will offer and such stipulations could be stated as part of the permission for downloading or copying.

Bottom line is, however, that "copyrighted" material is indeed owned by the person who generated that unique and often ingenious material, it indeed has the potential to provide for a person's livelihood and, therefore, it is often not a mere hobby. If force comes to shove, then that person has the ability to fight for his/her rights, as it should be in an open and free society.

I have several articles published in 73 Magazine and whether they are mine and for my exclusive use is not of any concern to me. The last one was of such a nature that if it were developed and used commercially, it would not be a problem to me as long as it is not forgotten that it was my idea. However, as the old saying goes, "to each his own" and, therefore, what I think and believe need not be taken as a rule. Everyone's taste is in his own mouth...

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that there is a point where extending a Philosophy brings one eventually to the point where it must share importance with existing Laws of society and we all must agree that the Law trumps all — even when we think it's wrong...

 

Chip's old call was N1IR, that may find you some results.

 

Chip Cohen wrote three articles about fractal antennas for 73, two published in 1996 and one in 1998, with the call N1IR in his byline. They read like fairly typical 73 articles -- "let's get building it!"

To put this thread in some perspective, try Googling "73 magazine cd" or "73 magazine archive." There are plenty of hints that Wayne Green was a sloppy businessman, and that the copyright situation for 73 is quite tangled.

Interestingly, Chip's 1995 article in Communications Quarterly is not available on the CD offered by the ARRL.

AC8JF - Wes

 

How are you "hurt" if someone downloads an article you wrote years ago?

I could see if you were trying to sell the article, and somebody copied it, and undermined your sales. But is anyone even interested in buying your old articles?

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

Chip,

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. 73 authors were paid, and work done for hire is owned by the buyer, which was in this case 73 magazine. Check with Wayne Greene to see if he feels duly compensated.

The donations go to support those who work to preserve our digital (and paper) past before it disappears. archive.org is supported by donations, and aims to keep an archive of the internet. You should find out more about the internet archive foundation and its work in the US with the Library of Congress, and its work to help start other archives around the world for important documents (both digital and paper) that are being lost.

[EDIT: I now see you have tirelessly claimed you negotiated special First NA Serial Rights with 73 Magazine. I'm quite sure you can contact Archive.org and get them to remove your articles once you show them your contract with 73. They're not skirting the law and are only happy to oblige when errors have been made. Congratulations on your long career in astronomy and antenna design.]

Leigh/WA5ZNU

 

After sleeping on it, some memory has returned (I have since lost the sample print and agreement), and I seem to recall a worldwide publishing right of the article, and I don't even think copyright was mentioned.

I seem to recall saving that stuff, but after two moves, I guess it got chucked at some point.

On the same token, I must have chucked all my radar training modules I wrote in the 80's. I was trained in Criterion Referenced Instruction (Robert Mager) and spent about five years making training modules for the government. So anyway, I never concerned myself with copyrights, as my stuff was sent to an editor who actually knew English, (ha), and an artist, where none of us could claim anything anyway. Only our names appeared in the fine (very fine) print.

We drank our profits, and waited for our dinner to be served. Yum, Yum...

Joyeux Noël

 

Leigh,

I appreciaate your concern, but its weird to have a retraction and the incorrect comment in the same article. You should just erase the whole thing..

I don't need any help: I am not the problem. I am not looking for any advise.

I expect people to go and enjoy reading 73 as they always have. I have posted my personal opinion that DoWNLOADING that material from archive.org is copyright infringement. The situation on the downloading is identical to that of the napster debacle 10 years ago.

My additional opinion is that the person who got it scanned and onto archive may be in for a long and expensive legal battle. The fact that person(s) remains anonymous is clearly going to be construed as intent to totally destroy the value of the copyrights.

The process of discovery may bring to light other activities related to copyright infringement by the individual or persons who put up the 73 archive for download.

iMo those guys have handed Wayne Green and/or the copyright holders a golden goose: the entire archive may be downloaded by them as part of an exhibit for a complaint. Then, presumably, Wayne Green now has his scanned archive which he can then sell himself . Then the complaint has real teeth because there is now a direct and interfering conflict between legitimate authorized distribution and infringing unauthorized distribution.

It may even make sense financially to sue, for example, rather than requiring Wayne Green to demonstrate worth: downloads; posting on QRZ; and the obviously numerous comments here could be compelling. Doubtless discovery would also show accrued post-publication redistribution for say, QST. I believe a case of 7 figures may be viable.

The longer the full compilation stays downloadable on archive dot org the higher the probability of gathering sufficient exhibits to move ahead.

Its up to Wayne on what he wants to do...it's his case IMO.

73,
Chip W1YW