Magicalia and the YahooGroups

In article , ravensworth2674 writes

Norm,

You seem to think a piece of work is only protected by copyright if it says so on it. This is a common fallacy, utterly wrong.

It is too big a subject to set out in detail here, but in essence any literary, dramatic or artistic work, film, sound recording, or typographical arrangement is automatically protected by copyright from the moment of its creation.

Although the work must be an "original" work, this does not mean it requires novelty in the same way as a patent does; it simply means it must not be a copy of some previous work, but must originate from the author.

Over the years, the courts have ruled that the most mundane things can be covered by copyright. Thus the instructions and drawings you referred to certainly are.

As someone else correctly pointed out, copyright does not protect ideas*, it only protects the actual expression of them, so you are quite free to take the idea and produce your own "literary work" based on it. Also as someone pointed out, the magazine will not normally own the copyright in the article, but only have limited rights (something like "first magazine publishing rights") granted to them in a licence by the author. The author is free to publish the work himself in other forms, or license someone else to do so. However, the magazine does have copyright in the actual typesetting, so you cannot just photocopy the magazine pages.

How important is all this? and is it fair? you might ask. Well, in many cases, such as instruction books for long-obsolete equipment, or old works, it may be impossible to trace the owner of the copyright (if you can show you have made reasonable efforts you will probably get away with it). In other such cases, the owner may be indifferent, or even pleased, that someone is helping others to use their old goods. Such cases most commonly arise where the works are incidental to the thing the owner made money on, and does not affect his current activities. In other cases, such as a publisher, he may feel differently - he makes money from sale of reprints, and you are taking his (legitimate) bread from his mouth.

Is it "fair"? Well, frankly, it's not for you to judge. If anyone were allowed to steal another's property (and copyright is property, just as much as your lathe is) just because they thought it was unfair that you should have it, civilised society could not exist (I exclude communism from any definition of "civilised society").

As someone suggested, it would be better - more polite, and legally secure - to approach the author, who will almost certainly have his original typescript and drawings, for permission to put his version onto your website or disseminate in other not-for-profit ways. I'm sure most authors in a hobby-related field will be happy to give permission. If they don't (maybe he is hoping to put it in a book), then you certainly have no right to use the material unilaterally, and it would also be very ill-mannered. Will it matter? Possibly not, as the owner would hardy recover anything like enough to justify the time and expense of pursuing you. Is that an excuse? Not IMO, YMMV.

*Though patents do - this is a whole different ball game.

David

Greg wrote: > Obviously you are, model engineering was around for decades before the

I don't really think that buying second hand issues of ME and MEW will persuade anyone to write new articles since the copyright holder does not profit from second hand sales.

Copyright laws were invented, as you rightly implied, to give people incentives to create new works. I don't see why those laws should be used to support a copyright owner who doesn't publish back issues in preventing people from sharing copies ? If Magicalia were prepared to make back issues available then of course they deserve copyright protection, otherwise they don't. My opinion only, and I know the law doesn't make that distinction.

One of the problems that the internet has given us is the situation which couldn't have been foreseen back in the 1950's, where large quantities of material can be scanned and reprinted or re-typeset (I think Linday do this?) for re-sale.

The fact that there are plenty of people with the facilities and will to make superb copies of original material is going to cause more trouble over the next few years.

You have not seen the end of this one...

Peter

-- Peter A Forbes Prepair Ltd, Luton, UK snipped-for-privacy@easynet.co.uk

Always refreshing to have an obtuse view. I think the intention is NOT to steal vast sums of wealth from Magicalia or any author but more to maintain good solid information that is likely to be lost in the vaults of the megalithic (relative term) empire. What is quite laughable is the idea that profit is to be made from the writings, in original form, of such as Geometer. Very good as they are you need to be an engineer to interpret them into modern tooling, techniques and environments.

I feel that Magicalia would have done much better in supporting a website where this older information was freely available to be "read" and using that to provide pointers to where their more modern writings could be bought. Much more useful as "bait" than the main course. Of course as I'm not connected with them perhaps this is their intention - but I won't hold my breath.

One of the problems with many of our current magazines is that they seem hell bent on taking some poor (sure as hell they won't make him rich) authors work and providing themselves with a meal ticket. They feed off the passion others have for the subject and seem to be only interested in filling a few pages between paid for advertising and of course flogging as many copies as they can.

I certainly would not wish to steal any copyright material from anyone but do think that much of this older work can easily be updated and presented in a way that preserves the many "gems" of information that it contains whilst making it far more relevant and accessible to the current generation. But there we go, dreaming again.

Regards

Keith

May I suggest prospective authors consider donating articles to the likes of Mr J.W.Early's collection of groups. If Magicalia are taking this action to provide the old issues online (as has been suggested for bait) then I applaud them. However if it is just a money grabbing, control exercise then I shall have nothing to do with ANY of their current or future publications. Perhaps they will also pursue the public libraries for each person reading back issues.

Please if you do have old works of interest and they are not copyright, or you do hold the rights, please consider putting them in the public domain. I feel very sorry for the future model engineers coming into the hobby, especially those on very limited income. The old articles using basic tools are invaluable sources of inspiration.

Joules

I agree whole heartedly with what you say above, Magicalia (or their precursors) could even have a subscription system whereby only current subscribers have access to the information you describe (in the same way as "New Scientist").

I think what has happened here is Magicalia have been alerted to these newsgroups by the criticism posted here re their MEW duff-issue debacle and have also seen posts where people have publicly stated they've posted info on Yahoo groups. Under the circumstances Magicalia must either defend their copyright or lose the right to enforce it.

You've all 'Googled' Magicalia???

I hope so.

Norm

Norman, I had already done that when they bought the titles and at that time my Crystal Ball showed me the future to be:

MEW available as a "searchable on-line resource" - for a small fee of course.

