Have you downloaded the Turbo Pyro Book?

[maroon]

HI all new to the site and all round noon in general , not sure where to post this question but this topic seem the most relevant, any suggestions on books worth buying for a beginner pyrotechnics enthusiast

Thanks for any replys

[DavidF]

It's not a book, but Ned Gorski's Fireworking 101 videos on YouTube are a great place to start. They are free. His Fireworking 201 and 301 require joining his site. In my opinion, this is the best value for money if you want to learn how to make fireworks.

 

As far as my earlier comments go: despite much feigned 'concern' about the issue of copyright infringement in these discussions, the concern has not once ever manifested itself in actions against the scourge some of us complain of. It is merely something to complain about for entertainment purposes.

 

When I called AFN (to be the first to walk the talk), they pretended to be taking their copyrighted stuff off of Pyrobin. I could hear the keystrokes on my end. But, NOTHING was removed! So, even the holder of the copyright (or his representative) didn't care at all about the issue.

 

The only case I know of where a person protested infringement of their copyright is the one case with Lloyd. We all know that Pyrobin is rife with 'purloined' material. And not one person has done anything about it. Not the 'victims', not anybody here (except me), and not the host of the site. This is the real level of concern- none at all. Every time this subject comes up, I will re-post this reminder of our collective complacency, so we can move on to things we actually do care about

 

I'm sorry if any lawyers among us get hurt "feelings!"

[starxplor]

I have actually seen many things removed from pyrobin.

Remember, pyrobin cannot pre-emptively remove something without a request from the copyright holder, without losing protections for when people upload other copyright works. Additionally, a non-holder requesting removal can, and sometimes is, ignored, as the law only requires response to the actual holder. Some systems, I am not sure about pyrobin, put weights on reports, and if enough non-holders report, then it is removed, while a single holder report is enough to remove an item.

 

All of this is a different question from if it is right or not to upload or download something you find that is copyrighted. Legality and morality are not the same thing. Personally, if something is available legally, I consider it wrong to illegally get a copy, while if the copyright holder is not making it available legally, I am less concerned.

[OldMarine]

I downloaded it at Harry's invitation and haven't shared more than attributed excerpts. I think that is how it should be and in that vein I also bought the Westech Manual after I'd found it online so my conscience would be clear. Intellectual property is no different than real property when it comes to the use and acquisition.

Stealing is stealing whether you stole the item or merely received it. Simple shit. If you think you deserve my work for free I'll set you straight but a far off author doesn't have your neck in arm's length....

[MrB]

Stealing is stealing whether you stole the item or merely received it.

Semantics perhaps, but copyright infringement, and stealing, is not the same thing.

[OldMarine]

Semantics perhaps, but copyright infringement, and stealing, is not the same thing.

As you said, semantics. Morally it is stealing.

[DavidF]

It would be interesting to have somebody lay out the exact procedure a person is expected to go through to stay on the 'right' side of the law. In my simple mind, it is not crystal clear by looking at a thumbnail whether or not I am about to become a 'thief'. I need a step by step guide to staying 'honest', since I'm not a lawyer. If I find 20 bucks lying on the road and I don't see anybody around, should I pick it up? Should I start knocking on doors, or putting found ads on nearby posts? Donate it to charity?

 

Pyrobin does not have a 'request' system. One does NOT have to be the copyright holder to AUTOMATICALLY have something removed. Anybody can walk the talk- if they care enough. Many classic works reside there, rubbing shoulders with uploads from some of us here. They are impossible to miss. Newbies don't know the big names in pyro whose works are posted online there. Veteran pyros do. I see no evidence of any classic copyrighted works being removed from Pyrobin. I'd like to know the title of one thing removed, other than the few items I removed to prove that anybody can walk the talk.

[lloyd]

It certainly IS stealing, in the most practical sense of the word, when someone TAKES MY ROYALTY for the sale of a book, because they want to have my money AND my work, but are unwilling to pay for it.

 

That's why I DO pursue infringements on my copyrights, whenever I can. Some are impossible to pursue, but I try in every case of which I'm notified.

