[Boatanchors] 73 Magazine pdf files

[Glen Zook]

Transfer of copyrights requires a specific document and Wayne Green did not provide such a document.  The ARRL, even back when they were not paying anything for articles written for QST, did provide such a document because they required transfer of copyright.  Wayne Green did not.

Then throw in the articles which were never paid for and you have another problem with the copyrights.  Since the articles were not paid for you have no possible transfer of the copyright.

Now rather or not the amount of damages which can be recovered is worth the effort is another matter.  More often than not, the final resolution is that the person committing the copyright violation ceases to publish the copyrighted material.  At least there is some satisfaction for the copyright holder in the fact that the violator suffered some financial loss even though the copyright holder got nothing in the way of payment.

With a few exceptions, most of those who wrote articles for 73 Magazine wrote them for the satisfaction of seeing their name in print.  It is almost certain that those persons were not even aware of the copyright law, let alone interested in preserving their copyrights.  Since I do hold over 1000 copyrights I do try to defend them.  At least I do call attention to those who violate the copyright law especially where my copyrights are concerned.

For decades amateur radio was "self policing".  That is, anyone who broke the law was "guided" by other amateur radio operators into "returning to the fold".  Unfortunately, these days, there are way too many operators who flaunt the regulations, who take advantage of other operators, and so forth.  Frankly, those persons have little regard for any law or regulation which restricts "their" activities.  The fact that the copyright law is easy to violate and the rewards for violating these laws can be substantial does not "help"!

The only thing that I could do is to stop the reproduction of the material on which I hold the copyright.  The other copyright holders would have to act on their own behalf.  As such, I can only control the material on which I hold the copyrights.  Someone "might" act as a "friend of the court" and call attention to the fact that there are other copyright violations.  I do admit that stopping such violations is definitely an "up hill" battle.

Glen, K9STH

Website:  http://k9sth.com


--- On Sat, 5/15/10, Todd, KA1KAQ <ka1kaq at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Todd, KA1KAQ <ka1kaq at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] 73 Magazine pdf files
> To: "Glen Zook" <gzook at yahoo.com>
> Cc: boatanchors at mailman.qth.net, "Richard W. Solomon" <w1ksz at earthlink.net>
> Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010, 6:03 PM
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Glen
> Zook <gzook at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > There are not any legal electronic files available for
> 73 Magazine.  There was an attempt a while back.  However,
> there are way too many copyright problems and that
> particular endeavor has faded.
> 
> That's an assumption on your part Glen. They are available
> through at
> least three (now four) sources that I'm aware of. I'd love
> to see you
> carry any of the files into court and somehow prove them
> not to be
> legal for me or anyone else to own simply because you wrote
> an article
> for 73.
> 
> > his office manager did not pay any of the authors
> during the last 2 or 3 years of its operation.  The office
> manager marked the articles paid but actually "pocketed" the
> money herself.  Because of this there was no possible
> transfer of the copyrights.  As such, the copyrights are
> still held by quite a number of different individuals,
> estates, and so forth.  To reprint, or otherwise make
> available electronic copies, the permission from every
> copyright owning author, or their heirs if they are
> deceased, would have to be obtained and that is basically an
> impossible task.
> 
> Sounds like another assumption on your part Glen. It might
> be
> comforting to believe, but I suspect you'd discover that
> you gave away
> any exclusive rights when you provided the articles to 73
> in hopes of
> publication (barring some iron-clad contract beforehand
> that Wayne
> never would have agreed to). More likely it's a case of
> time and
> expense vs. demand that has dissuaded anyone from pursuing
> it
> professionally. Amateur radio is a hobby for very few in
> the overall
> scheme of things, with fewer still interested in the old
> gear or old
> rags like 73. And fewer each year.
> 
> I bet the guy who is selling them is barely recovering his
> expenses
> for time and DVDs, if that. How could anyone possibly
> charge for 'the
> material' without knowing specifically what each buyer
> wanted the
> copies for? How can CQ reproduce and sell their DVDs
> without
> compensating all of the original advertisers, the printers,
> and
> whoever else?
> 
> Dick, I have a set of DVDs with pretty much the entire
> collection as
> well, maybe a few issues missing. They were all
> hand-scanned and came
> out great. I'm up north right now, but when I get back home
> I'll dig
> out the information and send it to you. I'll leave out the
> later
> issues, I doubt they'd be of much use or interest anyhow.
> 
> And I'll respond directly with the info for obvious
> reasons. No need
> to set off another wave of hand-wringing over potential
> 'lost profits'
> from obsolete amateur radio articles that a few hundred
> people *might*
> be interested in. I'm all for intellectual`property rights,
> but that
> doesn't appear to be the issue here. Sounds more like a
> plea for
> attention or recognition.
> 
> Interesting though, to see someone who has made his name
> and no doubt
> plenty of money reproducing parts designed by others, so
> worried about
> his 'copyright' being infringed upon. Maybe it's a karma
> thing?  (o:
> 
> 
> - Todd,  KA1KAQ/4
>