 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / January 2008Keep RC plans affordable
Here's a rant I posted on my blog. Maybe you agree with me. Maybe we can persuade the copyright owners to do something about it. http://towerofbabble.net/the-balsa-workbench/ http://towerofbabble.net/2008/keep-rc-plans-affordable/ > Here's a rant I posted on my blog. Maybe you agree with me. Maybe we > can persuade the copyright owners to do something about it. > > http://towerofbabble.net/the-balsa-workbench/ > http://towerofbabble.net/2008/keep-rc-plans-affordable/ Lots of good free ones about. If you can organise your won printing. The solution is simple enough: Design your own! While we all can't be expert designers or builders, most of us CAN, if we want to, build models that will fly acceptably. There are books by Harry Higley and Andy Lennon, videos by Dave Platt and others , and some stuff on the AMA website to help the beginning designer/builder along. There's plenty of help and encouragement on RCU and R/C Groups too. For instance, there's a little scale plans or kit building "contest" going on on the R/C Groups Scale Electric forum, and the level of cooperation and advice to newcomers is fantastic! It's just as good on the glow and gas engine forums too, whether sport, trainer, or scale. Despite the foregoing, I also lament the high price of plans. If you know someone with server space who would start a "clearing house" of plans that people have purchased, but don't plan to build, and are willing to swap, that might ease the problem somewhat! Another source of relatively low-cost plans is Full Size Plans.> http://www.fullsizeplans.com/ Other sources of relatively cheap plans are the various British and European mags that come with plans. Often the magazine back issue costs far less than buying the plan alone! Now, you got any plans you want to trade? :-) Geoff Sanders Geoff...great idea to set up a clearing house for old plans ( used or not ) . Does Ebay have a section for that? I am very new in this hobby, but I can see that helping others learn and build, such as often happens on the r/c sites, is a practice not found in every hobby. regards, Rich > The solution is simple enough: Design your own! While we all can't be > expert designers or builders, most of us CAN, if we want to, build models [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Geoff Sanders > Geoff...great idea to set up a clearing house for old plans ( used or > not ) . Does Ebay have a section for that? I am very new in this > hobby, but I can see that helping others learn and build, such as often > happens on the r/c sites, is a practice not found in every hobby. > regards, Rich The trouble with sharing old ones is that it violates the copyright of the designer and/or original seller. If you have NOT built from the plan, then there's no violation. And there are plenty of plans kicking around that people haven't built from! As for Ebay, I feel that they have too many ethical issues to do business with. They allow people who have, as Robert indicated, ripped off legitimate plans businesses to sell illegal plans. >> Geoff...great idea to set up a clearing house for old plans ( used or >> not ) . Does Ebay have a section for that? I am very new in this [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > plan, then there's no violation. And there are plenty of plans kicking > around that people haven't built from! I dont think thats true. Copyright means you cannot copy and re-sell the original, at least in such a way that it damages the original copyright holders chance to sell the plan again. I.e. you can copuy a plan as many times as you like for your own use, or sell the original, but you cant keep the original and SELL copies. Whether or not you have built it is irrelevant. Also, copyright lapses after a while. IIRC its 50 years with some exceptions. Plans of models published prior prior to 1958, are therefore free for all. > As for Ebay, I feel that they have too many ethical issues to do > business with. They allow people who have, as Robert indicated, ripped > off legitimate plans businesses to sell illegal plans. So what do you expect to do about it? Its all below the legal radar by and large. If the guys were making millions, then the plan copyright owbers would have some reason to sue. They aren't. I sold some old books on Ebay. I gave up. Just one 'I never got that parcel' complaint - whether true or a lie - wiped out all the money I made. The game wasn't worth the candle and the hassle. If some impoverished student with a drawer full of his das old plans and free access to a university copier wants to make a couple of bucks that way, let him. At least he isn't selling drugs on campus. | I dont think thats true. Copyright means you cannot copy and re-sell the | original, at least in such a way that it damages the original copyright | holders chance to sell the plan again. It's not quite that simple, at least not in the US. (You're in Canada, right?) | I.e. you can copuy a plan as many times as you like for your own use, or | sell the original, but you cant keep the original and SELL copies. Still not that simple ... | Whether or not you have built it is irrelevant. Plans are a bit different, because actually building it is making a copy of the plans of a sort. So if somebody sells plans to build a plane, I imagine that would have to come with a license (perhaps implied) to build a plane from these plans. Can you build multiple planes? That would depend on the license. I don't know if any of that has ever been fully worked out in the courts or what, so there's probably a lot of room for people to make their own interpetations. | Also, copyright lapses after a while. IIRC its 50 years with some | exceptions. Certainly not in the US ... http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm | Plans of models published prior prior to 1958, are therefore free for all. Nuh-uh.  SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzied.us We'll know that rock is dead when you have to get a degree to work in it. > ... if somebody sells plans to build a >plane, I imagine that would have to come with a license (perhaps >implied) to build a plane from these plans. Can you build multiple >planes? That would depend on the license. >I don't know if any of that has ever been fully worked out in the >courts or what, so there's probably a lot of room for people to make >their own interpetations. I checked into this a few years ago when this topic first came up. There is no doubt that architectural plans may not be used to build more than one building without the permission of the architect. That seems to be well-established in law. If I remember correctly, the relevant legislation was quite specific about buildings and boats. It was silent about the status of model aircraft plans. Gotta get ready for class. Google probably has the old thread. My personal bottom line: I am not going to worry about building extra models from the same set of plans. Marty SignatureBig-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.* See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups. >> ... if somebody sells plans to build a >> plane, I imagine that would have to come with a license (perhaps [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If I remember correctly, the relevant legislation was > quite specific about buildings and boats. That is because they are specifically drawn up for individual cases. However I doubt that this is a copyright issue. Its probably more about an implied contract between the architect, marine or otherwise, and his original client. > It was silent about the status of model aircraft plans. > > Gotta get ready for class. Google probably has the old thread. > > My personal bottom line: I am not going to worry about building > extra models from the same set of plans. And I am not worried about looking very hard, at a pre 1964 set of plans, sometimes with a scanner ;-), and re-drafting the whole thing to use completely different propulsion systems and maybe materials from the originals. ;-) Publish and be damned. > Marty >> There is no doubt that architectural plans may not be >> used to build more than one building without the permission >> of the architect. That seems to be well-established in law. >> If I remember correctly, the relevant legislation was >> quite specific about buildings and boats. >That is because they are specifically drawn up for individual cases. >However I doubt that this is a copyright issue. >It's probably more about an implied contract between the architect, >marine or otherwise, and his original client. In fact, oddly enough, it is a matter of copyright law. We discussed this in 2003 and again in 2005. Here is the background information about BUILDINGS, reprinted from one of my posts from February 14, 2003, and February 9, 2005: The copyright law was amended in 1990 to explicitly prohibit building more than one BUILDING from a set of ARCHITECTURAL plans. "In December 1990, President Bush signed into law the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990. Prior to this legislation, copyright protection for the work of design professionals was afforded only to drawings and specifications. The author of the design had no copyright remedy if a duplicate structure was constructed from the original drawings and specifications or from the building itself, provided the drawings and specifications were not copied. "The 1990 Act retains copyright protection for drawings as "pictorial" or "graphic" works, and building from the original drawings or building is now a copyright infringement. "Under the 1990 Act, a "building" encompasses habitable structures, such as houses and office buildings, as well as structures which are used but not inhabited by human beings, such as churches, pergolas, gazebos and garden pavilions. The Congressional Committee Report2 specifically notes that interior design is included in the definition of "building." Bridges, cloverleafs, dams, highways or walkways are not "buildings" under the definition of architectural works." <http://www.aepronet.org/pn/vol5-no2.html> I suggest that model airplanes are NOT buildings and that plan sets are NOT architectural drawings in the meaning of the act. The framers of the legislation deliberately excluded things that are not BUILDINGS from this particular act. A model is not now and never has been a BUILDING, and so plans for models do not enjoy the protections given to plans for buildings under the 1990 act: "A building in this context refers to a structure habitable by people, including houses and office buildings. Another exception to the copyright arises under the doctrine of fair use. Under certain circumstances, a use that might otherwise be deemed infringing is excused. In evaluating whether a particular use is a fair use, certain factors are considered—the purpose and character of the use, including whether it is of a commercial nature; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used; and the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of a copyrighted work. For example, copying an article from a six-year old periodical for purposes of personal use would be fair use, while repeated copying of articles from current issues of the same periodical for commercial purposes would not because the latter would tend to deprive the copyright owner of subscription sales." <http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9509.html> SignatureBig-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.* See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups. > | I dont think thats true. Copyright means you cannot copy and re-sell the > | original, at least in such a way that it damages the original copyright > | holders chance to sell the plan again. > > It's not quite that simple, at least not in the US. (You're in > Canada, right?) UK. But I believe it is essentially that simple. copyright is on printed and recorded material. It menas that it shouldn't be reproduced. That's all. It is a civil, not crimoinal, offence, which means that although technically its an offence in all cases, in practice to bringa successful action wnd gain compensation, you have to priove materi9al damages. If for examle you have a book and its out of porint and teh original copyright hodler no longer exists, whose to sue? and whose to say that they could have made money? In practice is a waste of time nd money - the judge would throw the thing out, or simply say, guilty: fine one penny, costs to te plaintiff. And there you go. So you might have spent $10,000 to lose money, and inflicted a penny fine on someone. Big deal. > | I.e. you can copuy a plan as many times as you like for your own use, or > | sell the original, but you cant keep the original and SELL copies. > > Still not that simple ... > I