Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

[david i]

Typical. Can't take his own advice.

Keep the opinions coming. Weird, all this attention. Download page http://vacumania.com/website/catalog_downloads.html

regards

-d

[david i]

Here of course is where, in the 2014 conversation, Veley blew up what had been a chat about policies, laws, ethics:



Veley:

As far as I'm concerned, it's difficult to understand why someone in our hobby - in which we think nothing of paying hundreds for the objects of our affection - would be too cheap to pay $40 a year to support a non-profit, national organization dedicated to improving the hobby. Mr. Armstrong, if you haven't paid your dues, I'll be looking for a check from you next week. It is the least you can do.

Of course David Armstrong owned nothing to anyone. The dismissal by the Voice of the PCA of the impact of costs on people was telling. His assumption that "we" think nothing of paying hundreds for pens was... remarkable. He presumption in dictating to David Armstrong was... unfortunate.

It was in that one post that the conversation began to move beyond simple curiosity, beyond just "what really is the law in this matter" . The rest is history, though it might help to recount that history

Regards

-david

[david i]

My response to Jon at the time was particularly gentle. We didn't realize then his agenda. We assumed he was operating from passion, not loathing, though we learned better later.

David I in 2014:

Jon, these are Straw Man arguments, those that whether true or not are argued as though they are proxies for the *actual* issue in play, which in fact they are not.


We certainly can ask in general or specific cases whether collectors are ethically or legally obligated to support any particular cause or product. Too, we can analyze the psyches of those who believe that any collector is ethically or legally obligated to support any cause or product. And, no doubt we can assess the merits and value of said causes and products. But, none of those things has anything to do with David Armstrong's observation that archive.org has pen catalogue/manual scans present.


I fear I lack your certainly as to what is the least anyone can or should do. Charity tends to be a very personal process, one that doesn't lend itself to the diktat of random individuals.


regards

[FredRydr]

Ignore.

Now watch. What Dave will do is post again and again, pretending this is a "debate," trying to drive up support to breathe life back into his old grudge match. Watch as he has a debate with himself and see how many posts it takes to get someone, anyone, to reply.

[david i]

"Look at me! Look at me! I'm Dave"

Yeah, and we don't really care.

Fred

Tactic 28 from the LDM, "I don't care". Often followed by the engaging quirk that they can't actually stay away.

I notice Fred contributes nothing to the philosophy of the conversation, the issue of downloads, the history of the PCA thing, he just bleats his discontent. That's ok.

Tactic 29 from the LDM, "We". Mapping one's belief onto the world at large.

Excellent.

-d

[david i]

Ignore.

By all means. I do what I claim to do. You?

Heh.

-d

[david i]

Veley of course didn't get it, or had his independent agenda. He began to make inappropriate demands

Veley 2014:

I think you are mixing up 2 things, the copyright ownership versus the uploading (without permission) of the PCA's library to another server. I don't know what permissions the PCA has historically obtained from the copyright holders, but I think inclusion in the PCA's library constitutes "fair use" under the copyright laws. My point was that the PCA asks for permission from whoever has possession of a particular document (or document scan) before making the unilateral decision to upload it to the library. Did you upload all that material, David? Or did you, Mr. Armstrong?

I had to straighten him out. Too, for the first time we started having hard chat about the legalities of claims to copyright on scanned copies of off-copyright material. This was where Veley had started to seed the notions of what we discuss today.

Isaacson 2014:

I'm mixing up nothing. Indeed, I have gone to lengths to disentangle the mixed principles that have occurred in other people's writings here.

Too, I have invited specific input that so far has not been provided.

--------------------------------------

To simplify:


Evidence was offered that digital copies of public domain information cannot be copyrighted even by he who hosts the copy.


No evidence has been offered that this is not so.


In view of that, no legal problem appears to be in play with anyone uploading any copies of any material hosted at the PCA which is not held in copyright by the PCA, which means pretty much all copies of vintage pen company materials, which is of course the material that prompted this FPB thread.


That's 99% of the game here today, from the legal standpoint. I do invite from you legal precedent regarding the notion that PCA can legally object to anyone else uploading and distributing materials just because PCA has uploaded that material, as per your assertion, "the uploading (without permission) of the PCA's library to another server. SNIP -- but I think inclusion in the PCA's library constitutes "fair use" under the copyright"--

[david i]

Keep in mind, at that point, no copies had been uploaded anywhere by anyone in the discussion. Mr. Veley did seed the notion, though.

What we see now occurs nearly a year later.

In that 2014 chat, I subsequently dissected his erroneous individual sentences, after I had pointed out what actually was the general thrust of the conversation. I can post some of that later.

regards

david

[david i]

So, it was August 2014. The weather was hot and muggy, politics were brewing.

