Seems that Airspeed Press has gone out of business?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

So somehow GUE copyrighted items have more protection than other people's. I know GUE thinks of themselves as special, but that special!
How do you know they don't have permission to distribute that document?
 
How do you know they don't have permission to distribute that document?
Because if they did they, it would make sense for them to announce they had obtained permission instead of suggesting that we all try and find pirate PDF copies....Lots of people do not seem to understand that IP theft is theft!

"The book is currently out of print, however, PDF copies do exist. Seek and ye shall find!"

 
"The book is currently out of print, however, PDF copies do exist. Seek and ye shall find!"
Ooh. Contributory copyright infringement!

I saw that oh-so-clever statement when that blog article, How Deep Is Your Library, was published. If that statement prompts you to do a Google search with "site:gue.com" you will find what I have to believe is an unauthorized copy on GUE's website. If it were authorized, GUE would have simply provided a link in that article instead of playing this game. Shame on GUE.
 
Lots of people do not seem to understand that IP theft is theft!
Lots of people do not seem to understand that unauthorized use of IP is not necessarily theft.

In particular, in the USA individual non-commercial use of out-of-print factual works are highly likely to fall under the Fair Use exception to copyright.


Link is to the relevant US Code. For a more complete explanation, be sure to click the Notes tab.
 
In particular, in the USA individual non-commercial use of out-of-print factual works are highly likely to fall under the Fair Use exception to copyright.
Where can I find some authority for that? I have always been under the impression that, of the Fair Use factors, the third factor, "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole," is likely to weigh heavily against you if you copy the entire work. Excerpts, sure, but an entire book, even if out of print and arguably "factual"?
 
Lots of people do not seem to understand that unauthorized use of IP is not necessarily theft.

In particular, in the USA individual non-commercial use of out-of-print factual works are highly likely to fall under the Fair Use exception to copyright.


Link is to the relevant US Code. For a more complete explanation, be sure to click the Notes tab.
And lots of people do not understand what non-commercial use means?

Taking a pirated complete PDF copy instead of buying an available hardcopy (at an ever increasing price point due to scarcity) seems to clearly fall into the commercial use definition?

"Generally speaking, copyright law favors scholarship, science, research and education—in essence, non-commercial use."

 
Excerpts, sure, but an entire book, even if out of print and arguably "factual"?
Vance Harlow's books?

What can be considered only "arguably factual" about them? I cannot think of a dive shop, since the late nineties that hasn't had copies of, at least, his regulator book, if not the gas mixing volume -- if only to read between the lines of occasionally opaque or vague manufacturer's service manuals . . .
 
What can be considered only "arguably factual" about them?
You mean why wouldn't they be considered completely factual? I would argue that "completely factual" is something more like a technical specification, which would be entitled to thinner copyright protection than something that conveys facts in a more original way.
 
How do you know they don't have permission to distribute that document?
Because if they did they would probably be charging for it and not giving it away. GUE are not known for failing to take a cut.
 
Because if they did they would probably be charging for it and not giving it away. GUE are not known for failing to take a cut.
Pure speculation. I'll wait for facts, thanks. Anyone concerned about this needs to contact GUE and ask how they can redistribute a copyrighted document.
 

Back
Top Bottom