Illegal CD copy

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Posted by Circlip on 11/06/2019 10:58:24:

 

" It is also possible to copy an old mag if your library holds old issues and most clubs will have an archive that members can take scans/copies from "

 

No, there are limitations to what can be copied, One complete article or a percentage of the mag, NOT the whole.

I was replying to Fred who said "even part"

Did not know official CD had been available.

Edited By JasonB on 11/06/2019 12:14:25

[Fred KarnoParticipant @fredkarno89128]

Posted by JasonB on 11/06/2019 07:32:50:

Posted by Fred Karno on 11/06/2019 04:16:46:

. For anyone who needs a digital copy of even part of the ME back issues, they are the only game in town until such time as the publishers get their act together. I am not holding my breath.

Fred

There are still some copyright issues even if the old mags were scanned. On of the reasons the previous editor David Clarke declined the offer was that after scanning some older issues and making them available on this website certain parties wanted them taken down as it would have affected sales of books which were basically just a reprint of the articles so to save possible legal costs links to all of the scans were removed from the site. That would still be the case today and add to the cost of publishing a CD if there were legal challanges to be fought.

Edited By JasonB on 11/06/2019 07:37:33

This is balderdash. If a book is published consisting of reprints of articles they are either (a) published with the permission of the ME publishers who hold the copyright of the articles or they are (b) an infringement of the ME publishers' copyright. In the latter case, the remedy is either to drag the infringers into court and have their books pulped or, as the ME publishers appear to have done, do nothing. The suggestion that the publisher of an infringing book could demand that the actual copyright holders should remove from their own website digital copies of material to which they hold the copyright is too stupid to be allowed out on its own.

It would be helpful if correspondents would stop quoting librarians and the like and get their information from the source. In this case the horse's mouth is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in which (in section 29) you will find that for your own use you can copy anything you like with the exception of banknotes. All this nonsense about being allowed to copy only a single article or a percentage of a work – those are rules applied by libraries and museums, etc. who try to protect themselves against charges of assisting others in infringing copyright. So, if you have a mate or a club with a stack of MEs, you may copy away to your heart's content, stick them on a DVD and do what you like with them as long as you do not publish or sell the copies.

Fred

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

From the Editor at the time.

"Yes, allowed but we have been asked to remove all George Thomas material and Len Mason's son was not very happy and John Bertinat's son wanted royalties..

It is easier and cheaper to remove the pdf's rather then go through solicitors although we are legally in the right."

Taking Mason as an example. What you will find in his book is basically the same as was in the series. MTM hold the rights to what was in the magazine and can republish that in it's entirity. However Lens son who was thinking of a reprint of the book would have lost out as people would have rather paid £20 for a DVD and got far more for their money than £25 for the book. Len mason or his relatives still hold the copyright to the original text not how the text was edited and arranged for the magazine.

You said "For anyone who needs a digital copy of even part of the ME back issues, they are the only game in town" I was pointing out that there are other sources to part or whole magazines, be it libraries or clubs, individuals or the cheap purchase of back issues so hardly the only source.

Edited By JasonB on 11/06/2019 14:47:32

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

I do wonder what the market would be for these DVDs.given a realistic market cost.

I usually by a DVD of another model engineering mag which covers one years publications, as it it bi monthly that is 6 issues on the DVD. Cost is 20 Euros and another 4 Euros for postage so about £20 for 6 mags. If I were to buy the digital version each time they sell at 7.50 Euro each.

Would there be many here willing to pay £25 for 12 back issues of MEW or £35 for a years ME? particularly when a digital subscription currently gives you access to nearly 300 MEWs or 450MEs at far less cost.

I don't think many would pay that so the returns would be low particularly if the mags had to be scanned rather than just compiling a few digital issues on one DVD which is all the other publisher has to do.

 

Edited By JasonB on 11/06/2019 15:40:21

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Fred Karno on 11/06/2019 14:18:58:

Posted by JasonB on 11/06/2019 07:32:50:

Posted by Fred Karno on 11/06/2019 04:16:46:

…

…

…

…

It would be helpful if correspondents would stop quoting librarians and the like and get their information from the source. In this case the horse's mouth is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in which (in section 29) you will find that for your own use you can copy anything you like with the exception of banknotes.

Fred

Only Banknotes Fred? Copying Official Secrets can drop you into deep poo, and there are plenty of other examples.

