Third Machinist Bedside Reader Free Download

[loose nut]

Did you know that the Harry Potter movies never made a nickel, in fact the studios filed bankrupt so the whole thing was a tax write-off..

Studios or production companies.

There different now.You frequently see the production companies that make the movies are frequently one shot wonders for every movie, they have no assets, just a name, that way they can collapse without any loss. Next movie the same people have a new production company.

[Captain K]

For George
I just last night noticed some of the Village Press books on scribd. I assume that’s a copyright infringement but I don’t know. Some of Rudy’s books and others

[George Bulliss]

For George
I just last night noticed some of the Village Press books on scribd. I assume that’s a copyright infringement but I don’t know. Some of Rudy’s books and others

Thanks for pointing that out to me. Yes, it's in violation of the copyright and is basically stealing from both us and from Rudy's niece, who holds the rights. We'll start the process to pull them down.

I note that scribd makes a good attempt at looking and sounding like a legit operation who cares about operating true to copyright laws. However, the only check on people uploading material is to have them check a box saying they have the rights to upload. Obviously, not everyone out there is going to have a good understanding of copyright law; the burden of keeping pirated material off the site should fall on the site owners, but I suppose that would put a dent in their catalog.

[nickel-city-fab]

Thanks for pointing that out to me. Yes, it's in violation of the copyright and is basically stealing from both us and from Rudy's niece, who holds the rights. We'll start the process to pull them down.

Well, I'm proud of the fact that I bought my Village Press books the old fashioned way, Some of them were directly, some from Amazon, some from eBay. Whole box full of them, at a time when I could ill afford it, but I figured if you have the chance to get the knowledge and you don't know if it'll be around tomorrow, you go for it and use it to make your living tomorrow.

That's a bummer about the scribd case, but as you point out, some are less than honest, and in other cases, other cultures have no concept of copyright or patents or anything.

[Baz]

An interesting historical & cultural situation that writers, musicians, artists get protection for their creation and long after they are dead but if an engineer uses his talent to create something, an ' invention' he has to pay to protect it for just a few years in every different country and anyway the Chinese are allowed to steal it with impunity.

[loose nut]

That's a bummer about the scribd case, but as you point out, some are less than honest, and in other cases, other cultures have no concept of copyright or patents or anything.

I doubt the people controlling Scribed even know about those particular books, everything is done by computers only now. If you contact them they usually remove them without problems.

[djc]

yup, it gets redraw it so its technically I guess not copyright infringement....but there's legal/illegal and there's right/wrong

You really should consider for slightly more than five minutes the consequences of the position you set yourself up in.

Let us take just two examples to start with, an old and a new.

First, the Eureka relieving device. Did the 'Brains Trust' of Model Engineer really violate anything when they rediscovered it from an old catalogue print and reverse engineered it? Did the late Sir John violate anything when he made a twice-scale version?

Second, a recent BlondieHacks video on low profile milling clamps. These are previously published in Model Engineer's Workshop, and in one of Harold Hall's books in the Workshop Practice series and on his own website. Is she violating dear Uncle Harold's personal space by making drawings available to Patreons?

[Mcgyver]

djc, I'd give the same advise.

Did ME undermine the revenue of one of the few magazines serving a niche hobby? Did they take someones drawings that were copyright, and redraw them and hand them out? How do you possibly get from reverse engineering an old product no doubt no longer under patent to copying exactly copyright material (drawings)? Even if ME did do something really offside (which I doubt because its generally an ethical crowd), does that make it right?

No idea about your video. Low profile clamps hardly need a design and are clearly in the public domain, common knowledge. How do you compare a common piece of tooling to in print, for sale, copyrighted design drawings of unique design? Nevertheless, even if it just a clamp, if someone is taking a specific drawing from something currently in print and under copyright, and redraws it exactly and distributes it, then yes....that most definitely qualifies low life behavior.

Someone works often for years, writes an article that take 3 issues to cover a design because there's a fair bit to it (hardly a clamp!), the magazine depends on the revenue that depends the content.....and you are challenging my criticism of someone exactly copying the copyright drawings and distribute them? Why do you think this material comes to light in the first place? For that matter, how do you think this web site gets paid for?

[loose nut]

Most of the material in these hobby magazines is hardly new to begin with. A revamped "old" idea is fair game for anyone.