think it is. The 'copy for won use' is a simple acceptancfe oif tthe fact that isince yoi have it already, copying it merely proptects your right to have it in teh future: since no trasaction has taken place, and no potential transaction has been diverted, there is no case to answer. > | Whether or not you have built it is irrelevant. > > Plans are a bit different, because actually building it is making a > copy of the plans of a sort. No they are not. Thats as stupid as saying you can't play from a sheet of music you have bought, again and again. You can. However if uou do it in public, FOR PROFIT you owe something to teh composer and publisher of course. Note that in every case this is about commercial gain, noty teh act of copyinh. Its teh act of copying for commercial gain So if you ytook that plan and copied it and made laser ut kits and sold them for profit..well then there is a possible case, but even that is frauight. There was a case I came across once - a pivotal case pofr precvedence, in which a photographer went to a particular point where a famous landscape picture had been taken, and using very similar equipment, took it again. Now photographs were held top be copyrigt, but not the view itself. Likewise Boeing can't stop you selling plans for a model Boeing 707, although they MAY stop you from calling int Boeing, under trademark legislation. > So if somebody sells plans to build a > plane, I imagine that would have to come with a license (perhaps > implied) to build a plane from these plans. Can you build multiple > planes? That would depend on the license. The building of the planes is actually irrelevant to copyright. That refers to the original printed material. If you buy a book on how to plant potatoes, it doesn't come with a license allowing you to only plant one potato. You are confusing copyright with intellectual property rights. Not the same thing at all. THOSE are protected under patent, or by direct license as a contract. > I don't know if any of that has ever been fully worked out in the > courts or what, so there's probably a lot of room for people to make > their own interpetations. The basic rules are pretty clearly laid out. There are borderline cases. Like the photographer I described. > | Also, copyright lapses after a while. IIRC its 50 years with some > | exceptions. > > Certainly not in the US ... I doubt it. > http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm Well that does show that the period of copyright DOES expire, just that the timelines are different.. If you look at the third box down, stuff prior to 1963, expired in 2000 even if registered, and if not has been free for YEARS. > | Plans of models published prior prior to 1958, are therefore free for all. > > Nuh-uh. No, its plans published prior to 1964, are free for all. Unless the owner re-applied for copyright. AND the plans say 'copyright' on them. Now its 70 years only. Then free for all. > copyright is on printed and recorded material. It menas that it > shouldn't be reproduced. That's all. Actually, copyright exists for 3-d forms as well, including things like car pistons, sculptures, model aeroplanes etc. When you buy a plan you buy the right to use the plan for your own use and to build as many copies of the plane as the copyright holder licences you to. You are also granted "fair use" rights to make copies for our own personal use. These fair use rights vary from country to country. In the case of model aeroplanes there is no generally accepted standard for how many planes you may build, but for boats, buildings etc the plans would generally only be licenced for one copy of the end product. Further builds would require additional payment. > It is a civil, not crimoinal, offence, Copyright infringement is now a criminal offence in some cases in the UK. In particular, if you go on general sale by way of business with a product that infringes someone else's copyright then that is a criminal offence. SignatureBoo >> copyright is on printed and recorded material. It menas that it >> shouldn't be reproduced. That's all. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > product that infringes someone else's copyright then that is a criminal > offence. I dont think its a criminal offence, no.. >> Copyright infringement is now a criminal offence in some cases in the >> UK. In particular, if you go on general sale by way of business with >> a product that infringes someone else's copyright then that is a >> criminal offence. >> > I dont think its a criminal offence, no.. Well, there are probably better references available than the following but try this : <http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/111524/european-parliament-backs-criminal-laws-for-c ommercial-copyright-infringement.html> I used to have a good link on copyright law but can't find it atm, the following seems quite useful though : <http://ahds.ac.uk/copyrightfaq.htm> Cheers, SignatureBoo > to make copies for our own personal use. These fair use rights vary from > country to country. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > would generally only be licenced for one copy of the end product. Further > builds would require additional payment. The distinction is on *MODEL*, not airplane, for the comparison. Are we cheap bastards or what? If you like it enough to build 10 copies from the set of plans, spend a little money. Or if it sucked enough to require 10 extra copies, maybe you should have stopped after the second. >> to make copies for our own personal use. These fair use rights vary >> from country to country. