Landracing Forum
Misc Forums => NON LSR Posting => Topic started by: Ratliff on June 14, 2008, 12:50:55 PM
-
I remember reading a very technical article in Road & Track of all places probably in the late 60's, early 70's on NACA ducts. They gave all the critical dimensions, but the thing they really emphasized was that all the corners must be sharp. Most of the accessory ones that you buy tend to be rather generously radiused. That may be why most aren't very effective.
Pete
That's the article posted at the start of this thread.
Page 3 explains why sharp edges are needed.
Page 4 gives the critical dimensions.
-
Ratliff:
I didn't notice that that was the article because your scans are almost impossible to read. If you're going to post scanned items then get a scanner that's high enough quality to do the job. Probably then you'd set them up on your own web site and establish a link to them from this website as I think Jon's justifyably getting a little nervous about copyright enfringement. Both the U.S. and Canada are starting to clamp down harder and harder on any copyright violations.
Pete
-
Ratliff:
I didn't notice that that was the article because your scans are almost impossible to read. If you're going to post scanned items then get a scanner that's high enough quality to do the job. Probably then you'd set them up on your own web site and establish a link to them from this website as I think Jon's justifyably getting a little nervous about copyright enfringement. Both the U.S. and Canada are starting to clamp down harder and harder on any copyright violations.
Pete
I can scan an article to a resolution where someone could blown it up 500% and every letter would be sharply defined. However, burning through bandwidth to the point of overflowing the server is not the way websites function.
The Fair Use doctrine covers reprints of articles for scholarly and educational purposes. Copyright infringement is not even on the radar. It's an absolute total nonissue.
-
The Fair Use doctrine covers reprints of articles for scholarly and educational purposes. Copyright infringement is not even on the radar. It's an absolute total nonissue.
You are thinking of the "progress of science and useful arts" clause of the US constitution.
But review the outcome of the decision L.A. Times v the Free Republic.
Jon does assume liability, including the risk and potential expense of a lawsuit.
That said, most of what I have read that you have posted is highly unlikely to draw the ire of a disgruntled copyright owner - at least not to the point of litigation. I've made similar postings myself. But in the unlikely event of a cease and desist order being served to the owners of this site, or a law suit being brought against this site, the responsibility and cost of defense would fall to Jon. At that point, it will no longer be a non-issue.
There is a clear way for us to avoid this - simply secure for the site the written permission of the copyright holder to post it.
-
The Fair Use doctrine covers reprints of articles for scholarly and educational purposes. Copyright infringement is not even on the radar. It's an absolute total nonissue.
That sounds like a reasonable defense if you were the one responsible for mounting it but you are not, this sites owners would be forced to defend it so what they think > what you think.
Why don't you start a blog and post all of this on it?
These are three of the big ones and are free. You can write articles, post pictures and have comments and discussions. If you take 30 minutes and try it out I bet you'll wonder why you never did it before.
http://www.livejournal.com/
https://www.blogger.com/
http://wordpress.com/
-
Thanks John R. I hope Ratliff takes your very constructive suggestion to heart. While the risk to this site may be small, any risk caused by one person which could cause problems for the site should not be allowed. This site is a much too valuable resource for most of us to see it endangered in any way. We all remember the times it was down and the severe withdrawal most of us felt.
Pete
-
Ratliff:
Posting unreadable articles isn't constructive either. Why not take John Romero's very constructive advise, post the articles at a readable size on your own blog and then if you want, build a link from this site to yours. I know I'd probably go and reread that article with great interest. My complaint of a lack of readability is legitimate. I'm sure that many others find it much worse than me as I'm using a rather crisp 22" wide screen monitor.
Please take the good advise from John R., listen to the webmaster's legitimate concerns, and make it more pleasant for all of us including yourself. You don't need the friction you're causing on this forum either.
Pete
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_doctrine
"Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. It is based on free speech rights provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The term "fair use" is unique to the United States; a similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright.
United States trademark law also incorporates a "fair use" defense, which also stems from the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution."
-
Ah, yes, quoting the U.S Constitution may make you feel good, but I'll trump you -- "It's my football and we're going to play by my rules!"
By the further way, I mentioned that I have difficulty enlarging your posts enough to read them -- and I use a pretty good monitor -- 24" flat screen -- at the house and can't enlarge enough to read without it becoming blurry. At the office the monitor is a 17" -- can't read the stuff there, either.
