Dune Encyclopedia
blackc1
that I am totally tempted to scan each and every page of the DE and release
it to the internet.
I have the software to do it but I am paralyzed by the idea that it is not
fair to the writer and it would not be fair at all. I almost wish someone
would though. Is anyone else disgusted by the price on this book nowdays?
$100+ (if you are lucky)
This book is great, and needs to be freely available to Dune fans.
fido4fox
on a waiting list. It sucks that it cost so much, but there are only 100000
published in tis first run, so there are only a few that are available and
the whole law of supply and demand youi know....
fido
"blackc1" <bla...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:jWQX6.357$zE1.5...@news.uswest.net...
Met K.
The writer (McNelly? I forgot his name, yo, Willie!) is an arrogant
SOB from what I can tell, so why would it be priced any less?
Scan it, man!
Zip_Vortex42
news:jWQX6.357$zE1.5...@news.uswest.net...
> I am totally tempted to scan each and every page of the DE and release
> it to the internet.
Blackc1...
Do the deed Soldier!
You officially have blessing for this mission by members of our Battalion!.
Get it on up there! Don't worry about that money hungry Author!!!! :o)
We're serious Y'know!
Paul.
justin straube
Its only got just over 2 hours left but its going for $51
blackc1 <bla...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:jWQX6.357$zE1.5...@news.uswest.net...
A
A
http://www.duneprime.f2s.com/
http://www.dunethenextchapter.com
http://weezerftp.weezerfans.com
Chris Mears
What makes you think the author is money-hungry?
--
Chris Mears | "Six months go by very quickly when
Melbourne, Australia | you're a genius." -- Robert Plant
justin straube
When I saw the previous post saying $100 I couldnt belive it.
Its tempting to put mine up for sale.
A <ada...@fuse.net> wrote in message news:3B30056A...@fuse.net...
sunbr...@home.com
burn on the hardcover front, but hey, it's the content that matters,
right?
But to get to the point, I wish I didn't have to spend that
much, so post away! You have a whole armada of fans that would back
you on it!
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 22:07:38 -0400, A <ada...@fuse.net> wrote:
>
>--------------4F52AE9E013850F29B0913E6
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>--------------4F52AE9E013850F29B0913E6
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
><html>
>thats just too much for a paperback man....
><p>A
><br><A HREF="http://www.duneprime.f2s.com/">http://www.duneprime.f2s.com/</A>
><br><A HREF="http://www.dunethenextchapter.com">http://www.dunethenextchapter.com</A>
><br><A HREF="http://weezerftp.weezerfans.com">http://weezerftp.weezerfans.com</A>
><br>
><p>justin straube wrote:
><blockquote TYPE=CITE><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1438537507">http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1438537507</a>
><p>Its only got just over 2 hours left but its going for $51
><p>blackc1 <bla...@qwest.net> wrote in message
><br><a href="news:jWQX6.357$zE1.5...@news.uswest.net">news:jWQX6.357$zE1.5...@news.uswest.net</a>...
><br>> I am soo disgusted by the legal wrangling of the publishers, and
>lawyers
><br>> that I am totally tempted to scan each and every page of the DE and
><br>release
><br>> it to the internet.
><br>> I have the software to do it but I am paralyzed by the idea that
>it is not
><br>> fair to the writer and it would not be fair at all. I almost wish
>someone
><br>> would though. Is anyone else disgusted by the price on this book
>nowdays?
><br>> $100+ (if you are lucky)
><br>> This book is great, and needs to be freely available to Dune fans.
><br>>
><br>></blockquote>
></html>
>
>--------------4F52AE9E013850F29B0913E6--
>
Zip_Vortex42
> What makes you think the author is money-hungry?
Didn't someone say the book was going for at least $100?...... Thats a lot.
Or is that second hand and dealer profits, because there ain't many copies
out there?
Paul.
Jonathan McArthur
| "Chris Mears" <ch...@adjective-army.com> interjected with...
| > What makes you think the author is money-hungry?
| Didn't someone say the book was going for at least $100?...... Thats a lot.
The book is out of print. The author is not selling copies. Duh.
| Or is that second hand and dealer profits, because there ain't many copies
| out there?
Aw hyuck, Cletus! Of course.
--
Jonathan McArthur
NP: nothing / nobody
Web: http://members.digitalrice.com/dynamite8/
Maxim: increscunt animi, virescit volnere virtus.
Zip_Vortex42
> Aw hyuck, Cletus! Of course.
okay okay! haha
Paul.
-+shanu+-
wrote
> "Zip_Vortex42" wrote:
> | "Chris Mears" <ch...@adjective-army.com> interjected with...
> | > What makes you think the author is money-hungry?
> | Didn't someone say the book was going for at least $100?...... Thats
a lot.
>
> The book is out of print. The author is not selling copies. Duh.
Perhaps people might want to learn about the industry they're talking
about before shooting their mouths off. Dr. McNelly has very little say
in whether or not the Dune Encyclopedia gets reprinted. "Duh".
> | Or is that second hand and dealer profits, because there ain't many
copies
> | out there?
>
> Aw hyuck, Cletus! Of course.
I got my copy from eBay for $40 - $50. Considering what it is, and the
relatively good condition, it's well worth it.
High cost does not equal moral justification for piracy. Lack of
availability is more of a justification, but the DE is not unavailable,
just expensive. If you really want the prices to come down, start a
campaign to get it reprinted. There are a lot of Dune fans out there
who'd support you.
None of this post is addressed to Jonathan McArthur in particular;
rather the entire thread's posters.
--
Shaun Green | in unbroken virgin realities.
slicing-up-eyeballs | http://www.eyeballs.f9.co.uk
"...autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives
should not expect men to finance their choice." - Karen DeCrow
Gunnar Harboe
>I just got the DE on ebay for $52 on E-bay. It has a 1/8" cigarette
>burn on the hardcover front, but hey, it's the content that matters,
>right?
> But to get to the point, I wish I didn't have to spend that
>much, so post away! You have a whole armada of fans that would back
>you on it!
An armada of TROLLS, old and new. (I am impressed how some people who
NEVER post anything Dune related show up IMMEDIATELY when this topic
arises.) A few misguided fans. Perhaps.
I'm really disappointed with the response to this thread. When this has
come up before (and it has come up MANY times before), this group has
always managed to discourage the notion by largely sticking together and
pointing out some key facts:
- Making a digital copy of the Dune Encyclopedia is ILLEGAL and
punishable. (This point often supported by the stated willingness to
draw the matter to the attention of the lawyers of Dr. McNelly, the
Herbert Estate, or the FBI.)
- It is IMMORAL and wrong. Dr. Willis E. McNelly, the editor of the book
and one of its copyrightholders -- unarguably the man with the moral
right to decide what happens to the work, has repeatedly stated his
unwillingness to condone such actions.
- A digitised version will UTTERLY CRUSH any hope of ever seeing the
book reprinted. Admittedly, this looks unlikely to happen in any case.
- Just because you want it but don't want to spend the money to buy it,
it DOES NOT give you the right to take it. If your really want a copy of
the DE, you can easily get one. Try www.bibliofind.com, www.abebooks.com
and www.ebay.com. Copies regularly crop up in used bookstores, often
cheaply. Some people may say that all property is theft, but one thing's
for sure; all theft is theft.
--
Bye!
Gunnar Harboe
gh...@cam.ac.uk
The alt.fan.dune FAQ
<http://personal.rdu.bellsouth.net/rdu/j/k/jkenny5/DuneFAQIndex.html>
___
There should be a word-tension for "fated," conveying
a meaning opposite from a thing destined to be. There
should also be a garnish-tension for "parsley,"
denoting the opposite of the leafy herb. Oh, we speak
in daily discourse of "anti-parsley," but that is
another thing entire. What the word for a thing is
can consequent much.
- from "Mauve'Bib Has Ideas and Speaks Them,"
edited by the Princess Serutan
John Kenny
My apologies for not being my usual a**hole-self upon seeing the subject,
but I've argued this so many, many times it's a bit like ramming my head
into a wall.
Gunnar's arguments as to why illegal reproduction of Dr. McNelly's (or
Frank's or, even, the Dynamic Duo's) work is unethical, illegal, immoral,
and just plain wrong are succinct and deftly stated. I suggest everyone read
them several times.
John
"Gunnar Harboe" <gh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3b30d638...@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
Hardy Hestert
>
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 04:39:30 GMT, sunbr...@home.com wrote:
>
> >I just got the DE on ebay for $52 on E-bay. It has a 1/8" cigarette
> >burn on the hardcover front, but hey, it's the content that matters,
> >right?
> > But to get to the point, I wish I didn't have to spend that
> >much, so post away! You have a whole armada of fans that would back
> >you on it!
>
> An armada of TROLLS, old and new. (I am impressed how some people who
> NEVER post anything Dune related show up IMMEDIATELY when this topic
> arises.) A few misguided fans. Perhaps.
>
> I'm really disappointed with the response to this thread. When this has
> come up before (and it has come up MANY times before), this group has
> always managed to discourage the notion by largely sticking together and
> pointing out some key facts:
Sorry to disappoint you, Gunnar, but I'm somehow tired of it. OK, once
more for the record: It's wrong, it's wrong it's wrong.
Hardy "copyright is good" Hestert
Chris Blaise
<scg...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Jonathan McArthur <DIEmc...@SPAMstudent.MACHINESotago.OFac.DOOMnz>
>wrote
>> "Zip_Vortex42" wrote:
>> | "Chris Mears" <ch...@adjective-army.com> interjected with...
>> | > What makes you think the author is money-hungry?
>> | Didn't someone say the book was going for at least $100?...... Thats
>a lot.
>>
>> The book is out of print. The author is not selling copies. Duh.
>
>Perhaps people might want to learn about the industry they're talking
>about before shooting their mouths off. Dr. McNelly has very little say
>in whether or not the Dune Encyclopedia gets reprinted. "Duh".
I think the point Jonathan was trying to make to Zip Vortex
was that since the book is out of print, the current price on the
secondary market is immaterial; the author doesn't make any money on
those sales.
"Duh" right back atcha.
Chris
-+shanu+-
"None of this post is addressed to Jonathan McArthur in particular;
rather the entire thread's posters."