 

One poor young hacker ended up paying me the retail price for 40 copies of my ball milling booklet, because when I caught him distributing it (and discovered his age), I contacted his father, instead of him! <grin> His dad was a mechanical engineer, and was PISSED! (at him, not me)

 

LLoyd

Edited June 27, 2017 by lloyd

[MrB]

As you said, semantics. Morally it is stealing.

Well, you, and the lawmakers apparently don't agree.

 

 

It certainly IS stealing, in the most practical sense of the word, when someone TAKES MY ROYALTY for the sale of a book, because they want to have my money AND my work, but are unwilling to pay for it.

As far as i know, regardless of how many copies someone makes of your work, you don't lose any royalties. What is sold, is sold, and you get your money regardless. Your loss is not getting the royalties from the copy someone made, who may, or may not, had actually bought it if it wasn't possible to copy it. It's a different crime.

 

Stealing something, means you lose something you had. Someone stealing 5 bucks from your wallet is theft. Copyright infringement, doesn't "cost" you anything. The 5 bucks in royalty you never get paid for the copy of the book someone downloaded might be just as needed, but it's not the same thing. Mostly since a downloaded copy doesn't per default equal a lost sale of something, so where as one is a certain loss, the second actually isn't.

 

Anyway, it's semantics. I'm pretty sure we don't really see copyright the same way, or have the same opinions on the topic.

 

 

One poor young hacker ended up paying me the retail price for 40 copies of my ball milling booklet, because when I caught him distributing it (and discovered his age), I contacted his father, instead of him! <grin> His dad was a mechanical engineer, and was PISSED! (at him, not me)

It is almost funny how often people act that way, and yet, have no qualms about asking the same fella "Hey, can you download this resource i need for me?"

Hell, i'm drawing near 40 years old, and i still get the same lectures from my father on the topic of copyright, which he quite clearly just doesn't understand. "It's illegal, everyone that partakes should be shot on sight, oh, and hey, someone gave me a copy of this map software that i cant get to work, the crack for the license seams bad, can you download something, or fix it?" But daaad, that is piracy, and illegal! "Nono, that is all right, they don't mean this stuff."

 

Yes, they DO mean that stuff, and they DO mean you. *sigh*

 

I'm of the opinion that nobody, anywhere on earth, isn't already "guilty" of copyright infringement by consuming protected materials that have been acquired without the owners permission. And there is no real difference in downloading a pdf, watching a movie, playing a game, or listening to music. When it comes to buying and selling stuff that is protected i feel that the crime is worse, since someone clearly was willing to part with money to get the item in question, and people still buy counterfeit t-shirts, and ladies bags, when they are on vacation.

 

Anyway. I guess i'm going oftopic. Sorry.

[DavidF]

heh heh, reminds me of my dad. Stealing gloves from the factory in his lunchpail wasn't really stealing. Buying diesel fuel as stove oil and filling up his old Mercedes after dark wasn't stealing, etc...

 

It still would be cool to see the checklist a person 'should' use to see if it's OK to download (or even look at) something we see online, since clicking has been likened to stealing. I think it would bring perspective to how realistic it is to expect us 'tails' to wag the dogs.

[lloyd]

I think you miss the point about copyrights. The 'buyer' owns the physical media on which the copyrighted work is published. He can lend it, keep it, or destroy it.

 

But he DOES NOT own the conceptual work displayed on those pages! The copyright ensures that the author OWNS the information there. If that information is conveyed by other means than a purchased copy, then he has been robbed of conceptual property HE OWNED. It's just as much 'theft' as if he'd come into my house and stolen a copy. it's not something I 'might have had', if he'd purchased it... it's my property, and remains-so even AFTER he's purchased the media on which it's printed!

 

Lloyd

[DavidF]

I wrote an article for AFN. Lloyd, you've written articles for them too. You don't own your work any more than I own mine. We are the authors but not the copyright-holders. AFN is the copyright-holder. And they have willingly let others have our work for free. Even when notified, they chose to let the copies of Best of AFN remain on Pyrobin.

 

I bought a set of SBR tooling from Steve Majdali. When I asked for instructions, he couldn't provide them. Why? Because he wrote the instructions as an article for the PGI, and they owned his freely given work. I could have joined the PGI, and paid for the bulletin to get the instructions for what I had already purchased. But I didn't. I got somebody to break the law and provide me with the instructions.