So there are two good reasons for you to quit posting pages of text.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_doctrine
United States trademark law also incorporates a "fair use" defense, which also stems from the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution."
Fair use defense does not include the whole-cloth reproduction of copyrighted material. See LA Times v. Free Republic
http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/freerep/Default.htm
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_doctrine
United States trademark law also incorporates a "fair use" defense, which also stems from the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution."
Fair use defense does not include the whole-cloth reproduction of copyrighted material. See LA Times v. Free Republic
http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/freerep/Default.htm
The basis for the LA Times suit was "The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' copying and archiving decreases revenue from ads and from accessing archived materials." Road & Track doesn't archive 30 year old articles and so derives no revenue from them through ad sales. There are times when the complete reproduction of an article is required for educational purposes and scholarly research and so is covered under the Fair Use doctrine.
-
Respecting what the web master asks is only fair. Several have tried to suggest you back off and even ignore your stuff. We all know you have a great collection of LSR information and think you would better serve the LSR venue with your own web site.
-
I'll bet Slim would put a link to "Ratliff's LSR History Site" if ya don't piss him off first....
Organize it all and put up a site. Wanna borrow my copy of "Websites for Dummies" :?
I'd post all the pages here but I enjoy being able to participate on the worlds greatest LSR website... :-D
-
It cost me 200 big ones to be the winner in a 7-count lawsuit a decade ago. I haven't chosen to be a winner again.
-
I'll bet Slim would put a link to "Ratliff's LSR History Site" if ya don't piss him off first....
Organize it all and put up a site. Wanna borrow my copy of "Websites for Dummies" :?
I'd post all the pages here but I enjoy being able to participate on the worlds greatest LSR website... :-D
Outside of my interest in specific episodes such as Athol Graham's project, I'm really more interested in past projects and changes in rules structure in terms of how they relate to what is going on today or could be done tomorrow. For example, when you look at Dick Keller's 1,800 lb rocket car design or Alex Tremulis' 3,000 lb jet car design in comparison to the F-104 car or the Fossett/Breedlove car does the mere passage of time make them obsolete or outdated?
-
Outside of my interest in specific episodes such as Athol Graham's project, I'm really more interested in past projects and changes in rules structure in terms of how they can be applied to what is going on today.
So you just post all the other stuff to annoy some and amaze others with you collection.... :| You can still put it on your own website. Since this is one of the last that allow your participation, you might want to start looking into your own if you keep poking the stick at the dog on the chain.
It is also good to see you found the edit button, that way when someone quotes your post and you dont like it, you can change your original to look better...
-
...Road & Track doesn't archive 30 year old articles and so derives no revenue from them through ad sales. There are times when the complete reproduction of an article is required for educational purposes and scholarly research and so is covered under the Fair Use doctrine.
Franklin, the specifics of this one article are not the only point. While I agree that it is highly unlikely that the police will kick in SSS's door late one night and confiscate his server due to this one article, it is the knock on effects he has to be concerned about. If it becomes commonplace for users to post complete articles here then SSS must read each one, determine the author, the original publisher and the current copyright holder and THEN make a judgment on the potential of infringement.
What happens when someone else responds in this very thread with a complete scan of a 30 year old SAE paper on NACA ducts? Is that OK? What if the author is dead? Who knows if the author is dead? I guarantee you SAE will come at this site with all guns blazing, cease and desist orders will be flying and SSS will be forced to pay full price for the article posted x the number of page views the article got + SAE's lawyers fees.
I think we have reached the point that all here pretty much knew was coming. Franklin, you have to decide if you are going to abide by this websites Terms of Service or not. If you wish to have your ideas widely circulated and discussed by the LSR community then you will. If the overriding factor in your life is to "never bow down to the Man" regardless of the costs then you wont. It's entirely your choice.
-
...Road & Track doesn't archive 30 year old articles and so derives no revenue from them through ad sales. There are times when the complete reproduction of an article is required for educational purposes and scholarly research and so is covered under the Fair Use doctrine.
Franklin, the specifics of this one article are not the only point. While I agree that it is highly unlikely that the police will kick in SSS's door late one night and confiscate his server due to this one article, it is the knock on effects he has to be concerned about. If it becomes commonplace for users to post complete articles here then SSS must read each one, determine the author, the original publisher and the current copyright holder and THEN make a judgment on the potential of infringement.