Wasn't trying to insult Jonathan. "Duh".
Sorry for any misunderstanding. My fault! :)
--
Shaun Green | this is the last time i will fail you.
slicing-up-eyeballs | http://www.eyeballs.f9.co.uk
"Remember, if she asks, we are *not* rebels bent on her
destruction." - Princess WHN
Big T
The publisher is not selling it anyway.
"-+shanu+-" <scg...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9gq9jb$afjdv$1...@ID-74031.news.dfncis.de...
-+shanu+-
> It it is not in print, piracy is not an issue.
> The publisher is not selling it anyway.
It is still an issue; such is the legal situation. I may not like those
laws, but I'm not about to support screwing with them when to do so
would destroy *any* future possibility of the book being republished.
--
Shaun Green | unprofessional fictionist extraordinaire.
slicing-up-eyeballs | http://www.eyeballs.f9.co.uk
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on
fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the
dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in
time, like tears in rain. Time to die." - Roy Baty, Blade Runner
A
> Its tempting to put mine up for sale.
yeah, thanks. Thats pretty cool
A
http://www.duneprime.f2s.com
http://www.dunethenextchapter.com
John Kenny
Once more into the breach go I....
"Big T" <Interne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HK8Y6.27725$Lk1.1...@news02.optonline.net...
> It it is not in print, piracy is not an issue.
Really? The 1963 Corvette is no longer in production. Do you suggest that if
someone steals mine I shouldn't consider it theft? I am continually amazed
that you coffee shop anarchists are really that daft.
> The publisher is not selling it anyway.
What the hell has that got to do with anything?
John
KiltedJedi
scg...@btinternet.com Swats Darth Maul aside to say
imagination and steal it because you couldn;t be bothered to pay for it.
I would gladly pay whatever amount if I had the money, and just because
I don't (have the money) at the moment doesn't mean I'm, going to start
calling out for others to steal it for me, because that is what was
being asked.
And especially a supplementary work to one of the greatest series in
written word at the mo (I haven't been published yet so when I finish my
book I'll be up there ;))should be supported, and it doesn't matter what
the asking price is, that is why libraries were invented, and at least
when you take a book from the library the author gets some money.
I'd even support pinky and the brain, cos at least they only used Franks
universe, not his ideas.
--
Obi Wan:- Luke the force is strong in you
Luke:- Sorry that must be the Chilli repeating
To email replace usetheforce.luke with ntlworld.com
Help find Life after earth
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
justin straube
additions.
:)
Justin
fido4fox <fido...@NOSPAM.Yahoo.Com> wrote in message
> the only way I have seen it available is at the local library and then it
is
> on a waiting list. It sucks that it cost so much, but there are only
100000
> published in tis first run, so there are only a few that are available and
> the whole law of supply and demand youi know....
>
> fido
>
> "blackc1" <bla...@qwest.net> wrote in message
> > I am soo disgusted by the legal wrangling of the publishers, and lawyers
Jonathan McArthur
| Jonathan McArthur wrote
| > "Zip_Vortex42" wrote:
| > | "Chris Mears" <ch...@adjective-army.com> interjected with...
| > | > What makes you think the author is money-hungry?
| > | Didn't someone say the book was going for at least $100?...... Thats
| > | a lot.
| > The book is out of print. The author is not selling copies. Duh.
| Perhaps people might want to learn about the industry they're talking
| about before shooting their mouths off. Dr. McNelly has very little say
| in whether or not the Dune Encyclopedia gets reprinted. "Duh".
Excuse me? Did I say anything to the contrary?
| > | Or is that second hand and dealer profits, because there ain't many
| > | copies out there?
| > Aw hyuck, Cletus! Of course.
| I got my copy from eBay for $40 - $50. Considering what it is, and the
| relatively good condition, it's well worth it.
|
| High cost does not equal moral justification for piracy. Lack of
| availability is more of a justification, but the DE is not unavailable,
| just expensive. If you really want the prices to come down, start a
| campaign to get it reprinted. There are a lot of Dune fans out there
| who'd support you.
|
| None of this post is addressed to Jonathan McArthur in particular;
| rather the entire thread's posters.
Ah, yes, it all works out nicely then...
-+shanu+-
wrote
> "-+shanu+-" wrote:
> | Jonathan McArthur wrote
> | > "Zip_Vortex42" wrote:
> | > | "Chris Mears" <ch...@adjective-army.com> interjected with...
> | > | > What makes you think the author is money-hungry?
> | > | Didn't someone say the book was going for at least $100?......
Thats
> | > | a lot.
> | > The book is out of print. The author is not selling copies. Duh.
> | Perhaps people might want to learn about the industry they're
talking
> | about before shooting their mouths off. Dr. McNelly has very little
say
> | in whether or not the Dune Encyclopedia gets reprinted. "Duh".
>
> Excuse me? Did I say anything to the contrary?
I know you realised what I meant (I've left that bit in just below) but
I just want to apologise for any misunderstanding there... heh...
totally my fault. I've been in a really bad mood all day. I'm 18. I
have parents. 'Nuff said. ;)
--
Shaun Green | d'ya wanna go faster baby?
slicing-up-eyeballs | http://www.eyeballs.f9.co.uk
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent
revolution inevitable" - J.F. Kennedy
XIAzraeLIX
A
XIAzraeLIX wrote:
> I dont know if anyone's mentioned this but I see them on ebay for 10-50 bucks.
Hey..thanks! Keep staying on top of things.
A
d19w33d
LOOK SOMEBODY SCAN THIS THING FFS...
id do it myself, but i dont have a scanner or a
copy of the DC...
--
~Richard Peterson~
[t]he spice must flow...
"blackc1" <bla...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:jWQX6.357$zE1.5...@news.uswest.net...
d19w33d
> >much, so post away! You have a whole armada of fans that would back
> >you on it!
>
> An armada of TROLLS, old and new. (I am impressed how some people who
> NEVER post anything Dune related show up IMMEDIATELY when this topic
> arises.) A few misguided fans. Perhaps.
ermm ... your not refering to me are you??
you better not be gunnar, im serious.
> Making a digital copy of the Dune Encyclopedia is ILLEGAL and
> punishable. (This point often supported by the stated willingness to
> draw the matter to the attention of the lawyers of Dr. McNelly, the
> Herbert Estate, or the FBI.)
your wrong imo. fans are not able to access this book within
reasonable price range. no-one stands to lose money from digitalization
of this book, as it is out of print... *except* those who charge ridiculous
prices for 2nd copies... ffs this isnt a rare or classic book is only and
not even vaguely intresting to book collectors.
> - A digitised version will UTTERLY CRUSH any hope of ever seeing the
> book reprinted. Admittedly, this looks unlikely to happen in any case.
this will never happen. demand for the DE is low. i would love
to buy it, but AUS$85 is just too much for a scrappy dog earred
2nd hand copy. infact i doubt there is a single copy in australia,
and if there is id be hard pressed to find one.
> - Just because you want it but don't want to spend the money to buy it,
> it DOES NOT give you the right to take it. If your really want a copy of
> the DE, you can easily get one. Try www.bibliofind.com, www.abebooks.com
> and www.ebay.com. Copies regularly crop up in used bookstores, often
> cheaply. Some people may say that all property is theft, but one thing's
> for sure; all theft is theft.
nope.. this aint theft at all .. but you already knew i was gonna say that
seriously... where is the harm in digitalising it??
d19w33d
news:wNVX6.2044$zE1.7...@news.uswest.net...
> I agree. I got my copy for $3 at a used book store.
> When I saw the previous post saying $100 I couldnt belive it.
> Its tempting to put mine up for sale.
my question is *why* should someone have to pay
up to $100 for it EVER??
its a completely worthless piece of pulp, valueless in
the eyes of anyone but devout dune fans...
screw the writer and screw the herbert estate...
we are fans and we deserve a digital copy if they
arent going to bother reprinting it.
-+shanu+-
> > When I saw the previous post saying $100 I couldnt belive it.
> > Its tempting to put mine up for sale.
>
> my question is *why* should someone have to pay
> up to $100 for it EVER??
>
> its a completely worthless piece of pulp, valueless in
> the eyes of anyone but devout dune fans...
>
> screw the writer and screw the herbert estate...
> we are fans and we deserve a digital copy if they
> arent going to bother reprinting it.
On what account do you feel you "deserve" a copy of the DE?
--
Shaun Green | d'ya wanna go faster baby?
slicing-up-eyeballs | http://www.eyeballs.f9.co.uk
so if I decide to waiver my chance to be one of the hive will i
choose water over wine and hold my own and drive? (incubus - drive)
d19w33d
news:uzpY6.6333$l_3....@news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au...
> good idea
>
> LOOK SOMEBODY SCAN THIS THING FFS...
> id do it myself, but i dont have a scanner or a
> copy of the DC...
DE even...
d19w33d
all i know is that i do not deserve to pay for ridiculously
priced 2nd hand copies
ive bought all the other frigin books, even though the
author is dead and his lame assed kid gets all the royalties,
i tell everyone i know to go out and read and buy the books,
im a walking talking dune advertisement, and allowing a
digitallised copy of the non-reprinted DE would:
a) not hurt the author or the herbert estate finacialy
b) would help promote the current following that
the dune books still have today
maybe you can tell me, objectively why the DE *shouldnt*
be digitallised. in this case, mere arguements in relation
to "copyright" are barely even applicable, as laws regarding
this issue are designed in the large part to protect intellectual
property that is financially viable, not to hinder the spread of
knowledge.
Hardy Hestert
Of course the DE is an exceptional case, but what if an artist/copyright
holder chooses to retire his work from the market because he thinks it's
bad? I think he should have the right to do this, although the financial
aspects would be the same as with the DE. Well, it's the franchise
holders who decided to retire the DE because of their prequels (at least
I think that's the true reason), a sad thing that we cannot change.
Sometimes we have to stick to our moral rules even if it seems sooo
apropriate to make an exception. Certainly I can understand that a lot
of people wanted to see Timothy McVeigh (I know that this is far
fetched) dead, but that doesn't make me think that any state has the
right to execute people.
