15 Nov
2015
15 Nov
'15
12:49 p.m.
I'm very disappointed this only flares up once every month or two, is there
any chance we could make it once a week?
The reality of perpetual and automatic copyright that extends past the
death of all listed creators means that there are a lot of pieces of items
that have no advocate, financial interest, or caretaker either legal or
otherwise. It is a ridiculous situation. The arguments where the only two
options are this "Zardoz" environment or water break down of the entire
copyright machine, is old and bores me.
The reality as I have experienced it is that there are a few white-hot
pinpricks of interest and legitimacy by a vanishingly small amount of
companies, and then there is a vast Black Sea of unwanted, uninteresting,
forgotten items. This works for software as well as everything else.
If there is a choice between oblivion and the dumpster, and sending it to
the Internet Archive, I will ensure that our doors are open. That's all I
can offer to everyone here. You can reach me at this address or by calling
the archive directly if you don't want to deal with me.
If all you have to offer is another 7 paragraphs of bloviating, that's why
they make the mute button.
15 Nov
15 Nov
1:10 p.m.
On 11/15/2015 12:49 PM, Jason Scott wrote:
If all you have to offer is another 7 paragraphs of
bloviating, that's why
they make the mute button.
Really, guys, you should look to the motion picture and musical industry
if you want an exhaustive treatment on this subject.
In many, if not most, EU countries, copyright has pretty much always
extended past the lifetime of the creator. Traditionally, it's been
life+50 or life+75. Enough to take care of one's widow and children.
But there are anomalous cases. Consider the work "Lullaby" penned by
George Gershwin back around 1917. Had Gershwin published the work, it
would be in the public domain. It was discovered long after his death
in his papers by brother Ira and finally published in the 60s, where it
now enjoys a very long life under copyright.
Note that Ira didn't compose it or even know about it before its
discovery, but there you go.
To the best of my knowledge, Warner Brothers is still collecting license
fees for the tune "Happy Birthday to You", even though neither of the
two sisters involved in its composition are tied to the copyright. That
in itself is an interesting story, considering that the ditty in its
original form was publish in the 1890s as "Good Morning to You". (one
note difference).
Is it fair? Obviously not. But it is what it is, If you don't like it,
lobby for change with your leaders.
--Chuck
1:46 p.m.
On 11/15/2015 3:10 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, Warner Brothers is still collecting
license fees for the tune "Happy Birthday to You", even though neither
of the two sisters involved in its composition are tied to the
copyright. That in itself is an interesting story, considering that
the ditty in its original form was publish in the 1890s as "Good
Morning to You". (one note difference).
I can't ascertain if
Warner/Chappell Music are still collecting
copyright royalties (as in post September 22, 2015), but unless they
appeal the most recent lawsuit, they can no longer do so:
https://ia601904.us.archive.org/13/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.564772/gov.uscou…
Jim
3:03 p.m.
On 11/15/2015 01:46 PM, Jim Brain wrote:
I can't ascertain if Warner/Chappell Music are
still collecting
copyright royalties (as in post September 22, 2015), but unless they
appeal the most recent lawsuit, they can no longer do so:
I fully expect them to appeal--the fees amount to about a million a
year, so there's plenty of motivation.
--Chuck
3:10 p.m.
New subject: Tektronix 4051 RAMPACK - new design
I was contacted by Micheal D. Cranford from the Tektronix Museum up in
OR about
a design for a ROM module for the Tektronix 4051 graphic computer. It
looks to be a very
useful item. See the description below. He's looking to build up some of
them and make them
available. Cost would be about $100 each, assembled. He needs seven
people to make it
worthwhile, I would take two, so we need five more people.
Anyone interested? Let me know!
Bob
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Bob:
I just saw your website today since another ex-Tek friend pointed it out
to me.
I am currently nearing the completion of a RAMPACK for the 4051. I am making
this for the Tektronix Museum located in Oregon (http://www.vintagetek.org/)
which is totally maintained by former Tektronix employees.
The purpose of the RAMPACK is to effectively replace the mag tape drive
since
the latter requires mag tape cartridges that are no longer made and the
tension
bands degrade over time and fail. The lack of functional mag tape
cartridges can
quite severely limit the usefulness of the 4051. Since the Tek museum
cannot
demo the 4051 very well due to the lack of reliable mag tape cartridges
and any
user created programs disappear with powering down, I decided to create the
RAMPACK. I had actually started working on that decades ago when I was
at Tek
but at the time it was just for speeding up file manipulations and that
RAMPACK
was totally DRAM based. The new version in contrast is non-volatile and
it holds
far more data.
