Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #16227 > unrolled thread

Reasonably priced C11 standard?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-25 12:53 -0800
    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-25 12:54 -0800
    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-01-26 23:53 +0100
    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? paolo <pc8875@nospam.mail.com.br> - 2012-02-02 20:03 +0000
      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-02 15:22 -0500
        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201202.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-02-03 11:35 +0100
          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-03 08:24 -0500
          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-03 12:39 -0800
          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-02-06 11:14 +0100
            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-06 06:16 -0500
              Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 12:13 +0000
                Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 10:06 -0500
                  Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 15:51 +0000
                    Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 11:05 -0500
                      Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 16:08 +0000
                        Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 11:30 -0500
                          Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-02-06 18:18 +0100
                            Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 13:02 -0500
                          Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 18:20 +0000
                            Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2012-02-06 19:38 +0000
                              Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 21:41 +0000
                                Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2012-02-06 21:56 +0000
                                  Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-06 22:07 +0000
                                  Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 22:09 +0000
                                    Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2012-02-06 22:24 +0000
                                Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-06 22:00 +0000
                                  Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-02-12 23:46 +0200
                                Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 19:02 -0500
                                  Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-07 11:14 +0000
                      Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-06 12:17 -0600
                        Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-06 12:52 -0800
                Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 03:35 -0800
              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-02-06 13:22 +0100
                Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-06 08:18 -0500
                  Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-02-06 15:20 +0100
                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 10:50 -0500
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 16:02 +0000
                        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-02-06 19:56 -0800
                          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-06 20:38 -0800
                            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-02-06 21:44 -0800
                              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-07 14:22 -0800
                                Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-02-07 16:33 -0800
                                  Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-07 19:35 -0800
                                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-08 00:27 -0500
                                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-08 10:01 -0800
                                        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-08 14:43 -0500
                            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2012-02-07 08:48 -0600
                          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-02-06 21:32 -0800
                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-06 11:16 -0500
                  Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 14:35 +0000
              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201202.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-02-06 15:28 +0100
                Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 10:56 -0500
                  Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-02-06 18:29 +0000
                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-06 14:12 -0500
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-02-08 18:06 +0100
                        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-08 15:15 -0500
                          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-09 09:23 +1300
                            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 04:58 -0800
                              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-13 12:19 -0500
                                Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-13 12:47 -0800
                              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-02-13 22:01 +0000
                          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-08 15:04 -0800
                            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-09 06:46 -0500
                            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 04:59 -0800
                              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-13 12:50 -0800
                  Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-06 11:51 -0800
                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 19:19 -0500
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-07 00:35 +0000
                        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 20:31 -0500
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-02-07 09:19 +0100
                  Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 04:08 -0800
                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-13 07:16 -0500
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201202.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-02-13 17:27 +0100
                        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-13 12:25 -0500
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-13 23:52 +0000
                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-13 09:42 -0800
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201202.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-02-13 23:33 +0100
            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 03:32 -0800
        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-04 13:36 +0000
    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rich Webb <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> - 2012-02-02 16:27 -0500
      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-02-03 01:48 +0100
        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-02-03 11:45 -0500
          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2012-02-03 09:27 -0800
            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-02-03 15:58 -0500
          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-02-03 13:06 -0800
            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-02-04 15:52 -0500
              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-04 13:58 -0800
                Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-02-05 11:37 +0000
                Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-02-07 10:53 -0500
                  Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-07 14:25 -0800
                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-02-07 23:07 -0500
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-07 21:07 -0800
              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-02-06 11:23 -0800

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#16878

William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> writes:

> Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Along with the sheer amount of time works are protected, the would-be
>> licenser must determine whether authors are still alive and if not
>> when they died and who their literary executors are.  Again, trivial if
>> it's Disney and probably easy if it's Al Jolson, but if you just want to
>> make a legal copy of a borrowed book from a little-known author who
>> was last in print in the 1920s, it's extremely difficult to determine.
>
> There's a short cut for such early works. Just check the Copyright Office
> for a renewal. If there was no renewal, the copyright lapsed. End of story.