The big problem with the Law is you can't cherry pick bits and be certain you're in the clear. Section 29 is OK as far as it goes, but it only covers Fair Dealing, which is defined and clarified elsewhere in the Act. Once you've read and understood all the limitations, other legislation may still apply. Some of it is International, and Injunctions, Contact Agreements or even Royal Prerogative might also be lurking in the background. Copyright is a complete mess, a lawyers paradise. Particularly bad when the work covers several decades, and the original terms weren't consistent. Authors can reserve their rights.

Basically no-one is going to hunt you down if you copy information in private for your own use and don't boast about it. As soon as you start distributing and money is involved, then sparks will fly.

Because it's a muddle negotiating the details and permissions of anything copyright related can be very expensive, with a risk of getting it wrong. Legal and admin costs can far exceed those of the physical copying – that part of the job is cheap and easy.

Tell you what, why don't you prove me wrong. I'm sure if you take contractual responsibility for sorting out all the rights and payments and agree to cover any liabilities, then MyTimeMedia would licence you to do the job for a consideration. How much would you pay upfront for the rights? Negotiations start now!

Dave

[Nick Clarke 3Participant @nickclarke3]

I deal with copyright in education on a frequent basis as part of the day job and the simple answer given by Neil, ie copyright in this country lasts 70 years after death of author and 25 years for a layout is the one all responsible businesses, publishers, editors and magazines can adhere to and be safe and able to operate.

I am not a copyright lawyer, but I suggest all of the other suggestions put forward are almost 'get out' clauses or exceptions to the basic rules listed above. In order to rely on any of these I would suggest consulting a lawyer specialising in copyright as the only safe route to a certain answer, and even then case law may need to be established.

A couple of pointers however – while the overarching legislation is indeed the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 29 this now incorporates the Copyright and Rights in Performances (Research, Education, Libraries and Archives) Regulations 2014

These say, as has been suggested already, that you can copy just about anything but the copier must 'have lawful access to' it ie that they own it and they are not borrowed or acquired illegally. This copy should be acknowledged if practical to do so. It also states that 'transferring' the copy to anyone else infringes copyright so the suggestions that you can copy a mate's stack of magazines is just plain false, and that if you sell or give the copy away you are breaking the law.

There are other rules for education and teaching that allow partial copying, but an individual is unlikely to come under this heading.

As I started out though, IMHO stick to the simple way and you are unlikely to go wrong – look for an exception and you may be in trouble.

Edited By Nick Clarke 3 on 11/06/2019 17:26:21

[Barnaby WildeParticipant @barnabywilde70941]

Wow. Some of you really are dinosaurs & fully fit the demographic that MyTimeMedia sell to their advertisers (inc' all those tracking cookies).

Instead of moaning & whingeing that them new fangled DVD's are potentially destroying your enjoyment of sitting down in your comfy chair with a piece of the rainforest in your hands, you should be using your years of experience & well matured wisdom into coming up with the ideas that might ensure the future survival of a community of model engineers & their combined knowledge.

Discussing the rights & wrongs of piracy & copyright theft is futile, it exists & can only become more popular & widespread.

Until you can accept & acknowledge that it is NOT piracy that is causing magazine sales to plummet & it is NOT piracy that spells out the impending doom of your comfort zone of choice, then there is little hope for your future.

[Anonymous]

Posted by Barnaby Wilde on 11/06/2019 18:45:16:

…………. fully fit the demographic that MyTimeMedia sell to their advertisers (inc' all those tracking cookies).

That's interesting; a look back at several pages of your previous posts shows that you clearly don't fall into the MTM demographic. There's no discernable evidence of modelling or engineering in them.

Andrew

[Fred KarnoParticipant @fredkarno89128]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 11/06/2019 16:44:38:

Posted by Fred Karno on 11/06/2019 14:18:58:

Posted by JasonB on 11/06/2019 07:32:50:

Posted by Fred Karno on 11/06/2019 04:16:46:

…

…

…

…

It would be helpful if correspondents would stop quoting librarians and the like and get their information from the source. In this case the horse's mouth is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in which (in section 29) you will find that for your own use you can copy anything you like with the exception of banknotes.

Fred

Only Banknotes Fred? Copying Official Secrets can drop you into deep poo, and there are plenty of other examples.

The big problem with the Law is you can't cherry pick bits and be certain you're in the clear. Section 29 is OK as far as it goes, but it only covers Fair Dealing, which is defined and clarified elsewhere in the Act. Once you've read and understood all the limitations, other legislation may still apply. Some of it is International, and Injunctions, Contact Agreements or even Royal Prerogative might also be lurking in the background. Copyright is a complete mess, a lawyers paradise. Particularly bad when the work covers several decades, and the original terms weren't consistent. Authors can reserve their rights.