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > from the set of plans, spend a little money. Or if it sucked enough to > require 10 extra copies, maybe you should have stopped after the second. Or learn to draw your own,. Its hardly rocket science. > Or learn to draw your own,. Its hardly rocket science. That point has been mentioned several times in this conversation. I've designed a few of my own with great results, but I love well designed magazine plans. The thing I like about the RCM catalog is the enormity and variety of imagination that went into the different designs. Hundreds of designers built, tested and redesigned their own planes and then offered them to the public. And I'm pretty sure that the editors at RCM spent a lot of time making sure that the planes in their magazine flew well, at least the ones designed by their inner circle of cohorts. I get a lot of entertainment from building these planes and admiring how well they perform, and then moving right along to the next one. Of all the dozens of RCM designs I've built, only a few of them were less than great, and only one of them totally sucked. That was the Fat Porter. If you've ever considered it, forget it. I've been amazed at how good some of the others were. The Super Kaos is excellent, the Miss Bikini is incredibly good. One of my favorites is the Big John biplane. There are just too many to mention. Any of you guys ever build the Guppy? What a cool plane. Maybe it sounds like I'm going overboard, but I truly appreciate what those other guys passed along to me. That's why I'm going to go ahead and publish my three good designs, whether they get pirated and spread around for free or not. I hope somebody else gets as big a kick out of them as I have. Bob: This is what I hoped to find in this hobby ..... passion. There is no substitute! Harlan > That point has been mentioned several times in this conversation. I've > designed a few of my own with great results, but I love well designed [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > whether they get pirated and spread around for free or not. I hope > somebody else gets as big a kick out of them as I have. >> Or learn to draw your own,. Its hardly rocket science. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > designs, whether they get pirated and spread around for free or not. I > hope somebody else gets as big a kick out of them as I have. Probably. Post em upon one of the web forums. People will pass them around, and if they have yor forum ID on them, some may even e-mail you to say 'thank you' Thats as good a feeling as you will get! >Are we cheap bastards or what? If you like it enough to build 10 copies from >the set of plans, spend a little money. Yes, I'm cheap. I've built four or five Gremlins from the same set of templates that I derived from the first set of plans I bought. I don't think Eric (Evl-1) Henderson would mind. Marty SignatureBig-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.* See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups. > Yes, I'm cheap. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I don't think Eric (Evl-1) Henderson would mind. You bought plans? <g> I guess that makes me cheaper than you. I made my own plans by approximating what was in RC Modeler, and improved on it until I was happy with it. Oh, and I used .40's on mine. Goes like a bat out of hell! SignatureJim in NC >> I've built four or five Gremlins from the same set >> of templates that I derived from the first set of >> plans I bought. >> I don't think Eric (Evl-1) Henderson would mind. >You bought plans? <g> Yep. One for me, seven or eight to resell to others with cores and short kits. :-P >I guess that makes me cheaper than you. I made my own plans by >approximating what was in RC Modeler, and improved on it until I was happy >with it. >Oh, and I used .40's on mine. Goes like a bat out of hell! I've stuck with a .32 and a .36. A few folks went with .40s or .46s. They didn't do a lot better in combat than I did, by and large. Marty SignatureBig-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.* See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups. On 1/16/08 7:22 PM, in article 13otifjdc77kp3c@corp.supernews.com, "Geoff Sanders" <ama11285@hevanet.com> wrote: >> Geoff...great idea to set up a clearing house for old plans ( used or >> not ) . Does Ebay have a section for that? I am very new in this [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > business with. They allow people who have, as Robert indicated, ripped > off legitimate plans businesses to sell illegal plans. Speaking of their (lack of) ethics, eBay was recently charged with multiple counts of Ticket Scalping. They certainly are in the *anything for a buck* business. They owned the company that was scalping the tickets through eBay. > On 1/16/08 7:22 PM, in article > 13otifjdc77kp3c@corp.supernews.com, "Geoff [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > tickets through > eBay. ---------- I have never understood the concept of ticket scalping. If someone buys something for one price and then sells it for a higher price, that is capitalism. Same as what some folks call ticket scalping. How difficult would it be for a state legislature to pass a law saying that no more than so & so tickets can be sold to a given business entity or individual at one time? Piece of cake. It's okay for speculators to drive the price of oil out of sight and make the common man suffer. But it is considered scalping when someone deprives an upper middle class individual from buying a cheap ticket to a football game? I don't get it. Ed Cregger On 1/17/08 7:12 AM, in article 9fKjj.55179$_m.28663@bignews4.bellsouth.net, >> On 1/16/08 7:22 PM, in article >> 13otifjdc77kp3c@corp.supernews.com, "Geoff [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Ed Cregger Let's see......... You feel it's good American capitalism to conspire with the ticket issuer to take almost all the tickets for popular events leaving essentially none for local outlets, raise the price, and sell them on eBay. You don't think this makes the "common man suffer" more than if the scalping did not occur? Strange attitude. You hold how many eBay shares? > On 1/17/08 7:12 AM, in article 9fKjj.55179$_m.28663@bignews4.bellsouth.net, > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > the ticket issuer to take almost all the tickets for popular events leaving > essentially none for local outlets, raise the price, and sell them on eBay. Well how is that different from buying all the oil in Saudi, and leaving none for the rest of the world, and selling it on at high prices? > You don't think this makes the "common man suffer" more than if the scalping > did not occur? Arguably the common man suffers whenever businesses get to a size that allows them some sort of de facto monopoly. Capitalism isn't perfect, and more enlightened countries moderate it with some sort of consumer (or other) legislation. So called ticket scalping is no different from any distributor buying in bulk and marking up to whatever price the market will stand. We have a saying here, about low cost or free medical care "when you pay, what you get is dictated by the size of your wallet, when its cheap, what you get is dictated