Go to your university library, ask them to pull the Catalog of Copyright
Entries out of storage, search through annual volumes from
when the book was published in the 1920s until 1978.  Some shortcut.

Note that if the work was registered after 1964, renewals have been
automatic so the copyright is known to still be in effect, but it will
probably not be much help locating the copyright holder to ask
permission.

Some information regarding copyright is only recorded in the Copyright
Office card file in Washington.  Go there, or pay the Copyright Office
staff to search it.

-- Patrick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16898

Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> wrote:
> William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> writes:
<snip>
> > There's a short cut for such early works. Just check the Copyright
> > Office for a renewal. If there was no renewal, the copyright lapsed. End
> > of story.
>
> Go to your university library, ask them to pull the Catalog of Copyright
> Entries out of storage, search through annual volumes from
> when the book was published in the 1920s until 1978.  Some shortcut.

There was only a 1 year window for renewals, so a search could be
considerably optimized.

Although the short cut is quite onerous by today's standard of almost
instant retrieval of information, it's still quite doable for particular
works.

> Note that if the work was registered after 1964, renewals have been
> automatic so the copyright is known to still be in effect, but it will
> probably not be much help locating the copyright holder to ask
> permission.

Right. There are all kinds of wrinkles, especially the newer the work. Which
is why it couldn't hurt to buy an hour or two of a copyright lawyer's time
for general advice.

> Some information regarding copyright is only recorded in the Copyright
> Office card file in Washington.  Go there, or pay the Copyright Office
> staff to search it.

Actually, paying the copyright office is an excellent idea. What do they
charge these days, ~$100/hr? There's a minimum amount of research time, too,
I think. That sounds like a lot, but in the region where I work the average
salary is nearly $100k/yr, or roughly $50/working hour, or $11/hr. Consider
how much money has been spent just complaining about copyright!

Though I certainly am not trying to defend existing law (or copyright in
general), it's worth point out that technically the labour and fees need
only be expended once. The knowledge gained can then be shared with others.
Not ideal, but it's better than just whining. (Not saying that you're
whining, BTW... I mean, any more than the rest of us ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16910

William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> writes:

> Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> wrote:
>> William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> writes:
> <snip>
>> > There's a short cut for such early works. Just check the Copyright
>> > Office for a renewal. If there was no renewal, the copyright lapsed. End
>> > of story.
>>
>> Go to your university library, ask them to pull the Catalog of Copyright
>> Entries out of storage, search through annual volumes from
>> when the book was published in the 1920s until 1978.  Some shortcut.
>
> There was only a 1 year window for renewals, so a search could be
> considerably optimized.

Are you certain that no copyright holder ever renewed early?  I'm pretty
sure that they have.  Possibly when copyright is transfered from one
holder to another.  Some publishers used to renew very frequently, at
least so they said on the copyright pages, and I'm not sure what their
motivation was.

Also, the Copyright Office cautions that the notices of renewal were
sometimes published up to a year later than when they actually renewed.
I think to be sure you have to search them all.

> Although the short cut is quite onerous by today's standard of almost
> instant retrieval of information, it's still quite doable for particular
> works.

>> Note that if the work was registered after 1964, renewals have been
>> automatic so the copyright is known to still be in effect, but it will
>> probably not be much help locating the copyright holder to ask
>> permission.
>
> Right. There are all kinds of wrinkles, especially the newer the work. Which
> is why it couldn't hurt to buy an hour or two of a copyright lawyer's time
> for general advice.

Right, but consulting a lawyer would only be worth it if you knew of a
moneymaking opportunity connected with that particular work.  A library
that is scanning a brittle book for preservation is not going to consult
a lawyer or copyright search expert about every such title.  They will
see "after 1923" and just scan it, print one copy, and then destroy the scans,
as libraries are allowed to do under the act.

