Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Busby permission

["Captain Nemo" <vulcania@interpac.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: <SeaLordOne@aol.com>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Busby permission


> "Teammates,
> "I believe that it is time to take the Busby implementation project off
line.
> I ask those with websites, like Jon, or interest in providing Busby, to
> contact me directly."

Hmmm...sounds kinda like: "Wanna buy a Rolex?   Meet me in the alley..."
Not very honest and above-board, Doug.
>
> "It does cause me considerable discomfort that such heavy hitters as Phil
and
> Pat see these efforts as some sort of legal or ethical violation."

Friends, infringement IS a legal violation; not "some sort of", but an
actual crime, with stiff penalties under the law.

"I have a  lot of respect for these folks."

OK....

"But on the other hand,"

Here it comes!

"I have been writing
> documents for the US government for 25 years.  I have authored close to
100
> public domain documents, for which I have no copyright protection.  I am a
> federal regulator by profession.  I have a Ph.D. in my field.  I belong to
> three professional organizations that specifically address copyright and
> public domain issues in their ethical standards."

Nonetheless, you encourage others to join you in questionable undertakings,
exhibit a general disregard for copyright law as defined in U.S. Code TITLE
17, and don't seem to understand that taking what's not yours is wrong.
Kinda reminds me of what Clint Eastwood said in SPACE COWBOYS: "Maybe you
can get your money back!"   ;-)

  "I have signed, many dozens
> of times, the same forms Mr. Busby must have signed for the Navy."

Your past business transactions are not a factor; the key words here are
"must have".  They show you really don't know the details of any agreements
Busby may have signed; so, you are assuming facts not in evidence.   And
basing a potentially risky undertaking on unproven suppositions is foolish.

"And based
> on this 25  years of experience, I see no need to hesitate.  I have to go
> with my own experience on this one."

Again, without any actual knowledge about Busby's contractual agreement to
publish MANNED SUBMERSIBLES, your experience doesn't matter, and apparently
only serves to bias your thinking.   What does matter is the law and known
facts:  specifically, that R. Frank Busby is the author of MANNED
SUBMERSIBLES; and that TITLE 17 says copyrights belong to the author and/or
his heirs.  If and when you find yourself in court facing a charge of
infringement, I doubt the compulsion engendered by your "experience" or
"intuition" would be a viable legal defense; and therefore, it seems
irresponsible for you to enjoin others to follow you in this course of
action.

> "That being said, I will proceed with utmost caution."

Personally, I think it would be better if you would cease and desist.

  "I will raise these
> various issues with the Navy, and share the concerns of the group."

Will you also present the concerns of those who oppose you?  Exactly who
will you talk to?  Those with divergent views may wish to present their own
thoughts on the matter.

 "as I
> described in a previous post, other private organizations have been
printing
> Busby over the years, and the Navy has encouraged these efforts."

It doesn't matter if the Navy, or you, or Bill Clinton "encourages" anyone
to reprint MANNED SUBMERSIBLES: Busby  is the author, and according to TITLE
17, only he and his heirs  have that right.

  "I certainly wish Phil could talk the Busby heirs into taking on this
> project..."

I agree.  Andy Busby should be contacted regarding this endeavor.

"I would rather not be doing this myself.  But someone has to step
> up to the plate before Busby fades into the sunset."

If it were really in danger of becoming extinct (which is debateable), a
genuine concern for protecting this work would be admirable; but MANNED
SUBMERSIBLES is Busby's property; and as Phil mentioned, Andy's working on
it  So, there is really no need for you to "carry the torch" on this one.
>
> "The problem with public domain documents is that no one owns them, so
often
> no one has a vested interest in keeping them alive."

There is no problem with works that are in the public domain.  But as I have
already pointed out,  according to TITLE 17, MANNED SUBMERSIBLES is not in
that category, and Busby's heirs have options to ensure that it remains
protected.

"The Navy does not own
> the document"

Right.

 "any more that the heirs,"

Wrong.  According to TITLE 17, the author and his heirs have rights to the
work.

