Copyright


jrlaw@...
 

Toronto, Canada
September 16, 2001

Re: Tek Copyright and Out-of-Print Manuals

The debate on this issue has become more heated than it should. I
know that we all look forward to hearing the feedback from Stan
Griffiths' dialogue with Tek Legal. In the meantime, perhaps a couple
of Canadian cents worth may help to avoid escalating the discussion
beyond the private rights actually involved.

This is not a matter of criminal or public law. Copyright is the
property that each of us enjoys in what we create in the form of
original artistic work. It is seperate and different from patentable
inventions or unique useful designs. The right is a private right to
enjoin others from using your artistic work for profit or in
competition with you. Rights are usually best understood by looking
at the remedies that give them effect. Private property rights don't
mean much without a remedy.

The usual remedy fro copyright infringement is damages for lost
profit by the owner of the copyright or an accounting (and payment)
for all profits and gains made by the infringer. If the owner suffers
no loss and the other user is not using in trade seeking profit,
usually (but not always) there will be no enforcement proceeding by
the owner. Nobody but the owner can or cares to enforce his property
right. The owner may abandon copyright into the public domain or by
his conduct grant extnded implied licences.

An important implied licence recognized by decided cases in most
jurisdictions is "fair use". It is not infringement to copy portions
of a work for review or comment in other works. It is not
infringement to copy for private educational or private convenience.
It is generally not infringement if there is no injury to the owner
of the copyright.

In the case of out-of-print written works (such as Tek manuals),
the important consideration is that Tek chooses not to further its
copyright by publishing. A purchaser of a Tek scope (which contains a
great deal of copyright such as panel layout, colour schemes,
component layout, circuits etc.) purchased a copyrighted manual with
it. The licence to use those copyrights is transferred to each
subsequent owner. Such an owner does not infringe Tek's copyright if
he or she copies for purposes incidental to the ownership, such as
replacement or repair of lost or damaged material or for his or her
private convenience.

Copies made for further publication to others, particularly if
for the purposes of trade, do infringe the Tek copyright because such
use was never contemplated by Tek or reasonabley implied from their
original sale. Such copying trespasses on Tek's property rights. It
is entirely Tek's choice as to whether they choose to enforce those
rights.

By not publishing out-of-print manuals and by not licencing
someone to do it under their rights, Tek may be implicitly abandoning
these old copyrights into the public domain and permitting anyone to
reproduce them. In my opinion, it would be best for Tek to grant a
general licence permitting free publication but only if the copy is
accurate, complete, contains all corrections, reserves all circuit
rights and other proprietary rights and containing a disclaimer from
any responsibility by Tek. Such a public licence would be easy to do
and would clearly enhance customer goodwill and the reputation of Tek.

We can all hope that the raising of this issue in the dialogue
of this forum may stimulate a thoughtful policy review by Tek. A
great company, that has produced the best equipment for so long, so
much of which rises to the level of "art", should be able to find a
solution that will preserve its proprietary rights will also
encouraging and supporting the enthusiasts of its past achievements.

Regards

Richard B. Jones


John Miles <jmiles@...>
 

Great summary, Richard, it sounds like you've been down this road before.
This is my understanding as well.

The other VERY interesting thing is that there apparently has been a recent
policy shift at Tektronix in this regard, in the direction we'd like. Go to
http://www.tek.com/Measurement/scopes/index.html and click the "Manuals"
link under "Resources For You" in the left-hand frame. When did they start
doing this?

In theory at least, it shouldn't be hard to convince the managers who
instituted this policy to grant permission to a group of enthusiasts to do
the same for their older manuals, at no cost to Tek. Richard's paragraph
below should be all that's necessary:

In my opinion, it would be best for Tek to grant a
general licence permitting free publication but only if the copy is
accurate, complete, contains all corrections, reserves all circuit
rights and other proprietary rights and containing a disclaimer from
any responsibility by Tek. Such a public licence would be easy to do
and would clearly enhance customer goodwill and the reputation of Tek.
From my perspective, I would not be interested in "copying" manuals myself,
for all the reasons Phil points out. I know from sad experience that it
takes almost $200 to send a 49x schematics volume to Kinko's. I would be
interested in an agreement that allowed the creation and (free) Internet
distribution of the older manuals in .PDF form, subject to all of the
conditions Richard mentions. It is still a major pain to run those foldout
sheets through a flatbed scanner, but this way, we'd only have to do it
once.

-- jm


jstanton@...
 

Hi Richard,

Thank you for an elegant treatise where you raise the issue of "fair
use", the rights associated with the sale of the instrument and a way
in which Tek could grant a limited license for the distribution of
documentation. What you suggest make eminent sense and should be the
last word on this matter.

How an we persuade or help you to present your proposal to Tektronix?

Regards

John Stanton

--- In TekScopes@y..., jrlaw@i... wrote:
Toronto, Canada
September 16, 2001

Re: Tek Copyright and Out-of-Print Manuals

The debate on this issue has become more heated than it should.
I
know that we all look forward to hearing the feedback from Stan
Griffiths' dialogue with Tek Legal. In the meantime, perhaps a
couple
of Canadian cents worth may help to avoid escalating the discussion
beyond the private rights actually involved.

