# Free Squadron Signal Publications online in PDF form



## B-17engineer (Feb 3, 2010)

..


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 3, 2010)

.....


----------



## machine shop tom (Feb 4, 2010)

I have a feeling that that download could be considered unauthorizied distribution of copyrighted property.

tom


----------



## 109ROAMING (Feb 4, 2010)

machine shop tom said:


> I have a feeling that that download could be considered unauthorizied distribution of copyrighted property.



Yup.....


----------



## Heinz (Feb 5, 2010)

Completely illegal, no such thing as free in this world.
This kinda thing is killing the music industry.


----------



## Maestro (Feb 5, 2010)

Heinz said:


> This kinda thing is killing the music industry.



Although I do think sharing those links are illegal, I seriously doubt about your last statement...

The music industrty is mainly making money out of concerts (probably something like 80% up to 95%). Out of CDs, artists receive something like 10% of the retail price. Which make, for a CD sold at $20.00, a $2.00 profit... And not all CDs are sold $20.00, as I often see CDs in music stores advertised at $10.00.

Plus, in several countries including mine, "artists" receive financial help from gouvernment... No matter if the signer/band has a lot of succes or not. Which allows a lot of crap to show up on the radio, and very little space for new bands and way less money in my pockets to buy the damn CDs.

Also, illegal sharing of music through internet helped a lot of peoples to discover new unknown (or illegal in some countries) bands. Just think about Slayer or Metallica... You can't sell CDs of any of those two bands in Iran as they are considered as "satanists" over there, so are illegal.

And the music sharing community isn't filled with cheap mother f*ckers, as most peoples who really like a band will buy their CD anyway. As an example, I have both CDs of Nickelback and Three Days Grace, which didn't prevent me from (illegally) downloading both of their songs for my MP3 player.

So, you can't really compare the music industry with the book, movie or even porn industry... As most of them won't make money if they are illegally downloaded.


----------



## Heinz (Feb 5, 2010)

Why do you think bands are touring more? Why is ok to rip of musicians? We don;t start stealing fuel/gas because oil companies have made 'more than enough'. I'm not saying you suggested this but this is a common argument.

Fact is its stealing no matter how much you sugar coat it. I'm musician, I'm fully aware of the industry at grass roots and international level. Acts like Metallica and Slayer achieved their base in a tape dominated generation. Im not saying tapes were never copied but now its so easy to download a song/album/discography that why on earth would you waste time going to the shop/store to purchase it.

The internet does more to help musical promotion than it does hinder but illegal downloading is stealing and therefore wrong. Not to mention I'm very much an audiophile and largely enjoy the fact I have a tangible collection that I can listen to at any time without needing a computer or mp3.

Then we have the fact Mp3 compression sucks the sound quality but clipping the low and high frequencies and adding a distinguishably tinny (to me) sound. 

As for a book again I hate reading computer screens which is why they are largely safe, the new readers coming out I don;t honestly believe will make ebooks anymore popular, they are a gimic at best. 

I will say I don't particularly care if people download or not, just don't try and justify theft it creates too many precedents.


----------



## beaupower32 (Feb 5, 2010)

Yep, I thought it might be illeagle to. I would probably delete the ones you downloaded harrison, and delete the link. May be a mod can remove the link from this post too. They "might" have permission to post them, but I seriously doubt it.


----------



## Marcel (Feb 5, 2010)

beaupower32 said:


> Yep, I thought it might be illeagle to. I would probably delete the ones you downloaded harrison, and delete the link. May be a mod can remove the link from this post too. They "might" have permission to post them, but I seriously doubt it.



Downloading isn't illegal at the moment, hosting/uploading is. Meaning that the link provided here is illegal, but you don't have to delete the downloaded files.


----------



## beaupower32 (Feb 5, 2010)

Marcel said:


> Downloading isn't illegal at the moment, hosting/uploading is. Meaning that the link provided here is illegal, but you don't have to delete the downloaded files.



Ah, got ya, thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## kgambit (Feb 5, 2010)

Marcel said:


> Downloading isn't illegal at the moment, hosting/uploading is.



Not true - at least not in the USA.

"The (US) Copyright Act provides several specific rights to copyright owners, including the right to distribute the work and the right to make copies of the work (the "distribution" and "reproduction" rights). Uploading files on download networks can infringe a company's distribution right, while downloading a file necessarily makes a copy of that file and therefore can infringe the reproduction right."

