Have you downloaded the Turbo Pyro Book?

[lloyd]

I read the post, Mumbles, and I 1) believe you have permission [but you didn't say if it was written, or merely 'implied'], and 2) sort-of 'figured' that this discussion might be for a newer version than the original one. It's undergone a number of edits in the years since its first release.

 

FWIW, I feel (as an ersatz author, myself), that any time you download a 'book' that is new-enough to still be in copyright, that you owe the owner the courtesy of requesting permission before taking it as your own.

 

<shrug>

Lloyd

[dagabu]

If I understand correctly, it was the first edition that is open to free distribution still. There is a PDF of the first edition on pyrobin, it was placed there some years ago.

[lloyd]

My very point, Dave.

Lloyd

[DavidF]

So what does all this mean? Can an author write something, set it free, and then change something in it so that the very same information is no longer free? If anybody wants to challenge a Pyrobin posting and have it removed, they can. You don't even have to be the author. I've done it myself. This is not the first, second, or third time I've reported that Pyrobin has a treasure trove of pirated complete books, Best of AFNs, F.A.S.T., etc...Absolutely nobody has had ANY of the pirated material removed.

 

So, it seems to me that if no author, none of any author's friends or associates, or ANYBODY is willing to give the issue the tiniest bit of consideration, it's a moot point to even talk about it. We have all proven by our inaction that we don't care! But, it can make us feel good to act like we care, I guess. Myself, I don't give a hoot about copyright issues, because I've learned by experience that nobody else really does either.

 

My original article about tube-waxing was given by me to Jack Drewes of AFN. Even though I wrote it, it became their property. After publishing it, they ended up taking my article and giving it to their friends (Wolters) so that they could use my work to sell a new product I knew nothing about- tube-waxing kits! They informed me after the fact that they had given permission to Wolters to use their property. This stuck in my craw a bit, but heck, I gave it away anyway! I knew that after I gave something away, I had no right to cry about it later. I learned that in grade school.

 

This reminds me of the few times on Fireworking.com where a member threatened to take all his posts and delete them. This highly intelligent individual professed to feel that it was a 'grey area' as to who owned his posts. To simple folks like myself, the minute anybody posts something online they have given it away. To threaten to hurt the entire membership due to anger at any one person was morally wrong, of course. But more importantly, it was legally wrong. The threat necessitated modification of the EDIT function to prevent valuable, freely given information from being 'taken back'.

 

These are just my personal thoughts on this topic that comes up several times a year with nothing done about anything by anybody

[lloyd]

"Can an author write something, set it free, and then change something in it so that the very same information is no longer free?"

--------------

Absolutely, they can, David! It's part of the basic structure of the 'copyright laws' that any significant editing of a work can become a newly-copyrighted work.

 

The 'significant' part is left up to the judgement of the authors, the people who purloin the copy, and the courts.

 

Lloyd

[wildcherryxoxo]

I'm missing something, the thread clearly states that the owner of the content (Harry) gave explicit written permission to APC to host the link to download turbo pyro.

 

It would make a great deal of difference to "read the fucking thread" before running on and on with moral convinction.

 

Are you aware that Ned is hosting the very same link on his site, without any mention of "who owns who"?

 

Have you never ripped a monetized and copyrighted YouTube video and loaded it onto Roku or similar device? I would bet good money that you have (based on previous posts where you show obvious experience doing so).

[DavidF]

I just don't think 'Joe/Jane Blow' should have to figure out whether or not he/she has a right to read something, or to copy it for reading later. If it's available, I'm doing it, and not even thinking twice about it. Don't want me to do that? Make it unavailable to me. Until then.....

 

If I go into a store, I assume everything in the store is legal for me to buy. I'm not going to law school to figure out if I have unwittingly been made an accomplice to some criminal or civil matter.

[lloyd]

Cherry, are you _always_ offensive, or is it just your habit to be that way among people who share the same interests as do you?

 

I didn't say that any copyright was being violated here. I simply said that an 'updated' version might be under separate copyright, and thus, 'protected'.