>> Some information regarding copyright is only recorded in the Copyright
>> Office card file in Washington.  Go there, or pay the Copyright Office
>> staff to search it.
>
> Actually, paying the copyright office is an excellent idea. What do they
> charge these days, ~$100/hr? There's a minimum amount of research time, too,
> I think. That sounds like a lot, but in the region where I work the average
> salary is nearly $100k/yr, or roughly $50/working hour, or $11/hr. Consider
> how much money has been spent just complaining about copyright!
>
> Though I certainly am not trying to defend existing law (or copyright in
> general), it's worth point out that technically the labour and fees need
> only be expended once. The knowledge gained can then be shared with others.
> Not ideal, but it's better than just whining. (Not saying that you're
> whining, BTW... I mean, any more than the rest of us ;)

I'm sure the individuals involved are worth their pay.  But the point is
it should be easy to determine whether a work is in copyright.  It's not
1965 anymore.

At that price point, an individual who borrows a book through
interlibrary loan and wants to study it for more than a few weeks has no
legal way to do so, people preserving brittle books are extremely
limited in how they can share their work.  The majority of pre-1964
works are copyright expired, but it's just too expensive to determine
that for any particular work.  Institutions like libraries can't afford
to take a chance.

-- Patrick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16913

Patrick Scheible wrote:

> Are you certain that no copyright holder ever renewed early?  I'm pretty
> sure that they have.  Possibly when copyright is transfered from one
> holder to another.  Some publishers used to renew very frequently, at
> least so they said on the copyright pages, and I'm not sure what their
> motivation was.

I once was a partner in a publishing house. What you are seeing in
apparently frequent renewals is actually reprints which are usually
done ant the same time incorporating corrections. This is effectively
a new work which gets re-registered so that it is actually covered
by copyright. Books show print history with the registrations.


w..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16931

Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:

> Patrick Scheible wrote:
>
>> Are you certain that no copyright holder ever renewed early?  I'm pretty
>> sure that they have.  Possibly when copyright is transfered from one
>> holder to another.  Some publishers used to renew very frequently, at
>> least so they said on the copyright pages, and I'm not sure what their
>> motivation was.
>
> I once was a partner in a publishing house. What you are seeing in
> apparently frequent renewals is actually reprints which are usually
> done ant the same time incorporating corrections. This is effectively
> a new work which gets re-registered so that it is actually covered
> by copyright. Books show print history with the registrations.

So fixing a couple of errata makes it a new work?  If some dishonest
person published a copy of it without buying the rights, they could
successfully defend themselves in court because they pirated the 2nd
printing with a few minor corrections?

-- Patrick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16934

Patrick Scheible wrote:

> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:
>
> > Patrick Scheible wrote:
> >
> >> Are you certain that no copyright holder ever renewed early?  I'm pretty
> >> sure that they have.  Possibly when copyright is transfered from one
> >> holder to another.  Some publishers used to renew very frequently, at
> >> least so they said on the copyright pages, and I'm not sure what their
> >> motivation was.
> >
> > I once was a partner in a publishing house. What you are seeing in
> > apparently frequent renewals is actually reprints which are usually
> > done ant the same time incorporating corrections. This is effectively
> > a new work which gets re-registered so that it is actually covered
> > by copyright. Books show print history with the registrations.
>
> So fixing a couple of errata makes it a new work?  If some dishonest
> person published a copy of it without buying the rights, they could
> successfully defend themselves in court because they pirated the 2nd
> printing with a few minor corrections?

No, the copyright is on the whole work but copyright violations
would still be on everything from the copied work except the few
minor corrections assuming they were original.

Someone reminded me earlier today of a lawsuit several years ago
that had 9 lines copied from someone else's work that resulted in
a serious settlement

w..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16838

"Patrick Scheible" wrote:


> You haven't looked recently.  In 1998, copyright terms in the U.S. were
> extended to life of the author plus 70 years.  For corporate entities
> it's now 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation,
> whichever comes first.  No renewal is required.
>
> Along with the sheer amount of time works are protected, the would-be
> licenser must determine whether authors are still alive and if not
> when they died and who their literary executors are.  Again, trivial if
> it's Disney and probably easy if it's Al Jolson, but if you just want to
> make a legal copy of a borrowed book from a little-known author who
> was last in print in the 1920s, it's extremely difficult to determine.
> Most individuals would just make an illegal copy, but a library seeking
> to scan a brittle book and put it on the web for the greater convenience
> of its users can't do it.  Maybe Google Books will end up making case
> law that overturns it, but most libraries are a lot more conservative
> legally than Google Books.