 

Many fireworks clubs make vignettes of their work, and post on Pyrobin. They use copyrighted material as the background music. When I said "What about that?" during a past discussion about copyright infringement, nobody could actually say it was wrong. I got a whole lotta hypothetical ifs and buts, because nobody in the discussion had the balls to call a spade a spade.

 

It's always us little people that get branded as crooks,not the people that facilitated it. Ever notice that?

[MrB]

Buying diesel fuel as stove oil and filling up his old Mercedes after dark wasn't stealing, etc..

 

Wouldn't that actually be tax evasion, rather then theft? (It would here, for sure, but unlike copyright law, tax regulations aren't exactly common the world over.)

Buying diesel fuel as stove oil and filling up his old Mercedes after dark wasn't stealing, etc...

 

 

I think you miss the point about copyrights.

Pretty sure we both understand it quite clearly, we seam to have slightly different personal opinions on the topic tho. The law is quite clear when agreeing with me. Theft is one crime, copyright infringement, is a different. The reasons for this difference seam to be where we don't quite agree.

 

 

The copyright ensures that the author OWNS the information there. If that information is conveyed by other means than a purchased copy, then he has been robbed of conceptual property HE OWNED.

Yeah, that is probably quite close to where the law doesn't agree with your interpretation. The illegal copy contains information you still own. Nobody "robbed" you of anything. The loss you incurred was that of a possible sale.

 

Hell, tying it back in to this thread, even a work that is freely given away, and doesn't really represent a monetary value is copyright protected, and if downloaded from a source without distribution rights, is copyright infringement.

 

 

Many fireworks clubs make vignettes of their work, and post on Pyrobin. They use copyrighted material as the background music. When I said "What about that?" during a past discussion about copyright infringement, nobody could actually say it was wrong. I got a whole lotta hypothetical ifs and buts, because nobody in the discussion had the balls to call a spade a spade.

There IS an argument to be made for "fair use" but the problem with that is, nobody seams to agree on what is or isn't allowed, so it's just... weird.

Edited June 27, 2017 by MrB

[lloyd]

" AFN is the copyright-holder. And they have willingly let others have our work for free. Even when notified, they chose to let the copies of Best of AFN remain on Pyrobin."

 

----

The fact that they don't pursue their copyrights doesn't mean that I should not do so! A copyright is ownership of the content. What one wishes to do to protect that ownership is up to the owner. In fact, the way US copyright law reads, I'm not 'protected' unless I defend it! I defend mine, because they're MINE. I OWN them, and nobody has the right to steal what I own!

 

When _I_ used copyrighted music for scripting shows (many), I licensed it. It's cheap (really cheap in 'one-use' applications), and good protection against such prosecution! I also used 'public domain' music (actually very few pieces, because the performers, not merely the composers can also have a copyright) -- but the difference is that I _checked_ what the 'rights' were before I stole it.

 

I have no truck with folks who steal my belongings without my express permission. I have granted 'free use' of some of my works to folks who've asked. But when they don't ask -- they get prosecuted! Period!

 

Lloyd

[MrB]

I have no truck with folks who steal my belongings without my express permission. I have granted 'free use' of some of my works to folks who've asked. But when they don't ask -- they get prosecuted! Period!

I don't think anyone has any problem with anyone else protecting their rights. Personally i don't agree with the language your using but i assume that if at any point you have to deal with the law, you have juridical counseling, and they can sort out the differences. If you try to pull someone in to court claiming "theft", but in reality it's copyright infringement, it's going to get thrown out so fast your lawyer barely can charge you for it, and that is not in their best interest, so they will sort that out. Stealing, theft, or robbery, doesn't exactly end up on the same page at piracy, or copyright infringement in the synonyms dictionary.

[lloyd]

MrB,

I'm VERY careful to 'officially' pursue my legal position as 'copyright infringement'. I pursue it (personally) as a theft. It's my property, and anyone who takes it is subject to such prosecution, if I identify the theft.

 

Lloyd

[starxplor]

I am sorry, but copyright is not ownership. It is literally in its name, the right to control copying. Additionally, not getting a royalty that was never created is not theft, as there was never a thing in existence to deny you access to. A person who downloads a copy of a work, that never would have paid for even if the downloaded copy was not available, has not stolen anything (though the law says it is still wrong, and in most cases, most peoples' morals would agree with the law).

