Re: Lancaster's 3rd edition is on Norleif's website

Just as a brief afterthought, I posted:

"I see no morality
compromised in someone freely offering the 3rd edition on the web."

To that let me add, I see absolutely no difference in someone posting a
free copy of the 2rd edition of Lancaster on the web, or selling a used
copy on eBay or elsewhere.

In either case, the action has no impact on either the author or the
publisher, at least in cases where the edition is out of print.

It is to be noted that some selfish individuals are trying to change
this, by licensing copies of their intellectual materials. (This is
Microsoft's goal today, and something that is likely to be emulated by
some hard copy publication sources, but fortunately is is difficult to
accormplish with hard copies.) AFAIK, the law does not yet support
this.

Far out?

Still, it is important to realize that firms like Microsoft carefully
keep track of every licensed copy of Microsoft Windows XP Professional
in use, and remind users of their power by downloading weekly or
bi-weekly updates to licensed users each week.

Harry C.








hhc314@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Tom, since you reference the previously cited examples of Rev.
Lancaster and Bill gates, be sure that you understand the simularities.

Starting with Bill Gates and Microsoft as an example, tecnological
history reveals that Microsoft started in business by essentially
stealing "Dartmouth Basic" and DEC Basic, doing some minor enhancement
to the design, porting it using a cross-compiller to then new PCs like
the Apple and Atari, then re-packaging it and selling it as "Microsoft
Basic" -- something he was allowed to do because copyright law at that
time did not include computer software. This was legal then, but to the
purists still outright theft from an education institution. Note also
that Gates extensively lobbied to have the copyright law change, then
exploited it after that task was accomplished.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_BASIC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_BASIC

You might wonder whose DEC PDP-10 was employed for this work by Gates.

Next, when Bill had an inside fix the contract for the operating system
on the then new IBM PC, the inside fix was his mother's connection with
IBM, even though he didn't have the qualifications or staff to design
an operating system. Still, clever guy that he was, it is largely
claimed that he essential stole his operating system from a small firm
called Digital Research (Dr. Gary Kildall), who at the time had an
operating system called CPM, but poor Gary didn't have an inside fix on
the IBM contract. Most informed computer professors realize that the
kernel of Microsoft's PC-DOS and MS-DOS was gleaned from studies of Dr.
Kildall's design, without giving credit to Dr. Kildall although it is
said that Gates (Microsoft) paid Kildall small change for the basis of
a design that satisfied them to satisfy the IBM contract requirements,
and from which they earned many millions (and ultimately billions).

Microsoft's Window Software evolved from fundamental research being
done at the Xerox research facility in (IIRC) Palo Alto, CA. There is
no public record that Microsoft paid anything for the use of the
intellecutal content which was widely published in professional
journals of that day.

Gates (like Netscape) obtained the bulk of their web browsers from
software designs that originated at the X-Windows Consortium office at
MIT (as did my emloyer), but then ignored the provisions of the
copyright agreement. Hence, both of Microsoft and Netscape obtained the
basis of their browser designs at Zero cost to them except for tape
duplication fees. (I was the agent that purchased the same tapes at
MIT, and can tell you authoritatively, that the duplication cost for
the source code was $150. I remember the price because the X-Windows
guys wouldn't accept a comporate purchase order, so I had to write a
personal check for the reel of tape that I purchased. I likely have the
cancelled check somewhere around in my files...and my gues is that
someone from Microsoft was required to do similarly.)

It is said that every great fortune derives from a contempable crime. I
didn't believe this as a youth, but I do today...I don't believe
examples are needed, since most are somewhat public knowledge.

For you Tom, and other who have remained with me thoughout this long
post (Tom, note that I have not used the K word or the R word), and
have only mentioned the sources and users of the design data...whose
exploitations have earned one or two corporations billions, while the
people that actually created these wonderful innovations don't exactly
live in the lap of luxury.

Something I have learned in my brief lifetime is that the manipulation
of patent and copyright law have earned the creative people nothing,
but the exploiters everything. This is certainly the view of the
Cambridge, MA creative community.

So, what has this do do with Rev. Lancaster. In my view everything.

First, I seriously doubt that Rev. Lancaster has received very much in
the was of financial compensation for his monumental efforts and
publishing achievements. From my viewpoint, Lancaser has done a
monumental effort in recording or documenting the historic and
innovative pyro developments accomplished by others over the last
several centuries, and by narrating desciptions of how to employ them.
Most of this he accomplished in his first edition, in a mere 274 pages
(which included some of the innovative work done by Takeo Shimizu).
Lancaster's 1st edition is, in my estimation a masterpiece that rivals
or exceeds Weingart. Still, Lancaster's 3rd and 4th editions are
largely an expansion on his 1st edition though the inclusion of a great
deal of interesting anecdotal and history pontification, some written
and by others than himself.