Tell you what, why don't you prove me wrong. I'm sure if you take contractual responsibility for sorting out all the rights and payments and agree to cover any liabilities, then MyTimeMedia would licence you to do the job for a consideration. How much would you pay upfront for the rights? Negotiations start now!

Dave

Dave,

Most readers would have realised that the reference to banknotes was a joke. You didn't, and to top it you offered as a particularly ill-chosen example the copying of Official Secrets. I have news for you – you can copy Official Secrets to your heart's content because the Act prohibits disclosure, not copying. Also, the Act is laimed at officials and other authorised persons. As I suggested in the very post to which you replied, go to the source because it will prevent you talking through your hat.

If you had taken that advice you would not now have claimed that Fair Dealing mentioned in S.29 is defined and clarified elsewhere in the Act. The one thing that even non-lawyers know about copyright is that fair dealing is NOT defined in the Act – all that is said about it is that some actions are NOT fair dealing.

Your statement that "copyright is a complete mess and a lawyers' paradise" is uninformed nonsense. Copyright law is perfectly clear except in the rarest and most unlikely circumstances. Assuming that they obtained copyright from the original authors (and if they didn't they should be drummed out of the publishing profession), the scanning and publication by the copyright holders of their own magazine's back issues in the form of facsimiles does not raise any stateable copyright issues

I never offered to personally take on the scanning and publication of the ME back issues. I don't need to because I know that I can scan and copy as much of it as I like as long as it is for my own use. But here is a bit of free advice – don't hold yourself out as agent for the copyright holders without their express authority because that can certainly raise stateable claims against you as you would be personally liable.

Fred

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Fred Karno on 12/06/2019 02:26:42:

Most readers would have realised that the reference to banknotes was a joke. You didn't, and to top it you offered as a particularly ill-chosen example the copying of Official Secrets. I have news for you – you can copy Official Secrets to your heart's content because the Act prohibits disclosure, not copying. Also, the Act is laimed at officials and other authorised persons. As I suggested in the very post to which you replied, go to the source because it will prevent you talking through your hat.

.

I was hoping to avoid participating in this farce … but you really do need to get your facts straight before pontificating, Fred.

Have you never seen a document marked 'EYES ONLY'

MichaelG.

.

For convenient reference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyes_only

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 12/06/2019 07:26:11

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

In reply to barnaby, I hate giving my money to thieves. It only encourages them to thieve even more. It’s very much akin to handling stolen goods.

I hate thieves who go around stealing and damaging peoples property and creating a mess and distress along the way. You lot, who are then selling on this stolen property are at the bottom of the heap too, along with those that break into other’s property.

[DanielParticipant @daniel]

+1 NDIY,

The perpetrators are deluding themselves.

Wrong is wrong and a selective interpretation of the law will not change that.

ATB,

Daniel

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Fred Karno on 12/06/2019 02:18:27:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 11/06/2019 16:44:38:

Posted by Fred Karno on 11/06/2019 14:18:58:

Posted by JasonB on 11/06/2019 07:32:50:

Posted by Fred Karno on 11/06/2019 04:16:46:

…

…

…

…

…

Dave,

Most readers would have realised that the reference to banknotes was a joke. You didn't, and to top it you offered as a particularly ill-chosen example the copying of Official Secrets. I have news for you – you can copy Official Secrets to your heart's content because the Act prohibits disclosure, not copying. Also, the Act is laimed at officials and other authorised persons. As I suggested in the very post to which you replied, go to the source because it will prevent you talking through your hat.

If you had taken that advice you would not now have claimed that Fair Dealing mentioned in S.29 is defined and clarified elsewhere in the Act. The one thing that even non-lawyers know about copyright is that fair dealing is NOT defined in the Act – all that is said about it is that some actions are NOT fair dealing.

Your statement that "copyright is a complete mess and a lawyers' paradise" is uninformed nonsense. Copyright law is perfectly clear except in the rarest and most unlikely circumstances. Assuming that they obtained copyright from the original authors (and if they didn't they should be drummed out of the publishing profession), the scanning and publication by the copyright holders of their own magazine's back issues in the form of facsimiles does not raise any stateable copyright issues

I never offered to personally take on the scanning and publication of the ME back issues. I don't need to because I know that I can scan and copy as much of it as I like as long as it is for my own use. But here is a bit of free advice – don't hold yourself out as agent for the copyright holders without their express authority because that can certainly raise stateable claims against you as you would be personally liable.