ME construction articles (at least the most popular) available on-line

- for a small fee.

MEW/ME available on subscription either as a paper or on-line magazine with additional content of course on-line - for a small fee.

This information is given in good faith although the accuracy and honesty of its content is not implied or guaranteed in any way. A fuller description of what my Crystal Ball has revealed can be yours for a small fee payable in beer tokens.

Nostrahopeis

Keith, it's the gypsy in me and me crystal balls! Magicalia is only a 2-3 million quid -internet- lark. Nice to sell on to a bigger one.Free of all encumbrances? Is this what they used to teach in those long dreary classes when everyone else was at the pub getting pissed or laid?

Norm

I agree Norm it is usually easier to sell "the dream" than the reality, positive prospects always go down well.

As to what they taught in those classes - my bank account will testify I was with the later group (not the laid bit though the wife is about!)

Regards

Keith

Hi Tony

This is interesting - surely the consequence of this is that they can continue to sell left over back issues but that there is no other way of profiting from the material without infringing the author's copyright - even reprinting back issues might infringe author's copyright - in which case all the offending material might be lost if the copyright holder cannot be found.

Russell

T> >

May I correct my earlier quoted figures?

It was the Encanta sale price given Yorkshire Post and not as I stated above.

I unreservedly apologise for the error

Norman Atkinson

Which, I believe, is exactly what happened in the Metalmaster Yahoo group. Someone got in touch with David Urwick's widow and she gave permission to copy. The suggestion was made that folk send a "gift of $" to Mrs. Urwick. Someone else took the time to type out all of David's handwritten notes and redraw his drawings for the Metalmaster. ie no infringement of copyright.

Mike in British Columbia

Hi Russell -

That is essentially correct, although, as I say, it will depend upon the nature of the agreement between the author and whoever the publisher was at the time.

Up until recently, I have been submitting articles on the basis of "First British Serial Rights" (FBSR) - which is essentially the right to be the first to publish the article in Britain, but the copyright remains with me. I don't think that making photocopies of back issues strictly comes under FBSR, but on the other hand FBSR isn't clearly defined (Google on it and you will see varients on the theme).

I have recently signed an agreement with Encanta that covers work going forward, and that gives Encanta the following rights over articles I submit for publication (paras copied from the actual agreement):

1. 'Exclusive First publication rights' - An exclusive right to publish the Contribution in whole or in part into the first publication of the Magazine. For the purpose of this right, first publication means the initial print run of the Magazine, any subsequent print runs of the magazine, and the publication via any electronic medium of a facsimile representation of the printed version of the magazine, provided that any subsequent print runs and electronic versions are complete and identical in content to the printed version of the magazine from the initial print run.
2. 'Non-exclusive rights to provide photocopies' - The non-exclusive right to publish, sell, rent, distribute or otherwise supply copies of the Contribution in whole or in part to any third party in the form of photocopies.

So under this agreement, they would get to print off photocopies of my articles from back issues and sell them, or put a facsimile of the whole magazine onto a website, but they wouldn't get to re-use my articles in a new publication (a "special" on CNC, for example) without asking for a further license. After they have done their initial publication, I get to do with the material exactly what I choose, as the agreement simply assigns the above limited rights to publish, it doesn't assign ownership of the copyright; that remains with me. Clearly, what I can't do is to offer "firts publication rights" to anyone else (as Encanta have already had that), but I can do pretty much anything else with the material that I may choose to do. For the moment, most of it ends up on my website.

Regards, Tony

In which case, its not clear to me what right Magicalia has to stick their nose in.

Regards, Tony

But they may choose to make them available in the future, use them as the basis of a book etc. If the material has been illegally spread around the web they won't benefit much from doing so so have lost an asset. If it was your asset you wouldn't like to loose it, an analogy would be that it's ok to steal a scrap engine from a farm yard because the owner isn't prepared to sell it to you!. Greg

Hi Tony

Thanks for that explanation. I was interested to see that your change of agreement reflects changes in other publications too.

I've googled FBSR and followed a few links - as I understand it now - Magicalia don't hold author's copyrights and copyright in the "Typographical arrangement of published editions" has expired for everthing published before the end of 1981 and I haven't seen many articles on Yahoo from after that.

So it seems that Magicalia have no rights - but if the lawyers were acting on behalf of eg Duplex they would have a case.

I find this irritating - it seems to be bullying to threaten an individual with a court case where the threat is in the costs rather than the outcome.

Russell

T> >

So theft is ok so long as the items aren't too valuable, at least not at the moment, and in the thief's opinion? hmm.

Very true, but the fact they haven't doesn't justify theft.

Ah the profit motive, it's the devils work and any who follow it deserve all they get 8-) Greg

As I see it the top and bottom of it is that the old articles from ME and MEW were scanned and published in various places for three reasons:

1/ The old management of ME and MEW hadn't heard of the internet

2/They didn't give a toss about back copies (or had no idea how to make money from them)

3/ It was possible, cheap and convienient to scan them in and post them on a free hosted site from Yahoo

The new owners have certainly discovered the computer and Internet Explorer even if they are prone to subscription c*ck-ups. However the enthusiasm of the new owners to flex their lawyers over YahooGroups could mean a number of things - they might just be about to bring their valuable archive onto the market for us to access. Not a bad thing. They might just have a very tight rights management funtion. It does suggest that items 1 and 2 in the list above are no longer true and a digitally engaged publisher in this sector could be very good for us. Look at Village Press in the US for an example.

However greater corporate entities than Magicalia have failed to stop unlawfully copied material circling around in cyberspace and if they make it too expensive then all their content will end up in P2P file sharing.

Maybe John and I should wait for them to make an offer for

Charles