If this hypothetical person hypothetically copied and digitized all of non-hypothetically copyrighted Banjo Newsletter they'd be non-hypothetically violating Banjo Newsletter's copyright. If they hypothetically did this for their own hypothetical use and no one knew, they'd probably get away with it, but it would be copyright violation nonetheless.

But hypothetically selling access to it behind a hypothetical paywall would be a non-hypothetical copyright violation the owners of Banjo Newsletter would learn about and most likely sue to stop -- especially since they are also non-hypothetically at this very moment selling access to the content they have digitized and put online.

Don't shoot the messenger.

It is stealing. Anyone doing that is a thief. Even if they were giving it for free, stealing and then giving stolen property is still stealing.

I agree there is value there. And at one time, I know that one could get access to back issues with a subscription.

Current copyright protection is excessively long and discourages progress.

One would need to get express permission to do such a thing or risk the owner getting hypothetical on that clavicle.

Hypothetically, one could offer the content to Banjo Newsletter and see if they would like to do build all the links. Or hypothetically, they might be willing to pay that person some token fee for performing that service for them.

Anything else is, as others have said, theft.

If someone has done all that work hypothetically. Is it stealing for that person to use all this information for their personal use ? Hypothetically speaking of course. I agree with everyone but… why hasn’t Banjo newsletter already done something like this ? Maybe they should hire LittleGoomba. hypothetically.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Will Frady

why hasn’t Banjo newsletter already done something like this ? 

---

They have. At least to some extent

Spencer Nitchie's daughter is running the BNL website as a subscription archive. I don't know how far back it goes. And I don't know if it has all the functionality hypothetically proposed here. But BNL is online and no one else has the right to do anything like that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Old Hickory

quote:

---

 

 

---

But BNL is online and no one else has the right to do anything like that.

---

Maybe not. But it happens every day of the week! If publishers of printed material went after every perceived infringement on copyright.... they would be overwhelmed with legal fees and endless litigation!

The heyday of Banjo Newsletter has come and gone! Answer this please.... what would be gained by pursuing any legal action against an individual trying to share information on banjos and banjo music? Yes, it's copyrighted...we know that. I have a considerable Banjo Newsletter collection and I would not hesitate to share (for free) with anyone who would be interested! 

Is there extraordinary monetary gain to be protected? I think not! Furthermore, I don't think anyone would care! 
 

I do understand your loyalty to Banjo Newsletter. But who exactly are you trying to protect here?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Douglas

quote:

---

Originally posted by Old Hickory

quote:

---

 

 

---

But BNL is online and no one else has the right to do anything like that.

---

Maybe not. But it happens every day of the week! If publishers of printed material went after every perceived infringement on copyright.... they would be overwhelmed with legal fees and endless litigation!

The heyday of Banjo Newsletter has come and gone! Answer this please.... what would be gained by pursuing any legal action against an individual trying to share information on banjos and banjo music? Yes, it's copyrighted...we know that. I have a considerable Banjo Newsletter collection and I would not hesitate to share (for free) with anyone who would be interested! 

Is there extraordinary monetary gain to be protected? I think not! Furthermore, I don't think anyone would care! 
 

I do understand your loyalty to Banjo Newsletter. But who exactly are you trying to protect here?

 

 

---

Then there should be no problem getting express permission from the owners.  We are too small of a community to start stealing. 

Also this is the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.

Not "who," but "what."
The rule of law; the concept of fairness and common decency;
and the quaint, old-fashioned idea that we supposedly learned on the playground, "don't take what isn't yours."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim Jumper

Not "who," but "what."
The rule of law; the concept of fairness and common decency;
and the quaint, old-fashioned idea that we supposedly learned on the playground, "don't take what isn't yours."

---

Taking that argument to its logical extreme....

Every time one makes a copy of music for a friend.... every time one makes a recording of material to share....every time a teacher uses instructional material without expressed written permission, a copyright is infringed!

Ive been to schools and camps where the copy machine was running every day nonstop! Not once did I hear a protest about copyright infringement!

Your moral outrage and righteous indignation are duly noted. Now if you could only convince the rest of the world that you're viewpoint must be followed in the interest of "fairness and common decency."

Good luck with that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joel Hooks

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Douglas

quote:

---

Originally posted by Old Hickory

quote:

---

 

 

---

 

---

 

 

 

---

We are too small of a community to start stealing. 

 

---

Are you serious?

"to start"    .......???