This is not a matter of criminal or public law. Copyright is
the
property that each of us enjoys in what we create in the form of
original artistic work. It is seperate and different from
patentable
inventions or unique useful designs. The right is a private right
to
enjoin others from using your artistic work for profit or in
competition with you. Rights are usually best understood by looking
at the remedies that give them effect. Private property rights
don't
mean much without a remedy.

The usual remedy fro copyright infringement is damages for
lost
profit by the owner of the copyright or an accounting (and payment)
for all profits and gains made by the infringer. If the owner
suffers
no loss and the other user is not using in trade seeking profit,
usually (but not always) there will be no enforcement proceeding by
the owner. Nobody but the owner can or cares to enforce his
property
right. The owner may abandon copyright into the public domain or by
his conduct grant extnded implied licences.

An important implied licence recognized by decided cases in
most
jurisdictions is "fair use". It is not infringement to copy
portions
of a work for review or comment in other works. It is not
infringement to copy for private educational or private
convenience.
It is generally not infringement if there is no injury to the owner
of the copyright.

In the case of out-of-print written works (such as Tek
manuals),
the important consideration is that Tek chooses not to further its
copyright by publishing. A purchaser of a Tek scope (which contains
a
great deal of copyright such as panel layout, colour schemes,
component layout, circuits etc.) purchased a copyrighted manual
with
it. The licence to use those copyrights is transferred to each
subsequent owner. Such an owner does not infringe Tek's copyright
if
he or she copies for purposes incidental to the ownership, such as
replacement or repair of lost or damaged material or for his or her
private convenience.

Copies made for further publication to others, particularly if
for the purposes of trade, do infringe the Tek copyright because
such
use was never contemplated by Tek or reasonabley implied from their
original sale. Such copying trespasses on Tek's property rights. It
is entirely Tek's choice as to whether they choose to enforce those
rights.

By not publishing out-of-print manuals and by not licencing
someone to do it under their rights, Tek may be implicitly
abandoning
these old copyrights into the public domain and permitting anyone
to
reproduce them. In my opinion, it would be best for Tek to grant a
general licence permitting free publication but only if the copy is
accurate, complete, contains all corrections, reserves all circuit
rights and other proprietary rights and containing a disclaimer
from
any responsibility by Tek. Such a public licence would be easy to
do
and would clearly enhance customer goodwill and the reputation of
Tek.

We can all hope that the raising of this issue in the
dialogue
of this forum may stimulate a thoughtful policy review by Tek. A
great company, that has produced the best equipment for so long, so
much of which rises to the level of "art", should be able to find a
solution that will preserve its proprietary rights will also
encouraging and supporting the enthusiasts of its past
achievements.

Regards

Richard B. Jones


jrlaw@...
 

Toronto, Canada
Monday, September 17, 2001

Dear John:
Thank you for your reaction to my thoughts on this issue. It
has clearly hit a number of nerves!

In terms of what to do, I would hope that Stan Griffiths and
others will simply forward the exchanges of messages from this group
to a number of execs at Tektronix. While they may have left the
golden era behind, it must be admitted that they are still a pretty
fine company and, hopefully not unaware of their market. The views of
people such as the enthusiasts here are important. In my day job, I
am the senior partner of a Canadian business law firm and I will
regale people with my pleasure at having got a Tek 191 Constant
Amplitude Signal Generator. As they glaze over, I have been known to
describe the perfection of its manufacture! Small thing maybe, but it
is a good thing for a business to have some folks out there who think
their products are (or were) the best.

Hopefully, Tektronix will be persuaded that indirectly
supporting the "legacy" equipment is cost effective marketing. If
Stan's friends in Tek Legal would like some suggested wording for a
public use license, I would be please to contribute some of my
copyrighted work product absolutely free!

Keep up the stimulating debate in amongst important things like
finding sources for Tektronix paint. (yes, the distinctive colour is
probably capable of being the subject of copyright!)

Regards Richard Jones


--- In TekScopes@y..., jstanton@v... wrote:
Hi Richard,

Thank you for an elegant treatise where you raise the issue
of "fair
use", the rights associated with the sale of the instrument and a
way
in which Tek could grant a limited license for the distribution of
documentation. What you suggest make eminent sense and should be
the
last word on this matter.

How an we persuade or help you to present your proposal to
Tektronix?

Regards

John Stanton

--- In TekScopes@y..., jrlaw@i... wrote:
Toronto, Canada
September 16, 2001

Re: Tek Copyright and Out-of-Print Manuals

The debate on this issue has become more heated than it
should.
I
know that we all look forward to hearing the feedback from Stan
Griffiths' dialogue with Tek Legal. In the meantime, perhaps a
couple
of Canadian cents worth may help to avoid escalating the
discussion
beyond the private rights actually involved.