Fred

Fred,

In Fred Karno's Circus double values apply. 'Most readers would have realised that the reference to banknotes was a joke' whereas foolish me 'offered as a particularly ill-chosen example the copying of Official Secrets'. In other words Fred has a sense of humour and everyone else is an idiot? Oh dear! Who said, 'This is balderdash.' and 'There is something not quite right with your thinking.'?

I suggest you have hazy ideas about the Official Secrets Act and 'Fair Dealing'. The term is used officially to describe a range of activities where copying is allowed. It's a bit blurred round the edges. Exactly what it means in law is defined by the wording of the Copyright Act (all of it) in relation to other legislation, as interpreted by Case Law in the courts. (I.e where the meaning has been tested in front of a judge who sets a precedent.) There isn't a legally binding dictionary definition, but we know roughly what it means in practical terms. It's not legal armour plate!

Perhaps this statement highlights best where we part company. You said: 'Assuming that they obtained copyright from the original authors (and if they didn't they should be drummed out of the publishing profession), the scanning and publication by the copyright holders of their own magazine's back issues in the form of facsimiles does not raise any stateable copyright issues.' The logic comes clean off the rails at 'Assuming', because you can't assume anything of the sort. Jason made the point clear when he said earlier:

'One of the reasons the previous editor David Clarke declined the offer was that after scanning some older issues and making them available on this website certain parties wanted them taken down as it would have affected sales of books which were basically just a reprint of the articles so to save possible legal costs links to all of the scans were removed from the site. That would still be the case today and add to the cost of publishing a CD if there were legal challanges to be fought. '

You cannot assume Terms and Conditions agreed in the past are compatible with republication. Authors can reserve rights.

Copyright can be clear and straightforward, often it's not. That's the reality. While copying in private is safe enough, copying and distribution is a different ball-game.

I agree it's better to go back to the 'Horse's Mouth' rather than asking a Librarian, but there's more to Copyright than reading the Act. As soon as it gets murky, as it does when making DVD's, you don't take advice from 'Fred Karno' and 'SillyOldDuffer' for obvious reasons. A Copyright Lawyer is more competent!

For MyTimeMedia it's a business decision. In the past they decided it wasn't worth the effort. Maybe they'll change their minds, maybe not. It's up to them.

Dave

[Mike PooleParticipant @mikepoole82104]

The supply of old magazines must be finite and diminishing, it would be wise to digitise them while they can still be found and archive them for future use and hopefully copyright will be sorted out, but don’t hold your breath on that one.

Mike

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Fred Karno on 11/06/2019 04:16:46:

Neil,

Costs are "potential" not because they have not been incurred yet but because their level is not known. In this case you can get an accurate estimate of the real costs.

The problem lies squarely with the publishers who have decided not to scan the archive even though in the past they received an offer to have it done for free. Instead of giving a third party permission to scan and publish a digital version, no doubt with a condition that they will receive a royalty, the publishers irrationally and convulsively cling to their copyright. Unfortunately, this copyright is not worth the paper it is written on, especially to those entrepreneurs who know that scanning and publishing ME back issues is in fact profitable. You can rant all you like about the poor quality of their product but it does the job and if the publishers think they can do better, let them put their money where their mouth is.

Your statement: If an "official" DVD ever appears its function will largely be to promote the magazine rather than to make a huge profit" shows an alarming ignorance of the target market for a DVD. Any potential buyer of the DVD will know ME inside out and is immune to promotion of it.

And finally, please do not put words into my mouth. I never suggested that the pirates acted out of altruism – they don't. Rather, they have spotted a hole in the market which the publishers refuse to fill, and they are busy filling it. For anyone who needs a digital copy of even part of the ME back issues, they are the only game in town until such time as the publishers get their act together. I am not holding my breath.

Fred

"Costs are "potential" not because they have not been incurred yet but because their level is not known".

What makes you think they aren't known? I know what I meant.

If readers are immune to promotion of a DVD… then surely we don't have a market and the whole thing is a lost cause?

> In this case the horse's mouth is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in which (in section 29) you will find that for your own use you can copy anything you like

I think you will find this covers making a copy of something you already own for your own use – such as copying a plan so you can take a copy into the workshop, or putting a vinyl album you own onto your iPod.

Copying of material you don't own is only allowable for research and education purposes.