Oh, I sound like a teacher now. Yes, I'm a sinner too. I have to admit
that, from time to time, I download David Bowie bootlegs. I already have
bought all his records, noone looses money, fan is happy, bla bla bla...
and the artist didn't decide to make this work (the actual concert)
accesible to the broader public. Inconsequent, isn't it? Where shall we
draw the line? I don't know. I can only say that, refusing to abandon
all hope for a DE republication, and with McNelly not being as rich as
Mr. Bowie, I have the strong feeling that publishing an illegal DE on
the Internet is out of bounds. Bowie already got a lot of money from me,
McNelly didn't as I bought my DE second hand (happy to say that I got
mine (German edition) at a reasonable price).
Hardy
Jeff Teunissen
[snip]
> "Big T" <Interne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:HK8Y6.27725$Lk1.1...@news02.optonline.net...
> > It it is not in print, piracy is not an issue.
>
> Really? The 1963 Corvette is no longer in production. Do you suggest
> that if someone steals mine I shouldn't consider it theft? I am
> continually amazed that you coffee shop anarchists are really that daft.
A better analogy would be if someone made a *copy* of your '63 Vette. However
one *can*, legally, build a fully-functional replica. My neighbor is
replicating his '62 Stingray.
[snip]
--
| Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -=- deek @ d2dc.net
| GPG: 1024D/9840105A 7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B 161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A
| Core developer, The QuakeForge Project http://www.quakeforge.net/
| Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/
Big T
I take your car, I am hurting you.
Copy an out of print book and no one is hurt.
"John Kenny" <jke...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:tx9Y6.26850$Nb.4...@e420r-atl2.usenetserver.com...
Big T
The author has already been compensated for it.
"KiltedJedi" <kilte...@usetheforce.luke> wrote in message
news:MPG.159b3d8f1...@news.ntlworld.com...
Big T
"John Kenny" <jke...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:tx9Y6.26850$Nb.4...@e420r-atl2.usenetserver.com...
Go fuck yourself.
John Kenny
Gang,
God, but they are a sensitive -- might I go so far as to say elitist --
crowd. My point is proved in those three little words. I win the argument.
QED. (Damn but that was WAY too easy.)
John
Zip_Vortex42
"John Kenny" <jke...@bellsouth.net> Perplexed us ALL with...
> My point is proved in those three little words. I win the argument.
Ummmmm... How exactly!?
This'd be Paul.
d19w33d
> God, but they are a sensitive -- might I go so far as to say elitist
lol john, thats exactly the word i would use to describe you.
d19w33d
> Of course the DE is an exceptional case, but what if an artist/copyright
> holder chooses to retire his work from the market because he thinks it's
> bad? I think he should have the right to do this, although the financial
> aspects would be the same as with the DE. Well, it's the franchise
> holders who decided to retire the DE because of their prequels (at least
> I think that's the true reason), a sad thing that we cannot change.
> Sometimes we have to stick to our moral rules even if it seems sooo
> apropriate to make an exception. Certainly I can understand that a lot
> of people wanted to see Timothy McVeigh (I know that this is far
> fetched) dead, but that doesn't make me think that any state has the
> right to execute people.
hmm ... better not go there! most people have pretty strong views
about the death penalty. for me personaly it shows that the law
is not something that is always equatable to morality/ethics.
> Oh, I sound like a teacher now. Yes, I'm a sinner too. I have to admit
> that, from time to time, I download David Bowie bootlegs. I already have
> bought all his records, noone looses money, fan is happy, bla bla bla...
> and the artist didn't decide to make this work (the actual concert)
> accesible to the broader public. Inconsequent, isn't it? Where shall we
> draw the line? I don't know. I can only say that, refusing to abandon
> all hope for a DE republication, and with McNelly not being as rich as
> Mr. Bowie, I have the strong feeling that publishing an illegal DE on
> the Internet is out of bounds. Bowie already got a lot of money from me,
> McNelly didn't as I bought my DE second hand (happy to say that I got
> mine (German edition) at a reasonable price).
>
> Hardy
off all the copyright debates we have had on this news-group,
i have been able to at least see the other viewpoint in relation
to how copyright may protect intellectual property. in this
particular case, (and lets not talk about hypothetical cases about
authors who want to recal their work from the public etc), there
is nothing anyone will lose from digitalisation of the DE. it may
be technically illegal, *however* it is therefore not automatically
immoral/unethical as suggested. sometimes i think that people
here have a mono-synaptical reflex when copyright is mentioned,
causing them to assume that breaking of law is always *wrong*,
rather considering it case by case. im sure some/most of these
people have illegal mp3s, movies, games, or even television
recordings...
d19w33d
> NEVER post anything Dune related show up IMMEDIATELY when this topic
> arises.) A few misguided fans. Perhaps.
tell me does Ty Beard fit into this catagory???
Zip_Vortex42
this thread with...
> off all the copyright debates we have had on this news-group,
> i have been able to at least see the other viewpoint in relation
> to how copyright may protect intellectual property. in this
> particular case, (and lets not talk about hypothetical cases about
> authors who want to recal their work from the public etc), there
> is nothing anyone will lose from digitalisation of the DE. it may
> be technically illegal, *however* it is therefore not automatically
> immoral/unethical as suggested. sometimes i think that people
> here have a mono-synaptical reflex when copyright is mentioned,
> causing them to assume that breaking of law is always *wrong*,
> rather considering it case by case. im sure some/most of these
> people have illegal mp3s, movies, games, or even television
> recordings...
Riachard...
All I can say is "Well Said!".
In the case of Digitising DE noone is losing out.
Paul.
Gunnar Harboe
wrote:
>> An armada of TROLLS, old and new. (I am impressed how some people who
>> NEVER post anything Dune related show up IMMEDIATELY when this topic
>> arises.) A few misguided fans. Perhaps.
>
>tell me does Ty Beard fit into this catagory???
Eh?
--
Bye!
Gunnar Harboe
gh...@cam.ac.uk
The alt.fan.dune FAQ
<http://personal.rdu.bellsouth.net/rdu/j/k/jkenny5/DuneFAQIndex.html>
___
There should be a word-tension for "fated," conveying
a meaning opposite from a thing destined to be. There
should also be a garnish-tension for "parsley,"
denoting the opposite of the leafy herb. Oh, we speak
in daily discourse of "anti-parsley," but that is
another thing entire. What the word for a thing is
can consequent much.
- from "Mauve'Bib Has Ideas and Speaks Them,"
edited by the Princess Serutan
Chris Mears
>On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 05:57:28 GMT, "d19w33d" <dig...@optushome.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>> An armada of TROLLS, old and new. (I am impressed how some people who
>>> NEVER post anything Dune related show up IMMEDIATELY when this topic
>>> arises.) A few misguided fans. Perhaps.
>>
>>tell me does Ty Beard fit into this catagory???
>
>Eh?
He's suggesting (thoughtlessly) that Ty is a troll because he posts a
lot about copyright issues. Surely you can see the logic there! :)
--
Chris Mears | "Six months go by very quickly when
Melbourne, Australia | you're a genius." -- Robert Plant
Chris Mears
Gunnar Harboe
wrote:
(I've slightly edited the post to make context clearer)
>> > But to get to the point, I wish I didn't have to spend that
>> >much, so post away! You have a whole armada of fans that would back
>> >you on it!
>>
>> An armada of TROLLS, old and new. (I am impressed how some people who
>> NEVER post anything Dune related show up IMMEDIATELY when this topic
>> arises.) A few misguided fans. Perhaps.
>
>ermm ... your not refering to me are you??
>you better not be gunnar, im serious.
Not as a troll, no. You WERE one of the people I was thinking of who
rarely (though in your case not "never") post anything Dune related, but
can always be counted on to be here when The Copyright Discussion pops
up.
> infact i doubt there is a single copy in australia,
>and if there is id be hard pressed to find one.
I seem to remember information about a bookstore in Sydney having it.
And anyway, shipping from the US isn't THAT expensive. Find it on one of
the links I gave, see what other books that store has that you might
want, and ship them all together. That way, shipping for each item
should be quite reasonable.
>> - Just because you want it but don't want to spend the money to buy it,
>> it DOES NOT give you the right to take it. If your really want a copy of
>> the DE, you can easily get one.
>
>your wrong imo. fans are not able to access this book within
>reasonable price range. no-one stands to lose money from digitalization
>of this book, as it is out of print... *except* those who charge ridiculous
>prices for 2nd copies... ffs this isnt a rare or classic book is only and
>not even vaguely intresting to book collectors.
>
> i would love
>to buy it, but AUS$85 is just too much for a scrappy dog earred
>2nd hand copy.
(and, from another post:)
>its a completely worthless piece of pulp, valueless in
>the eyes of anyone but devout dune fans...
>
>screw the writer and screw the herbert estate...
>we are fans and we deserve a digital copy if they
>arent going to bother reprinting it.
So now you are saying that the book is so bad (even though you've never
seen it) that you should just be allowed to take it? That sounds like a
massively self-serving moral system you've got there. And if it's a
"worthless piece of pulp", why do you want it so bad?
If the book is going for $100 and more (although that's exceptional. You
will usually pay much less), it's obviously not worthless, and there is
clearly a demand, is there not?
>> Try www.bibliofind.com, www.abebooks.com
>> and www.ebay.com. Copies regularly crop up in used bookstores, often
>> cheaply. Some people may say that all property is theft, but one thing's
>> for sure; all theft is theft.
>
>nope.. this aint theft at all .. but you already knew i was gonna say that
You might be surprised that I actually agree with you here. It's not
theft in the strictest sense of the word. (I was using it in a wider
sense in which I would include fraud, extortion etc. as well under
"theft".)
There is a clear difference in that no one is actually deprived of any
physical object (or an obvious, abstract one, like money in a bank
account). This does not make it any less illegal, or any less immoral,
though, just like murder or rape can not be defended by "oh, well. It's
not theft". It just makes it another brand of crime.
>seriously... where is the harm in digitalising it??
Disregarding the interest of the people who own copies (copies that will
probably decrease in value if it's ever available for free on the
Internet), the main harm is to Willis McNelly. He has a right to decide
what happens to his work.