This is not a matter of criminal or public law. Copyright is
the
property that each of us enjoys in what we create in the form of
original artistic work. It is seperate and different from
patentable
inventions or unique useful designs. The right is a private right
to
enjoin others from using your artistic work for profit or in
competition with you. Rights are usually best understood by
looking
at the remedies that give them effect. Private property rights
don't
mean much without a remedy.

The usual remedy fro copyright infringement is damages for
lost
profit by the owner of the copyright or an accounting (and
payment)
for all profits and gains made by the infringer. If the owner
suffers
no loss and the other user is not using in trade seeking profit,
usually (but not always) there will be no enforcement proceeding
by
the owner. Nobody but the owner can or cares to enforce his
property
right. The owner may abandon copyright into the public domain or
by
his conduct grant extnded implied licences.

An important implied licence recognized by decided cases in
most
jurisdictions is "fair use". It is not infringement to copy
portions
of a work for review or comment in other works. It is not
infringement to copy for private educational or private
convenience.
It is generally not infringement if there is no injury to the
owner
of the copyright.

In the case of out-of-print written works (such as Tek
manuals),
the important consideration is that Tek chooses not to further
its
copyright by publishing. A purchaser of a Tek scope (which
contains
a
great deal of copyright such as panel layout, colour schemes,
component layout, circuits etc.) purchased a copyrighted manual
with
it. The licence to use those copyrights is transferred to each
subsequent owner. Such an owner does not infringe Tek's copyright
if
he or she copies for purposes incidental to the ownership, such
as
replacement or repair of lost or damaged material or for his or
her
private convenience.

Copies made for further publication to others, particularly
if
for the purposes of trade, do infringe the Tek copyright because
such
use was never contemplated by Tek or reasonabley implied from
their
original sale. Such copying trespasses on Tek's property rights.
It
is entirely Tek's choice as to whether they choose to enforce
those
rights.

By not publishing out-of-print manuals and by not licencing
someone to do it under their rights, Tek may be implicitly
abandoning
these old copyrights into the public domain and permitting anyone
to
reproduce them. In my opinion, it would be best for Tek to grant
a
general licence permitting free publication but only if the copy
is
accurate, complete, contains all corrections, reserves all
circuit
rights and other proprietary rights and containing a disclaimer
from
any responsibility by Tek. Such a public licence would be easy to
do
and would clearly enhance customer goodwill and the reputation of
Tek.

We can all hope that the raising of this issue in the
dialogue
of this forum may stimulate a thoughtful policy review by Tek. A
great company, that has produced the best equipment for so long,
so
much of which rises to the level of "art", should be able to find
a
solution that will preserve its proprietary rights will also
encouraging and supporting the enthusiasts of its past
achievements.

Regards

Richard B. Jones


Stan or Patricia Griffiths <w7ni@...>
 

jrlaw@istar.ca wrote:

Keep up the stimulating debate in amongst important things like
finding sources for Tektronix paint. (yes, the distinctive colour is
probably capable of being the subject of copyright!)

Regards Richard Jones
Well, I've got the paint in spray cans . . . both the latest Tek Blue and an
earlier Tek Gray that was on the really early scopes but I have yet to figure
out a both legal and economic way to ship it . . .

Asking other people how they do it usually results in finding out they simply
do it illegally . . . not terribly unlike copying manuals . . .

I HAVE found a company that can ship it for me. The cost breakdown goes like
this:

Paint per can = $15.00
UPS shipping fee = $6.00 (approx)
UPS Hazardous Material Handling fee = $22.00
Packaging fee = $75.00
Total = $118.00

for ONE can.

The reason the packaging fee is so much is that the person doing the packing
has to be "certified". To get certified you have to take a training course
in packing hazardous materials that takes 3 days and costs $500 in tuition
and fees.

The penalty for ignoring all of these requirements is in the range of a
$10,000 fine if you get caught.

This is what my research has turned up so far . . .

Stan
w7ni@easystreet.com


Miroslav Pokorni <mpokorni@...>
 

Stan,

You seem to start with premise that a spray can is a highest class of
hazardous article, severely restricted in shipping, no matter what it is. I
am sure that if you walk up to counter at your local post office an ignorant
clerk might tell you 'no, it can not be shipped', because he thinks it is
better 'to be safe than sorry'. However, if you look at the postal
regulation at http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf
<http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf> page 125, you will see
aerosols listed as restricted to ground shipment, whether they are flammable
or not (one is class 2A other 2B); on the same web site, page 195 lists
paints and also shows ground transport as a way to ship. To boot it, Post
Office requires that aerosols are labeled as 'Consumer Goods'. For spray
cans propellant is most likely a determining factor (flammable or not) and
if you have doubts, that same web site gives you way to get a ruling on what
is acceptable. Where I work we get all sorts of spray can packaged things,
from benign to nasty flammables and you can trust me, no one from here trots
to manufacturer's plant to take delivery, neither we pay $22 Hazardous Fee
nor $75 for Hazardous Material Packaging. I would say that this exorbitant
fees are paid when you sheep explosives; this things have to be shipped,
too.

It appears that DOT's concern is mostly with what gets into air transport
and post office takes parcel post (non-first class, non-priority) as ground
transportation.

Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

-----Original Message-----
From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths
[mailto:w7ni@easystreet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 3:25 AM
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright



jrlaw@istar.ca wrote:

> Keep up the stimulating debate in amongst important
things like
> finding sources for Tektronix paint. (yes, the distinctive
colour is
> probably capable of being the subject of copyright!)
>
> Regards Richard Jones

Well, I've got the paint in spray cans . . . both the latest
Tek Blue and an
earlier Tek Gray that was on the really early scopes but I
have yet to figure
out a both legal and economic way to ship it . . .

Asking other people how they do it usually results in
finding out they simply
do it illegally . . . not terribly unlike copying manuals .
. .

I HAVE found a company that can ship it for me. The cost
breakdown goes like
this:

Paint per can = $15.00
UPS shipping fee = $6.00 (approx)
UPS Hazardous Material Handling fee = $22.00
Packaging fee = $75.00
Total = $118.00

for ONE can.

The reason the packaging fee is so much is that the person
doing the packing
has to be "certified". To get certified you have to take a
training course
in packing hazardous materials that takes 3 days and costs
$500 in tuition
and fees.

The penalty for ignoring all of these requirements is in the
range of a
$10,000 fine if you get caught.

This is what my research has turned up so far . . .

Stan
w7ni@easystreet.com


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Stan or Patricia Griffiths <w7ni@...>
 

Hi Miroslav,

Well, its not really "my" premise but it is the place that I get put when I
start asking questions about shipping arosol cans fo paint of the people "who
ought to know". I have tried "experts" in the Post Office, UPS, and Fed Ex.
Now I will go to the web pages you have found for me and read some more. I
agree that there HAS to be a reasonable way to do this and I want to find it.

Stan
w7ni@easystreet.com

Miroslav Pokorni wrote:

Stan,

You seem to start with premise that a spray can is a highest class of
hazardous article, severely restricted in shipping, no matter what it is. I
am sure that if you walk up to counter at your local post office an ignorant
clerk might tell you 'no, it can not be shipped', because he thinks it is
better 'to be safe than sorry'. However, if you look at the postal
regulation at http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf
<http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf> page 125, you will see
aerosols listed as restricted to ground shipment, whether they are flammable
or not (one is class 2A other 2B); on the same web site, page 195 lists
paints and also shows ground transport as a way to ship. To boot it, Post
Office requires that aerosols are labeled as 'Consumer Goods'. For spray
cans propellant is most likely a determining factor (flammable or not) and
if you have doubts, that same web site gives you way to get a ruling on what
is acceptable. Where I work we get all sorts of spray can packaged things,
from benign to nasty flammables and you can trust me, no one from here trots
to manufacturer's plant to take delivery, neither we pay $22 Hazardous Fee
nor $75 for Hazardous Material Packaging. I would say that this exorbitant
fees are paid when you sheep explosives; this things have to be shipped,
too.

It appears that DOT's concern is mostly with what gets into air transport
and post office takes parcel post (non-first class, non-priority) as ground
transportation.

Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

-----Original Message-----
From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths
[mailto:w7ni@easystreet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 3:25 AM
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright

jrlaw@istar.ca wrote:

> Keep up the stimulating debate in amongst important
things like
> finding sources for Tektronix paint. (yes, the distinctive
colour is
> probably capable of being the subject of copyright!)
>
> Regards Richard Jones

Well, I've got the paint in spray cans . . . both the latest
Tek Blue and an
earlier Tek Gray that was on the really early scopes but I
have yet to figure
out a both legal and economic way to ship it . . .

Asking other people how they do it usually results in
finding out they simply
do it illegally . . . not terribly unlike copying manuals .
. .

I HAVE found a company that can ship it for me. The cost
breakdown goes like
this:

Paint per can = $15.00
UPS shipping fee = $6.00 (approx)
UPS Hazardous Material Handling fee = $22.00
Packaging fee = $75.00
Total = $118.00

for ONE can.

The reason the packaging fee is so much is that the person
doing the packing
has to be "certified". To get certified you have to take a
training course
in packing hazardous materials that takes 3 days and costs
$500 in tuition
and fees.

The penalty for ignoring all of these requirements is in the
range of a
$10,000 fine if you get caught.

This is what my research has turned up so far . . .

Stan
w7ni@easystreet.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


John Miles <jmiles@...>
 

I wonder how places like Antique Electronic Supply ship aerosols? I've
certainly never had trouble ordering things like DeOxit from them, and I
know they sell some other aerosol materials as well.

-- jm

----- Original Message -----
From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths <w7ni@easystreet.com>
To: <TekScopes@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright


Hi Miroslav,

Well, its not really "my" premise but it is the place that I get put when
I
start asking questions about shipping arosol cans fo paint of the people
"who
ought to know". I have tried "experts" in the Post Office, UPS, and Fed
Ex.
Now I will go to the web pages you have found for me and read some more.
I
agree that there HAS to be a reasonable way to do this and I want to find
it.

