Magicalia and the YahooGroups

I have lots of stuff in my sheds, garage and stables that some may wish to use, but it's my stuff so why the f**k should any one be able to take it just because I'm not using it?

The law disagrees.

Again, why should you be able to take what's in my shed just because I'm not fully utilising it? Greg

Prove that assertion, the rest of the world thinks they are there to protect peoples financial interests and that's certainly how they are used. How is the fact you have to pay for a patent supposed to encourage someone to publish something?, certainly in the age of the web they can publish for effectively nothing.

In the case that started this thread the owners are actively trying to protect their property, so how can there be any suggestion they have abandoned it?. Greg

OK but are they addressing the issue of back numbers ? Fine to protect it but still do nothing ? They can't even get current issues to subscribers sorted so what chance do you have on getting a series on building the 3 /12" gauge Plonkette published in 1953 ?

Next question is do they even have all these old copies on file to do a search and copy ? If they were that worried they would do.

All modern magazines are held as electronic copies that are sent to the publishers. It's common inside knowledge that whole blocks of these electronic records for MEW have gone 'missing' so unless they have stored paper copies are available for scanning there is no chance they can meet any enquires.

These new owners are really doing a lot to get customers on their side. First the plans supplement, then the contributors contracts and now this.

They are not the only publishers about and a magazine is only as good is its SUBSCRIBED content. It only takes for a couple of disgruntled contributors to jump ship for others to copy and then see where figures go, TEE publishing have been trying for a while to get some of MEW's and ME's subscribers on board.

-- Regards,

John Stevenson Nottingham, England.

Visit the new Model Engineering adverts page at:-

Hi Lester !

Just an educated guess. John Haining could have lived in Harrow, Middlesex Could he have a son called Peter or Alexander?

Nothing up my sleeve. No Magic!!!

Cheers

Norm

I have no idea, and from what I've read they are a bunch of fools to put it politely, but it's irrelevant to the argument that's been put forward that it's ok to nick something because you don't agree with what the owners are doing (or not doing) with it. That argument leads to total anarchy.

Greg

I don't think many would agree that unused items should be free for the taking although there has been some semi-serious discussion that unused assets (land, buildings etc) should be confiscated and used for the benefit of society in general. This also happens regularly with "development" in Europe, not all that different in concept.

I seem to remember though that this discussion also had a thread which questioned if they entirely owned what they were seeking to protect anyway. Seizing control of what is not yours is tantamount to..............anarchy isn't it?

I suppose "total anarchy" would be far worse than the "Ochlarchy" we are rapidly approaching. The recent (as in my lifetime) bunch of "archons" seem more interested in their own "ends" than enriching society, other than by their own entertainment value of course. Never mind, come the revolution I'm sure there will be a (long) list of fallen comrades to put against the wall. I may have a few names to add........but I suspect I'm on it already.

Keith

In article , Greg writes

Interesting reading, thanks.

Here is some more; mind you, as legal opinion, I suppose it's worth what we pay for it :/

Wouldn't it be amusing if someone eg Tee were to seek permission from past author's and have more rights to the content than Magicalia.

Russell

John Stevens> They are not the only publishers about and a magazine is only as good

They already have. If you look on their book list they have titles from George Thomas, J A Radford and others who originally published in ME and now are published in own title books.

The floor is still wide open for a web based publication and the market is available in the US for a web based magazine that is [a] affordable and [b] doesn't take 23 weeks to get there.

-- Regards,

John Stevenson Nottingham, England.

Visit the new Model Engineering adverts page at:-

intellectual property reflects the idea that this subject matter is the product of the mind or the intellect, and that IP rights may be protected at law in the same way as any other form of property."

Yes there's debate over whether this should be the case, but at the moment that's basically what the law says in most countries and personally I agree with it. In fact I think it should be a lot easier and cheaper to protect your IP, the present legal system effectively allows rich companies to walk over individuals who can't afford to defend their rights.

Of course those who covet someone else's property will always find ways to justify getting their hands on it, and this concept of taking something that someone else is not fully utilising is an old excuse, along with the one about only harming the insurance company... Greg

I think that most of are now questioning what is really going on and not what our miserable sheds contain. In an earlier set of postings, I was aware of the movement of copyright away from the forerunners of Magicalia. After all, two are more than mere contacts.One certainly paid to have his books published in the first instance. I am now delighted that JS has added more to sustantiate what may have been a couple of isolated instances.

But we are still at copyright of others- and most of these are 'faceless' contributors writing under nom de plumes.

Who is 'Ned'? Who is " Geometer'? I can guess but the secret lies with as man who was born in-- wait for it- 100 years ago in 1897! It seems incumbent for Magicalia to substantiate its own title after threatening legal action!

All these different views about copright are interesting but does anyon

know if the original letter recieved by J Early is genuine or a hoax Dav

-- DCree

----------------------------------------------------------------------- DCreed's Profile:

Genuine.

Regards, Tony

Just a bit of an update for those that have been following this. This morning James posted the following to mlprojects:

From: James W. Early [adam: replaced James' email address] To: mlprojects ; snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com Cc: mwhints ; mlathemods Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 9:12 AM Subject: Re: [mlhorology] Re: New file uploaded to mlhorology

David They had already knocked down two others who were selling Cds of magazine volumes they had scanned themselves at prices comparable to what used magazine volumes go for on Ebay. When they found this person and maybe others I was only given an example link to one seller were selling material I had scanned and optimized they shut down the source of the material as well as the seller. The tacit and informal agreement that was made with a previous editor was no sales period either by having people pay to join groups, selling advertising space on the groups or selling CDs of the material on the groups. This is why I have faithfully refused to provide CD collections of the material I have scanned.