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that ship sailed many moons ago!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Old Hickory

 

But hypothetically selling access to it behind a hypothetical paywall would be a non-hypothetical copyright violation 

---

Interesting.... I did not read or observe even a thought or hint the OP intends to sell access!

He only stated it had value. And...it would have value to banjo enthusiasts . Funny how we sometimes assume and go from 0 to 100 without the slightest bit of evidence!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Douglas

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joel Hooks

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Douglas

quote:

---

Originally posted by Old Hickory

quote:

---

 

 

---

 

---

 

 

 

---

We are too small of a community to start stealing. 

 

---

Are you serious?

"to start"    .......???

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that ship sailed many moons ago!

 

 

---

I don't deal in copyrighted material as my focus is pretty much fully in the public domain at this point.  

I guess I did not consider that all bluegrass is under copyright (unless placed in public domain by the author), so anyone playing it, in a way, is stealing. 

So fine, I acquiesce.

copyright.gov/fair-use/

Fourth prong of the fair use doctrine:

Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread.

Putting up for free what BNL sells would harm the market I would think.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Old Hickory

 

the owners of Banjo Newsletter would learn about and most likely sue to stop -

Unless we were talking about thousands and thousands of dollars of lost revenue.....

I doubt it!

I'm quite certain they would give a verbal warning before even considering a lawsuit!

quote:

---

Originally posted by earlstanleycrowe

copyright.gov/fair-use/



Putting up for free what BNL sells would harm the market I would think.

---

Therefore, when someone gives away free Banjo Newsletters... they are harming the market?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Douglas

quote:

---

Originally posted by earlstanleycrowe

copyright.gov/fair-use/

Putting up for free what BNL sells would harm the market I would think.

---

Therefore, when someone gives away free Banjo Newsletters... they are harming the market?

---

Giving away old print copies is within the rights of whoever owns those copies. Even if Banjo Newsletter sells complete back issues, I don't think that harms Banjo Newsletter's market.

Giving away online access to digitized copies of Banjo Newsletter's copyrighted content does harm the market for BNL's sale of access to its version of that content.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Old Hickory

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Douglas

quote:

---

Originally posted by earlstanleycrowe

copyright.gov/fair-use/

Putting up for free what BNL sells would harm the market I would think.

---

Therefore, when someone gives away free Banjo Newsletters... they are harming the market?

---

Giving away old print copies is within the rights of whoever owns those copies. Even if Banjo Newsletter sells complete back issues, I don't think that harms Banjo Newsletter's market.

Giving away online access to digitized copies of Banjo Newsletter's copyrighted content does harm the market for BNL's sale of access to its version of that content.

---

Well, that is your opinion.

There is no way you can quantify that!

Pure speculation!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Douglas

Interesting.... I did not read or observe even a thought or hint the OP intends to sell access!

---

I thought he said put it behind a paywall, but he only said put it behind a password-protected site.

Even if the idea is to post it free of charge, it still violates BNL's copyright.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Douglas

Well, that is your opinion.

There is no way you can quantify that!

Pure speculation!

---

It's not my opinion that people are allowed to give away -- or sell -- the physical copies of publications or books that they own. When we subscribe to a print publication or buy a book, we own the physical copy and do with it as we please -- but not make more copies to sell or give away.

SInce used book stores are legally allowed to exist and there's a big, unfettered, market in used comic books (and dealers who will buy copies from individuals), I take that as sufficient proof that the legal resale of physical copies of old publications is deemed not to harm the original publisher's market.

Resale of original hard copies that you obtained legally is completely legal. It's called the First Sale Doctrine. Making copies without the owner's permission is not legal if the material is still within the copyright protection period (which right now begins at 1930) with certain exceptions for material created before 1978 with a copyright registration that was not renewed. It's a bright line. Now whether the owner cares about the copying and decides to do anything about it is a totally different story. They might or they might not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Douglas
Maybe not. But it happens every day of the week! If publishers of printed material went after every perceived infringement on copyright.... they would be overwhelmed with legal fees and endless litigation!

Understood. That doesn't change the fact that what the OP is describing is a copyright violation. The point isn't really that BNL would stop him, but they could,and they'd be in their right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Douglas
The heyday of Banjo Newsletter has come and gone! Answer this please.... what would be gained by pursuing any legal action against an individual trying to share information on banjos and banjo music?

Well, BNL's heyday may have gone, but the heirs are trying to continue the business as a paid subscription archive.