Stan
w7ni@easystreet.com

Miroslav Pokorni wrote:

Stan,

You seem to start with premise that a spray can is a highest class of
hazardous article, severely restricted in shipping, no matter what it
is. I
am sure that if you walk up to counter at your local post office an
ignorant
clerk might tell you 'no, it can not be shipped', because he thinks it
is
better 'to be safe than sorry'. However, if you look at the postal
regulation at http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf
<http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf> page 125, you will see
aerosols listed as restricted to ground shipment, whether they are
flammable
or not (one is class 2A other 2B); on the same web site, page 195 lists
paints and also shows ground transport as a way to ship. To boot it,
Post
Office requires that aerosols are labeled as 'Consumer Goods'. For spray
cans propellant is most likely a determining factor (flammable or not)
and
if you have doubts, that same web site gives you way to get a ruling on
what
is acceptable. Where I work we get all sorts of spray can packaged
things,
from benign to nasty flammables and you can trust me, no one from here
trots
to manufacturer's plant to take delivery, neither we pay $22 Hazardous
Fee
nor $75 for Hazardous Material Packaging. I would say that this
exorbitant
fees are paid when you sheep explosives; this things have to be shipped,
too.

It appears that DOT's concern is mostly with what gets into air
transport
and post office takes parcel post (non-first class, non-priority) as
ground
transportation.

Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

-----Original Message-----
From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths
[mailto:w7ni@easystreet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 3:25 AM
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright

jrlaw@istar.ca wrote:

> Keep up the stimulating debate in amongst
important
things like
> finding sources for Tektronix paint. (yes, the
distinctive
colour is
> probably capable of being the subject of copyright!)
>
> Regards Richard Jones

Well, I've got the paint in spray cans . . . both the
latest
Tek Blue and an
earlier Tek Gray that was on the really early scopes but
I
have yet to figure
out a both legal and economic way to ship it . . .

Asking other people how they do it usually results in
finding out they simply
do it illegally . . . not terribly unlike copying
manuals .
. .

I HAVE found a company that can ship it for me. The
cost
breakdown goes like
this:

Paint per can = $15.00
UPS shipping fee = $6.00 (approx)
UPS Hazardous Material Handling fee = $22.00
Packaging fee = $75.00
Total = $118.00

for ONE can.

The reason the packaging fee is so much is that the
person
doing the packing
has to be "certified". To get certified you have to
take a
training course
in packing hazardous materials that takes 3 days and
costs
$500 in tuition
and fees.

The penalty for ignoring all of these requirements is in
the
range of a
$10,000 fine if you get caught.

This is what my research has turned up so far . . .

Stan
w7ni@easystreet.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



Miroslav Pokorni <mpokorni@...>
 

They send it by UPS ground, that is how I got it. And DeOxit is highly
flammable.

Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

-----Original Message-----
From: John Miles [mailto:jmiles@pop.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 5:04 PM
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright

I wonder how places like Antique Electronic Supply ship
aerosols? I've
certainly never had trouble ordering things like DeOxit from
them, and I
know they sell some other aerosol materials as well.

-- jm

----- Original Message -----
From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths <w7ni@easystreet.com>
To: <TekScopes@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright


> Hi Miroslav,
>
> Well, its not really "my" premise but it is the place that
I get put when
I
> start asking questions about shipping arosol cans fo paint
of the people
"who
> ought to know". I have tried "experts" in the Post
Office, UPS, and Fed
Ex.
> Now I will go to the web pages you have found for me and
read some more.
I
> agree that there HAS to be a reasonable way to do this and
I want to find
it.
>
> Stan
> w7ni@easystreet.com
>
> Miroslav Pokorni wrote:
>
> > Stan,
> >
> > You seem to start with premise that a spray can is a
highest class of
> > hazardous article, severely restricted in shipping, no
matter what it
is. I
> > am sure that if you walk up to counter at your local
post office an
ignorant
> > clerk might tell you 'no, it can not be shipped',
because he thinks it
is
> > better 'to be safe than sorry'. However, if you look at
the postal
> > regulation at
http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf
> > <http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf> page
125, you will see
> > aerosols listed as restricted to ground shipment,
whether they are
flammable
> > or not (one is class 2A other 2B); on the same web site,
page 195 lists
> > paints and also shows ground transport as a way to ship.
To boot it,
Post
> > Office requires that aerosols are labeled as 'Consumer
Goods'. For spray
> > cans propellant is most likely a determining factor
(flammable or not)
and
> > if you have doubts, that same web site gives you way to
get a ruling on
what
> > is acceptable. Where I work we get all sorts of spray
can packaged
things,
> > from benign to nasty flammables and you can trust me, no
one from here
trots
> > to manufacturer's plant to take delivery, neither we pay
$22 Hazardous
Fee
> > nor $75 for Hazardous Material Packaging. I would say
that this
exorbitant
> > fees are paid when you sheep explosives; this things
have to be shipped,
> > too.
> >
> > It appears that DOT's concern is mostly with what gets
into air
transport
> > and post office takes parcel post (non-first class,
non-priority) as
ground
> > transportation.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Miroslav Pokorni
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths
> > [mailto:w7ni@easystreet.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 3:25
AM
> > To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re:
Copyright
> >
> > jrlaw@istar.ca wrote:
> >
> > > Keep up the stimulating debate
in amongst
important
> > things like
> > > finding sources for Tektronix paint.
(yes, the
distinctive
> > colour is
> > > probably capable of being the subject
of copyright!)
> > >
> > > Regards Richard Jones
> >
> > Well, I've got the paint in spray cans .
. . both the
latest
> > Tek Blue and an
> > earlier Tek Gray that was on the really
early scopes but
I
> > have yet to figure
> > out a both legal and economic way to
ship it . . .
> >
> > Asking other people how they do it
usually results in
> > finding out they simply
> > do it illegally . . . not terribly
unlike copying
manuals .
> > . .
> >
> > I HAVE found a company that can ship it
for me. The
cost
> > breakdown goes like
> > this:
> >
> > Paint per can = $15.00
> > UPS shipping fee = $6.00 (approx)
> > UPS Hazardous Material Handling fee =
$22.00
> > Packaging fee = $75.00
> > Total = $118.00
> >
> > for ONE can.
> >
> > The reason the packaging fee is so much
is that the
person
> > doing the packing
> > has to be "certified". To get certified
you have to
take a
> > training course
> > in packing hazardous materials that
takes 3 days and
costs
> > $500 in tuition
> > and fees.
> >
> > The penalty for ignoring all of these
requirements is in
the
> > range of a
> > $10,000 fine if you get caught.
> >
> > This is what my research has turned up
so far . . .
> >
> > Stan
> > w7ni@easystreet.com
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email to:
> > TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Peter Florance
 