His reasons for not allowing the book to be published online are his
own. He has stated that legal concerns (as the Herbert Partnership and
Berkley, IIRC, are co-holders of the copyright), a desire to see the
book republished at some future date, and fears that free distribution
would harm the integrity of the work.
I can see perfectly where he's coming from. How many people have
expressed a desire to see the DE "updated" and "revised", with all sorts
of plans from letting fans write new articles to attempting to include
information from HoD and Ch:D? The DE was written by academic experts in
the field of each article, all was co-ordinated by McNelly and
quality-checked by him and Frank Herbert. If this was to float freely
around on the web with bastard copies and corrupted versions, the result
would inevitably be a reduction of the stature of the book, IMHO.
But the most important point, which I'd like to repeat, is that the
creator has the right to control his work. Stephane Picq says he wants
to see "Exxos: A Spice Opera" distributed? Hey, bring on those MP3s!
Radiohead say they love it when fans know their songs even before
they're published? Well, I bought all the albums, I see no harm in
getting the B-sides and alternate versions. But McNelly says he doesn't
want us to put the DE on the Internet? I may wish he'd reconsider, but
it's his choice and I defend his exclusive right to that decision.
Zip_Vortex42
"Chris Mears" <ch...@adjective-army.com> suggetsed...
> Doesn't the owner of the work lose on potential sales?
Has the author released any plans to republish any time soon?
If he has then sure, fair enough, he would be losing out on (some) potential
sales... (But to be honest, I'd like to add at this point, having a digital
copy certainly wouldn't hold me back from purchasing a reasonably priced
"real" book version.)
If you ask me... by holding it back (if indeed that is HIS decision... it
may be the publishers have him over a barrel...) he is, without doubt,
ASKING for it.
I'd very much like to read this book... It sounds in depth and I'm glad to
have recently found by via Gunnar's post, that Frank himself was involved in
its quality control... But I am NOT willing to pay an insane price like $50
(or even £30)...
... If it gets the rerelease then fine... but I'd still have no qualms about
downloading a copy beforehand... or distributing it to friends.
I don't care if that is fraud.
And besides... this Author has already been payed a FAT cheque just to WRITE
the thing... that is where MOST of his cash from this venture has come... I
don't think he can complain if it gets digitised, its not as if he went
empty handed... and it's not as if he is earning anything off it right at
the moment anyway.
Paul.
Jonathan McArthur
| And besides... this Author has already been payed a FAT cheque just to WRITE
| the thing... that is where MOST of his cash from this venture has come... I
| don't think he can complain if it gets digitised, its not as if he went
| empty handed... and it's not as if he is earning anything off it right at
| the moment anyway.
How do you know any of that? In any case... if the market is such that prices are high, you
either pay for a legitimate copy, or you don't own a copy of the book in *any* form. If you
aren't prepared to pay for your copy, you have no right to own a copy of the book - no matter
the price. Them's the breaks, sirra - it matters not what the situation is with regards to the
author and/or publisher. If you won't pay, you can't play.
--
Jonathan McArthur
NP: nothing / nobody
Web: http://dynamite8detonator.tripod.com/cam.html <= 1 week only! ^_^
Zip_Vortex42
I also have this sneaking suspision that McNelly, or at least the
Publishers, have themselves a tidy wee stash of pristine original prints
hidden away...
They're prob'ly hangin' out till the price rockets even more, before
releasing them for auction one after another..... and once that wee stash is
depleted, the corporate bastards'll start a goddamned reprint! >:o(
Paul
d19w33d
> >>> NEVER post anything Dune related show up IMMEDIATELY when this topic
> >>> arises.) A few misguided fans. Perhaps.
> >>
> >>tell me does Ty Beard fit into this catagory???
> >
> >Eh?
>
> He's suggesting (thoughtlessly) that Ty is a troll because he posts a
> lot about copyright issues. Surely you can see the logic there! :)
>
hrmmphh.... no it is gunnar who implied that those who never
post on this NG except when there is a copyright debate are
trolls. i was merely asking him whether ty beard is considered
under this "armada" of trolls includes ty, a poster who often
to post in these threads, and rarely in others...
>Surely you can see the logic there! :)
your comment shows the lack of logic here im afraid.
Zip_Vortex42
> In any case... if the market is such that prices are high, you
> either pay for a legitimate copy, or you don't own a copy
> of the book in *any* form.
The fact is... we are being played here... there is NO reason why this book
shouldn't get reprinted as often as the DUNE series do!
The publishers are CHOOSING to create a situation where this book is hard to
comeby, and is thereby expensive... People are missing out!
Copyright and Fraud and Digitisation aside... WHY is this situation
occurring!?
What other books go through this?
Paul.
Jonathan McArthur
| "Jonathan McArthur"
| > In any case... if the market is such that prices are high, you
| > either pay for a legitimate copy, or you don't own a copy
| > of the book in *any* form.
| The fact is... we are being played here... there is NO reason why this book
| shouldn't get reprinted as often as the DUNE series do!
There are several reasons, actually.
The main one that springs to mind is that Dune & its sequels might have appeal to *any* fiction
reader. The Dune Encyclopaedia is only likely to have appeal for Dune enthusiasts - a *much*
smaller prospective market. It's a simple matter of economics, really. A small print run isn't
going to make a huge profit, so what's the point for the publisher?
| The publishers are CHOOSING to create a situation where this book is hard to
| comeby, and is thereby expensive... People are missing out!
|
| Copyright and Fraud and Digitisation aside... WHY is this situation
| occurring!?
|
| What other books go through this?
It doesn't matter what the circumstances are. You don't have a copy because you aren't willing
to pay the market price. Fine. Shut up and get over it, or find the cash for a second hand copy
and stop complaining like a spoilt little child.
Chris Mears
If you're going to quote text, you might as well tell as *who* said
it.
>> >>> An armada of TROLLS, old and new. (I am impressed how some people who
>> >>> NEVER post anything Dune related show up IMMEDIATELY when this topic
>> >>> arises.) A few misguided fans. Perhaps.
>> >>
>> >>tell me does Ty Beard fit into this catagory???
>> >
>> >Eh?
>>
>> He's suggesting (thoughtlessly) that Ty is a troll because he posts a
>> lot about copyright issues. Surely you can see the logic there! :)
>
>hrmmphh.... no it is gunnar who implied that those who never
>post on this NG except when there is a copyright debate are
>trolls. i was merely asking him whether ty beard is considered
>under this "armada" of trolls includes ty, a poster who often
>to post in these threads, and rarely in others...
No, he's not. Ty's been posting here for at least three years -- you
could have found this for yourself if you'd bothered to check.
d19w33d
> >you better not be gunnar, im serious.
>
> Not as a troll, no. You WERE one of the people I was thinking of who
> rarely (though in your case not "never") post anything Dune related, but
> can always be counted on to be here when The Copyright Discussion pops
> up.
i know i was one of the people who you were thinking of,
and subsequently dont appreciate being associated in your
post as a troll. i cant help feel that this is an indirect snipe
towards me and others who simply disagree with you on this
issue.
> > infact i doubt there is a single copy in australia,
> >and if there is id be hard pressed to find one.
>
> I seem to remember information about a bookstore in Sydney having it.
> And anyway, shipping from the US isn't THAT expensive. Find it on one of
> the links I gave, see what other books that store has that you might
> want, and ship them all together. That way, shipping for each item
> should be quite reasonable.
reasonable? not for a second hand copy of a book that is:
a) never going to be reprinted
b) lining the pockets of "dune" fans who wish to IMO illegitimately
profit off it's sale.
> So now you are saying that the book is so bad (even though you've never
> seen it) that you should just be allowed to take it? That sounds like a
> massively self-serving moral system you've got there. And if it's a
> "worthless piece of pulp", why do you want it so bad?
i dont realy, in fact not at all. i merely want to have a look at it,
refer to it occasionaly and read a few passages. a digitalised copy
would be perfect for that.
im not saying that the DE is bad btw, im saying its probably not
worth the price people sell it for taking into condition and lack of
general demand etc.
> If the book is going for $100 and more (although that's exceptional. You
> will usually pay much less), it's obviously not worthless, and there is
> clearly a demand, is there not?
and the author doesnt want it posted on the net/ re-printed...
it doesnt realy say much for his loyalty to your average dune
fan does it?
the fact is there is a *demand* for it, however it comes from only
a small few fanatics who will NEVER justifiy a reprint in
the eyes of the author or the publishers. if the demand is small,
then so to will be any "damage" that the digitalisation will
cause (if any whatsoever).
> >nope.. this aint theft at all .. but you already knew i was gonna say
that
> There is a clear difference in that no one is actually deprived of any
> physical object (or an obvious, abstract one, like money in a bank
> account). This does not make it any less illegal, or any less immoral,
> though, just like murder or rape can not be defended by "oh, well. It's
> not theft". It just makes it another brand of crime.
the illegality is clear here, the immorality is not. wtf is this "oh, well.
It's
not theft" business about, what does rape or murder have to do with
this even using this in an analogy?? copyright is copyright, copyright is
not
always theft however... you did after all suggest it was theft didnt you?
(ie. "all theft is theft")
> >seriously... where is the harm in digitalising it??
>
> Disregarding the interest of the people who own copies (copies that will
> probably decrease in value if it's ever available for free on the
> Internet), the main harm is to Willis McNelly. He has a right to decide
> what happens to his work.
>
> His reasons for not allowing the book to be published online are his
> own. He has stated that legal concerns (as the Herbert Partnership and
> Berkley, IIRC, are co-holders of the copyright), a desire to see the
> book republished at some future date, and fears that free distribution
> would harm the integrity of the work.
>
> I can see perfectly where he's coming from. How many people have
> expressed a desire to see the DE "updated" and "revised", with all sorts
> of plans from letting fans write new articles to attempting to include
> information from HoD and Ch:D? The DE was written by academic experts in
> the field of each article, all was co-ordinated by McNelly and
> quality-checked by him and Frank Herbert. If this was to float freely
> around on the web with bastard copies and corrupted versions, the result
> would inevitably be a reduction of the stature of the book, IMHO.
why fear corrupted versions, surely a devout dune fan would want as
pure a copy as possible?. i understand his obvious concern for
preservation of his work in a pure state, but i certainly dont respect
his resistance to change and the development of the dune fan
community which he helped create.