Now: I have no idea whether they're trying to earn a living at it (which I doubt) or are trying to operate it in a way that pays for keeping the content available.

But their effort to maintain access to their exclusive authorized version of the content would certainly be undercut by someone else offering access to the same content for free.

And the point is absolutely not that the individual behind the hypothetical service described is merely trying to share information on banjos and banjo music. He's trying to share spefic creative content that he doesn't own the right to share in the way described. Facts can't be copyrighted. So he can share all the facts about banjos and banjo music his heart desires. 

You do understand the difference, right?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Douglas
I have a considerable Banjo Newsletter collection and I would not hesitate to share (for free) with anyone who would be interested! 

Sharing your physical copies is your right.

While copying random articles or tabs to share with another is not your right, that's the type of copying that I believe has gone on for ages without harming the publisher.

But copying a few items from decades of publication to privately share is a far cry from digitizing all of the content from that publication's history and posting it on the Internet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Douglas
Is there extraordinary monetary gain to be protected? I think not! Furthermore, I don't think anyone would care! 

Not really the point. In Copyright infringement there are both statutory and actual damages.

To the extent money may be the point, it might be as I suggested above: The current owner(s) of BNL -- Hub's granddaughter, Spencer's daughter -- may only be trying to make enough money for BNL subscriptions to cover the cost of keeping it online and accessible. If people could get it for free elsewhere, then BNL might have to fold the online archive same as it folded the print publication.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Douglas
I do understand your loyalty to Banjo Newsletter. But who exactly are you trying to protect here?

My loyalty isn't to BNL. It's to whoever creates or owns content and the exclusive right to copy, publish, perform, make derivative works, and otherwise earn income off of it, free of competition from others would misappropriate what they created.

My loyalty is to the rule of law. Copyright law either protects and gives rights to creators or it doesn't. And if any part of copyright law doesn't have to be followed, what part of copyright law does?  And if copyright law doesn't have to be followed, what law does?

Our laws either mean something or they don't.

I have absolutely no idea what the heirs and owners of BNL would think of the hypothetical password-protected digital archive of all of BNL's content from 1975 to the 2020s. For all I know they'd welcome it gladly as a way for them to stop trying to maintain the archive themselves. For all I know, they'd willingly turn over everything they have to someone else willing to do the work of keeping it all accessible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomd7

Making copies without the owner's permission is not legal if the material is still within the copyright protection period (which right now begins at 1930) with certain exceptions for material created before 1978 with a copyright registration that was not renewed.

---

And for works created since January 1, 1978, copyright is life of the author plus 70 years.

I'm debating even replying to this.

Where did I offer any of you access to my effort, free or for pay? I didn't. This effort is for my own benefit, thus the password protected website.
I also wrote to BNL before I started scanning the magazines, to let them know my intent, and offered to share my efforts with them and only them. I got no pushback or concerns at all. Seems to me, that's about as above board as one can get.
My question wasn't "who wants access?" And never will be. My question was "does anyone know a way to create a master index?"
Not one of you made the slightest effort to address my question.
Since the majority of you have assumed I'm a cyber-criminal, and I know I'm not, I'm ignoring any responses from here on out.
I see why so many people stop contributing to the hangouts.

Those of you who are defending copyright law are correct with your facts. The only problem is your timing!

The world is on fire right now! No one gives a hoot in hades about the protection of a very obscure publication.....a publication that has seen its time come and is now gone! A publication that very likely has very little relevance for today’s players.

20 or 30 years ago….. your argument would have impetus and gravity!
Not anymore,

quote:

---

Originally posted by LittleGoomba

I'm debating even replying to this.

Where did I offer any of you access to my effort, free or for pay? I didn't. This effort is for my own benefit, thus the password protected website.
I also wrote to BNL before I started scanning the magazines, to let them know my intent, and offered to share my efforts with them and only them. I got no pushback or concerns at all. Seems to me, that's about as above board as one can get.
My question wasn't "who wants access?" And never will be. My question was "does anyone know a way to create a master index?"
Not one of you made the slightest effort to address my question.
Since the majority of you have assumed I'm a cyber-criminal, and I know I'm not, I'm ignoring any responses from here on out.
I see why so many people stop contributing to the hangouts.

---

Hey Rob,

You have a right to be offended!

Please keep in mind that many on here assume without getting all the facts!

Frequently!

You did nothing wrong. You were only looking for information. I'll hope you will hang around because I really like your idea!

It would be nice to hear how your project eventually comes together!