[reggie_obe]

The plans for the finger plate that clickspring sells seems an exact copy of the cast iron one in the Bedside Reader. Making it from Brass doesn't qualify it as a creative derivative.

[Mcgyver]

Most of the material in these hobby magazines is hardly new to begin with. A revamped "old" idea is fair game for anyone.

Its not clear what your point is exactly? It seems you're suggesting unless its original patent-able thought its A-OK, fair game for copying and distribution?

Like Newton's great line about standing on the shoulders of giants, most things are built upon previous ideas. I did an article for a finger brake years ago. It was based on a design by another, with my own (hopefully view as) advancements. I contact him, asked permission and gave credit. I'd hardly just reproduce or use his drawings, but I did get the idea and form factor from him. What to me is clearly unprincipled behaviour, and world of difference, is taking unique new copyrighted material (put out by people whose livelihoods depend on people buying the mag to access it) and redrawing an EXACT copy then distributing it. imo that's a moral compass issue one gets or doesn't.

I wonder if that isn't even copyright infringement....for example, if you retyped in all the 0 and 1 that comprise say MS office and offered it for download on a web site, I bet you'd hear from microsoft's lawyers

[loose nut]

If the Magazine article item in question has been around forever which most things IE: finger plates, have in these magazines, literally there is nothing new under the sun or in the machine shop, then you can write an article on your "new" wonder widget and demand copyright but since you didn't actually invent this wonder widget you shouldn't be entitle to anything just as you couldn't get a patent for it since it was preexisting and in the public domain. The specific article you wrote may be yours (and copy written) but the information in it is fair game for someone to use. That is the purpose of publishing it in a magazine in the first place. People are confusing patents and copy writes again. You can't profit off of someones patent and you can't copy a copy written article not the other way around. You can use information in either to make an item for your own use as long as it isn't for commercial sale until the patent expires.That is what I meant by "fair game".

If someone writes an article on a "finger plate" using his own words and drawings then another author can hardly claim copy write since the item in question is an old idea in the first place and there have probably been many previous article written about it in the past. If they can then the copy write system is truly broken.

[Mcgyver]

literally there is nothing new under the sun or in the machine shop, then you can write an article on your "new" wonder widget and demand copyright but since you didn't actually invent this wonder widget you shouldn't be entitle to anything

I don't think you understand copyright.

If someone writes an article on a "finger plate" using his own words and drawings then another author can hardly claim copy write since the item in question is an old idea in the first place and there have probably been many previous article written about it in the past. If they can then the copy write system is truly broken.

What if the article was copied word for word, how do you feel then? What if it was someones book copied word for word?

[loose nut]

I understand copy write just fine, apparently you didn't read what I wrote. You may own, under copy write, what ever you write BUTyou don't own the idea behind it.

Finger plates as an example have been around for 150 years and probably a lot longer and you can copy write something that you write about it but the finger plate design has been public domain for a very long time, anyone can make them and sell them. That's not an infringement of your copy write Anyone else can also write there own article about them as long as they don't copy yours without permission. Don't confuse patent rights and copy write. Once an item is out of patent protection, if it every had it, it is as I stated previously FAIR GAME. You only have rights to what you specificity wrote about under copy write not the idea behind it.

Nuff said!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mcgyver]

I understand copy write just fine, apparently you didn't read what I wrote. You may own, under copy write, what ever you write BUTyou don't own the idea behind it.

Finger plates as an example have been around for 150 years and probably a lot longer and you can copy write something that you write about it but the finger plate design has been public domain for a very long time, anyone can make them and sell them. That's not an infringement of your copy write Anyone else can also write there own article about them as long as they don't copy yours without permission. Don't confuse patent rights and copy write. Once an item is out of patent protection, if it every had it, it is as I stated previously FAIR GAME. You only have rights to what you specificity wrote about under copy write not the idea behind it.

Nuff said!!!!!!!!!!!!!

no argument with that,. Its copyright and ethics that that I was talking about which restricts certain things but not the idea, it has zero to do with patents. Since your post followed mine I thought you were disagreeing which is why I asked what you meant.

You have rights to more than just the writing, also covers the drawings and photos. My point was only that if someone makes an exact copy of the drawings, that is also unethical and perhaps illegal, i.e. its no different than copying out the text which you agree is wrong.