by the length of the queue" With ticket scalping, you have a situation where tickets are being sold well below the market rate. Which represents a loss for those issuing them. A sensible approach would be to sell tickets either by (Dutch?) auction in the first place, or by incremental cost. Those at the front of the queue pay little, those at the back a lot more. > Strange attitude. You hold how many eBay shares? On 1/17/08 10:08 AM, in article 1200593326.8729.0@despina.uk.clara.net, "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote: >> On 1/17/08 7:12 AM, in article 9fKjj.55179$_m.28663@bignews4.bellsouth.net, >> [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > With ticket scalping, you have a situation where tickets are being sold > well below the market rate. Where did you get that erroneous idea? Scalpers sell well above the original ticket price. > Which represents a loss for those issuing them. Ridiculous! They do not discount them to the scalper. > A sensible approach > would be to sell tickets either by (Dutch?) auction in the first place, > or by incremental cost. Those at the front of the queue pay little, > those at the back a lot more. Or better yet, just let the local, established ticket outlets sell them. I forgot to mention that scalping is against the law in many states, including Oregon where the laswsuit against eBay was filed. >> Strange attitude. You hold how many eBay shares? > On 1/17/08 10:08 AM, in article 1200593326.8729.0@despina.uk.clara.net, > "The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Where did you get that erroneous idea? ?? If we have to explain it... > Scalpers sell well above the > original ticket price. Precisely. On 1/17/08 7:58 PM, in article guVjj.40105$Pv2.21447@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net, "MikeWhy" <boat042-nospam@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 1/17/08 10:08 AM, in article 1200593326.8729.0@despina.uk.clara.net, >> "The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ?? If we have to explain it... What does that mindless statement mean? >> Scalpers sell well above the >> original ticket price. > > Precisely. > On 1/17/08 7:58 PM, in article > guVjj.40105$Pv2.21447@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net, "MikeWhy" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > What does that mindless statement mean? Do keep up, Mr. Bowey. See below. >>> Scalpers sell well above the >>> original ticket price. >> >> Precisely. > On 1/17/08 10:08 AM, in article 1200593326.8729.0@despina.uk.clara.net, "The > Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Where did you get that erroneous idea? Scalpers sell well above the > original ticket price. What he means is that the face value is well below the market rate. On 1/17/08 8:19 PM, in article 13p0a9tln2tosda@corp.supernews.com, "Robert Reynolds" <robbie@kcnet.com> wrote: >> On 1/17/08 10:08 AM, in article 1200593326.8729.0@despina.uk.clara.net, "The >> Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What he means is that the face value is well below the market rate. That rather depends on how many get sold at the scalper's price. > On 1/17/08 8:19 PM, in article 13p0a9tln2tosda@corp.supernews.com, "Robert > Reynolds" <robbie@kcnet.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That rather depends on how many get sold at the scalper's price. No. The market value is whatever you can sell it for. Period. Not all tickets have the same market value. > On 1/17/08 10:08 AM, in article 1200593326.8729.0@despina.uk.clara.net, "The > Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > > Ridiculous! They do not discount them to the scalper. You miss the point. They COULD have sold them higher. So its their loss, the scalper and the customers gain. >> A sensible approach >> would be to sell tickets either by (Dutch?) auction in the first place, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I forgot to mention that scalping is against the law in many states, > including Oregon where the laswsuit against eBay was filed. I am sure it is. So are monopolies and graft. However its always hard to say when a company is a de facto monopoly, acting in a cartel, or paying a Saudi prince a million bucks of 'commission' to act as 'agent' when selling tanks, is a bribe, corruption, or just 'sound normal business practice'. On 1/18/08 3:49 AM, in article 1200656948.30350.1@iris.uk.clara.net, "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote: >> On 1/17/08 10:08 AM, in article 1200593326.8729.0@despina.uk.clara.net, "The >> Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > 'commission' to act as 'agent' when selling tanks, is a bribe, > corruption, or just 'sound normal business practice'. Fluff. It makes no point about scalping. But you knew that. > On 1/18/08 3:49 AM, in article 1200656948.30350.1@iris.uk.clara.net, "The > Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > > Fluff. It makes no point about scalping. But you knew that. It does, if you have a little imnagination. Scalping is OK when its USA inc, that does it, almost OK when its Big Oil, OIr Halliburins, Or Boeing, or Arthur Andersen & friends.. but let some poor sod queue up for hours to make a profit? No. On 1/18/08 10:35 AM, in article 1200681300.6044.0@demeter.uk.clara.net, "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote: >> On 1/18/08 3:49 AM, in article 1200656948.30350.1@iris.uk.clara.net, "The >> Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] > > No. Yep! Fluff. Get real. Since when is eBay's scalping subsidiary a poor sod? >> I have never understood the concept of ticket scalping. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the ticket issuer to take almost all the tickets for popular events leaving > essentially none for local outlets, raise the price, and sell them on eBay. There is nothing specifically American about capitalism. And selling things at the highest market price attainable is exactly how capitalism is supposed to work. Entrepreneur is French for middle man, or more exactly "between taker" after all. The problem with Yanks is they only like capitalism (or any other principle) when it is in their direct self-interest. When China (say) manages to make products cheaper than American firms by the logical expedient of charging less for their labour, then the typical American "believer in capitalism and free enterprise" runs crying to mommy. "Unfair competition", "slave labour" etc etc being the cry. > You don't think this makes the "common man suffer" more than if the scalping > did not occur? > > Strange attitude. You hold how many eBay shares? Well as a good upholder of the merits of free enterprise and self-sufficiency I am prepared to bet that Ed's pension scheme holds shares in plenty of firms that exist to make money, whether eBay is amonst them or not is entirely beside the point. Of course expecting an American to stand by any principle except "me first and f.ck you" is a lot to hope for, so I don't suppose Ed will support anything I have said here. Your very affectionate cousin, SignatureBoo >>> I have never understood the concept of ticket scalping. >>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Your very affectionate cousin, -------------- You Europeans always have to get a shot in at the Americans, don't you? I never hear we Americans talking amongst ourselves badly about the Brits, Germans, French, Dutch, etc. I wonder why that is? Now that that is off my chest. I don't hate anyone because of where they are from. Plus, anyone that likes model airplanes is okay with me, as long as you don't want to cut our heads off. Is that too much to ask? <G> Ed Cregger >>>> I have never understood the concept of ticket scalping. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > I never hear we Americans talking amongst ourselves badly about the Brits, whingeing Limeys? > Germans, Cabbage eaters? French, Cheese Eating surrender Monkeys? Dutch, I doubt many Americans know what country the Dutch live in. In fact most don't know where Des Moines is. Let alone Europe.. >etc. I wonder why that is? General insularity and ignorance. When its true, which it isn't generally. > Now that that is off my chest. I don't hate anyone because of where they are > from. Plus, anyone that likes model airplanes is okay with me, as long as > you don't want to cut our heads off. Is that too much to ask? <G> > > Ed Cregger > I doubt many Americans know what country the Dutch live in. In fact most > don't know where Des Moines is. Let alone Europe. Actually, offhand, I don't know where Des Moines is either ? SignatureBoo > You Europeans Do what ? European ? I'm British, man ! > I never hear we Americans talking amongst ourselves badly about the Brits, > Germans, French, The French are never called "cheese eating surrender-monkeys" by the Yanks then ? > Now that that is off my chest. I don't hate anyone because of where they are > from. Plus, anyone that likes model airplanes is okay with me, as long as > you don't want to cut our heads off. Is that too much to ask? <G> No, I was kidding anyway :-) SignatureBoo OOOOOH! Can I use that one? SignatureDan AMA605992 KE6ERB http://www.fubar1.net "I've heard the screams of the vegetables..." Take out the "trash" to reply >> You Europeans > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > No, I was kidding anyway :-) Hey, Boo, what's with the attitude on Americans? Don't give us any of that "Americans are interested in themselves only" routine. The only thing that does is make you seem like a jaded fool who believes everything he reads. Wherever you are, you have no frigging idea what a typical American believes and what our/my principles are, so get off your high-horse. Don't tell me your own welfare isn't in your top three priorities, because I'm not buying that bullcrap. I don't plan on generalizing about Europeans, so I don't appreciate you generalizing about us. In your own words, "f.ck you", you obnoxious jerk. Harlan >> Let's see......... You feel it's good American capitalism to conspire >> with [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Your very affectionate cousin, > Hey, Boo, what's with the attitude on Americans? Don't give us any of that > "Americans are interested in themselves only" routine. The only thing that > does is make you seem like a jaded fool who believes everything he reads. > Wherever you are, you have no frigging idea what a typical American believes > and what our/my principles are, so get off your high-horse. Well we re VERY aware of what CORPORTATE Anjerucans are klike, because the attitude 'me first, f.ck you' is pretty much smbriodreed on their starched shirt gfronts. Now you and I know that actually, the average American,. particularly if he doesn't happen to be (quite) white, is a damn fine nice friendly fellow, but we don't see that many over here. What we get is raving loonies and Arthur Anderesen..whatever happened to THEM? vanished, and no one EVER got taken to court. >Don't tell me > your own welfare isn't in your top three priorities, because I'm not buying > that bullcrap. No, but we live in a crowded society where what other people think is very relevant to our own status. >I don't plan on generalizing about Europeans, so I don't > appreciate you generalizing about us. > > In your own words, "f.ck you", you obnoxious jerk. There you go, typical. :-) | I have never understood the concept of ticket scalping. | | If someone buys something for one price and then sells it | for a higher price, that is capitalism. Same as what some | folks call ticket scalping. Yes, but people don't like it, so they call it `wrong' and push for laws to make it illegal. And consider price gouging. There's a hurricaine coming, and most of the gas stations are running out of gas. But you've got plenty, so you double your price -- because you'll know people will pay it. It's capitialism, yes, but it's also illegal in many places, and even if not, people will be outraged ... Personally, I think it should be legal and even encouraged. Sure, I don't want to pay double for gas, but if the station owner should be rewarded for planning ahead to have plenty of gas for an emergency. And making price gouging illegal removes the incentive for a gas station owner to add an extra big tank of gas to handle emergencies like this, which means that your legislation may actually mean that fewer people get the needed gas. | How difficult would it be for a state legislature to pass a | law saying that no more than so & so tickets can be sold to | a given business entity or individual at one time? Piece of | cake. Sure, but why do you need a law for that? If the demand is so high that the tickets sell out in minutes, obviously the price was too low, and they should charge more next time. Perhaps it's a perception of price gouging -- it's OK for the scalper