Uploading files in Canada is infringement, just as in the US, but downloading files might not be.

I'm not conversant enough in European copyright to even begin to handle that side of things, EXCEPT that MOST European countries are signatories to the Berne Convention which provides that copyrighted works are protected by the laws of the AUTHOR's country.

"Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention *shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form*."


----------



## Marcel (Feb 5, 2010)

kgambit said:


> Uploading files on download networks can infringe a company's distribution right, while downloading a file necessarily makes a copy of that file and therefore can infringe the reproduction right."
> 
> I'm not conversant enough in European copyright to even begin to handle that side of things, EXCEPT that MOST European countries are singatories to the Berne Convention which provides that copyrighted works are protected by the laws of the AUTHOR's country.
> 
> "Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention *shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form*."


This is the law in the Netherlands and I suppose in whole of Europe:

Auteurs law 1912, article 16c:
_1. Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst wordt niet beschouwd het reproduceren van het werk of een gedeelte ervan, mits het reproduceren geschiedt zonder direct of indirect commercieel oogmerk en uitsluitend dient tot eigen oefening, studie of gebruik van de natuurlijke persoon die de reproductie vervaardigt._

Sumarised in English: The right for the authorship is not breached if it's reproduced without commercial purposes and only intended for personal use by the person who makes the reproduction.
This means that if you download it for your own personal use, you're not breaking the law, applying to above quotes article..
Uploading it means that you're not copying it for your own use, but spreading it for the benefit of others, thus doesn't apply to article 16c and is therefore illegal.
Things like Bittorrent, downloading and uploading is illegal, rapidshare isn't.


----------



## kgambit (Feb 5, 2010)

Marcel said:


> This is the law in the Netherlands and I suppose in whole of Europe:
> 
> Auteurs law 1912, article 16c:
> _1. Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst wordt niet beschouwd het reproduceren van het werk of een gedeelte ervan, mits het reproduceren geschiedt zonder direct of indirect commercieel oogmerk en uitsluitend dient tot eigen oefening, studie of gebruik van de natuurlijke persoon die de reproductie vervaardigt._
> ...



Thanks Marcel for the info, but it doesn't apply. And I'm not sure why rapidshare is any different since the files in question have been uploaded to a site which does spread it for the benefit of others. 

As a signatory to the Berne convention, the copyright laws of the Netherlands are superseded by the terms of the Berne convention with respect to the rights of copyright and which country's laws protect those rights. Since Squadron publications are published in the USA, they are protected *under USA copyright law *and the USA copyright statues hold regardless of who uploads them, downloads them or what site they are uploaded to. 

Therefore , with respect to the Squadron files, it is illegal to upload those files to *or download them* from rapidshare, even if it is for your own personal use. Unless the author of the publication has given Rapidshare explicit permission to distribute his work, it is illegal for rapidshare to offer those publications for download.


US copyright law:

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title* has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following*:

(1) *to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies* or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) *to distribute copies* or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.



§ 506. Criminal offenses

(a) Criminal Infringement. — 

(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed — 

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work *was intended for commercial distribution*.

Since Squadron isn't GIVING those things away, the distribution of those publications which are clearly intended for commercial distribution is illegal, and a criminal infringement of the copyright under US copyright law. It does not matter that the *intent* is NOT for monetary gain by the download site. It's sufficient under US law that the download has monetarily impacted the author / publisher / distributor. 

The key issue is NOT what European or Netherlands copyright law says, but what USA copyright law says since those particular publications are protected under USA copyright laws.


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 5, 2010)

Ok... and when the governemnt comes knocking on the door... I'll plead with them to let me go, and when they turn around to leave.......*THAT WHEN I HIT THEM   *


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 5, 2010)

Marcel said:


> Downloading isn't illegal at the moment, hosting/uploading is. Meaning that the link provided here is illegal, but you don't have to delete the downloaded files.



I honestly could care less if downloading something is illegal...come get me government! It honestly doesn't matter...it matters just as much as getting flagged and put on a government list if you go to the KKK's official website....... it means nothing. (not that I go there.) 

Come get me government! Oh wait.... it's run by Donkey's ...... too dumb.



So now lets move on?????????????????????? And you can discredit me, think I'm a bad person, whatever..... , and if you if you do think so, GUESS WHAT?!?!!? I honestly don't care........ I'm done.