I would expect a change to extend it further in 2048.  I would assume that 
is when Mickey Mouse will go public without further intervention. We simply 
must put Mickey on life support, otherwise who will entertain us?  No 
motivation, no entertainment. QED. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16820

Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:02:01 +0000, Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com>
> wrote:

> >Are you referring to which jurisdiction?  If I'm not mistaken, the
> >revision to the US code which brought over copyright terms that go over
> >100 years dates back to 1978, and I don't believe you can claim a link
> >between that revision and any software industry.

> Last time I looked, in the U.S., copyright protection lasts for the
> life of the author plus 50 years. I don't know what happens when the
> "author" is a corporate entity. With "renewals" the term could last
> indefinitely.

The Copyright Act of 1976 did away with renewals in favor of periodic rights
of revocation. Renewals now only apply to pre-1978 copyrighted works.
There's no right of recovation for works for hire.

There are other wrinkles. For example, pre-1978 copyright only attached at
publication, whereas post-1978 works are protected at creation, so special
rules exist for unpublished works crossing the 1978 threshold. Actually, I
suppose most of the wrinkles stem from the fact that the 1976 act was almost
entirely prospective, not retrospective. So there's really two distinct sets
of laws applicable in the US today, depending on when copyright attached (if
at all) to the work in question.

Anyhow, for the specifics on duration see
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sup_01_17_10_3.html

To be brief, for post-1978 works it's life of author + 70 years. For works
for hire, the earlier of 95 years from publication or 120 years from
creation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16757

On 02/06/2012 09:20 AM, Noob wrote:
> James Kuyper wrote:
...
>> Unfair trademark enforcement seems a more common issue.
> 
> Errr... what?

Like when Xerox corporation bears down on anyone who tries to use xerox
as a generic term for a photocopier, regardless of brand, or when Apple
cracks down on anyone trying to sell something with a name that starts
with 'i' followed by an upper case letter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16749

James Kuyper wrote:

> I've heard lots of complaints about excessive enforcement of copyright,
> but with a few exceptions most of the loudest complaints come mainly
> from people who have no sympathy with the concept of copyright at all.
> They're entitled to their opinion, even if I don't share it, but the
> only way to satisfy their complaints would be to remove copyright
> enforcement entirely.

Can you provide any evidence on any case where a proponent of the right to 
unauthorized access to copyrighted work strictly for personal use proposes 
in any way that copyright enforcement should be entirely removed?



Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16748

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:

> On 02/06/2012 05:14 AM, Noob wrote:
> > Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> > 
> >> James Kuyper wrote:
> >>
> >>> He did specify that he was looking for legal copies.
> >>
> >> Well that's a fine point. It will be a *copy* of a legal copy.
> >> Will that work for you? Works for me! ;-)
> > 
> > In France, it is legal to provide a copy of a work protected by copyright
> > to anyone in one's "close circle" (as defined by case law) for personal use.
> 
> It's hard for me to believe that a perfect stranger whose only
> connection to you is that he downloaded something that you made
> available over the internet, could qualify as being in your "close
> circle". If such a person did qualify, it would render copyright
> meaningless.

Meet him for a cup of coffee and hand him a CD?

> 
> > Some of you (mostly anglophones) have been brain-washed by "big media"(*)
> > and are waaay too docile when it comes to copyright.
> 
> Some of us can use our own brains to understand the value of having
> copyrights (and reasonable enforcement of same).

Agreed. Yet something like an ISO or ANSI standard really should be
freely downloadable or available printed for actual cost, not as a profit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16753

Fritz Wuehler wrote:

>            Yet something like an ISO or ANSI standard really should be
> freely downloadable or available printed for actual cost, not as a profit.