to do it, but not OK for your favorite band or venue? Perhaps the venues should start sister companies that are hard to directly link to the venue themselves, but they handle the scalping of the tickets, but get special treatment in getting the tickets or something. | It's okay for speculators to drive the price of oil out of | sight and make the common man suffer. Regarding oil prices, that's more an issue of simple supply and demand than speculators -- demand is going up, and supply is going down. And over any long period of time, the price of oil is only going to go up. (And glow fuel will probably go up too, as more alcohol goes into auto fuel. Fly electric! Fly gliders!) | But it is considered scalping when someone deprives an upper middle | class individual from buying a cheap ticket to a football game? I | don't get it. That's neat how you made it a class-war issue. Yes, those with more money are better able to buy new laws. SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzied.us Where do you think you're going today? > | I have never understood the concept of ticket scalping. > | [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes, but people don't like it, so they call it `wrong' and push for > laws to make it illegal. How very anti-free market and LIBERAL they are to be sure ;-) > And consider price gouging. There's a hurricaine coming, and most of > the gas stations are running out of gas. But you've got plenty, so > you double your price -- because you'll know people will pay it. It's > capitialism, yes, but it's also illegal in many places, and even if > not, people will be outraged ... Tsk Tsk How anti free market and LIBERAL that is. > Personally, I think it should be legal and even encouraged. Sure, I > don't want to pay double for gas, but if the station owner should be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > like this, which means that your legislation may actually mean that > fewer people get the needed gas. If prices are fixed, you get queues.and a blacvk market. If prices are not fixed you get gouging. When supplies can't meet demand. Take your pick. > | How difficult would it be for a state legislature to pass a > | law saying that no more than so & so tickets can be sold to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > link to the venue themselves, but they handle the scalping of the > tickets, but get special treatment in getting the tickets or something. Exactly. > | It's okay for speculators to drive the price of oil out of > | sight and make the common man suffer. > > Regarding oil prices, that's more an issue of simple supply and demand > than speculators -- demand is going up, and supply is going down. And > over any long period of time, the price of oil is only going to go up. Well the speculators are simply - like your garage - stocking up. > (And glow fuel will probably go up too, as more alcohol goes into auto > fuel. Fly electric! Fly gliders!) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That's neat how you made it a class-war issue. Yes, those with more > money are better able to buy new laws. Yup. > Here's a rant I posted on my blog. Maybe you agree with me. Maybe we can > persuade the copyright owners to do something about it. > > http://towerofbabble.net/the-balsa-workbench/ > http://towerofbabble.net/2008/keep-rc-plans-affordable/ ----------- Having been a draftsman back in the Seventies, I have to say that it is important to recognize that some folks earn their living by generating technical drawings and selling them. There is absolutely no reason for normal market economics not to work as usual for technical drawings than any other form of capitalistic activity - altruism be damned. Ed Cregger >> Here's a rant I posted on my blog. Maybe you agree with me. Maybe we can >> persuade the copyright owners to do something about it. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Ed Cregger First of all, the draftsmen already got paid whatever they had coming to them decades ago, and RCM retains all further rights to the contents of their catalog. That's not the point. The pirates are printing copyrighted designs and selling them for a buck on ebay. Assuming that the pirates are making money at that price, I'm sure RCM can rethink their price structure a bit. I'm not asking for altruism. I just want to make the rightful owners understand that they will be put out of business by pirates if they don't adjust their business plan. Along the way, the entire modeling community will lose a great resource when RCM closes the doors on their catalog of well over a thousand really great designs for lack of business. I think the problem is that the owners of the big catalogs are assuming that their copyrights actually protect them. Sorry, but the public has become accustomed to the idea of shamelessly plagiarizing or buying illegal copies. If you're the legal copyright owner, you're out of luck. Take a look at an ebay seller called fee-me. Currently he lists the Whimpy for 99 cents plus $3 shipping, and the Rodeo and the Miss Texas for 9.99. These are all RCM designs, currently selling for $12, $16 and $16.50 respectively, plus shipping. All RCM can say about their price is that they are held captive by the price of paper. Maybe they should ask fee-me where he gets his paper. Fee-me also lists about a hundred other plans from various sources with which I'm not as familiar. I'm not asking for altruism from RCM. I'm just trying to warn them that they're up against the wall. Why is it so hard for some of you guys to understand that point? Here's another example. I bought the entire hobby collection of Vince Miller a few years ago to liquidate on ebay. In addition to engines, kits, planes, wood, etc, Vince also owned the originals and a lot of copies of some really nice scale plans. I sold the transparencies to Susan Calvin, a well known scale builder in Kansas City. She called the Millers and secured the rights to reproduce the plans. Following the business model of the past several decades, Susan made some nice prints and compiled a catalog of the plans. She bought a table at the swap meet for several years in a row to sell them, as well as advertising nationally. Whenever I asked her how business was going at a swap meet, she always told me that she hadn't sold anything. Mail order wasn't much better, if any. These are really nice plans that you would expect to pay $30 or $40 