We buy a lot of aerosol and they always shipped ground to us with stickers
indicating the content.
One time I re-used such a box for overnight shipment and forgot to remove
the sticker and got the box back with a nastygram some 7 days later.
Now I look twice...
Peter Florance
Audio Services
544 Central Drive
Suite 101
Virginia Beach, VA 23454
757.498.8277
757.498.9554 Fax
Email: mailto:audserv@exis.net
http://www.audio-services.com

-----Original Message-----
From: John Miles [mailto:jmiles@pop.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 8:04 PM
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright


I wonder how places like Antique Electronic Supply ship aerosols? I've
certainly never had trouble ordering things like DeOxit from them, and I
know they sell some other aerosol materials as well.

-- jm

----- Original Message -----
From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths <w7ni@easystreet.com>
To: <TekScopes@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright


Hi Miroslav,

Well, its not really "my" premise but it is the place that I
get put when
I
start asking questions about shipping arosol cans fo paint of the people
"who
ought to know". I have tried "experts" in the Post Office, UPS, and Fed
Ex.
Now I will go to the web pages you have found for me and read some more.
I
agree that there HAS to be a reasonable way to do this and I
want to find
it.

Stan
w7ni@easystreet.com

Miroslav Pokorni wrote:

Stan,

You seem to start with premise that a spray can is a highest class of
hazardous article, severely restricted in shipping, no matter what it
is. I
am sure that if you walk up to counter at your local post office an
ignorant
clerk might tell you 'no, it can not be shipped', because he thinks it
is
better 'to be safe than sorry'. However, if you look at the postal
regulation at http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf
<http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf> page 125, you will see
aerosols listed as restricted to ground shipment, whether they are
flammable
or not (one is class 2A other 2B); on the same web site, page
195 lists
paints and also shows ground transport as a way to ship. To boot it,
Post
Office requires that aerosols are labeled as 'Consumer
Goods'. For spray
cans propellant is most likely a determining factor (flammable or not)
and
if you have doubts, that same web site gives you way to get a
ruling on
what
is acceptable. Where I work we get all sorts of spray can packaged
things,
from benign to nasty flammables and you can trust me, no one from here
trots
to manufacturer's plant to take delivery, neither we pay $22 Hazardous
Fee
nor $75 for Hazardous Material Packaging. I would say that this
exorbitant
fees are paid when you sheep explosives; this things have to
be shipped,
too.

It appears that DOT's concern is mostly with what gets into air
transport
and post office takes parcel post (non-first class, non-priority) as
ground
transportation.

Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

-----Original Message-----
From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths
[mailto:w7ni@easystreet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 3:25 AM
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright

jrlaw@istar.ca wrote:

> Keep up the stimulating debate in amongst
important
things like
> finding sources for Tektronix paint. (yes, the
distinctive
colour is
> probably capable of being the subject of copyright!)
>
> Regards Richard Jones

Well, I've got the paint in spray cans . . . both the
latest
Tek Blue and an
earlier Tek Gray that was on the really early
scopes but
I
have yet to figure
out a both legal and economic way to ship it . . .

Asking other people how they do it usually results in
finding out they simply
do it illegally . . . not terribly unlike copying
manuals .
. .