Note that this is a plug-in ROM PACK and it does not require altering
the mag tape
drive or the 4051 computer in any way. The RAMPACK contains about 2MB of
high
reliability guaranteed 100+ years of data retention time flash memory,
which totals
to at least seven DC300A mag tape cartridges worth of data. In actual
practice it will
hold more than seven cartridges worth since the mag tape storage is
inefficient with
small files. As an example a DC600 cannot hold 256 files of minimal
length (768 bytes)
since each inter-file gap takes nearly 4 inches of tape. In contrast my
RAMPACK can
hold 511 files of 4KB each.
You create and access RAMPACK files just like any other GBIP device on
the 4051.
Each RAMPACK has a unique IO address and multiple RAMPACKs can be installed
at the same time. Simple examples include (the below assumes
installation in the
right rear slot in the back of the 4051):
1. FIND @51:1
2. MARK @51:2,4096
MARK 2 files that are 4KB byte long. Note that marked files will
always be multiples of 4KB in size, and the MARK command will
automatically pick the smallest multiple of 4KB that includes the
user specified size.
3. SAVE @51:
4. FIND @51:1
5. OLD @51:
6. FIND @51:2
7. PRINT @51:A, A$
8. CLOSE
9. FIND @51:2
10. INPUT @51:A,A$
11. Etc.
There are about 23 functions that support ASCII program and ASCII or
BINARY data
files, write protecting arbitrary files, SAVE and OLD/APPEND for SECRET
programs.
listing the details about all of the RAMPACK files (the equivalent of
TLIST), checking
the current file status, naming each file (names can be up to 24 ASCII
characters long)
and a whole bunch more. The RAMPACK can also update its own firmware.
--
Vintage computers and electronics
www.dvq.com
www.tekmuseum.com
www.decmuseum.org
9:14 p.m.
New subject: Tektronix 4051 RAMPACK - new design
On 16.11.2015 00:10, Bob Rosenbloom wrote:
I was contacted by Micheal D. Cranford from the
Tektronix Museum up in OR about
a design for a ROM module for the Tektronix 4051 graphic computer. It looks to be a very
useful item. See the description below. He's looking to build up some of them and
make them
available. Cost would be about $100 each, assembled. He needs seven people to make it
worthwhile, I would take two, so we need five more people.
Anyone interested? Let me know!
I could use 2, if they are also usable on a TEK4052.
( and if you are shipping outside US )
Jos
16 Nov
16 Nov
7:56 a.m.
New subject: Tektronix 4051 RAMPACK - new design
On 11/15/2015 9:14 PM, Jos Dreesen wrote:
On 16.11.2015 00:10, Bob Rosenbloom wrote:
Unfortunately the 4052 / 4054 are not supported. It's a bit slice
(2901's) design
which only emulates some of the 6800 instructions, but not all. The ROM
packs are not
compatible. The memory structure is different also.
Bob
--
Vintage computers and electronics
www.dvq.com
www.tekmuseum.com
www.decmuseum.org
I was contacted by Micheal D. Cranford from the
Tektronix Museum up
in OR about
a design for a ROM module for the Tektronix 4051 graphic computer. It
looks to be a very
useful item. See the description below. He's looking to build up some
of them and make them
available. Cost would be about $100 each, assembled. He needs seven
people to make it
worthwhile, I would take two, so we need five more people.
Anyone interested? Let me know!
I could use 2, if they are also usable on a TEK4052.
( and if you are shipping outside US )
Jos
2:25 a.m.
New subject: Tektronix 4051 RAMPACK - new design
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015, Bob Rosenbloom wrote:
I was contacted by Micheal D. Cranford from the
Tektronix Museum up in OR
about
a design for a ROM module for the Tektronix 4051 graphic computer. It looks
to be a very
useful item. See the description below. He's looking to build up some of them
and make them
available. Cost would be about $100 each, assembled. He needs seven people to
make it
worthwhile, I would take two, so we need five more people.
Something similar has been done over 30 years ago, see
ftp://ftp.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pub/cm/tektronix/tek4051/backram/
The module is called BACKRAM, and you are supposed to load the contents
with RAM_LOADER.PRG. We use the COMBIROM file that has many very useful
routines for tape and CBM disk handling. I've attached a CBM 8050 drive to
the Tektronix 4051. To use the BACKRAM I only need one tape cartridge that
holds the loader and RAM image.
Christian
15 Nov
15 Nov
4:27 p.m.