The current ISO or ANSI standards are sold for very much less than the
actual costs. They are low volume documents whose development costs are
subsidized by governments, trade organizations, private companies and
individuals.

w..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16766

Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> 
> >            Yet something like an ISO or ANSI standard really should be
> > freely downloadable or available printed for actual cost, not as a profit.
> 
> The current ISO or ANSI standards are sold for very much less than the
> actual costs. They are low volume documents whose development costs are
> subsidized by governments, trade organizations, private companies and
> individuals.

You saw the price quoted in this thread? If they were subsidized you
certainly can't tell from the price shown. BTW as you well know, those
companies and organizations who participate in standards committees do so
for their own benefit. I don't believe they would lose out by selling the
documents for 10 or 15 bucks (everybody on the list would probably buy 2
copies) and by making them downloadable for free.

Barring that, I'll bootleg a copy off the net asap ;-)

Fritz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16768

On 02/06/2012 01:29 PM, Anonymous wrote:
> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Fritz Wuehler wrote:
>>
>>>            Yet something like an ISO or ANSI standard really should be
>>> freely downloadable or available printed for actual cost, not as a profit.
>>
>> The current ISO or ANSI standards are sold for very much less than the
>> actual costs. They are low volume documents whose development costs are
>> subsidized by governments, trade organizations, private companies and
>> individuals.

I didn't know that they were subsidized, I thought that the prices they
charged were their primary source of funding.

> You saw the price quoted in this thread? If they were subsidized you
> certainly can't tell from the price shown.

Would you expect to be able to tell? Do you have any idea how large
their expenses are? Do you have any idea how small the number of copies
they sell of the average standard? Neither do I, and none of the
committee members who participated in the last discussion I saw on this
topic were able to answer either of those questions, either. I think
it's entirely possible that the total expenses divided by the number of
copies sold might indeed come close to, or even exceed, $200/copy. I
don't have anywhere near enough relevant information to distinguish
unsubsidized prices from subsidized ones. Do you have enough
information? If so, could you provide it to us?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16930

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:

> Would you expect to be able to tell? Do you have any idea how large
> their expenses are? Do you have any idea how small the number of copies
> they sell of the average standard? 

As far as the C standards, no, I don't. But I have participated in other
standards bodies and I don't know how the sponsoring companies account for
it (I'm not an accountant) but I do know everybody views it as a goodwill
gesture to the community and basically spends what has to be spent on
travel, time away from principal jobs etc. and they figure they make it back
on name recognition and sometimes sales. Basically nobody looks at it as a
way to make money (directly) for the company it is more of a marketing angle
and they just write it off and hope for the best.

>> topic were able to answer either of those questions, either. I think
> it's entirely possible that the total expenses divided by the number of
> copies sold might indeed come close to, or even exceed, $200/copy.

They might but that wasn't really my point. My point is there is intangible
benefit to participating in standards and making them easily available so
they will be adopted after all that is the whole point of standards. If you
publish standards and make them hard to obtain or expensive then sure the
implementors will have to buy them, that's their business expense. But then
people who use the standards and the tools written to them *won't* have
access to the standards. The companies I've worked for are willing to spend
on this and I guess it ends at the standard body or publishing house. I mean
we don't get to sell copies.

> don't have anywhere near enough relevant information to distinguish
> unsubsidized prices from subsidized ones. Do you have enough
> information? If so, could you provide it to us?

It's a fair question but as not-an-accountant all I can say is there is
obviously a cost to this but the companies I worked for viewed it as a cost
of doing business, marketing, and community. They didn't worry about it that
much. Like many other things in business, they don't expect that everything
pays for itself. Sometimes they lose on something but they fund it from a
more profitable line of business. That's the way business has to work unless
you have only one very focused product. They also don't print or distribute
the final document so that may make a difference. As far as my view, the
standard should be 10 or 15 dollars or actual printing or distribution
cost. All the work was already paid for by the committe participants and
sponsor companies and we as far as I know don't ever get anything back from
sale of standards etc. So where is all that money going? I think it's going
to the standards organization to pay for their junkets etc. That's why I
don't like it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16938

Nomen Nescio wrote:

>                                                                    As far as my view, the
> standard should be 10 or 15 dollars or actual printing or distribution
> cost. All the work was already paid for by the committe participants and
> sponsor companies and we as far as I know don't ever get anything back from
> sale of standards etc. So where is all that money going? I think it's going
> to the standards organization to pay for their junkets etc. That's why I
> don't like it.