I HAVE found a company that can ship it for me. The
cost
breakdown goes like
this:

Paint per can = $15.00
UPS shipping fee = $6.00 (approx)
UPS Hazardous Material Handling fee = $22.00
Packaging fee = $75.00
Total = $118.00

for ONE can.

The reason the packaging fee is so much is that the
person
doing the packing
has to be "certified". To get certified you have to
take a
training course
in packing hazardous materials that takes 3 days and
costs
$500 in tuition
and fees.

The penalty for ignoring all of these
requirements is in
the
range of a
$10,000 fine if you get caught.

This is what my research has turned up so far . . .

Stan
w7ni@easystreet.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Miroslav Pokorni <mpokorni@...>
 

Richard,

If you really regale people with perfection of Tektronix past practices, you
could make use of the following phrase, which I lifted from e bay auction
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1637670885
<http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1637670885>

This magnificent device was designed as part of the 500 series, during the
Tektronix " golden age ", where no solution was too expensive. [emphases
added]


Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

-----Original Message-----
From: jrlaw@istar.ca [mailto:jrlaw@istar.ca]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 6:46 PM
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright

Toronto, Canada
Monday, September 17, 2001

Dear John:
Thank you for your reaction to my thoughts on this
issue. It
has clearly hit a number of nerves!

In terms of what to do, I would hope that Stan
Griffiths and
others will simply forward the exchanges of messages from
this group
to a number of execs at Tektronix. While they may have left
the
golden era behind, it must be admitted that they are still a
pretty
fine company and, hopefully not unaware of their market. The
views of
people such as the enthusiasts here are important. In my day
job, I
am the senior partner of a Canadian business law firm and I
will
regale people with my pleasure at having got a Tek 191
Constant
Amplitude Signal Generator. As they glaze over, I have been
known to
describe the perfection of its manufacture! Small thing
maybe, but it
is a good thing for a business to have some folks out there
who think
their products are (or were) the best.

Hopefully, Tektronix will be persuaded that indirectly

supporting the "legacy" equipment is cost effective
marketing. If
Stan's friends in Tek Legal would like some suggested
wording for a
public use license, I would be please to contribute some of
my
copyrighted work product absolutely free!

Keep up the stimulating debate in amongst important
things like
finding sources for Tektronix paint. (yes, the distinctive
colour is
probably capable of being the subject of copyright!)

Regards Richard Jones


--- In TekScopes@y..., jstanton@v... wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Thank you for an elegant treatise where you raise the
issue
of "fair
> use", the rights associated with the sale of the
instrument and a
way
> in which Tek could grant a limited license for the
distribution of
> documentation. What you suggest make eminent sense and
should be
the
> last word on this matter.
>
> How an we persuade or help you to present your proposal to

Tektronix?
>
> Regards
>
> John Stanton
>
> --- In TekScopes@y..., jrlaw@i... wrote:
> > Toronto, Canada
> > September 16, 2001
> >
> > Re: Tek Copyright and Out-of-Print Manuals
> >
> > The debate on this issue has become more heated than
it
should.
> I
> > know that we all look forward to hearing the feedback
from Stan
> > Griffiths' dialogue with Tek Legal. In the meantime,
perhaps a
> couple
> > of Canadian cents worth may help to avoid escalating the

discussion
> > beyond the private rights actually involved.
> >
> > This is not a matter of criminal or public law.
Copyright is
> the
> > property that each of us enjoys in what we create in the
form of
> > original artistic work. It is seperate and different
from
> patentable
> > inventions or unique useful designs. The right is a
private right
> to
> > enjoin others from using your artistic work for profit
or in
> > competition with you. Rights are usually best understood
by
looking
> > at the remedies that give them effect. Private property
rights
> don't
> > mean much without a remedy.
> >
> > The usual remedy fro copyright infringement is
damages for
> lost
> > profit by the owner of the copyright or an accounting
(and
payment)
> > for all profits and gains made by the infringer. If the
owner
> suffers
> > no loss and the other user is not using in trade seeking
profit,
> > usually (but not always) there will be no enforcement
proceeding
by
> > the owner. Nobody but the owner can or cares to enforce
his
> property
> > right. The owner may abandon copyright into the public
domain or
by
> > his conduct grant extnded implied licences.
> >
> > An important implied licence recognized by decided
cases in
> most
> > jurisdictions is "fair use". It is not infringement to
copy
> portions
> > of a work for review or comment in other works. It is
not
> > infringement to copy for private educational or private
> convenience.
> > It is generally not infringement if there is no injury
to the
owner
> > of the copyright.
> >
> > In the case of out-of-print written works (such as
Tek
> manuals),
> > the important consideration is that Tek chooses not to
further
its
> > copyright by publishing. A purchaser of a Tek scope
(which
contains
> a
> > great deal of copyright such as panel layout, colour
schemes,
> > component layout, circuits etc.) purchased a copyrighted
manual
> with
> > it. The licence to use those copyrights is transferred
to each
> > subsequent owner. Such an owner does not infringe Tek's
copyright
> if
> > he or she copies for purposes incidental to the
ownership, such
as
> > replacement or repair of lost or damaged material or for
his or
her
> > private convenience.
> >
> > Copies made for further publication to others,
particularly
if
> > for the purposes of trade, do infringe the Tek copyright
because
> such
> > use was never contemplated by Tek or reasonabley implied
from
their
> > original sale. Such copying trespasses on Tek's property
rights.
It
> > is entirely Tek's choice as to whether they choose to
enforce
those
> > rights.
> >
> > By not publishing out-of-print manuals and by not
licencing
> > someone to do it under their rights, Tek may be
implicitly
> abandoning
> > these old copyrights into the public domain and
permitting anyone
> to
> > reproduce them. In my opinion, it would be best for Tek
to grant
a
> > general licence permitting free publication but only if
the copy
is
> > accurate, complete, contains all corrections, reserves
all
circuit
> > rights and other proprietary rights and containing a
disclaimer
> from
> > any responsibility by Tek. Such a public licence would
be easy to
> do
> > and would clearly enhance customer goodwill and the
reputation of
> Tek.
> >
> > We can all hope that the raising of this issue in
the
> dialogue
> > of this forum may stimulate a thoughtful policy review
by Tek. A
> > great company, that has produced the best equipment for
so long,
so
> > much of which rises to the level of "art", should be
able to find
a
> > solution that will preserve its proprietary rights will
also
> > encouraging and supporting the enthusiasts of its past
> achievements.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Richard B. Jones