 

None of this means copyright issues are not important, they absolutely are, but the concepts behind it are different. To many people, this may seem like a minor distinction, but it comes into play when discussing things like what should be fair use and not.

 

And just like most laws, it really all comes down to enforcement. Even without being a stakeholder in a particular copyright, reporting infringing content to the host of the content is a good thing. It shows the host that people do care about infringement and that people do have their eyes on the host. Of course this is not going to remove 100% of infringing content, any more than any other law is enforced 100% of the time, but it will limit what is infringed, and this is good for all content producers and distributors.

Edited June 28, 2017 by starxplor

[DavidF]

That's so right, Starxplor! We all have the ability to think for a moment about our fellow man, to take a moment out of our busy lives, and bother to make a difference- if we care to. Calling each other thieves here (or elsewhere) doesn't seem to be a solution to anything, IMO. Those clicks could have been used to good effect.

 

In a some of my examples, the author is not the owner at all. The man who developed the SBR tooling and wrote an article for PGI doesn't own his work after he gives it away. PGI owns it. In the cases of the AFN articles I mentioned- we don't own the work any more. And, if AFN decides to give the work I gave them to Wolter so Wolter can use my work to sell a new product based on my work, they are free to do so (and have done so)! They've broken no laws, so I guess they are the 'good' people, while I'm the crook that broke some law to get my instructions for my tooling. At least I have freedom of speech to say what I think about it

[Piccaso]

Knowledge is power.

[Iceland]

very interesting going to download it

[Sza]

Thanks.

[Shakudama]

I have collected a great deal of free material off the web; FAST, Weingart, Pyrobin, Skyligher, etc. I've always assumed these were all open source / public domain. My ball mill, for example, came off YouTube. Later I found out the fundamental design belongs to Lloyd Sponenburgh. I've never sold or profited from it or anything, but I never bought a copy of Ball Milling Theory and Practice either. Seems like a YouTuber put his ball mill out there without Lloyd's permission. I'm at least morally obligated to call my ball mill a Sponenburgh mill. Give credit where credit is due.

[Arthur]

Copyright has an owner until 70 (IIRC) years after the author's death, The copyright may be transferred like a hard property by arrangement with the author.

 

The WWW is a lawless place! You may find things there that are stolen from their owners, that something is on the web doesn't make it yours to download/copy/print/sell/repost.

 

Interestingly some people edit books that they scan to the web, -chop out whole chapters etc.

[justvisiting]

I mean no disrespect to Lloyd or his work. But please don't think Lloyd invented ball milling. There were published articles about ball milling for the amateur pyrotechnist in print before Lloyd's book came out. His predecessors get no mention. Lloyd popularized ball milling and wrote a very good manual, but his design is only one of many many designs. Lots of people deserve credit for doing the legwork for us. The "fundamental design" for ball mills is over a hundred years old. Unless you copied Lloyd's actual book, you've 'stolen' nothing from him.

Personally, I disagree with using mill jars that are (let's say) 8 inches long and 6 inches wide. 6 inches long and 8 inches wide does more work. I've proven that a 6" diameter jar on a Pyro-Gear mill works better for sulfur and better for potassium nitrate than a 4' diameter jar, even though the RPM dropped from 75 to 25. Pyro-Gear now has 6" diameter jars on their newer mills but they've adjusted the speed accordingly, to maximize the gain I saw with mine.

 

As far as Pyrobin goes, anybody that cares enough to have copyrighted material removed can do so with a few keystrokes. I have done so, not because it's my job to police the internet, but to show the complacency that exists regarding copyright issues. I've seen ONE example of an author making a copyright claim on behalf of a fellow author. I've seen SEVERAL examples of an author uploading material right next to obviously pirated material, with no concern for his fellow man. But, I repeat myself

[Shakudama]

I hope to meet Lloyd some day. Turbo Pyro got me interested, and the simplified ball mill produced BP good enough to lift and break my little 2" canister shells. I'm playing with Z cakes and lance work these days. Fun and beautiful. Couldn't do any of it without that legwork! I'm still a noob standing on the shoulders of giants, and humbly appreciative.