TECHNET Archives

August 2002

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Tue, 20 Aug 2002 12:09:11 +0300
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (56 lines)
I believe that all the arguments put forward are valid. However, there
is one point that seems to have been forgotten: precedent. If the IPC
lets Earl Moon reproduce parts of documents without PRIOR permission and
without a POST-challenge, then a legal precedent has been set. I could
then reproduce every IPC document under my own name, sell them and make
a hefty profit (by undercutting the IPC). When it came to court, my
lawyer would then quote the precedent and argue that what's sauce for
the goose is sauce for the gander. I can therefore understand Dave's
message.

In my experience, the IPC is not a wicked money-grubber and I feel sure
that if they had been asked beforehand for this diagram or that graph to
be reproduced, they would have said yes, on condition that
acknowledgement of the source was made. Something like "(C) IPC 199x
from IPC-A-600, reproduced with permission", in small letters under the
figure, should do the trick.

Moonman has placed himself in an unenviable situation, by infringing a
declared copyright for publication. The elegant way out of this
situation would be for him to eat humble pie and ask the IPC for an a
posteriori permission, explaining that it was done in innocence. If they
grant it, with or without conditions, well and good: in this case,
acknowledgement would be courteous, even if not imposed. If they don't,
then Earl will have no choice but to withdraw the litigious material.
Also, it is not permissible to simply copy a graph, so that it looks
different: the data behind the graph is also copyright. However, I
respectfully suggest that Earl checks through his work to make sure that
he has not incorporated any other copyrighted material (text or
diagrams) by accident, because a multiple suit against him will be quite
costly. It should never be forgotten that it is not a legal requirement
to declare any publication is copyright, although it is wise to do so.
Strictly speaking, even this e-mail is copyright, though this would
never be enforced.

I respectfully suggest we all cool down now, stop the vituperations,
either pro or con, and let Earl and the IPC discuss and, hopefully,
agree on terms without any third parties making life difficult for
either party by morally pressuring them.

Brian

A question has been raised about references: it is perfectly permissible
to quote a reference, giving the author, title of a copyrighted work,
date etc.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2