> But the most important point, which I'd like to repeat, is that the
> creator has the right to control his work. Stephane Picq says he wants
> to see "Exxos: A Spice Opera" distributed? Hey, bring on those MP3s!
> Radiohead say they love it when fans know their songs even before
> they're published? Well, I bought all the albums, I see no harm in
> getting the B-sides and alternate versions. But McNelly says he doesn't
> want us to put the DE on the Internet? I may wish he'd reconsider, but
> it's his choice and I defend his exclusive right to that decision.
he may not want it out there, but if a digital copy fell into my hands
my consience would be clear... "McNelly" is at no risk of financial
loss, and the small general demand for it would allow little destruction/
corruption of his work.
d19w33d
> it.
dont go there chris, any right minded fool can follow the thread
and see who i just responded to.
> >hrmmphh.... no it is gunnar who implied that those who never
> >post on this NG except when there is a copyright debate are
> >trolls. i was merely asking him whether ty beard is considered
> >under this "armada" of trolls includes ty, a poster who often
> >to post in these threads, and rarely in others...
>
> No, he's not. Ty's been posting here for at least three years -- you
> could have found this for yourself if you'd bothered to check.
i am WELL aware of ty's history on this NG he has been here
longer than i have infact. however ty rarely ever posts
anything these days (even less than i do) and generaly posts in
these copyright threads and very rarely in others. hence i was
suggesting that gunnar's broad generalisation in relation to
"An armada of TROLLS, old and new" who "show up
IMMEDIATELY when this topic arises" could just as
easily cover both me (who opposses gunnar) and ty
(who would support him if he was here)...
i suggest chris that you retreat with your tail between
your legs before you make an even bigger fool of
yourself, you have CLEARLY missed the boat my friend.
d19w33d
> "Zip_Vortex42" wrote:
> | "Jonathan McArthur"
> | > In any case... if the market is such that prices are high, you
> | > either pay for a legitimate copy, or you don't own a copy
> | > of the book in *any* form.
> | The fact is... we are being played here... there is NO reason why this
book
> | shouldn't get reprinted as often as the DUNE series do!
>
> There are several reasons, actually.
>
> The main one that springs to mind is that Dune & its sequels might have
appeal to *any* fiction
> reader. The Dune Encyclopaedia is only likely to have appeal for Dune
enthusiasts - a *much*
> smaller prospective market. It's a simple matter of economics, really. A
small print run isn't
> going to make a huge profit, so what's the point for the publisher?
so where is the harm in digitalising a copy if the market is so
small?
> | The publishers are CHOOSING to create a situation where this book is
hard to
> | comeby, and is thereby expensive... People are missing out!
> |
> | Copyright and Fraud and Digitisation aside... WHY is this situation
> | occurring!?
> |
> | What other books go through this?
>
> It doesn't matter what the circumstances are. You don't have a copy
because you aren't willing
> to pay the market price. Fine. Shut up and get over it, or find the cash
for a second hand copy
> and stop complaining like a spoilt little child.
why pay some profiteering scumbag hard earned cash when we should
just be able to view a digital version for free, a service which will not
do anyone any harm whatsoever?
Zip_Vortex42
"Jonathan McArthur" pissed me off bigtime with...
> It doesn't matter what the circumstances are. You don't have a copy
because you > aren't willing to pay the market price. Fine. Shut up and get
over it, or find
> the cash for a second hand copy and stop complaining like a spoilt little
child.
HolySweetF**kingChrist!!!
What is with the ATITUDE!!!???
Get the handbags out ladies!!!
Paul. >:o(
Jeff Teunissen
[snip]
> You might be surprised that I actually agree with you here. It's not
> theft in the strictest sense of the word. (I was using it in a wider
> sense in which I would include fraud, extortion etc. as well under
> "theft".)
Fraud and extortion are crimes.
> There is a clear difference in that no one is actually deprived of any
> physical object (or an obvious, abstract one, like money in a bank
> account). This does not make it any less illegal, or any less immoral,
> though, just like murder or rape can not be defended by "oh, well. It's
> not theft". It just makes it another brand of crime.
It's not a crime, either, nor is it illegal. What it is is a civil
infringement.
It's one thing to say that copyright infringement is wrong (which I agree
with, particularly when the creator of a work doesn't want it reproduced or
redistributed), but to say that it's illegal or a crime is to vastly overstate
the laws involved.
You can lose a lot (and I mean a *LOT*) of money if you lose an IP case (which
are handled by civil courts, binding arbitration, etc.), but you're not going
to prison.
Zip_Vortex42
> so where is the harm in digitalising a copy if the market is so
> small?
EXACTLY!
> why pay some profiteering scumbag hard earned cash when we should
> just be able to view a digital version for free, a service which will not
> do anyone any harm whatsoever?
And that is by Jonathons own admission... this book will NEVER get a
reprint, so NoOne involved in its creation is going to make any more money
from it... All a Digitised copy will do is bring down the "second hand
martket value"... I can see NO harm in that.
Besides... any change to "second hand market value" is going to be
insignificant, as some people are still going to want an original copy.
cheers...
Paul. :o)
Monwar
Do it kid!
"blackc1" <bla...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:jWQX6.357$zE1.5...@news.uswest.net...
> I am soo disgusted by the legal wrangling of the publishers, and lawyers
> that I am totally tempted to scan each and every page of the DE and
release
> it to the internet.
> I have the software to do it but I am paralyzed by the idea that it is not
> fair to the writer and it would not be fair at all. I almost wish someone
> would though. Is anyone else disgusted by the price on this book nowdays?
> $100+ (if you are lucky)
> This book is great, and needs to be freely available to Dune fans.
>
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 90,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Nick Cassimatis
nice, tidy, profit margin built in, even for a small run.
Anyone else?
--
Nick Cassimatis
There's nothing humble about my opinion.
"Jonathan McArthur" <DIEmc...@SPAMstudent.MACHINESotago.OFac.DOOMnz>
wrote in message news:eiIY6.293$oM.4...@news.xtra.co.nz...
<snip>
> The main one that springs to mind is that Dune & its sequels might have
appeal to *any* fiction
> reader. The Dune Encyclopaedia is only likely to have appeal for Dune
enthusiasts - a *much*
> smaller prospective market. It's a simple matter of economics, really. A
small print run isn't
> going to make a huge profit, so what's the point for the publisher?
>
<snip>
Nick Cassimatis
it, while you're not using it (Sorry to say I'd be there). It's not truly
hurting you (if I fill the tank back up, and don't take rubber off the
tires - no promises there -, and change the oil, and...), nor anyone else.
(Get the idea that if you offer, I'd be there???)
I'm also sorry to say I'd read a copy of the DE if it were published on the
internet. I'd discard it after reading (and I'd give you back your Vette.
With a tear in my eye, but I'd give it back) , so it would be like checking
it out of the library, sort of. I just want to read it, get the info stored
in there, be able to participate in the discussions about it here. Just
like a library book...
Hey - that's a great idea - I'll check my library for it!
--
Nick Cassimatis
There's nothing humble about my opinion.
"Jeff Teunissen" <de...@d2dc.net> wrote in message
news:3B326AD4...@d2dc.net...
> John Kenny wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > "Big T" <Interne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:HK8Y6.27725$Lk1.1...@news02.optonline.net...
> > > It it is not in print, piracy is not an issue.
> >
> > Really? The 1963 Corvette is no longer in production. Do you suggest
> > that if someone steals mine I shouldn't consider it theft? I am
> > continually amazed that you coffee shop anarchists are really that daft.
>
> A better analogy would be if someone made a *copy* of your '63 Vette.
However
> one *can*, legally, build a fully-functional replica. My neighbor is
> replicating his '62 Stingray.
Zip_Vortex42
I'd pay £10 at MOST for paper back, but I'd pay £20 for Hard back (all new
of course).
Paul
"Nick Cassimatis" <nic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:L3KY6.6116$Md.11...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Professor J Frink
cheep cheep frink, <tj6p623...@corp.supernews.co.uk>, cheep
ptang woOoOo:
There are things in life other than money.
The author owns the copyright on the book, it's up to them what
they do with it.
If when the copyright expires or the author releases it *then*
you can do what you want with it. I'm currently enjoying the
benfits of this with free uncopyrighted texts and novels as
eBooks on my palm, and in other areas things like open source
software makes my life easier but I still pay for commercial
software and don't pass on copies.
If you respect copyright laws on anything you should respect them
on everything.
Whining here won't do anything but 'legitimise' definitely
illegal and possibly amoral practices. If you want the book buy
the 2nd hand copies or petition the author and/or publishers to
republish. Don't any libraries hold copies?
If it wasn't some stupid price I'd be interested for pure
curiosity's sake to read it, in the same way I bought the recent
preludes, just to see what someone else made of Frank's works.
Not having it, however, isn't the end of my life and I don't see
how it should be for anyone else's.
If you despise the author so much why do you all so desperately
want to read the book? It's not even canon material and some
might even hate it.
Nobody has a 'right' to this book other than the copyright owners
or the people who already have a copy. If you can't handle that
tough. There are much greater injustices in the world to pour
your scorn upon.
Frink (yeah, and I own the originals for all my mp3s too ;0)
--
'Professor' J Frink
Ringtail to the Stars & Professional Mossbauer Guru
shrike at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook
"And it can suck a monkey through 30ft of garden hose!"
Zip_Vortex42
> There are things in life other than money.
Your telling ME that!?
> The author owns the copyright on the book, it's up to them what
> they do with it.
uh huh..
> If when the copyright expires or the author releases it *then*
> you can do what you want with it.
>
> I'm currently enjoying the benfits of this with
> free uncopyrighted texts and novels as eBooks
> on my palm, and in other areas things like open source
> software makes my life easier but I still pay for commercial
> software and don't pass on copies.
Well thats real nice to know.
> If you respect copyright laws on anything you should respect them
> on everything.
MmHmmm...
> Whining here won't do anything but 'legitimise' definitely
> illegal and possibly amoral practices. If you want the book buy
> the 2nd hand copies or petition the author and/or publishers to
> republish. Don't any libraries hold copies?
Probably.