----------



## Marcel (Feb 5, 2010)

kgambit said:


> Thanks Marcel for the info, but it doesn't apply. And I'm not sure why rapidshare is any different since the files in question have been uploaded to a site which does spread it for the benefit of others.


yes, but downloading isn't. 



> As a signatory to the Berne convention, the copyright laws of the Netherlands are superseded by the terms of the Berne convention with respect to the rights of copyright and which country's laws protect those rights. Since Squadron publications are published in the USA, they are protected *under USA copyright law *and the USA copyright statues hold regardless of who uploads them, downloads them or what site they are uploaded to.


The Netherlands subscribed the convention in 1912, together with instating above author's law. The law is complying to the convention and according to the law, only the one spreading the items is criminal. 

Therefore , with respect to the Squadron files, it is illegal to upload those files to *or download them* from rapidshare, even if it is for your own personal use. Unless the author of the publication has given Rapidshare explicit permission to distribute his work, it is illegal for rapidshare to offer those publications for download...[/quote]
Well law as you quoted them nowhere says that downloading is illegal, although I agree with you that uploading them is. Rapidshare therefore does a criminal act by offering these files, but Harrison cannot be procecuted by having them downloaded (although publishing the site here is indeed against the law)
Just to highlight the important parts of your quote (as you have done yourself) with my comment in bold.:

US copyright law:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; *here is unclear who is reproducing. Maybe an US judge judged downloading also reproducing, but in Europe this is not interpreted by the judges as such.

(3) to distribute copies meaning uploading, downloading is not distributing it

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;  note perform publicly, which doesn't apply here in this case) 

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and  again publicly, not applying to downloading for personal use)

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.  again publicly, which applies to uploading, but not to downloading for personal use



§ 506. Criminal offenses

(a) Criminal Infringement. — 

(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed — 

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution talking about making available, again not downloading.




Since Squadron isn't GIVING those things away, the distribution of those publications which are clearly intended for commercial distribution is illegal, and a criminal infringement of the copyright under US copyright law. It does not matter that the intent is NOT for monetary gain by the download site. It's sufficient under US law that the download has monetarily impacted the author / publisher / distributor.

Click to expand...

absolutely right apart from the word download. The upload has impacted the author etc, not the download.




The key issue is NOT what European or Netherlands copyright law says, but what USA copyright law says since those particular publications are protected under USA copyright laws.

Click to expand...

Absolutely right but nowhere in your quoted us laws does it say anything about getting the items, only about spreading them.*


----------



## Marcel (Feb 5, 2010)

B-17engineer said:


> I honestly could care less if downloading something is illegal...come get me government! It honestly doesn't matter...it matters just as much as getting flagged and put on a government list if you go to the KKK's official website....... it means nothing. (not that I go there.)
> 
> Come get me government! Oh wait.... it's run by Donkey's ...... too dumb.
> 
> ...



Hey, chill, I was actually defending you, telling everybody that you didn't do an illegal act.


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 5, 2010)

Sorry meant to quote another person. 

The whole post wasn't directed at you  nor was any of it. 

I know people who have been downloading illegal music for years...... they have never been prosecuted. So everyone who thinks oh the big bad government is gonna get me... well you are sorely misinformed. (Not to you Marcel)


----------



## 109ROAMING (Feb 5, 2010)

B-17engineer said:


> Come get me government! Oh wait.... it's run by Donkey's ...... too dumb.



How is the American Government dumb?


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 5, 2010)

I can send you a PM about that.... not here though.


----------



## DBII (Feb 5, 2010)

H man, did you ditch school again? 

DBII


----------



## 109ROAMING (Feb 5, 2010)

B-17engineer said:


> I can send you a PM about that.... not here though.



Okay , send me one 

I'm interested to hear why you think your Govt is dumb


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 5, 2010)

DBII said:


> H man, did you ditch school again?
> 
> DBII



No. It ends at 2:30


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 5, 2010)

109ROAMING said:


> Okay , send me one
> 
> I'm interested to hear why you think your Govt is dumb



Okay. I'm interested as to why your interested?


----------



## kgambit (Feb 5, 2010)

Marcel, I think we are arguing semantics a bit, but not entirely. In the interest of NOT beating a dead horse or trying to make it appear like i am jumping on Harrison over this I'll send you a pm.


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 5, 2010)

kgambit said:


> Marcel, I think we are arguing semantics a bit, but not entirely. In the interest of NOT beating a dead horse or trying to make it appear like i am jumping on Harrison over this I'll send you a pm.



No problem. I understand... admit I am wrong.