What happens when someone else responds in this very thread with a complete scan of a 30 year old SAE paper on NACA ducts? Is that OK? What if the author is dead? Who knows if the author is dead? I guarantee you SAE will come at this site with all guns blazing, cease and desist orders will be flying and SSS will be forced to pay full price for the article posted x the number of page views the article got + SAE's lawyers fees.
I think we have reached the point that all here pretty much knew was coming. Franklin, you have to decide if you are going to abide by this websites Terms of Service or not. If you wish to have your ideas widely circulated and discussed by the LSR community then you will. If the overriding factor in your life is to "never bow down to the Man" regardless of the costs then you wont. It's entirely your choice.
Okay, yes. if a lot of people started doing it then that could be a problem. Sooner or later, some eager beaver would post an AIAA or SAE paper that is currently archived on their site and requires payment or subscription for access.
-
Okay, yes. if a lot of people started doing it then that could be a problem. Sooner or later, some eager beaver would post an AIAA or SAE paper that is currently archived on their site and requires payment or subscription for access.
Right. And he cant make a rule that says "Franklin can post full page scans because he knows when something is too old to be a legal concern but nobody else can". He has to think about forum wide rules that apply to everyone. Sure, it sucks if there are some good articles that likely have no copyright concerns but many readers wont "get" the difference.
I really do suggest you look into those blogs I posted up earlier, it will not only solve all these issues but they will give you much greater freedom to put your ideas forward.
-
The basis for the LA Times suit was "The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' copying and archiving decreases revenue from ads and from accessing archived materials." Road & Track doesn't archive 30 year old articles and so derives no revenue from them through ad sales. There are times when the complete reproduction of an article is required for educational purposes and scholarly research and so is covered under the Fair Use doctrine.
". . . and for accessing archived material".
In the example you are arguing, note that Road and Track sells back issues, therefore they do archive and make available for sale past issues of their magazines, and derive revenue by doing so. As to whether or not available issues go back thirty years is a red herring - the copyright stays with the owner, and it is at the sole discretion of the owner as to how the material may be commercially used. Just because a publisher chooses to no longer make available a copy does not, in any way, diminish the rights of the copyright owner.
Jon is responsible for all copyrighted material that appears on his commercial site. Therefore, as a commercial forum, Jon would be held liable under Federal law for any unauthorized use of copyrighted material. Furthermore, any burden of proof regarding the fair use argument would fall to Jon.
Again, I stress that the likelihood of repercussions is slim, but the precedent of LA Times v. Free Republic opens the door for that. The act of defending such arguments would fall to Slim, and I suspect he doesn't want to go there.
So the clear and obvious way of continuing to legally post what I think is often some nifty stuff would be to get the written permission from the copyright holder to do so.
-
Please excuse me for moving these posts - I didn't want to stand in the way of NACA ducts as a topic, and felt that this discussion would be better served under a new heading.
Below is the most recent quote from Ratliff, which appeared under the former heading, which I will simply cut and paste into this one - Franklin, my apology for not being quick enough to catch it. It is in response to the previous post by myself, and Jon, if you can move this entire thread over to "non-lsr", I'll shepherd it from here.
"The Fair Use doctrine is pretty broad in regards to the noncommercial use of copyrighted material for scholarly research and educational purposes. However, as John Romero has already pointed out, if a lot of people start posting articles sooner or later somebody is going to get careless and post copyrighted material from which someone is currently deriving a revenue stream."
While I was away, I looked up this link from the New York Times. Seemed appropriate to all sides of this discussion -
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/magazine/24wwln-ethicist-t.html?scp=1&sq=copyright+ethicist&st=nyt
Chris Conrad
-
Please excuse me for moving these posts - I didn't want to stand in the way of NACA ducts as a topic, and felt that this discussion would be better served under a new heading.
Below is the most recent quote from Ratliff, which appeared under the former heading, which I will simply cut and paste into this one - Franklin, my apology for not being quick enough to catch it. It is in response to the previous post by myself, and Jon, if you can move this entire thread over to "non-lsr", I'll shepherd it from here.
"The Fair Use doctrine is pretty broad in regards to the noncommercial use of copyrighted material for scholarly research and educational purposes. However, as John Romero has already pointed out, if a lot of people start posting articles sooner or later somebody is going to get careless and post copyrighted material from which someone is currently deriving a revenue stream."