We were in midst of a discussion that had started honorably, with passion, engaging a number of well known collectors who discussed the appearance at archive.org of public domain catalogue scans also found in the PCA library. Veley had waded in judging people who don't pay to be in the PCA (as noted above, and independent of any issues of scanning copies) and started making demands of participants in the conversation. With John Danza, Jon Jenkins, David Armstrong, David Nishimura and me, I had no concerns that anything was in play other than honest exploration of issues, Veley had taken a more malignant turn. I was obligated to address his points line by line. No one in the conversation had any concept of spreading catalogue copies willy nilly, but Veley kept poking at the notion


Veley:

My point was that the PCA asks for permission from whoever has possession of a particular document (or document scan) before making the unilateral decision to upload it to the library.

This seemed a bit odd coming from a lawyer, as it seemed not to have bearing on legal issues.

I explored that, of course from my perspective of a non-lawyer. This was still largely a discussion of process for its own sake, though Veley began to force the point beyond that arena.


Isaacson:

The greater point here is that this appears not to matter an iota, legally. In all my posts in this thread I have been careful to address legal status only. Once we have all players on the same page regarding that, we can perhaps explore notions of "community" and "courtesy", neither of which impact legality. Indeed, this "asking permission" thing appears to be the actual distraction from the core issue, since the uncopyrightability of the material makes this "permission" legally irrelevant.

Was I right or wrong? Veley in anyc case would take an interesting twist on theme.

More on that when I sort the quotes.

regards

-d

[david i]

In that August 2014 discussion, I'd had to tease apart overlapping and ambiguous arguments put forth by others. Veley cited the PCA's asking permission before putting scans in the library. I pointed out he was not getting permission from original copyright holders (such as Sheaffer), but from people who had copies of material that either was held in copyright by others or out of copyright (perhaps) by virtue of time. Veley had charged that I was mixing up issues. I responded to several of his quotes individually to demonstrate this indeed was not the case.

August: Veley changed gears:

Nice. Mr. Armstrong, I'm assuming that in your extensive searches for old catalogs you must have found some others that the PCA could add to its library? Or did you just find and publicize what was already in the library?

August: Isaacson, in response:

I did point out that this comment/question set was erroneous and thus inappropriate, as

• Assumptions of finding something not in the PCA library has no bearing on the legal issues raised.
• Publicizing something that happens to be in the PCA library is irrelevant to the legal issues raised.
• If David Armstrong found something uploaded at archive.org that was not already in the PCA library, the PCA presumably would not upload it anyway, since those speaking here for the PCA object to digital copies offered at one site being used/ "taken" by another site.

In no manner did I mix issues by delineating these issues.

Current commentary: It was a bit strange that in what had otherwise been a discussion about policy and law, Veley was objecting to David Armstrong "publicizing" something of great use to the hobby that he had independently and innocently found online. It was odd that Veley, while objecting to what he believed was the appearance of PCA library materials (public domain works) at Archive.org, would want to take copies of things from Archive.org not already in the PCA library in order to duplicate them for the PCA. Hypocritical seeming.

regards

-d

[mhosea]

Having second thoughts on my initial interpretations of Jon's remarks, I will shorten my response to this:

Jon apparently thought he had a rationale for differentiating the two, vis-a-vis his spurious "permission" argument. Nevertheless, the PCA itself is at risk for hypocrisy going forward, as new documents inevitably emerge elsewhere first. (edit: This concern was handily dealt with by granting public access to the public domain documents in the library.)

[david i]

Having second thoughts on my initial interpretations of Jon's remarks, I will shorten my response to this:

Jon apparently thought he had a rationale for differentiating the two, vis-a-vis his spurious "permission" argument. Nevertheless, the PCA itself is at risk for hypocrisy going forward, as new documents inevitably emerge elsewhere first.

Hi Mike,

Yeah, words sometimes offer ambiguity. Of course David Armstrong did not know when he first discussed his find that these catalogues reflected material in the PCA library. The snarky challenge offered by Veley was... inappropriate.

There is more of course. This is sort of the gentle warm-up for his commentary, not the strong stuff. IIRC you did see the original thread next door. Or maybe not. Worth a read. I'm offering excerpts here, but fully in-context and in sequence for comment/response.

regards

David

[mhosea]

IIRC you did see the original thread next door.

I followed it so faithfully as it was unfolding, I do not immediately remember whether or not I actually participated. So let me check...

It seems that my sole contribution is enshrined in post #106, vis-a-vis joining the PCA:

I joined for the first time on July 28. Guess I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue!