This person was selling at least one CD of material from my groups and maybe more. For them this was a clear violation of the informal agreement that they felt they had with me on posting this material. So it is now very hard to blame them for the action they felt justified in taking on this matter. So now it seems many deserving people who only want to learn from the masters of the past will suffer because of the greed of a single individual for a few bucks of coffee money.

-- JWE Long Beach, CA

Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss. Robert A. Heinlein

-------------- Original message ---------------------- From: snipped-for-privacy@ateneu-inf.es

My appologies to David and Tony for publishing your email addresses here without permission. I didn't notice them till after I hit send.

Sorry,

Adam Smith Midland, Ontario, Canada

Worry not. I'm going for the record number of Spam emails anyway ;-)

Regards, Tony

So this now opens up a black market in CD's from whatever source. There is already a CD of volumes 1 to 8 of MEW circulating in the UK from as far as I know, an Indian scanned edition.

It's a supply and demand thing and if they get wind of a market lets face it they will fill it.

It's a pity that the true owners of these publications don't realise what they own the rights to and offer past copies on CD.

-- Regards,

John Stevenson Nottingham, England.

Visit the new Model Engineering adverts page at:-

Some copyright law, aiui:

Copyright is a collection of rights vested usually in the creator of an original work, including the right to prevent unathorised copying, moral rights, etc.

Rights under copyright are statutory rights, ie rights granted by Acts of Parliament, and these cannot be abandoned (in the UK that is - in the US the position is ... unclear, though there is some 7th Circuit (California) precedent to the effect that they can be, which is against general principles of law. The Supremes have not yet made a ruling either way).

In general, for written works, if there is no clear written copyright agreement between the publisher and the author of a magazine article, then who owns the copyright in a pre 1988 work depends on whether the article was commissioned. If it was not commissioned, ie not written to order for a fee, probably with the publishers suggesting the subject, or made in the course of employment, then the author owns the copyright.

Verbal agreements cannot to change that - copyright cannot be assigned (ie when the owner of the copyright changes) except in writing. Rights under copyright may however be granted by a verbal agreement, though the Courts would need some convincing and the grant would almost certainly have to be a consideration in a contract (eg the author got paid) to be enforceable today if the rights are of value.

If it was a commissioned work then the magazine _may_ own the copyright - amongst other things, it depends on when the article was written, as copyright law has changed over the years. However since 1988 the law has moved away from this position (to the "sweat of the brow"! position) and first copyright in commissioned works created after then is the property of the creator, not the commissioner, unless there is a written agreement otherwise.

However first copyright in works created "in the course of employment" was and remains the property of the employer. I do not know whether this is applicable to any ME/MEW articles - copyright in a full-time staff member's work for instance would be the property of the publisher.

In general, British Courts will now assume that submitting an uncommissioned article pre-1988 for free or paid publication in a UK printed publication gave the publisher only First British Serial Rights (paper), and no other rights, unless there is written evidence to the contrary, or evidence that the article was commissioned or made in the course of employment (and the Courts will sometimes do so even when there is evidence to that effect, under the "sweat of the brow" doctrine).

As I understand the situation few if any ME/MEW articles were commissioned or created in the course of employment, and it seems to me doubtful that Magicalia owns any copyrights, or any rights under copyright (which is not the same as owning the copyright) other than first british serial (paper) publication and any rights granted in written agreements between the authors and the publishers.

It seems to me to be extremely doubtful that Magicalia _could_ legally provide copies of articles on the internet, certainly not without the grant of further rights under copyright (which are not the same as copyright itself) from the authors.

It also seems very doubtful to me that Magicalia have any authority to assert any rights other than the rights mentioned above. Doing so "on behalf of the authors" seems a legal nonsense without the agreement of the authors.

Copyright in email is a bit vague, but works approximately like this: if someone sends me an email they retain the copyright to the words, but I have the right to tell people that they sent me a message and what ideas it contained - but strictly I do not have the right to quote it in full as the words (the "expression") belongs to them.

However damages* under breach of copyright are related to the lessening of the ability of the copyright owner to make money from from publishing it himself, so unless it was eg a poem or of other artistic merit it is doubtful that any tort was committed by quoting it in full, as no lessening of his ability to make money took place, and the writer could not sue for damages.

It is generally supposed that email sent to a public list like this one can be quoted in full, though there may be exceptions, but you are unlikely to be successfully sued unless it is an mp3 of the latest and greatest pop hit or suchlike.

For my scientific papers I usually grant the publishers a 3-year exclusive world printed rights, plus 3-year exclusive world electronic rights, although I retain the right to publish them electronically on my own webpage and to give free printed copies to colleagues/friends etc during those 3 years. They cost £18 in electronic form from the publishers, £30-odd in printed form as part of a book, and £3 for a photocopy from the British Library. Go figure. I don't get any of that.

The short answer - is as we have already established - they don't have the right to publish those CD's :(

( Hence it would be nice to establish who we need to ask for permission for some of the good stuff :) )