While I was away, I looked up this link from the New York Times. Seemed appropriate to all sides of this discussion -
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/magazine/24wwln-ethicist-t.html?scp=1&sq=copyright+ethicist&st=nyt
Chris Conrad
Good thoughts in the NY Times column. Thanks.
-
Since this topic is copyrights, and had been split, I moved it out of technical discussions and into non-LSR. I personally don't want the website shut down because a few want to post old, new or any materials without the copyright owners permission...
Let's try to not drive Jon the the spot that Jon was when he shut it down... :x
My suggestion, no possibly copyrighted materials from other sources from this day forward, only links to websites, or self hosted, or posted with Jon's permission after he has reviewed. That protects our interests and Jon's interest. Jon, what do you say? It is you site and your call, we will all try to live within your requirements.
-
I say, and thanks for asking me, that it's still sort of early Monday morning and I've not had a chance to do more than read quickly through what you suggest, Mr. Stainless, so I won't take a position yet. But I'll do so soon. Right now I'm watching the guys working on building our new garage and Tim, who's staining the new siding on the house.
Back later -- gotta go spend some quality time with Nancy before I head to town.
-
"no possibly copyrighted materials"
It's a good idea, much like "try not to have fatal accidents".
With the same caveat: exactly how do you do that?
I've been threatened for quoting myself: the note said "you stole that from my friend's site", which in fact had stolen it from me.
What insures complete protection against the indignation of offended authors and their lawyers?
For those under 12: there is no such thing.
-
BTW: here's the opening page of every one of my approximately 100 tech articles:
"Copyright 2008 Jeffrey Diamond
All rights reserved.
Reproduction or distribution of this material, in whole or in part, for any purpose except personal non-commercial use, is strictly prohibited without the prior written consent of the author.
Violations will be prosecuted to the full extent of the statute."
No one pays any attention.
-
Panic:
For the sake of this discussion I'll refer to your copyright statement (above) and focus on the word "personal". By posting on the site something such as text from a book or article -- the only "personal" gain that I can see would be in thereby being able to say that you wanted to show off your personal knowledge/library/whatever. The site exists to act as a community -- and is therefore far and away not personal, is it?
AS for no one paying attention -- does that make the statement/threat any less real? You could prosecute should you choose to do so (assuming you had the interest and the legal wherewithal to do it.
Thanks, one and all, for following this thread. I appreciate your help and explanations of the fine points.
-
To prosecute requires harm.
To sue requires loss.
You have to prove one of these, or you're wasting your time - and even if you win your attorney will keep it.
Suing just to get someone to stop is like throwing money over the cliff.
My warning is, very simply, a bluff, since I can't substantiate lost revenue or damage to my reputation.
-
To prosecute requires harm.
To sue requires loss.
You have to prove one of these, or you're wasting your time - and even if you win your attorney will keep it.
Suing just to get someone to stop is like throwing money over the cliff.
My warning is, very simply, a bluff, since I can't substantiate lost revenue or damage to my reputation.
To successfully prosecute requires harm
To successfully sue requires loss.
But neither is required to make your life hell and cost you real $.
-
Thanks, should have made that distinction clear.
-
"no possibly copyrighted materials".
With the same caveat: exactly how do you do that?
I've been threatened for quoting myself: the note said "you stole that from my friend's site", which in fact had stolen it from me.
What insures complete protection against the indignation of offended authors and their lawyers?
You've almost answered your own question by supplying quotes to the accusatory note you received!
Now we're in the twilight zone between plagiarism and copyright law.
Key to all of these issues is to properly attribute any outside sources, to which Franklin's argument regarding fair use does come into play.
If you are making an argument and wish to back it up with web material, you can cut and paste the quote provided you include the link. Or if you are using written material that is not legally on the web, you can cite it through the author's name.
Here's an example:
According to George Eyston, in his 1936 travelogue/documentary book Speed on Salt,
"One hundred and twenty-five miles to the west, almost on the extreme edge of the State, lay the Bonneville Salt Flats which were to be the scene of our exploits."
The above excerpt with a simple citation does fall into fair use, because it acknowledges the words and thoughts, (intellectual property) of the copyright holder. Additionally, it is used within the context of a discussion, and/or is being used as an educational example.
And it can be done even more informally than this, just as long as it is done. An honest, good faith effort is what's required.