Question:
Does it matter that the Government, as Dept of the Army (prior to 1948)
was the originator of these designations, as in P-38 or US Air Force as in
U-2 etc. and NOT Lockheed (Martin)? And since it wasn't even Lockheed
Martin, do they have any rights to it at all? And, I guess this means
odels
http://www.scalesoaring.com
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Van Leeuwen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 5:47 PM
> To: Doug McLaren
> Cc: fly1milehi; soaring@airage.com
> Subject: Re: [RCSE] Re: Copyin
My apologies, maybe it was you have gave a nice breakdown of copyright versus
patent.
Good points..which makes me wonder precisely what the original threat of
litigation to cease and disist manufacture of replica miniatures was about...
Quoting Doug McLaren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Feb
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 10:38:35AM -0800, Simon Van Leeuwen wrote:
| Apparent(!) patent infringement is what Lockheed Martin (the example in the
| original thread) is using to thwart those who wish to offer radio control
| models, AND static (plastic) models that look similar to what they built
Once again, like a ruddy bull in a china shop...
Not sure which or what Bill you are refering to, but YOU should first "read"
what people (including me) "actually" wrote! I will (patiently) wait for your
apology as well...
To recap for the hard of reading; Copyright is NOT what we were discussi
Wow!!! MY APPOLOGIES JIM!
I thought you were defending the "no harm no foul" crowd. I seem to
have a harder time following the threads in RCSE as a guest than I do
on RCGroups.com.
Sooo.. I guess to Bill and Simon YOU steal it you deserve to be
punished in every since of the copyright law
I think the key here is "personal gain". NO gain, no breaky the rules.
I have a question about that one
If I copy a popular plan for a 1/4 scale Minimoa, then haven't I have done
something that is for personal gain whether I sell it or give it away? The
person who receives the plan gains bec
I think the key here is "personal gain". NO gain, no breaky the rules.
.bcAG4YQ Williamsburg, VA
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005, fly1milehi wrote:
>
> Jim
> I STRONGLY disagree with your argument that its "basically" okay to
> copy plans and designs that are copyrighted materials!!!
>
> I c
Greg:
You made a big mistake
I am the one who is getting flamed for saying that copying plans is
stealing!!! Two of the RCSE's biggest posters have both given me grief for
complaning about several guys from FL with several Ebay accounts and 1000's of
combined sales of plans. When Ebay cont
Jim
I STRONGLY disagree with your argument that its "basically" okay to
copy plans and designs that are copyrighted materials!!!
I can garauntee you that if you copy plans, artwork, text, (ie. right
click and save it to your hard drive, then use the same material to
advance your personal wealth
Hi Simon:
I do not agree with most of your points and we can agree to disagree. I am in
academia and we have a different view of plagerism. I can assure you that
cheating in university classes is more rampant in the last twenty years than it
was 20 years before that. I am certain that the very m
Hi Jim,
I respectfully suggest not confusing those who may copy existing
designs by way of plans etc with the original intent of this thread.
Granted, it may be considered incorrect or downright wrong by some, to
copy or worse plagiarize anothers work. The issue of copyright (the
validity of wh
12 matches
Mail list logo