----------



## kgambit (Feb 5, 2010)

B-17engineer said:


> No problem. I understand... admit I am wrong.



Don't beat yourself up about it.  

I'm dropping the issue and will take any further discussion of it up with Marcel in a pm.


----------



## 109ROAMING (Feb 5, 2010)

B-17engineer said:


> Okay. I'm interested as to why your interested?



Because you think your Government is dumb

Is it okay to want to know why?


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 5, 2010)

Ok... so case closed


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 5, 2010)

109ROAMING said:


> Because you think your Government is dumb
> 
> Is it okay to want to know why?



Check you PM's then. Just seems like your getting on my case. That's all........ and same goes with what Dwight said... anything else should be in a PM.


----------



## Maestro (Feb 6, 2010)

Heinz said:


> Why do you think bands are touring more? Why is ok to rip of musicians? We don;t start stealing fuel/gas because oil companies have made 'more than enough'. I'm not saying you suggested this but this is a common argument.



I never said bands were touring more, what I said is that the most of their income (80% to 95%) comes from concerts and that the real income coming from their CDs is almost laughable.

Your point about gas companies is not logic, as there is already gas smuggling everywhere... Just as an example, I know the owner of a truck company who managed to spare some money by using heating fuel instead of diesel fuel to power his trucks, even though doing so is illegal. By the time the gouvernment caught him, he managed to put enough money "on the side" to buy a brand new truck *and* pay the ticket the police gave him (something like $5,000, if I remember well).

Plus gas companies don't have a second source of income (i.e. concerts).

Also, I think it is okay to "rip off musicians" (as you put it) because of the following reasons (most of them were explained earlier in my other post).

1 - Sharing music (legally or not) doesn't mean that the downloader won't buy the CD, as most of them knows that if nobody are buying the CDs, then we'll all lose something. (The company will stop distributing their CDs, so the band will stop making music and we could lose so good artists.)

2 - Sharing music (legally or not) can make some unknown groups famous (either locally or worldwide). Which means more peoples going to their shows, so more money coming-in for them. Again, my example of Metallica still stands, as Lars Ulrich himself admitted that MP3 sharing of their songs contributed to make them famous in middle-east countries... As their group is illegal in many of those countries. (Source : the movie _Global Metal_.)

3 - Many Canadian artists (even those who are famous) still receive financial help from gouvernement... Both Federal (a tiny part) and Provincial (for the most part) gouvernements are giving them money, so we are still paying for their music... Even for the musicians who royally sucks.

4 - I noticed that those musicians who complains are either extremely rich (i.e. Metallica) or extremely poor (a.k.a. : they sucks !). And if they sucks they should change of career.

So, is music sharing illegal ? Yes.
Should it be legal ? Yes.
Do I feel for those "poor" musicians ? Not at all. Make some good music or leave the place to better musicians.

But it is only my opinion... Feel free to agree with it or not.


----------



## 109ROAMING (Feb 6, 2010)

Not to cause offence here but I will say this



Maestro said:


> 1 - Sharing music (legally or not) doesn't mean that the downloader won't buy the CD



How many teenagers/people out there do you actually think download and then buy the producers CD?

How would you feel if everyone downloaded your book/s ? and then %5 because they cared about you went and brought it

You'd be a little annoyed yes?


----------



## 109ROAMING (Feb 6, 2010)

B-17engineer said:


> Check you PM's then. Just seems like your getting on my case. That's all........ and same goes with what Dwight said... anything else should be in a PM.



This is getting a little too political H so Il end it with this post

I was just asking why you thought your Govt was dumb

Not having a go at you


----------



## Maestro (Feb 6, 2010)

109ROAMING said:


> Not to cause offence here but I will say this
> 
> How many teenagers/people out there do you actually think download and then buy the producers CD?
> 
> ...



Don't worry, I don't feel offended.

To answer your question, I'll have to refer to the same answer I gave about gas companies : I don't have (artistically speaking) an other source of money... While musicians have concerts, which constitute over 80% of their income.

So the music industry can not, in my opinion, be compared to any other industry.

And to be completely honest with you, as I am a new and mostly unknown author, and don't receive a penny from the gouvernement, I think sharing my book for free would be a good way of advertisement and would make it easier for upcoming books... If ever I decide to write a new book.

Think of it as the Jeff Dunham effect. That guy was almost unknown outside of the US until his videos hit YouTube. Now he is famous worldwide.


----------