for, but the sad truth is that a large portion of the public wants to pay either a lot less than that or nothing for plans. So if you're the seller, what do you do? Keep trying to sell for $30 or $40? It just isn't going to happen. >>> Here's a rant I posted on my blog. Maybe you agree with >>> me. Maybe we can persuade the copyright owners to do [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > do you do? Keep trying to sell for $30 or $40? It just > isn't going to happen. ------------- As usual I misread your post and took it out context. We are on the same side, Bob. Ed Cregger > As usual I misread your post and took it out context. We are > on the same side, Bob. > > Ed Cregger Ed, you're a swell guy. In retrospect, I'm pretty sure I put an inappropriate title on this thread. It should have been "keep the RC plans catalogs in business." I went back and changed it on my website. >>> Here's a rant I posted on my blog. Maybe you agree with me. Maybe >>> we can persuade the copyright owners to do something about it. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > ask fee-me where he gets his paper. Fee-me also lists about a hundred > other plans from various sources with which I'm not as familiar. It costs me around a dollar an A0 page to print plans. It costs me another dollar for a mail tube, it costs me around a couple of dollars to post them. The whole process takes around half an hour which its at least another $15 if I were to charge my labour. This is for my *own* plans, or plans that someone else wants printed. For this reason I don't particularly care to sell plans. The files are available free. I.e. I charge to print and post plans, not for the plan itself. If someone wants to sell them themselves, more fool the buyer. And it must be some poor kid selling who has access to someone else's copier as well, if he cam knock them out that cheap, and not cost his labour. Good luck to him. The internet is making plenty of business unprofitable. Plan selling is juts one of them. > I'm not asking for altruism from RCM. I'm just trying to warn them that > they're up against the wall. Why is it so hard for some of you guys to > understand that point? I tend to agree. > Here's another example. I bought the entire hobby collection of Vince > Miller a few years ago to liquidate on ebay. In addition to engines, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > if you're the seller, what do you do? Keep trying to sell for $30 or > $40? It just isn't going to happen. I totally agree. People have been passing plans around for years. and copying them All the internet does is make it easier. The sellers are such small fry that it makes no sense to sue them. Building form plans is a small and shrinking subset of the whole hobby. In essence magazines make money from advertisers: plans are just something that gets people to read the magazines. If someone simply sells old plans pirate wise, my guess is that the magazine is probably not that unhappy. They probably would only sell 2-3 plans a year from an old model. Thats a big amount of paper to keep in stock on the offchance. I have a draftsman friend and R/Cer that designs models and sells the plans. One very famous Citabria Pro is amongst his efforts. I'm not talking about the guy that is just drafting for wages. Not that it matters much. Ed Cregger >>> Here's a rant I posted on my blog. Maybe you agree with me. Maybe we >>> can persuade the copyright owners to do something about it. [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > you're the seller, what do you do? Keep trying to sell for $30 or $40? > It just isn't going to happen. > I have a draftsman friend and R/Cer that designs models and sells the plans. > One very famous Citabria Pro is amongst his efforts. I'm not talking about > the guy that is just drafting for wages. Not that it matters much. > > Ed Cregger All this talk about plans has me thinking that I need to publish my bomb-dropper plane on my website and sell the plans for a few bucks as a computer file. It's a really nifty plane. I also have my primary trainer 049 design that almost got published in RCM 13 years ago, and my mini-stick 049 design. I built ten of those and sold them to a local modeler in Kansas City about 9 years ago, and they did mini-stick pylon races for a while. >> I have a draftsman friend and R/Cer that designs models and sells the >> plans. One very famous Citabria Pro is amongst his efforts. I'm not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > bomb-dropper plane on my website and sell the plans for a few bucks as a > computer file. And how long before that file has been banged across the Internet a million times? If it was any good, it will be gone..in seconds. If it wasn't, only a few will ever pay anyway. I looked at that and gave up. Plans for free, license CUT files to CNC or laser cutters, and get royalties..that works. The rest doesn't. Lifes too short. It's a really nifty plane. I also have my primary > trainer 049 design that almost got published in RCM 13 years ago, and my > mini-stick 049 design. I built ten of those and sold them to a local > modeler in Kansas City about 9 years ago, and they did mini-stick pylon > races for a while. Publish it for free and invite donations. >> All this talk about plans has me thinking that I need to publish my >> bomb-dropper plane on my website and sell the plans for a few bucks as [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Publish it for free and invite donations. Yeah, you guys are right. This discussion has made me realize that the whole system has changed, and it's not likely to go back. Too many people just don't care about paying for other people's services when it's so convenient to steal them. Not complaining, that's just the way it is. I'll work up the plans for my three planes anyway, though. It's too good to keep for myself. The bomb dropper will handle three rolls of toilet paper, and it's a good flier, too. >The bomb dropper will handle three rolls >of toilet paper, and it's a good flier, too. Your little tiny plastic pilot seems to have some serious problems today. How does he find time to fly? -- Ray Do any of you know if the person who purchased Bill Effinger's plans still sells them? Bill re-engineered/updated many of the old Berkeley plans and was selling them for some while before he made his final departure. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.