Third Machinist Bedside Reader Free Download

[loose nut]

How am I misquoting? .

Life is to short to waste time on this and I really don't care. Have a nice day!

[Dan Dubeau]

IMO there should be a contingent in the copy write laws about publishing others work, but giving credit and royalties. Much the same as covering a song by another artist. This would allow someone to publish out of print works that still have a market, but the person doing the publishing would assume the risks of distribution, but pay royalties to the original author or their heirs. It would be a win win for all involved (unless the market wasn't as big as originally thought.....), but then that places the risk solely on the person taking up the project. The original author still gets credit, and payed, basically for assuming no risk.

It would be perfect in a situation like this, where there is still a market for the content, but the owner has zero interest for whatever reason in making another production run. I have no idea how old Guy is, but perhaps he just doesn't have any interest in this en devour anymore and is content to just let it die?

In my personal opinion, Guy's original sales model is out of date with the current market place by a decade or two. I understand you lose control of content by switching to a digital online publishing method, but it's 2020. The days of people sending a cheque via snail mail for a paper bound book of stories is gone. I know the demographic on this board is a bit older, but I haven't wrote a cheque in years, let alone mailed one, or even a letter. Yeah, you might have a few willing to do so, but I think you'd have much more traffic if you simply sold a pdf copy. You'd probably actually net more money as a result, for less work. True, you'd have illegally shared copies out there almost immediately, but you'd reach a much larger audience who'd still pay for your work. I know I'd buy them for a reasonable price, but that's just my opinion. If he charged the same amount for a digital copy I'd do the same thing I'm currently doing, which is going without.

In the last 10-15 years the entire landscape of information has changed though. Look at youtube and instagram. The amount of information on there being freely shared to the world is unheard of. Vast amounts of trade knowledge previously held tight to the chest openly being shared, for free. True there's also alot of fluff and BAD info out there, but if you can sort the wheat from the chaff, it's a complete game changer, and IMO we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg with how information sharing like this will start changing the education models. The virus situation is highlighting some of this right now. Insanely high tuition costs for an online learning model is not a sustainable practice IMO. I'm going off on a tangent.....but those who thumb their nose at the changing tech do so at their own peril.

I don't fault somebody for trying to capitalize on the years of hard earned knowledge. Guys like the "toolanddieguy" who started his youtube channel as a pay subscription, and probably had some success with that, then have to compete with guys like Robin Renzetti, Peter Stanton, Joe Pie, Adam Booth etc who give it away for free. True they're still getting paid for it, but the money doesn't come from the end user. Unless you sign up for their patreon. Pretty tough market for a guy like Guy to try and sell a paper bound book of stories, tips, and plans for $45 on the basis of anything but nostalgia.

[Mcgyver]

Mcgyver, your misquoting me again. I was only referring to out of print books etc. not current works. as for the rest, it was a statement as to why illegal downloads happen all around the world, not an endorsement by me. .

How am I misquoting? There's no intent to misquote, but you to seemed to have clearly stated its not morally wrong so long as its out print, correct? It absolutely is morally wrong. The copier and their recipients have no ethical or moral basis for entitlement to the material and it absolutely hurts those on the right side of the law. It hurts the legitimate owners of the material as their's is no longer worth as much, and it hurts the legitimate copyright holder who may in the future decide to reprint.

How else would you define something as being immoral, how about it's against the law and it hurts another?

You're expressing your moral compass from your paradigm which is fine and I'm sure there is no harm meant. However there's lots of stakeholders here. What's moral has to respect the claims and rights of the legitimate stakeholders... which frankly, until in the public domain, doesn't include the copier and recipient.

[loose nut]

Mcgyver, your misquoting me again. I was only referring to out of print books etc. not current works. as for the rest, it was a statement as to why illegal downloads happen all around the world, not an endorsement by me. I stand by what I said about the copy write system being broken and corrupt.

George. Some years ago, 10 or 15 at least Guy made a comment online, I don't remember were, that he basically got screwed in the divorce and he wouldn't be writing the forth bedside reader any time soon because it wasn't worth what he would get from it. He may very well have control of his books, probably does but he doesn't get much of the profits from it. No point it putting effort into it for little return. Details I do not know and not really our business either.