 

Or... is it just that you cannot read? *or worse, that you CHOOSE not to, in order to deliberately attempt to offend others*?

 

David... under copyright laws (and patent laws, for what it's worth) it IS your duty to ensure that you've not violated a 'right' under those laws, no matter WHO is offering the material.

 

Lacking your carrying out that duty, YOU may be (personally) found in violation. It's pretty clear-cut under US law. Canuckians' laws may vary from that.

 

I must ask this: You know my booklet is under current and enforced copyright. Do you mean to say that, KNOWING that, you'd download a bootlegged copy, JUST because it was there to be downloaded?

Really?

 

Lloyd

Edited March 7, 2017 by lloyd

[lloyd]

BTW... Cherry, rumor has it (I believe it was a rumor you started) that you're a member on FW.com, too.

 

I'd just LOVE to make your acquaintance -- here or there. We have a great deal to discuss; perhaps some of it in public.

 

I'm under (as you wrote) a "moral convinction" to do that ('hope I quoted you accurately!).

 

Lloyd

Edited March 7, 2017 by lloyd

[stix]

. . . If it's available, I'm doing it, and not even thinking twice about it. Don't want me to do that? Make it unavailable to me. Until then......

 

David, I find that comment ignorant, short sighted and rather disturbing - and even offensive. All because you can, doesn't mean you should. Perhaps "should" is a moral or ethical question, but still has a value (in my view).

 

I'm sure you have learned things from books. Do you think that the people who wrote those books did it gratis? Sure, some have, but most have to sell their works to make a living, or even sell their assets just to get by - they expect a return on their invested time, and therefore, are able to house and feed themselves, and their family.

 

Generally, patents more so protect a "physical" object and idea, whereas copyright protects "written works" - ie. Intellectual Property. Probably not strictly correct, but hope you get the idea.

 

A big part of pyrotechnics is the "artistry" - actually when you think about it, it's the main gig. All the "Oohhs, Arrhhs, Wowww!!!" is the payback for all the hard work learning, making, creating and innovating. If we don't have the protections of copyright (and patents), then we won't have innovation or a motivation to innovate.

 

Unfortunately most of us have to use our own minimal resources to get by. Unless of course your either Batman or Elon Musk.

 

A person who has no interest in protecting other persons ideas, simply has no ideas of their own - Stix, circa 2017.

Edited March 7, 2017 by stix

[DavidF]

Stix, you are entitled to your opinions. But, rather than slapping me, why not use your time to make a difference? Why not go to Pyrobin and challenge the many many many copyrighted works hosted there and have them removed? Do you care that much? I'll check back in 7 days and see if any of you 'concerned citizens' have lifted a finger to do anything about what has been cried about so many times now.

 

My point is that sitting at our computers and pointing fingers at each other ain't getting it done. I don't think I'm short-sighted at all. I see the picture for what it is- people complaining about stuff they can't be bothered to do anything about. It may be offensive to call people out for not acting on their dearly held convictions, but I remain unrepentant. Go to Pyrobin and prove you care. I don't believe you do. Make me wrong, don't whine that I have offended your delicate sensibilities.

 

I will post my findings about any efforts by this community to staunch the flow of illegally distributed copyrighted material. I hope to finally be surprised, and see evidence of a result. See you all in 7 days.

[lloyd]

David,

I asked him to take down the copy of my book there, and he did. Whenever I see someone else's copyrighted work on there, I tell them. It's their responsibility to follow-up from there.

 

But, understand, most folks don't have the time to just sit and review all the entries on Pyrobin (or any other site) "just to see what's there". I rely upon others - like you - who've seen something to notify me. And they have -- frequently.

 

Lloyd

[DavidF]

Lloyd, IIRC, no actual communication was necessary when I too bothered to do something about it. In my case it was not my work. Anything I write is given away for free, so I have nothing of my own to protect.