But seriously, I'm not sure it would have mattered to me. Access to repair manuals and catalogs was only part of the appeal; getting the Pennant was the other part. I was disappointed that the recent issues are not available online, though I assumed (always perilous) there was an intentional delay between publication and posting online.

It bears noting that, for all the hullabaloo about the public domain documents, the library also contains useful copyrighted material.

[david i]

It bears noting that, for all the hullabaloo about the public domain documents, the library also contains useful copyrighted material.

Absolutely.

-d

[david i]

A nice review for those who'd like to learn more about copyfraud.


http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/de...-3-Mazzone.pdf

-d

[Rick Krantz]

David,

I'm not sure who your target audience is, but this is getting old.

Right now, I personally feel this is very much cyberharassment.

I'm certainly no lawyer, but I feel that someone could successfully present this as such.

as per definition......

Cyberharassment may generally be defined as not involving a credible threat. Cyberharassment usually pertains to threatening or harassing email messages, instant messages, or to blog entries or websites dedicated solely to tormenting an individual. Some states approach cyberharassment by including language addressing electronic communications in general harassment statutes, while others have created stand-alone cyberharassment statutes.

now If I were the party involved, I would be printing out hard copy posts of all this. I would then determine what my state's policy is on cyberharassment.

Here is a list if anyone needs to find out what your state law has to say about cyberharassment.....

http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecom...laws.aspx#laws

after I found out what my state's laws were in regards to cyberharassment, I would be most likely contacting a lawyer.

you need to let this go.

I hope you take into consideration what I posted here.

[david i]

Rick,

This is a review of a subject not started by me, involving essentially no more than quotes of various players along the way.

I can limit it exactly to quotes if you prefer. In particular, I have not tweaked anyone's quotes. I have offered only their words, in context. If I have erred in that, or if you believe I have, please point out the errors, I will correct them and publicly apologize of course.

I am curious to hear how quoting someone constitutes harassment. I like it when my quotes are offered about the world. I stand by my words. Is your concern that someone else in this discussion/analysis (not you, just in general) doesn't?

This is purely educational. If you are bored, of course you can ignore.

Really, I think you are bandying about terms you don't have solid handle on. We can explore.

Sort of like when others made claims about "copyrights" on public domain work that turned out to be inaccurate.

My preference would be to explore such jargon in a separate thread, as it distracts from this one, but I can do some research and we can mix it in here if you prefer.

regards

david

[david i]

For example, the conversation from the August 2014 copyright-debate involving John Danza, You, John Jenkins, David Nishimura, Jon Szanto proceeded, as we tried to philosophize about copyrights. I viewed some of the contributions as issues-oriented, while some seemed very personal.

Look the difference in the two quotes occurring around same time. August 2014. 2 different Jons, two decidedly different approaches, responses by me each time.

First:


Veley:

Did you upload all that material, David? Or did you, Mr. Armstrong?

Isaacson:

I would note that these questions are irrelevant and distracting from the legal issues being discussed. That they are a tad pushy is an issue we can defer until we have achieved agreement regarding the legal issues in play. In noting this, I clarify-- rather than mix up-- issues.

There were others in the conversation who expressed opinions about the overall issue, which I found more... appropriate. Though I disagreed with Jon Szanto on one point, it was a purely issues based thing. He had not attacked any persons. This again was addressing uploads to Archive.org, which reflected materials also found in the PCA, which had been uploaded by nobody we know, nobody in the conversation on Fountain Pen Board.


second:


Jon Szanto:

Brian McQueen wrote:

I do not think it was in good taste for the documents from the PCA library to be redistributed, however it seems like it is legal to do so. Still, it sucks for PCA to get shorted in the deal.

Exactly. All the other argumentation, while probably valid, is just as disappointing.

My response to Jon was issues oriented. I actually respected where Jon was coming from, but at this point I still did not have clarity about the actual legal issues which intrigued me. I addressed Jon

Isaacson:

Jon,

I do disagree.

Knowing what is legal rarely hurts.


The issue of "Is it nice/good/helpful/mean/wrong etc to do something even if it is legal" is quite valid and important, but clarity comes from separating such moral claims from false invocation of law. Suggesting someone breaks a criminal or civil law when he has not done so is something I would see as hurtful.


regards


-d

An issues-oriented and polite response.

regards

david

[FredRydr]

...

I like it when my quotes are offered about the world.

[david i]

Is Fred ashamed/unhappy when he is quoted?
Hmmmmmm....

Hey, my font is bigger than your font! Eep!

Page at Vacumania with link for 600 catalogue copy Download

-d