[Mcgyver]

Go back to the original post, people trying to get copies of Guy Lautuards books. Do to a bad divorce settlement basically anything that he would make from the sale of those books and probably everything else he sold goes to his ex so he has no incentive to write a forth bedtime reader or even put his books into reprint even though there is a demand for them. Now we have a situation where people are no longer "legally" able to get them except at ridiculously high used prices so what can they do. They download them from the internet. Is it wrong "legally", yes. Is it wrong morally NO. He won't make money off of these downloads but then he won't make any money off of them any other way either. He won't print them anymore and this knowledge is now lost..

The knowledge is not lost, its just not available for free and it will one day be free when the copyright expires (its copyright no copy write). As you said there is nothing new under sun so whats at risk of being lost?

Your judgement of copying being moral is flawed. You've ignored an important stakeholder: the legitimate purchases of the copyright material. Without them, there wouldn't even be a book. Someone distributing copyright material illegally undermines the value of something they own so there is a victim to illegal copying, even if the author/publisher never reprints it.

A fair criticism (imo) of copyright might be how its grown in length over the years, Lots of lobbying with no opposing force has led to this. However the structure is intended to accommodate and balance a lot of stakeholders and shouldn't be discarded just because it doesn't suit you. If you're not the author, publisher or purchaser....why do you feel you're owed anything? (i.e. access to something for free or at what in your view is a reasonable price).

[George Bulliss]

They download them from the internet. Is it wrong "legally", yes. Is it wrong morally NO. He won't make money off of these downloads but then he won't make any money off of them any other way either. He won't print them anymore and this knowledge is now lost.

Though I've talked with Guy many times on the phone, I never asked him abouit his personal life and he never shared any details of marital problems with me. I've seen the "bad divorce" subject pop up about every time his name is mentioned, though at this point I think things are far enough removed from the source that I wouldn't give any credit to it. He very well may have had a bad divorce, I think most are, but as far as I know he is still in control of the books. He contacted us a few years ago offering the titles for sale, so obviously had control then. After looking into it we decided not to purchase.

[JRouche]

My take is we do what we do for a propose.

For Me? Just looking for my creative side. Never came unfortunately.

CNC Milling did not scratch my Ich. JR

There was another Dude I met that was in the same Boat. He had a much bigger problem!

It is on a pallet, ready for a fork lift.

So there sits my B-Port CnC, Boss 5 with Ah-ha software and hardware of a real Bridgeport.

And no place to go? Send me a file. Ill cut it. JR

[metalmagpie]

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.

It isn't. I just reviewed Lautard's design. It's on p. 88 of TMBR1. It is different from clickspring's in many ways.

metalmagpie

[loose nut]

Look at the opposite side of the coin.

Go back to the original post, people trying to get copies of Guy Lautuards books. Do to a bad divorce settlement basically anything that he would make from the sale of those books and probably everything else he sold goes to his ex so he has no incentive to write a forth bedtime reader or even put his books into reprint even though there is a demand for them. Now we have a situation where people are no longer "legally" able to get them except at ridiculously high used prices so what can they do. They download them from the internet. Is it wrong "legally", yes. Is it wrong morally NO. He won't make money off of these downloads but then he won't make any money off of them any other way either. He won't print them anymore and this knowledge is now lost.

The Original US copy write laws were written to protect the author for half of the estimated remaining life span not 70 years. To match the intent of the copy write a baby less then a year old would have to publish his/her works a with an expected life span of 140 years.The 70 year rule was put in place, by corrupt law makers, so that the children and grandchildren of an author or a corporation, could sit on their ass's living off of someone else's work instead of doing something for themselves. This is not the intention of a copy write. The whole copy write system is corrupt.

Illegal downloads range into the hundreds of millions everyday. Movies, TV, music, software basically anything that has been digitized gets downloaded all around the world. Why, because big corporations (no George not you) that sell all this stuff at inflated prices, preying on the masses, created a situation were most people just don't care about intellectual rights. OK so the little guy that writes articles or limited run books and music get screwed and that's not right but don't expect it to stop. Once you go digital you can't go back.

[George Bulliss]

We run into this problem all the time. There are fuzzy areas to the law. As LN pointed out, there is not much new under the sun when it comes to manual machining. I won't accept an article in which someone just sends in exact duplicates of of an old design, even though 99% of all drawings are redrawn by me.

However, if the article is presented as the author's interpretation of an old project like the Eureka Device, then it can be usable. If the author gives credit to the original designer and the source of the material is listed, the provided drawings show his design modifications (there are always modifications), and he describes the procedure in terms of his construction methods using his shop tools, then we can use it.

Lots of grey area there, but I always try to err on the side of caution. Authors have very limited means of protecting their copyright but I am in a position to catch at least some of the violations.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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