Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Busby permission

[nick <timely@jps.net>]

Captain Nemo wrote:

> ----- 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