> If a book is published consisting of reprints of articles they are either (a) published with the permission of the ME publishers who hold the copyright of the articles or they are (b) an infringement of the ME publishers' copyright. In the latter case, the remedy is either to drag the infringers into court and have their books pulped or, as the ME publishers appear to have done, do nothing. The suggestion that the publisher of an infringing book could demand that the actual copyright holders should remove from their own website digital copies of material to which they hold the copyright is too stupid to be allowed out on its own

Fred, you are clearly unaware of the true situation. At present we have a standard agreement where contributors give us a licence to republish, but retain their own copyright. Our copyright is in the published versions, so we can reprint recent issues and make use of things like photos and text for reprints etc.

The current agreement does not prevent any author republishing their work after it has appeared in the magazine – it gives us an exclusive licence to publish it first. So they can republish their work as a book or even submit it to another magazine – but only after we have published. Any exceptions to this have to be individually negotiated.

An important caveat here is that the authors own copyright in their text and photos but NOT in the setting of the magazine. If they wish to copy and distribute the magazine article they MUST obtain our permission first. This is usually only given for non-profit purposes so you will find books are re-set for publication.

In the past things were not so simple, and some articles were expressly published with the authors retaining exclusive rights to further republishing. For example, Malcolm Stride's IC engines where my predecessor had to negotiate with the estate to get the right to republish in a different format. On the whole, for the older articles we only have the right to republish the original magazines and do not have the right to, say, compile all of GHT's articles into a book.

An important note: our copyright is in the published material and lasts 25 years. The authors copyright is in the content and lasts up until 70 years after their death.

Those circulating copies of the earliest MEWs are no infringing our copyright, but that of the individuals who wrote the articles.

Neil

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Barnaby Wilde on 11/06/2019 18:45:16:

Wow. Some of you really are dinosaurs & fully fit the demographic that MyTimeMedia sell to their advertisers (inc' all those tracking cookies).

Instead of moaning & whingeing that them new fangled DVD's are potentially destroying your enjoyment of sitting down in your comfy chair with a piece of the rainforest in your hands, you should be using your years of experience & well matured wisdom into coming up with the ideas that might ensure the future survival of a community of model engineers & their combined knowledge.

Discussing the rights & wrongs of piracy & copyright theft is futile, it exists & can only become more popular & widespread.

Until you can accept & acknowledge that it is NOT piracy that is causing magazine sales to plummet & it is NOT piracy that spells out the impending doom of your comfort zone of choice, then there is little hope for your future.

We clearly do understand that digital publications are inevitably the future of publishing, as evidenced by our use of digital marketing and availability of digital formats. What do you think pays for the existence of this forum?

Piracy is a problem, and it's worth considering that one of its major impacts is that it affects the ability of the authors (many of whom are your fellow forum members) to support their hobbies by republishing their articles in print. In the past many regular contributors (LBSC, Sparey, Westbury, GH Thomas, Harold Hall etc. etc.) did this.

In the modern age it's even easier for them to do so using Amazon and other electronic publication routes and make a modest supplementary income.

The ready availability of their articles in 'pirate form' actually hurts them a lot more than it does us as the magazine publishers as income from reprints and back issues is always modest compared to sales of original material. As evidence that this is the case is the extreme scarcity of new examples of such books, which were common up until 10-15 years ago.

I suspect that very few people who buy 'dodgy DVDs' have ever realised that they may be hurting their fellow hobbyists.

But on your main point – yes there are those of us who are giving thought to "the future survival of a community of model engineers & their combined knowledge". We do feel strongly that the existence of both magazines and online forums are part of that strategy. We are aware that in the long term the 'magazines' are likely to be presented and read in very different ways, but also that our demographic is relatively conservative and paper copies are still the preferred way for most people to read the magazines.

Neil

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Mike Poole on 12/06/2019 11:36:47:

The supply of old magazines must be finite and diminishing, it would be wise to digitise them while they can still be found and archive them for future use and hopefully copyright will be sorted out, but don’t hold your breath on that one.

Mike

One thing people don't realise is that for the older magazines this requires not an agreement with the publishers, but with the authors – multiple individuals for each issue, many of whom represented by their estates, some of whom are still receiving royalties from articles republished as books.

Example LBSC – he died in 1967 so it won't be until 2037 that his works enter the public domain. I understand that relatives receive royalties from his books, but we are able to republish his ME articles. Any third party wanting to publish those that appeared over 25 years ago would have to negotiate with his estate. Anyone wanting to republish reprints more recent than that would need to negotiate with us as well.