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Joseph Orgnero <joseph@...>
 

I have purchased spray paint from Surplus Sales of Nebraska and it was sent
to me by regular post with no problems at either end.
Joe Orgnero VE7LBI

-----Original Message-----
From: John Miles <jmiles@pop.net>
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com <TekScopes@yahoogroups.com>
Date: September 18, 2001 04:56 PM
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright


I wonder how places like Antique Electronic Supply ship aerosols? I've
certainly never had trouble ordering things like DeOxit from them, and I
know they sell some other aerosol materials as well.

-- jm

----- Original Message -----
From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths <w7ni@easystreet.com>
To: <TekScopes@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright


Hi Miroslav,

Well, its not really "my" premise but it is the place that I get put when
I
start asking questions about shipping arosol cans fo paint of the people
"who
ought to know". I have tried "experts" in the Post Office, UPS, and Fed
Ex.
Now I will go to the web pages you have found for me and read some more.
I
agree that there HAS to be a reasonable way to do this and I want to find
it.

Stan
w7ni@easystreet.com

Miroslav Pokorni wrote:

Stan,

You seem to start with premise that a spray can is a highest class of
hazardous article, severely restricted in shipping, no matter what it
is. I
am sure that if you walk up to counter at your local post office an
ignorant
clerk might tell you 'no, it can not be shipped', because he thinks it
is
better 'to be safe than sorry'. However, if you look at the postal
regulation at http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf
<http://new.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub52.pdf> page 125, you will see
aerosols listed as restricted to ground shipment, whether they are
flammable
or not (one is class 2A other 2B); on the same web site, page 195 lists
paints and also shows ground transport as a way to ship. To boot it,
Post
Office requires that aerosols are labeled as 'Consumer Goods'. For
spray
cans propellant is most likely a determining factor (flammable or not)
and
if you have doubts, that same web site gives you way to get a ruling on
what
is acceptable. Where I work we get all sorts of spray can packaged
things,
from benign to nasty flammables and you can trust me, no one from here
trots
to manufacturer's plant to take delivery, neither we pay $22 Hazardous
Fee
nor $75 for Hazardous Material Packaging. I would say that this
exorbitant
fees are paid when you sheep explosives; this things have to be
shipped,
too.

It appears that DOT's concern is mostly with what gets into air
transport
and post office takes parcel post (non-first class, non-priority) as
ground
transportation.

Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

-----Original Message-----
From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths
[mailto:w7ni@easystreet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 3:25 AM
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Re: Copyright

jrlaw@istar.ca wrote:

> Keep up the stimulating debate in amongst
important
things like
> finding sources for Tektronix paint. (yes, the
distinctive
colour is
> probably capable of being the subject of copyright!)
>
> Regards Richard Jones

Well, I've got the paint in spray cans . . . both the
latest
Tek Blue and an
earlier Tek Gray that was on the really early scopes
but
I
have yet to figure
out a both legal and economic way to ship it . . .

Asking other people how they do it usually results in
finding out they simply
do it illegally . . . not terribly unlike copying
manuals .
. .

I HAVE found a company that can ship it for me. The
cost
breakdown goes like
this:

Paint per can = $15.00
UPS shipping fee = $6.00 (approx)
UPS Hazardous Material Handling fee = $22.00
Packaging fee = $75.00
Total = $118.00

for ONE can.

The reason the packaging fee is so much is that the
person
doing the packing
has to be "certified". To get certified you have to
take a
training course
in packing hazardous materials that takes 3 days and
costs
$500 in tuition
and fees.

The penalty for ignoring all of these requirements is
in
the
range of a
$10,000 fine if you get caught.

This is what my research has turned up so far . . .

Stan
w7ni@easystreet.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/