 

Stix has time to do it. He had time to write 5 paragraphs about his feelings. It doesn't take a genius to know F.A.S.T., the AFNs, The Chemistry of powder and Explosives, Weingart, and on and on and on are Copyrighted works. All it takes to see my point is to lightly peruse Pyrobin. We're not digging for gold nuggets. The violations are such that a blind man can see them.

 

I feel that I am doing the authors a favor by sending concerned citizens to a site where they can do some good instead of just paying lip service to their causes.

 

All that said, I have purchased thousands of dollars worth of pyro information. I don't need to scour the web for pirated materials. Besides, it's hardly scouring. 7 days from now this community's level of concern about copyrighted pyrotechnic material will be shown. The next time this comes up- and the time after that- I will be here to again attempt to guide folks' energies towards productive and satisfying results. That's being part of the solution IMHO

[dagabu]

Frankly, it's been too many years to remember the details very well but I believe Harry set that first copy of Turbo Pyro on PYROBIN for everyone to use. I'm sure those details are somewhere in the archives of APC.

[OldMarine]

I downloaded it from a link here on APC back in November 2015 during a promotional thing Harry had going.

[Mumbles]

So, in light of all of this I got back in touch with Skylighter just to confirm everything was alright. I got the confirmation that they are willing to continue to share the file, that the link was fine, and that everything is good. Thanks for your concern over copyrights, but Skylighter does not feel they're being violated and are allowing us to continue sharing the file.

 

 

Hello Chris,

 

Thanks for reaching out to us. I do recall the conversation and we are still happy to share the file with your members. The file has not been updated in a while, I feel like it was around 2010 was the last update, but since the S3 outage I'm unable to get into my S3 account (just found that out now) so I'm unable to check the date of the last upload. If your linking directly to S3 you have the latest version.

 

Thanks,

-Brian

[lloyd]

Wonderful! Speculations and concerns are dealt-with.

 

Lloyd

[dagabu]

Thanks Mum, that's what I thought the deal was.

[starxplor]

Just to point out, a copyright holder does not need to make any changes to revoke authorization to copy. If I wrote a book, I could give it to a friend and say "pass it around", but later on, come to that friend and say "please do not pass it around any more" and they are not legally allowed to. While they might be technically able to, that is a different issue.

 

Copyright law is an interesting beast, often making complete sense and being totally understandable yet at other times seeming batshit crazy. This is usually a result of either those with interests in copyright having too much control over the laws governing it or technology and the law not keeping up with each other.

 

Just be glad we do not have to pay a 'copyright fee' on blank line ruled notebooks or reams of copier paper like some places do with blank audio media (cassette tapes and CDs)

[DavidF]

OK, it's been 7 days. First things first. Lloyd, you asked if I would knowingly download your book from Pyrobin if it was there. Although I don't think the question is very fair, the answer is no, for 2 reasons. First off, I already bought it. Second- as others may not be aware- I know you. I would feel dutybound to tell you, so that you could have it removed. Or I'd just do it myself, and let you know to keep an eye out. But that's just me.

 

There are plenty of folks that like to talk about copyright infringement while doing nothing about it. It's entertaining to talk about it I guess, but actually being part of the solution does not seem to be very attractive to many people. Here I am back, 7 days later as promised. I had hoped to be proven wrong in my cynical view of the general population, and find that the most glaring of copyright infringements on PAGE 1 of Pyrobin would have been removed. Nope!

 

I decided to walk the talk and go to Pyrobin myself and start to clean it up. Anyway, within a few minutes on PAGE 1 I was able to remove 3 Chapters of Tenney Davis' "Chemistry of Powder and Explosives." I also removed Best of AFN2, and Lloyd Scott Oglesby's "Glitter Chemistry and Techniques." But, after Oglesby's book, I was forbidden from further cleanup because of too many requests in a row. That's great news! There's plenty of good work left to be done on PAGE 1 of Pyrobin, with quite a few famous copyrighted works left for other do-gooders to clean up. There's no need to research anything, the titles are dead giveaways to those who know anything about pyro. There's no need to contact anybody, no membership, etc... There's nothing at all standing in the way of anybody doing what I did. If I wait an hour I can go back and carry out more of you guys' wishes, which I interpret as a desire to reduce pirating of copyrighted materials. I will wait 7 more days and then see if anybody has done anything more than talk 'here' about what happens 'there'.