On 15 November 2015 at 16:10, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
In many, if not most, EU countries, copyright has
pretty much always
extended past the lifetime of the creator. Traditionally, it's been life+50
or life+75. Enough to take care of one's widow and children.
It's Life plus 70 years in the EU and the United States. Life plus 50
in Canada. (Though depending on what happens with that wonderful TPP,
it might become Life+70 here too...)
Though, of note the software that sparked this discussion is not under
a "personal" copyright in the USA. It's under a corporate copyright.
Which is either 120 years after creation, or 95 years after
publication, whichever is shorter. (In this case 95 years.)
RT-11 V1 was released in 1973, and thus will become PD in 2069.
RT-11 V5.7 was released in 1998, and thus will become public domain in 2094.
RSX-11/M+ V4.6 was released in 1999, and thus will become PD in 2095.
RSTS/E V10.1 was released in 1992, and thus will become PD in 2088.
VMS V1.0 was released in 1977, and thus will become PD in 2073.
OpenVMS V7.3 was released in 2001, and thus will become PD in 2097.
Oh, and here's some fun non-DEC ones:
UNIX Version 5 was released in 1974, and thus will become PD in 2070.
MS-DOS 1.0 was released in 1981, and thus will become PD in 2077.
To put it lightly, these copyright terms are beyond excessive, in my
own opinion. I'm probably not going to be wrong in saying that none of
the pieces of software I mentioned will go into the public domain
before all the original creators and users have died. Hell, most of
the software probably won't go into the public domain before the
*children* of those who created the software will have died.
Best regards,
Christian
--
Christian M. Gauger-Cosgrove
STCKON08DS0
Contact information available upon request.
5:16 p.m.
On 11/15/2015 04:27 PM, Christian Gauger-Cosgrove wrote:
To put it lightly, these copyright terms are beyond excessive, in my
own opinion. I'm probably not going to be wrong in saying that none
of the pieces of software I mentioned will go into the public domain
before all the original creators and users have died. Hell, most of
the software probably won't go into the public domain before the
*children* of those who created the software will have died.
Remember that Mary Bono (widow of Sonny and US House Representative for
California's 45th distrct 2003-2013) really wanted a copyright term
extension to perpetuity. When informed that would be unconstitutional,
she settled for the current US term as described in the Sonny Bono
Copyright Extension Act of 1998.
In fact, the question was put before the Supreme Court and the opinion
at the time was that copyright term had to be fixed, but could be
increased incrementally without limit.
So, unless the current corporate winds suddenly change direction, expect
that 95 year to be "amended". After all, we must protect Mickey Mouse
until he's long passed out of human memory.
--Chuck
15 Nov
15 Nov
1:40 p.m.
When it comes down to it with so many mergers and company deaths in the
software industry it might be hard for owners to prove they even own
something anymore. So the odds of you ending up in court are not that great.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Scott
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 3:49 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Oh boy, copyright discussion.
I'm very disappointed this only flares up once every month or two, is there
any chance we could make it once a week?
The reality of perpetual and automatic copyright that extends past the
death of all listed creators means that there are a lot of pieces of items
that have no advocate, financial interest, or caretaker either legal or
otherwise. It is a ridiculous situation. The arguments where the only two
options are this "Zardoz" environment or water break down of the entire
copyright machine, is old and bores me.
The reality as I have experienced it is that there are a few white-hot
pinpricks of interest and legitimacy by a vanishingly small amount of
companies, and then there is a vast Black Sea of unwanted, uninteresting,
forgotten items. This works for software as well as everything else.
If there is a choice between oblivion and the dumpster, and sending it to
the Internet Archive, I will ensure that our doors are open. That's all I
can offer to everyone here. You can reach me at this address or by calling
the archive directly if you don't want to deal with me.
If all you have to offer is another 7 paragraphs of bloviating, that's why
they make the mute button.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
1:48 p.m.
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015, TeoZ wrote:
When it comes down to it with so many mergers and
company deaths in the
software industry it might be hard for owners to prove they even own
something anymore. So the odds of you ending up in court are not that great.
Or, it could INCREASE it.
How many entities could claim pieces of Visicalc?
When Apparat infringed TRS-DOS 2.1, they faced lawyers from both Tandy AND
Randy Cook.
3324
days inactive
3325
days old
12 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
bobalan＠sbcglobal.net -
brain＠jbrain.com -
captainkirk359＠gmail.com -
cc＠informatik.uni-stuttgart.de -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
ethan＠757.org -
jason＠textfiles.com -
jos.dreesen＠bluewin.ch -
teoz＠neo.rr.com