> If it wasn't some stupid price I'd be interested for pure
> curiosity's sake to read it, in the same way I bought the recent
> preludes, just to see what someone else made of Frank's works.
> Not having it, however, isn't the end of my life and I don't see
> how it should be for anyone else's.
I completely agree.
> If you despise the author so much why do you all so desperately
> want to read the book? It's not even canon material and some
> might even hate it.
I don't desperately want to read the book... I just wanna leaf through it a
little. I don't care shit nor soul about the Author.
> Nobody has a 'right' to this book other than the copyright owners
> or the people who already have a copy. If you can't handle that
> tough. There are much greater injustices in the world to pour
> your scorn upon.
Look... this ISN'T a big deal... this is simply a discussion on
principles... I couldn't give a rats ass if this book gets digitised or
not... I just think its a very interesting topic... I happen to be on the
side of those who feel there is nothing wrong with digitisin' the DE.
> Frink (yeah, and I own the originals for all my mp3s too ;0)
Well.... jeeze... Bully for you. ;o)
This'd be Paul.
KiltedJedi
Interne...@hotmail.com Swats Darth Maul aside to say
> You make a poor point.
> The author has already been compensated for it.
>
>
It doesn't matter whether you think that the author has been compensated
for it, it is still the copyright and intellectual property of the
author and as such the author has every right to get further
compensation.
How would you feel if you wrote a story that a publisher wanted and then
some chancers copied it electronically and distributed it freely,
without your permission? I know I would be very angry.
Jedi
--
Obi Wan:- Luke the force is strong in you
Luke:- Sorry that must be the Chilli repeating
To email replace usetheforce.luke with ntlworld.com
Help find Life after earth
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
KiltedJedi
@lineone.net Swats Darth Maul aside to say
> Thats about £15... for paperback?........ hmmmmmmm
>
> I'd pay £10 at MOST for paper back, but I'd pay £20 for Hard back (all new
> of course).
>
Gunnar Harboe
<zip_vo...@lineone.net> wrote:
>"Jonathan McArthur" pissed me off bigtime with...
>
>> It doesn't matter what the circumstances are. You don't have a copy
>because you > aren't willing to pay the market price. Fine. Shut up and get
>over it, or find
>> the cash for a second hand copy and stop complaining like a spoilt little
>child.
>
>HolySweetF**kingChrist!!!
>
>What is with the ATITUDE!!!???
You're the one who said "I don't care shit nor soul for the Author", a
guy who actually happens to post here. I think that's really the mask
coming off all these "moral principles" about free information, the
right of fans and intellectual property rights; it's all about "I want
it, so f**k anyone who says I can't have it!"
Gunnar Harboe
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:30:02 GMT, Jeff Teunissen <de...@d2dc.net> wrote:
>Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> You might be surprised that I actually agree with you here. It's not
>> theft in the strictest sense of the word. (I was using it in a wider
>> sense in which I would include fraud, extortion etc. as well under
>> "theft".)
>
>Fraud and extortion are crimes.
>
>> There is a clear difference in that no one is actually deprived of any
>> physical object (or an obvious, abstract one, like money in a bank
>> account). This does not make it any less illegal, or any less immoral,
>> though, just like murder or rape can not be defended by "oh, well. It's
>> not theft". It just makes it another brand of crime.
>
>It's not a crime, either, nor is it illegal. What it is is a civil
>infringement.
>
>It's one thing to say that copyright infringement is wrong (which I agree
>with, particularly when the creator of a work doesn't want it reproduced or
>redistributed), but to say that it's illegal or a crime is to vastly overstate
>the laws involved.
<snip>
According to "10 Big Myths about copyright explained"
<http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html>, commercial copyright
violation involving more than 10 copies and a value over $2500 is a
felony. This would probably not apply to the project now being proposed.
I am not a lawyer. Nor an American. I would call any violation of a law
a "crime". I realise that this might not be correct usage in the US, at
least not in the formal sense of the word. Sorry for the confusion.
Gunnar Harboe
wrote:
>> >ermm ... your not refering to me are you??
>> >you better not be gunnar, im serious.
>>
>> Not as a troll, no. You WERE one of the people I was thinking of who
>> rarely (though in your case not "never") post anything Dune related, but
>> can always be counted on to be here when The Copyright Discussion pops
>> up.
>
>i know i was one of the people who you were thinking of,
If the other people I was thinking of haven't figured it out yet, I was
referring to Met K. and blackc1, strongly suspected of being "Secret
Squirrel" from a few months back.
>and subsequently dont appreciate being associated in your
>post as a troll. i cant help feel that this is an indirect snipe
>towards me and others who simply disagree with you on this
>issue.
Noted.
>> > infact i doubt there is a single copy in australia,
>> >and if there is id be hard pressed to find one.
>>
>> I seem to remember information about a bookstore in Sydney having it.
>> And anyway, shipping from the US isn't THAT expensive. Find it on one of
>> the links I gave, see what other books that store has that you might
>> want, and ship them all together. That way, shipping for each item
>> should be quite reasonable.
>
>reasonable? not for a second hand copy of a book that is:
I was talking of the shipping. If you'd followed the links I gave you,
you'd have seen one copy for sale for $48.50, and several on auction
running at $10, $20, $21.50 and $30. I personally think this is not
totally unreasonable for an out-of-print collector's item.
I personally appreciate that some Dune stuff is hard to get hold of. I'm
a collector, you see, and it wouldn't be much fun otherwise. I finally
got hold of a copy of "Frank Herbert" by O'Reilly a couple of months
ago. Now I'm looking for "Maker of Dune", which should be really good.
Things like "Exxos: A Spice Opera" and the original Analog print run of
Dune is either impossible to get hold of or astronomically expensive
(the Analogs are doubly collectable since they cover the period when the
magazine switched between oversized and standard dimensions). I WILL
have them some day, though. :-)
The way I see it, if you're fan enough to buy it; then buy it. If not;
live without it. I also think it's important to point out that the DE is
expensive because it's genuinely rare, not because some corporation is
trying to screw the fans for their money (like LucasArt releasing
StarWars in dozens of different versions on video).
>a) never going to be reprinted
Why should this point make it any cheaper?
>b) lining the pockets of "dune" fans who wish to IMO illegitimately
> profit off it's sale.
Bullcrap. Do you honestly think anyone bought the book back in the
eighties with the intent of selling it for ten times the price today?
I'm not going to sell my signed copy of the DE (I'm actually on the
lookout for a Corgi UK edition), but if I were I would ask the price I
could get. For one thing, it's worth a lot to me, and for another, it's
worth a lot to other people as well. What's illegitimate about that?
>> So now you are saying that the book is so bad (even though you've never
>> seen it) that you should just be allowed to take it? That sounds like a
>> massively self-serving moral system you've got there. And if it's a
>> "worthless piece of pulp", why do you want it so bad?
>
>i dont realy, in fact not at all. i merely want to have a look at it,
>refer to it occasionaly and read a few passages. a digitalised copy
>would be perfect for that.
>
>im not saying that the DE is bad btw, im saying its probably not
>worth the price people sell it for taking into condition and lack of
>general demand etc.
>
>> If the book is going for $100 and more (although that's exceptional. You
>> will usually pay much less), it's obviously not worthless, and there is
>> clearly a demand, is there not?
>
>and the author doesnt want it posted on the net/ re-printed...
>it doesnt realy say much for his loyalty to your average dune
>fan does it?
You have no f**king idea what you're talking about. Anyone who has hung
around here long enough know what Willis has done for his fellow Dune
fans, from sharing inside information with us, going to great lengths to
give us that interview that people post now and again, making every
effort to have the DE republished, and having a good go at the prequels
when the first came out (although the details of that are not widely
known).
Anyway, I'm not going to let this debate be redefined to defending
something that needs no defense.
>the fact is there is a *demand* for it, however it comes from only
>a small few fanatics who will NEVER justifiy a reprint in
>the eyes of the author or the publishers. if the demand is small,
>then so to will be any "damage" that the digitalisation will
>cause (if any whatsoever).
>
>> >nope.. this aint theft at all .. but you already knew i was gonna say
>that
>> There is a clear difference in that no one is actually deprived of any
>> physical object (or an obvious, abstract one, like money in a bank
>> account). This does not make it any less illegal, or any less immoral,
>> though, just like murder or rape can not be defended by "oh, well. It's
>> not theft". It just makes it another brand of crime.
>
>the illegality is clear here, the immorality is not. wtf is this "oh, well.
>It's
>not theft" business about, what does rape or murder have to do with
>this even using this in an analogy??
Should be reasonably simple to understand. I agree that copyright
violation is not theft, but point out that that doesn't in any sense
make it right.
> copyright is copyright, copyright is
>not
>always theft however... you did after all suggest it was theft didnt you?
>(ie. "all theft is theft")
This was what my last clarification was all about. I think copyright
violation is theft in the same way that fraud, extortion etc. are theft
(i.e. the illegal taking of an object, a service or a privilege that
doesn't belong to you), but I don't think it's theft in the more limited
meaning of that word.
<snip>
>why fear corrupted versions, surely a devout dune fan would want as
>pure a copy as possible?. i understand his obvious concern for
>preservation of his work in a pure state, but i certainly dont respect
>his resistance to change and the development of the dune fan
>community which he helped create.
I think these sentences together demonstrate perfectly the fan mindset
that would worry me if I was Willis McNelly. The DE is well known to be
full of contradictions with the Chronicles, put in there intentionally
since the book was never intended "seriously" (in the way "The Science
of Star Trek" or "An Atlas of Middle Earth" are). I think the dedication
that has found positive outlet's in Niall's afd archives, all sorts of
plans for "The fans' Dune Encyclopedia" and Dart's Dune Page's guide to
pronunciation would be very likely to tamper with something like the DE.
All in the interest of creating "as pure a copy as possible".
>> But the most important point, which I'd like to repeat, is that the
>> creator has the right to control his work. Stephane Picq says he wants
>> to see "Exxos: A Spice Opera" distributed? Hey, bring on those MP3s!
>> Radiohead say they love it when fans know their songs even before
>> they're published? Well, I bought all the albums, I see no harm in
>> getting the B-sides and alternate versions. But McNelly says he doesn't
>> want us to put the DE on the Internet? I may wish he'd reconsider, but
>> it's his choice and I defend his exclusive right to that decision.