 

Yes, I am being a little snarky, and I sincerely feign remorse for that;)

 

If there's anybody here that cares about their fellow men Bob Cardwell and Jack Drewes, I suggest they let them know their work is being pirated. Being part of the solution and hitting a few keys is faster though, just sayin'. Anyhow, I'll let everybody know what I find next week.

 

Edited for politeness. I was slightly less polite at first.

Edited March 14, 2017 by DavidF

[stix]

David, that's really good that you can doing something about it.

 

There is no way that I can. Not because I wouldn't want to, but simply because I have no idea what is copyrighted or not.

[MrB]

I had hoped to be proven wrong in my cynical view of the general population, and find that the most glaring of copyright infringements on PAGE 1 of Pyrobin would have been removed. Nope!

 

I don't get it. Somehow it became our responsibility to navigate a site we don't operate, scan it for copyright-infringements we didn't commit, or had any intent of committing, rectify the possibly unlawful situation, and since we didn't, you are disappointed in us? I'm sorry, but, if you had time and resources for it... Good on you. I'm not going to go out of my way and mess with it. If i ever happen on suspected material, i might let the author know, so they can act on it, but it's not my place, nor my responsibility, to fix it for them. It's a possible copyright infringement. Not a dude smashing a window to grab a purse. I have no real way of telling what material is, or isn't allowed, due to the nature of copyright law.

B!

[DavidF]

Yeah, I made a few assumptions in forming my opinions, for sure. I assumed that many in the pyro community are aware of the titles of the books commonly referred to on here and other forums. I assumed that pretty much any common book would be known by all to be copyrighted. I assumed that Pyrobin is commonly navigated by our community. At least 3 posters in just this thread have posts on page 1 of Pyrobin, after all.

 

Mr. B, I'm just going to take your logic one step further. If it's only a possible copyright infringement, and if it's difficult for us regular folks to determine the legality of materials floating around the net, how can we be expected to do anything about it? We're just regular people, not lawyers! So, in view of these facts, why should I be morally or legally required to decide whether something is legal for me to click on or not? Why should I be likened to a thief for downloading materials nobody has the slightest personal interest in seeing protected? I'm gonna go ahead and call myself 'not guilty' of copyright infringement for downloading anything I find floating around the net that interests me.

 

I think I've made the point I intended to make, and I'll lay off on this. If a real copyright violation that anybody cares about ever does come up, we can re-visit our positions on these things then. I think Joe Public's position has been fairly represented here, for now

[MrB]

I assumed that pretty much any common book would be known by all to be copyrighted.

 

(Unintentional) Ironic statement given the thread we are in...

 

Which pretty much is my point. I have no idea what rules apply, for how long a work is protected, where in the world it is protected, and if someone ever posted a work online legitimately, meaning what seams to be a "obvious" infringement, (i'm hinting at this thread) may full well be quite legal. And, quite honestly, since i find that sort of legal tapestry quite insane, i have no intent of learning much about it.

B!

[Mumbles]

For what it's worth, Chemistry of Powder and Explosives is in the public domain or at least the original copy is. Tenny L Davis died in 1949 and owned the copyright to COPAE as dictated in the front material of the book. The volumes were published in 1941 and 1943. At this time, copyright was valid for 28 years, which puts it in the public domain in 1971. It could be renewed for 47 additional years (which would be 2016/2018), but must be done in the 28th year. Obviously Tenny wasn't alive, and there's no record in the copyright office of his estate filing for a renewal. I don't think it's any coincidence that Angriff Press decided to start publishing their edition in 1972.

 

To the best of my knowledge you can't ripoff Angriff's copy, but the actual text is in the public domain. If the scan is of the original copy, it should be fine.