It's about like Bill Gates developing Microsoft Basic, Microsoft
Windows and Windows Explorer without assistance from largely uncredited
work that had gone before. While beneficial to the publisher, who
deserves respect for his financial investment in the publication, I
really believe that recognition of the creative genius who produced the
initial germ of an idea, process, or it's detailed implementation
should receive more of the credit than the publisher or promotion.
Worthy works don't require much promotion or advertising.

I personally plunked down by money to purchase a copy of Lancaster's
4th edition, but sadly more for entainment than knowledge, since most
of the knowledge is already contained in his 1st edition.

Hence, realizing that Rev. Lancaster himself receives little of the
proceeds (if any) from sales of his 3rd edition, and by now the
publishers have made a reasonable profit from publishing the fast
selling 4th edition, while it is a violation of law, I see no morality
compromised in someone freely offering the 3rd edition on the web.

Something some folk fail to understand is that what is illegal is not
always immoral, plus what is always immoral is not alway illegal.
Examine Jay Gould, Andrew Carnegie, Joe Kennedy, The De Beers Diamond
Corsortium, and so many others as examples of this.

Harry C.



















fargowest@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
John,

It's been observed that the last sane man in the asylum is typically
the only one who thinks himself insane.

You're not wrong John. This ever-lengthening thread is not about kids
blowing off limbs for want of good (but over-priced) information; it's
not about certain people (the Rev. Lancaster or Bill Gates or ...
quick, name your favorite target) benefitting "excessively" from the
fruit of their work; it's not about the "new-age" that is the web; it's
not about the mechanics of the publishing world: it's about
appropriating the property of others without their consent: it's about
theft.

Theft. All else is polemical fog.

I wonder how many here make the connection between their willingness to
play fast and loose with a straight-forward question of ethics and the
government's willingness to nuance their way around what was once
understood to be clearly proscribed in the constitution? It's a single
bolt of cloth. As the CPSC (to name but one example) proceeds
relentlessly through this small patch of remaining individual liberty,
I wonder how many here will recognize the methods and arguments they
employ? Many here should.

When is a theft not a theft? When is a liberty not a liberty? It's a
rope we've fashioned and there's no lack of the willing who would place
it round your neck.

The world turned upside down.

Tom C.



John Reilly wrote:
Phil (no spam) wrote:
How is this any different than the numerous posts here listing formulas from
Shimizu's, Weingart's, or Hardt's books? Passfire is a copyrighted site yet
I see articles quoted here without anyone calling the poster a thief.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I just question the difference.

I now regret even bringing up the issue of copyright or even "copy
rights". It's obvious that many here DON'T see the difference. So, by
convention, there IS no difference. It's ME. Wrong planet- wrong
time, as usual. As to posting formulae, from Shimizu, Weingart, Hardt
(or Roger Bacon), many of these are compositions from other works
themselves whether stated as such or not. Some are analogs and are the
result of experimentation or refinement and "tuning" of other folk's
work worldwide. Some are "original" works developed completely
independanty of other fireworker's experiments, noted as such or not.
If there is no difference in quoting a formulation from a book and
scanning an entire piece of copyrighted literature and posting that
volume for download in full, then you are quite correct and it's not a
matter of right and wrong. And for those who feel I'm copping a
"holier than thou" attitude, in all this, then all I can offer is the
pathetic result of my misspent youth, middle age and an unknown but
undoubtedly unremarkable future. <G>


"I'd reach out and strike the sun itself, if it vexed me!" (Ahab,
referring to Starbuck's protestation of his "blasphemous" attitude
toward the white whale, Moby Dick.)

JR





Yeah, that's really great news! Why don't you call Ron and see if
he'll autograph a Pirate copy for you. I give up!


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Allow other Browsers to see Publisher web sites
    ... I admire your expertise and thank you for the response. ... Publisher is indeed an excellent ... it should NOT be presenrted as a web design tool. ... Microsoft gave us Windows." ...
    (microsoft.public.publisher)
  • Re: Is Publisher 2003 an effective way of creating and managing a
    ... Microsoft MVP Expression ... etc. and then easily convert those things to html so they can be ... Web designers of the world, who were expected to design separate sites ... just a lay person that has chosen to use Publisher to build my site, ...
    (microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign)
  • Re: Publisher tutorial
    ... If I search on the Microsoft web site I ... > covering Design Strategy, Elements of Design, Designing for Print, Designing ... Publisher Features and Functionality and Commercial ... >> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. ...
    (microsoft.public.publisher)
  • Re: Publsher 2007: Keine Master-Sets mehr?
    ... In Publisher 2007 sind die Publikationstyp sortiert ... und nicht nach Design, z.B. alle Publikationen von Design "Absprung". ... Start von Microsoft Publisher nicht verändert werden. ...
    (microsoft.public.de.german.office)
  • Re: Lancasters 3rd edition is on Norleifs website
    ... Tom, realize I has simply noting the hypocrisy of todays popular ... If the enormous wealth of Bill Gates, ... Starting with Bill Gates and Microsoft as an example, ... publishers have made a reasonable profit from publishing the fast ...
    (rec.pyrotechnics)