International standards organizations organizational bureaucracies primarily
in place to administer maintaining and distribution of the standards. I don't
see them going on junkets specifically but they do play a significant role
in making things workable.

WG-14 which I am familiar with has effectively made almost all the
material it has available on line. This material is essentially the same
(or may infact be identical) to the released standards. In the case of
C standard documents I suspect the total sales are in the hundreds or
less. I would suspect the release process for the standard document
probably would not be paid for by the collected fees.

 But if I want to run conformance test suites on a new compiler then
a test  suite company can specify that is is using a specific standards
document as the basis of the test suites and the standards organization
is responsible for selling the same document to the test suite vendor
and I and all others who purchase the standards documents. The
difference is the standards documents can all be traced back to a specific
document. For users who need that professionally the fees are very
low cost compared to finding out that a single but important sentence
was different between two copies.

Walter Banks

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16939

On 02/ 9/12 09:15 AM, Walter Banks wrote:
>
> International standards organizations organizational bureaucracies primarily
> in place to administer maintaining and distribution of the standards. I don't
> see them going on junkets specifically but they do play a significant role
> in making things workable.
>
> WG-14 which I am familiar with has effectively made almost all the
> material it has available on line. This material is essentially the same
> (or may infact be identical) to the released standards. In the case of
> C standard documents I suspect the total sales are in the hundreds or
> less. I would suspect the release process for the standard document
> probably would not be paid for by the collected fees.

I would be very surprised if the numbers sold were that low.  Everywhere 
I have worked has at least one copy floating around and I'm sure there 
are a good number of independent developers (and language lawyers!) who 
paid for the $18 or $30 copes.

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17211

On Feb 8, 8:23 pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/ 9/12 09:15 AM, Walter Banks wrote:

<snip>

> > In the case of
> > C standard documents I suspect the total sales are in the hundreds or
> > less. [...]
>
> I would be very surprised if the numbers sold were that low.  Everywhere
> I have worked has at least one copy floating around

wow. The only reason my previous company had a copy of the C Standard
is because we asked the complier implementor for some documentation
for his compiler and that's what he sent us. A bargain in my eyes. I
think I was the only who used it.

The only copy of the C++ standard I've ever seen is one I paid for
myself. It's worrying the number of old editions of Stroustrup you see
in work places. The language changed significantly enough that these
are actually wrong.

> and I'm sure there
> are a good number of independent developers (and language lawyers!) who
> paid for the $18 or $30 copes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17226

On 02/13/2012 07:58 AM, Nick Keighley wrote:
...
> wow. The only reason my previous company had a copy of the C Standard
> is because we asked the complier implementor for some documentation
> for his compiler and that's what he sent us. ...

So the implementor didn't have (or wasn't willing to give you) a copy of
the documenting listing that implementation's choice on matters that are
implementation-defined? Did you have any leverage to insist on getting
such a document (assuming it even existed)?

> ... A bargain in my eyes. I
> think I was the only who used it.

In the places where I've worked, I've seen a number of copies of
Schildt, but the only copies of the C standard that I've ever seen were
the ones I myself downloaded.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17241

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> On 02/13/2012 07:58 AM, Nick Keighley wrote:
> ...
>> wow. The only reason my previous company had a copy of the C Standard
>> is because we asked the complier implementor for some documentation
>> for his compiler and that's what he sent us. ...
>
> So the implementor didn't have (or wasn't willing to give you) a copy of
> the documenting listing that implementation's choice on matters that are
> implementation-defined? Did you have any leverage to insist on getting
> such a document (assuming it even existed)?

Especially consider that the sent you a copy of the document
(on paper?)  that explicitly requires the implementation to be
accompanied by such documentation (last paragraph of section 4 in
all three released ISO C standards).

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Will write code for food.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web