>
>he may not want it out there, but if a digital copy fell into my hands
>my consience would be clear... "McNelly" is at no risk of financial
>loss, and the small general demand for it would allow little destruction/
>corruption of his work.
Your conscience is your own. I can only try to convince you to
reconsider, and to stop encouraging other people to do this.
Gunnar Harboe
wrote:
>i am WELL aware of ty's history on this NG he has been here
>longer than i have infact. however ty rarely ever posts
>anything these days (even less than i do) and generaly posts in
>these copyright threads and very rarely in others. hence i was
>suggesting that gunnar's broad generalisation in relation to
>"An armada of TROLLS, old and new" who "show up
>IMMEDIATELY when this topic arises" could just as
>easily cover both me (who opposses gunnar) and ty
>(who would support him if he was here)...
If I didn't know Ty, I would from his late posts describe him as
"someone who never posts anything Dune related but shows up immediately
when this topic arises", yes. However, I have been here long enough to
know that this is not true. For one thing, he made the "Fistful of
Sardaukar" game, which is a good simulation of Duniverse warfare and
apparently plays really well as a wargame as well. He is just one of the
many OT regulars who don't post all that much anymore. I've been around
since before you showed up, so I don't think I need to make any
reservations for lack of knowledge.
>i suggest chris that you retreat with your tail between
>your legs before you make an even bigger fool of
>yourself, you have CLEARLY missed the boat my friend.
How come no one ever calls people "friend" in a friendly way?
Since Chris didn't post anything even vaguely foolish, I think you
should moderate your ridicule.
Zip_Vortex42
"Gunnar Harboe" <gh...@cam.ac.uk> said...
Okay Gunnar... I wanna clear this up...
My overall point was that this isn't a FIGHT.
Now... as to this...
> You're the one who said "I don't care shit nor soul for the Author", a
> guy who actually happens to post here. I think that's really the mask
> coming off all these "moral principles" about free information, the
> right of fans and intellectual property rights; it's all about "I want
> it, so f**k anyone who says I can't have it!"
Your taking what I said COMPLETELY out of context!
I said... "I don't care shit nor soul for the Author"...
...in REPLY to comments made by "Professor J. Frink", who said...
> If you despise the author so much why do you all so desperately
> want to read the book? It's not even canon material and some
> might even hate it.
I meant that I don't care shit nor soul about the author, in that I don't
have thoughts about him one way or the other... I don't know who he is... I
CERTAINLY don't DESPISE him!... and THAT was my point.
Gunnar... pointing out that he posts here doesn't alter my point. I still
feel efforts should be made to make this book more available... that is ALL!
I DID NOT make ANY personal attacks on the Author of DE.
C'mon... Lets not all fall out over this.
Paul.
Chris Mears
>> If you're going to quote text, you might as well tell as *who* said
>> it.
>
>dont go there chris, any right minded fool can follow the thread
>and see who i just responded to.
Then why bother quoting anything at all?
>> >hrmmphh.... no it is gunnar who implied that those who never
>> >post on this NG except when there is a copyright debate are
>> >trolls. i was merely asking him whether ty beard is considered
>> >under this "armada" of trolls includes ty, a poster who often
>> >to post in these threads, and rarely in others...
>>
>> No, he's not. Ty's been posting here for at least three years -- you
>> could have found this for yourself if you'd bothered to check.
>
>i am WELL aware of ty's history on this NG he has been here
>longer than i have infact. however ty rarely ever posts
>anything these days (even less than i do) and generaly posts in
>these copyright threads and very rarely in others.
My point was that Ty has been posting here for years on all sorts of
Duney things and thus cannot be classed as some troll who comes here
to cause trouble. Besides, if we can attract trolls as intelligent as
Ty, I'm all for it.
>i suggest chris that you retreat with your tail between
>your legs before you make an even bigger fool of
>yourself, you have CLEARLY missed the boat my friend.
*lol*
Clearly.
d19w33d
> >> it.
> >
> >dont go there chris, any right minded fool can follow the thread
> >and see who i just responded to.
>
> Then why bother quoting anything at all?
huh?
> >> >hrmmphh.... no it is gunnar who implied that those who never
> >> >post on this NG except when there is a copyright debate are
> >> >trolls. i was merely asking him whether ty beard is considered
> >> >under this "armada" of trolls includes ty, a poster who often
> >> >to post in these threads, and rarely in others...
> >>
> >> No, he's not. Ty's been posting here for at least three years -- you
> >> could have found this for yourself if you'd bothered to check.
> >
> >i am WELL aware of ty's history on this NG he has been here
> >longer than i have infact. however ty rarely ever posts
> >anything these days (even less than i do) and generaly posts in
> >these copyright threads and very rarely in others.
>
> My point was that Ty has been posting here for years on all sorts of
> Duney things and thus cannot be classed as some troll who comes here
> to cause trouble. Besides, if we can attract trolls as intelligent as
> Ty, I'm all for it.
your point is beside the point... did you even read what
i just wrote???
> >i suggest chris that you retreat with your tail between
> >your legs before you make an even bigger fool of
> >yourself, you have CLEARLY missed the boat my friend.
>
> *lol*
>
> Clearly.
your realy dont know when to stop do you?
cant realy handle being wrong perhaps?
d19w33d
> >longer than i have infact. however ty rarely ever posts
> >anything these days (even less than i do) and generaly posts in
> >these copyright threads and very rarely in others. hence i was
> >suggesting that gunnar's broad generalisation in relation to
> >"An armada of TROLLS, old and new" who "show up
> >IMMEDIATELY when this topic arises" could just as
> >easily cover both me (who opposses gunnar) and ty
> >(who would support him if he was here)...
>
> If I didn't know Ty, I would from his late posts describe him as
> "someone who never posts anything Dune related but shows up immediately
> when this topic arises", yes. However, I have been here long enough to
> know that this is not true. For one thing, he made the "Fistful of
> Sardaukar" game, which is a good simulation of Duniverse warfare and
> apparently plays really well as a wargame as well. He is just one of the
> many OT regulars who don't post all that much anymore. I've been around
> since before you showed up, so I don't think I need to make any
> reservations for lack of knowledge.
regardless of your prior knowledge of Ty, he still fits in to your
broad generalisation, and i just wanted to point out that
> >i suggest chris that you retreat with your tail between
> >your legs before you make an even bigger fool of
> >yourself, you have CLEARLY missed the boat my friend.
>
> How come no one ever calls people "friend" in a friendly way?
> Since Chris didn't post anything even vaguely foolish, I think you
> should moderate your ridicule.
he is not being foolish in your opinion, however in my
experience particularly in other threads of this nature
i would have to say that he has very little to say, except
when it comes to critising me, in a lame smart assed
manner. he completely missed my point, where as you
have now seen it. perhaps i should have explained myself
better in the first place?
Nick Cassimatis
were to send him money for it, would that cover things? If Dr. McNelley
were to distribute, for a charge (or even not) his complied manuscript, a
duplicate of what he submitted for publication, would that not be his right?
I'm wondering how much rights the publisher has to the work.
--
Nick Cassimatis
There's nothing humble about my opinion.
"KiltedJedi" <kilte...@usetheforce.luke> wrote in message
news:MPG.159db8d8...@news.ntlworld.com...
Fletcher Kuhn
the price if you want the book. I am sure Dr. McNelly has read all of these
posts that are ranting and raving about this topic. If you ever write a
book and get it published then you can decide if you want it to be posted
for free to all. I know if I ever get my book published I would not want
anyone to get it for free. I also know I have not talent, skill, or ability
to write a publishable book so I will respect the authors of my favorite
books by purchasing copies to read.
Fletch
d19w33d
news:3B33F025...@qwest.net...
> I just can't see why you are all so upset about the cost of DE. It is
worth
> the price if you want the book. I am sure Dr. McNelly has read all of
these
> posts that are ranting and raving about this topic. If you ever write a
> book and get it published then you can decide if you want it to be posted
> for free to all. I know if I ever get my book published I would not want
> anyone to get it for free. I also know I have not talent, skill, or
ability
> to write a publishable book so I will respect the authors of my favorite
> books by purchasing copies to read.
i dont think McNelly is reading these posts, in fact i'd be surprised
if he even knew what the internet was, considering his stance in relation
to digitalisation of the DE. would you still be opposed to people reading
and enjoying your book for free if it was over 15 years since you wrote
it? would you still mind it even though it is out of print and popularity?
Gunnar Harboe
wrote:
<snip>
>i dont think McNelly is reading these posts, in fact i'd be surprised
>if he even knew what the internet was, considering his stance in relation
>to digitalisation of the DE.
What are you on? You KNOW that Willis McNelly follows this group. He
posted a message only a week ago.
Considering MOST authors don't allow their work to be published on the
net, do you think none of them have any idea what the Internet is
either?
Fletcher Kuhn
been purchasing some of the more interesting books he published. Some of the
books I bought cost me $100.00 each.
So given the fact that I am willing to pay $100.00 for 90 year old books I
would have to say I would mind if someone electronically posted a copy of my
book (not that one exists). I would find the interest in my book many years
after it was published a big compliment and statement of the quality of the
book and my writing.
Fletcher
d19w33d
"Gunnar Harboe" <gh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3b34c820...@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 09:30:00 GMT, "d19w33d" <dig...@optushome.com.au>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> >i dont think McNelly is reading these posts, in fact i'd be surprised
> >if he even knew what the internet was, considering his stance in relation
> >to digitalisation of the DE.
>
> What are you on? You KNOW that Willis McNelly follows this group. He
> posted a message only a week ago.
>
> Considering MOST authors don't allow their work to be published on the
> net, do you think none of them have any idea what the Internet is
> either?
hehe well ok i didnt know that...
--
~Richard Peterson~
[t]he spice must flow...
> --
Jeff Teunissen
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:30:02 GMT, Jeff Teunissen <de...@d2dc.net> wrote:
> >It's one thing to say that copyright infringement is wrong (which I
> >agree with, particularly when the creator of a work doesn't want it
> >reproduced or redistributed), but to say that it's illegal or a crime
> >is to vastly overstate the laws involved.
