[Heathkit] Manuals, copyrights and my 5-cents worth

[Glen Zook]

I keep having to bite my fingertips (I can't "bite my tongue" because we are communicating through the written word and not speech) before making reply to some of the posts on copyrights.

First of all, I readily admit that I am biased in favor of the copyright law.  I have been a "professional author" (albeit very part time) since I sold the very first article that I ever wrote (as a high school junior in early 1961) which was bought and then published by Wayne Green in 73 Magazine.  As I stated in a previous message I hold over 1000 copyrights for written materials including magazine articles, newspaper columns (for several years I wrote a 3-times-a-week column for the Belo Corporation - owner of the Dallas Morning News and other newspapers), magazine columns, and articles and commentaries in other publications.  Because of this I have been very interested in the Copyright Law of the United States of America for a number of decades.

A previous message referenced making tape copies of 45 rpm records in the 1950s and 1960s.  Was this illegal?  Yes!  Was there any money lost by the copyright holder?  Again, yes.  However, in reality such actions were very minor and on a very localized basis and the loss to the record companies was negligible.  Now, fast forward to present day.  Utilizing the Internet copies of recordings were being distributed to literally millions of persons without regard to copyrights and payment of royalties.  There were individuals downloading hundreds and even thousands of copyrighted materials without paying one cent to the copyright holders.  The result was that hundreds of millions of dollars were not being paid to the copyright holders.

It is the same thing with software.  Illegal copies of programs developed at significant cost by companies were being pirated, especially "off shore", and being sold in the United States and other countries resulting in the loss of millions of dollars to the companies that developed the software.

In this city, Richardson, Texas, there started being some very blatant violations of the copyright law.  Students at the University of Texas at Dallas started purchasing very expensive text books and then taking them to a local 3 cents a copy shop and making between 20 and 50 copies of the books and then returning the book to the college book store for full refund.  Instead of the college book store and the publisher getting paid for the textbooks they got nothing while the students got copies of the books for like 10% of what the book actually cost.  The "Feds" got wind of this and basically told the copy shop to either stop the students from doing such or else face severe penalties.

Basically, when book companies (and such) no longer make a profit then they will go out of business.  When they go out of business then the vast majority of authors will not write.  The end result is that the number of publications will "dry up" and the general populace suffers.  That is the main idea behind copyrights.

Copyrights are a commodity, they can be bought and sold.  When sold the new owner has every right to set his/her own restrictions on the use of the copyrighted material which has no bearing on what the previous owner of the copyright allowed.  It is like a vacant lot that has been used for a baseball diamond by the local children.  One day someone else buys the land and fences it off and then starts construction of a new building.  Are the children disappointed?  Sure!  But they should actually be thankful for the time that they could use the land and not condemn the new owner.

Do I wish that the manuals were still available basically for free.  You bet your sweet "bippy" (to steal the phrase from "Laugh In").  Do I wish that some arrangement could be made to freely distribute copies of the manuals?  Sure I do.  However, the fact remains that someone bought the material including the copyrights and that person is free to utilize those copyrights in a manner that they see fit.  Does that include securing a royalty from companies that reproduce the manuals for sale?  Maybe.  Does that include being the only legal reproducer of copies? Maybe.  Is it possible for someone to negotiate an agreement with the copyright owner to allow the free distribution of the manuals?  Sure.

Are people unhappy because the candy that they were able to just walk up and take is now locked up and they have to pay for it?  Obviously.  But all this aside, people should not condemn the "system" and the law which is in place for a good reason just because they do not understand the logic behind such.

Glen, K9STH

Website:  http://k9sth.com