 "so the Navy has limited ability to
> maintain it."

"Limited ability"?  To get a book republished that (according to you) they
want to see in print?  The Navy?  Are you kidding?  If MANNED SUBMERSIBLES
was clearly in the public domain, and the Navy was as interested as you say
they are in seing it reprinted, it would be done already! More likely the
reason they aren't "maintaining it" is because they don't have the right to;
again, because Busby's heirs are entitled to inherit the author's rights,
and not the Navy, the GPO,  or any other previous publisher whose contract
has been concluded.

"Pat mentioned the rights of the publisher."

Actually, I mentioned that TITLE 17 specifies the author and his heirs have
copyrights to this property; and accordingly, no like provision exists for
past publishers.

 "An important
> distinction (to the lawyers at least), is that public domain documents are
> not published, they are printed."

According to the TITLE 17 definition of "published", MANNED SUBMERSIBLES was
most certainly published.

 "The Navy did not publish Busby...the
> Government Printing Office printed it."

Wrong..  According to TITLE 17: the 1976 printing and distribution of the
book I have in my library clearly comprises "publication".

"The Navy has physical possession of
> the the original draft,"

Oh really?  Which one?  What year was it written in?  And even if they do
have physical possession a draft, that wouldn't be unusual, since they
published it; and that wouldn't necessarily convey to them the author's
copyrights, either.

"but they do not have "rights" to it."

AAHHHHHAAAAA!!!!!!   SAY THAT AGAIN!!!   SAY IT OVER AND OVER AND OVER
AGAIN!!! THEY DO NOT HAVE "RIGHTS" TO IT!  THEY DO NOT HAVE "RIGHTS" TO
IT!!!  THEY DO NOT HAVE "RIGHTS" TO IT!!   THANK YOU FOR MAKING MY POINT!!
;-)

  "It is not a
> copyrightable document."

Wrong again: TITLE 17 specifies an author's intellectual property is
protectable under the law from the date of publication whether a copyright
is filed or not; in either event, while the legal remedies may vary, the
author's rights are still enforceable in court.  Furthermore,  with
reference to MANNED SUBMERSIBLES, Busby's heirs can also file copyrights on
a "restored work", providing further protection for many years to come.
Therefore, it is incorrect to assume to book is "fair game", and seems
irresponsible to advise others that they may take it as their own.

 "I have probably said too much already. "

If you say so.  ;-)

"Please appreciate that I am not
> attempting to profit from the works of others."

Maybe, and then again, maybe not.  That could be for others to decide; and I
sincerely hope the day never comes when you and/or the members of PSUBS are
compelled to prove that to a judge.

"My only goal is to keep Busby
> alive."

 Sounds noble, but really, "keeping Busby alive" is not your duty; and the
mass-distribution of his work (even if you say it is for altruistic reasons)
is not your right.  Phil was one of Busby's closest friends in life, and he
has already told you that the family has plans for MANNED SUBMERSIBLES.  You
should leave Busby's affairs to Busby's heirs.

"And the only reason I am doing this is because no one else on the
> face of the earth seems to be doing it."

The key words here are "seems to be"; but now you know Andy Busby may be in
the process of doing it, so your efforts aren't needed.  You should cease
and desist.

" If someone else will step up to the
> plate on this, I will gracefully withdrawl my efforts."

As Phil pointed out, Andy Busby has plans for MANNED SUBMERSIBLES, so you
may  "gracefully withdraw" with a clear conscience.

  "But until they do, I
> will keep on truckin'!"
>
> Doug Farrow

Again: it's already been pointed out that Andy Busby has plans on this
issue, so you efforts don't seem to be required.

Well Doug, you and I have had our little talk on this subject, and as far as
I'm concerned, the point has been hammered home, so I'm headed for the shop
to work on my submarines.  By all means, "keep on truckin"; and while you're
at it, "truck on over" and talk to Andy about this, will ya?.  Thanks!

VBR,

Pat