> <snip>
>
> According to "10 Big Myths about copyright explained"
> <http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html>, commercial copyright
> violation involving more than 10 copies and a value over $2500 is a
> felony. This would probably not apply to the project now being proposed.
Ahh, see, that's different. Commercial copyright infringement (that is,
infringing copyright for the purpose of making "money" on the Work in some
manner; or receiving "money" for the same) can be a crime.
> I am not a lawyer. Nor an American. I would call any violation of a law
> a "crime". I realise that this might not be correct usage in the US, at
> least not in the formal sense of the word. Sorry for the confusion.
Normal Copyright infringement (that is, non-commercial) is not tried as a
crime (as in "The People vs. whoever"), at least in the US. Instead, the
damaged party brings forth a suit making claims. In a criminal trial, the
plaintiff is the city, county, state, or nation; in a civil case the plaintiff
is a legal entity, or group of legal entities in the case of a class-action
suit. There is no presumption of innocence, because there's no "guilty/not
guilty" verdict, just a "you win/you lose"; it comes down to whose story the
judge believes more.
If you lose, you've not been convicted -- you have had a judgement against
you, generally awarding the plaintiff a sum of money...but you're not going to
jail.
Niall Young
>
> I think the dedication that has found positive outlet's
> in Niall's afd archives, all sorts of plans for "The
> fans' Dune Encyclopedia" and Dart's Dune Page's guide to
> pronunciation would be very likely to tamper with
> something like the DE. All in the interest of creating
> "as pure a copy as possible".
I feel obligated to point out that if any copyrighted
material is posted to the group, it will be archived.
Unless legally forced to do so I will *not* tamper with
the archive in any way whatsoever - it thereby ceases to
be an accurate, historical archive.
> >> But the most important point, which I'd like to repeat,
> >> is that the creator has the right to control his work. > >
> > he may not want it out there
And I'd like to re-iterate what was said above. We can
condemn and condone alternative distribution indefinitly.
In the end, it has and will be done.
I for one, will purchase a copy of the DE as soon as I find
one (locally, and for a *fair* price). I won't hesitate to
download a digital version (for free or otherwise), as I
have so far been unable to purchase a deadwood copy. As
well as referring to the physical manifestation of this
work, I would find it extremely useful to have a digital
copy.
Pushing the moral/legal debate aside for a moment, in my
opinion the only ones missing out are the fans.
Son Goen
fido4fox <fido...@NOSPAM.Yahoo.Com> wrote in message
news:tivt2l3...@corp.supernews.com...
> the only way I have seen it available is at the local library and then it
is
> on a waiting list. It sucks that it cost so much, but there are only
100000
> published in tis first run, so there are only a few that are available and
> the whole law of supply and demand youi know....
I have a copy, but it's a little confusing to read. It tries to take the
prespective of being an encyclopedia of facts, but from the prespective of a
historian that scrutinizes all "facts" held within the books. Some important
fields of info are missing though.
Son Goen
-The soldier Super Saiyajin
Chris Mears
Hardy Hestert
<snip>
> I feel obligated to point out that if any copyrighted
> material is posted to the group, it will be archived.
>
> Unless legally forced to do so I will *not* tamper with
> the archive in any way whatsoever - it thereby ceases to
> be an accurate, historical archive.
Where and how can I access this archive?
Or that Google archive mentioned in the "Alt.fan.dune" thread. OK, I'm
at www.google.com, now how do I get into that archive?
Hardy
Zip_Vortex42
"Chris Mears" <ch...@adjective-army.com> wrote in message
news:foeljtsreedfonm1v...@4ax.com...
> "Son Goen" <son_...@powersurfr.com> wrote:
>
> >fido4fox <fido...@NOSPAM.Yahoo.Com> wrote in message
> >news:tivt2l3...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> the only way I have seen it available is at the local library and then
it
> >is
> >> on a waiting list. It sucks that it cost so much, but there are only
> >100000
> >> published in tis first run, so there are only a few that are available
and
> >> the whole law of supply and demand youi know....
> >
> >I have a copy, but it's a little confusing to read. It tries to take the
> >prespective of being an encyclopedia of facts, but from the prespective
of a
> >historian that scrutinizes all "facts" held within the books. Some
important
> >fields of info are missing though.
>
> Perhaps you should ask for a refund.
... or sell it on EBay!
Paul.
Sophie Lee
news:%2JY6.6441$l_3....@news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au...
> > If you're going to quote text, you might as well tell as *who* said
> > it.
>
> dont go there chris, any right minded fool can follow the thread
> and see who i just responded to.
When I use deja.com to read posts, I have a hard time knowing who's replying
who without keeping such vital info as username, user email address and
such. Others have warned me in other newsgroups as bad netikette, it
obviously should apply here.
Niall Young
>
> Niall Young schrieb:
>
> archived.
>
> Where and how can I access this archive?
At the moment it's just a bunch of plaintext postings,
in the order that my local server received them. Over
the next few weeks I'll have a decent frontend, searching
etc.
Chris Mears
>Or that Google archive mentioned in the "Alt.fan.dune" thread. OK, I'm
>at www.google.com, now how do I get into that archive?
Pedro Medina
portion of the encyclopedia and made it available online. Dr. McNelly
rightly objected. I recall at the time that he was trying to convince the
publisher to issue a reprint or put out a revised edition. I remember
when the book first came out, I was walking through a large bookstore and
saw a large stack of them on display. As a Frank Herbert fan, I bought it
on the spot (of course not knowing how it would become so hard to find).
I find some of the entries very good (e.g. the spacing guild, Holtzman)
and some are just plain silly ( e.g. sardukar titles). For me it was a
way to find out more about the universe, never thought it would spawn such
a hot debate over whether it should be canon.
Hardy Hestert wrote:
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Willis E. McNelly
"d19w33d" <dig...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
From Dr. McNelly:
I read these postings at least once each week. I do not feel that you
can insult me by making snide comments about what I do or do not know
about anything. FYI I am a member of First Fandom, and you probably do
now evenknow tha that means.)I have "ionsulted" by experts, which you are
not.
I have been "knowledgeable" about the net for about 15 years, and I
object to digitalization of the DE not only because I would consider it
theft (re-read the 4th amendment to the US Constitution concerning
intellectual property) but also because I KNOW that the copyright owners
of the material from which the DE was derived (with FH's blessing and
cooperation) ae fiercely protective of all aspects of their copyright.
If you are a newbie to the a.f.d. group, suggest stongly that you go into
the a.f.d.archives (I believe they can be found on deja news, or
something like that) and read the extensive degates, discussions, and so
on that that pfreceded your silly comments by many years.
David Kallaur
Dr. McNelly, I am a proud owner of the DE. Do you have any information
regarding the print run, such as number of copies produced? It might explain
to some net denizens the old supply -> demand relationship.
Willis E. McNelly
"d19w33d" <dig...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
Dr. McNelly writing:
I read these posts an average of once a week. Strongly suggest you go
back into the afd archives (thru deja news, as I recall altho the name may
have changed) and read the debates on this subject of several years ago. I
object to "digitalization" not because of any anti-machine attitude, but
because I believe that the 4th amendment to the US constitution guarantees
the right of intellectual properties to remain with their creator - in
this instance FH and myself. Furthermore I KNOW that the owners of the FH
copyrights are very protective of their materials, as they should be
seeing that they own a cash cow, and any attorney would tell you that you
cannot afford to get into a legal pissing contest with them, no matter
what your assets.
As to my not knowing what the Internet is, I have been computer literate
for nearly two decades (certainly a number higher than your IQ) and as to
your implied insult of my knowledge, and so on, don't bother to flame me -
I have been insulted by experts.
One more thing: I am a member of First Fandom - and if you do not know
that that means - it suggests that I have forgotten more about SF than you
probably know, and my close friendship wtih FH, dating back to 1968, also
suggests that I know a bit more about the Dune Chronicles than most a.f.d.
fans, some of whom are dune buggies.
"I am constantly amazed at the infinite capacity of the human mind to
withstand the introdustion of knowledge." President Woodrow Wilson.
Dune10191
by Dr Willis Everett McNelly
Cover Illustration by Vinny Difate
(New York:Berkley Books, June 1984)
Also a Putnam version ISBN 0-399-12950-2 June 1984
The Dune Encyclopedia, compiled by Dr Willis E. McNelly , is a
comprehensive, authorized encyclopedia spanning the Dune series up to book
4, and including little-known information and nice drawings. It's written
from post-Scattering perspective.
Information
The trade paperback edition of the DE had a print run of around
100,000. With no second printing.
There is two different hardback editions of the DE:
One was a regular trade edition (3000) Mainly for Library's
The other was smaller than the trade size but had the same content. This is
whats known as the Book Club Edition
There is also a British trade paperback and a German Hardback in 2 volumes
(pictured above). The British DE used the same plates as the American one.
The German one has exactly the same content apart from its translation
Hope that helps
Dune10191
--
Buy all you dune items in the uk from http://www.arrakis.co.uk/ukbuy.html
Buy all you dune items in the USA and Canada from
http://www.arrakis.co.uk/usabuy.html
"David Kallaur" <davi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:gvT27.400882$K5.42...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
Willis E. McNelly
Kallaur" <davi...@home.com> wrote:
I am uncertain about the printing size of the Berkley edition. I'll look
at some back files and check - perhaps it shows on my royalty statements.
I do know that the library size hard back printing was under 3000. I have
no idea how large the SF Book Club edition was nor do I know the size of
the printing for the British or German editions.
Zensunni
news:wmcnelly-240...@d-asdful43.fullerton.edu...
I have found the following.
Dune Encyclopedia:
Compiled by Dr. Willis E. McNelly
Jacket Illustration by Vinny Difate
Designed by Jeremiah B. Lighter
Copyright © 1984 by Dr. Willis E. McNelly.
ISBN: 0-425-06813-7
Available as:
Berkley trade paperback edition
Press run: 100,000 copies
Cover Price: $9.95 (U.S.), $11.95 (Canada)
Berkley's Book Club Edition (hardback)
Press run: unknown
Berkley edition (library hardback copies)
Press run: 3,000 copies
Greetz Marco.