In 2038 anyone will be able to republish his original articles, but other articles in the same magazines by younger authors are likely to still be in copyright.

It doesn't make it easy…

Neil

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Circlip on 11/06/2019 10:58:24:

So why were CD's of all the previous copies of MEW offered later by whichever accountants owned ME at the time?

Do you have any details of this?

I've read every issue of MEW and don't recall seeing any reference to this, and I have subscribed to ME since the late 1990s – long before such things started to become available for any publication.

Neil

[Fred KarnoParticipant @fredkarno89128]

I was hoping to avoid participating in this farce … but you really do need to get your facts straight before pontificating, Fred.

Have you never seen a document marked 'EYES ONLY'

MichaelG.

Michael,

Whether or not I have ever seen a document marked "EYES ONLY" is neither here nor there – but if I had, at least I would know that the term has no meaning in law. I also know that it is very bad policy to enter into discussion with those who take their information from Wikipedia or from James Bond films.

Fred

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

You really are living up to your 'name' aren't you, Fred !

Please just read to the bottom of that Wikipedia page and follow the link to the 'Cabinet Office' document

Note: My references are generally provided for the benefit and convenience of the reader …

MichaelG.

[CirclipParticipant @circlip]

" Do you have any details of this? "

Not the first time this subject has been aired Neil. Goes back to the origination of this site. Sir John offered our services re- scanning but was refused. Not long after, the Digital pay site appeared and the scanning of the original non digital issues of MEW was atrocious. Nearly sure a series of legal discs probably around issue 150, were offered as it became obvious that after the ability to download complete issues, some rat would try to line his nest.

Yes Mike, the pool is drying up especially when a few years ago I purchased a box of mags in the "Under a fiver" ads in the local paper. On collecting, the "Boy" I bought them from said they had belonged to his late Father and they were clearing out. " If I'd known they were worth anything, I wouldn't have taken the other two boxes to the tip".

 

Regards Ian.

Edited By Circlip on 13/06/2019 12:34:10

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Circlip on 13/06/2019 12:33:10:

" Do you have any details of this? "

Not the first time this subject has been aired Neil. Goes back to the origination of this site. Sir John offered our services re- scanning but was refused. Not long after, the Digital pay site appeared and the scanning of the original non digital issues of MEW was atrocious. Nearly sure a series of legal discs probably around issue 150, were offered as it became obvious that after the ability to download complete issues, some rat would try to line his nest.

Yes Mike, the pool is drying up especially when a few years ago I purchased a box of mags in the "Under a fiver" ads in the local paper. On collecting, the "Boy" I bought them from said they had belonged to his late Father and they were clearing out. " If I'd known they were worth anything, I wouldn't have taken the other two boxes to the tip".

Regards Ian.

Edited By Circlip on 13/06/2019 12:34:10

Hi Ian,

There have been further third-party offers to scan, they have all been turned down.

I know a DVD has been mooted a few times, but I'm sure they have never been produced or marketed (to be completely honest, I have been trying to persuade the company to issue one for years).

Neil

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

No one going to comment on my question about pricing?

Would people be happy to pay 50% of face value for a yearly top up DVD at around £25 for MEW which is what other model engineering mags charge and what price the first 1-280 issues?

[Jeff DaymanParticipant @jeffdayman43397]

Hi Neil, I for one would buy an ME and an MEW DVD if they were issued. Maybe if there was an interest survey ie "if the company offered a DVD of scanned ME and MEW from issue x to issue y would you pay z UK pounds?" to quantify the consumer interest. You might be able to get the firm interested if response was positive.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by JasonB on 13/06/2019 15:37:38:

No one going to comment on my question about pricing?

Would people be happy to pay 50% of face value for a yearly top up DVD at around £25 for MEW which is what other model engineering mags charge and what price the first 1-280 issues?

.

My short answer is No

I subscribe to the paper edition of MEW and can therefore scan [for my own personal use] any of the content as-and-when needed.

Two other subscriptions are to the Horological Journal, and Antiquarian Horology … both of which now provide free access [for members] to their digital archives.

On the microscopy side: 'The Quekett' previously sold back-issues on CD, but has taken the plunge and [at a bargain price] sells a searchable archive on USB stick.

Note: I fully respect that MEW's owner has the right to control publication of its 'assets' … I merely cite these alternative models for consideration.

MichaelG.

.

http://www.quekett.org/about/books

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 13/06/2019 16:10:30

[Author]

Posts