REQ: New Yankee Workshop Deluxe Router Station Plans

I did buy the plans for the reason the OP stated. Modified the height
because I don't like to bend over and outfitted it with locking
casters. After I got the carcase and the dust box finished I put a
Jointech fence on it "just to see how I liked it," and I liked using
the router station so much I never have gotten around to making the
drawers." :-)


In article <[email protected]>, Edwin
Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Steve Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> my question is: why need a set of plans? If you've seen the item, and
> > know
> >> its features, make it from scratch yourself.
> >
> > I think that if someone is capable of properly building something
> > from one of Norm's plans, they they're entirely capable of building from
> > scratch. It's just a confidence thing.
>
> Both methods are right. Plans can be very educational for the person that
> is learning what joinery is good for certain situations. Plans serve as a
> guide and should be modified to suit the situation at hand
>
>

--
Vince Heuring To email, remove the Vince.

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 15:15:37 -0400, "Lee Gordon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

><<There's a dash in anal-retentive, by the way.>>
>
>It's called a hyphen. Two of them ( -- ) would be a dash. Sorry. Just
>being anal. <g>

Is it an en-dash or em-dash?

--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

Can you spell COPYRIGHT?

Brian Siano wrote:
> SeeAll wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > Could some kind person email a complete set of plans to build Norm's
> > router station.
> >
> Sorry, but that's copyrighted material.

No need to apologize. It is legal to buy and sell coyrighted material.
Bookstores do it all the time.

>
> Can't you design your own router table?

Evidently not.

--

FF

Tim Douglass wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:33:27 +0000 (UTC), "SeeAll"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > The spirit of the internet is to
> >freely share information.
> When you have finished with an item you post it
> >for others to share.

Freely sharing INFORMATION is not the same as blatantly violating
copyright law.

>
> OK, so you are also a communist twit.

A cheap thieving twit, they're not all communists.

>
> > I suppose it is to be expected that has more and more
> >people use the medium commercialism moves in. I will try other boards of
> >which thankfully there are many.

Commercialism has nothing to do with it, and this is not a board.
Fact is, use of the internet to vioolate intellectual property
lasws has become easier with the rise of ISPs who sell access to
the internet. Unlike the pre-commercial days, when every system
manager was held accountable for his users, today's ISPs are
only interested in avoiding liability, they don't give a damn
about the internet itself, or even their own reputation.

>
> Fortunately, the thieves like you who tried to push that vision of the
> Internet have been bludgeoned into submission so that the entire thing
> has survived this far. Only an idiotic, communistic, twit would think
> that the Internet can possibly survive without commercialism.

No doubt the internet would have survived and flourished without
commercialism. It did fine beofor commercialism. Without
commercialism
it would never be as large as it is today, the web might not have
come about, but the basic internet would cerainly have survived
becuause it is so useful.

--

FF

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 18:20:20 -0400, "no(SPAM)vasys"
<"no(SPAM)vasys"@adelphia.net> wrote:

>HMFIC-1369 wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> If I gave you my copy of XP when I installed Linux, I broke the law.
>
>Regarding ownership transfer my Windows XP EULA reads:
>
> "Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the
> Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to
> another end user. The transfer has to include all
> component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and
> if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity."


The EULA for copies of Windows XP distributed with (at least some) new
computers prohibits transfer of the software.

Not that this has much to do with making and distributing copies of
NYW project plans, of course.


--
Chuck Taylor
http://home.hiwaay.net/~taylorc/contact/

Not stretching anything. You're the one guessing and making assumptions..
But your ther man huh?



"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> HMFIC-1369 wrote:
> >
> > Ownership is Ownership regardless of Product, Pretty much everything is
> > copyrighted software and everything else. I'd say that if you purchase a
> > schematic or plans they to will include an agreement thet further
protects
> > them. Certainly allow me to build one, but not 10....either to sell or
give
> > away! As for books themselves let say you purchased the book, and you
mother
> > is blind it would most certainly be illegal for you to transpose it to
> > braille or audio even though no such media exsists for that book. Or
even
> > say for it's own protection that this book is one of a kind and no
longer in
> > print,
>
> Man, you're stretching for something to gaff over here, arntcha... :(
>
> You can say whatever you want, and you'll undoubtedly be able to find
> some product somewhere that has any specific set of licensing agreement
> conditions you wish--folks are invariably creative that way.
>
> For a simple copyright which is all that I <ever> even mentioned, all of
> these extraneous conditions are of no bearing whatsoever, there just
> crap you're making up to hear yourself type, I guess.
>
> For your own use I don't think it actually defeats the intent of the
> copyright to make a single Braille or audio copy--certainly I would
> expect virtually any publisher would grant permission on the condition
> you did not resell the copy anyway if you were to feel compelled.
> Certainly there is a nation-wide organization which does precisely the
> audio transcription for the hearing impaired at libraries and other
> locations--I know as I have read for them. I'm not sure of what the
> organization did precisely, but I suspect they have a blanket
> arrangement w/ various publishers.
>
> I'll reiterate--I was speaking <specifically> oa a simple copyright in
> the context of the OP wishing to get a product for which rightfully he
> would have ahd to pay. The only extent of significance is that one of
> the purposes of copyright is specifically to prevent such copying. And,
> more specifically, my comment was addressed to the OP in that the
> purpose of internet from its origin as ARPAnet was <not> to spread
> copyright work around willy-nilly--it was, in fact, a specific condition
> of use when I first had access at University to <not> re-transmit such
> material.

Duane Bozarth wrote:

> If you no longer need it, there's absolutely nothing preventing you from
> <giving> it to anyone else (or even selling it). What is proscribed is
> making copies for the express purpose of evading copyright protection...

Actually, it depends of the terms of the original purchase agreement.

When I bought a set of plans to build my boat, I received a license to
build ONE (1) boat.

If I wanted to build several boats, or sell the plans, or give away the
plans when I'm done with them, that is another matter.

Lew

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:02:04 +0000 (UTC), SeeAll <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_076A_01C5817A.E5512220
> Content-Type: text/plain;

> Hi,
> Could some kind person email a complete set of plans to build Norm's =
> router station.=20

You can buy them from Norm. Why would you think someone here who has
bought them, would help you steal them?

Oh, and when you post in HTML it makes your messages hard to read
amongst all the control characters and such.

> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="Windows-1252"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
><HTML><HEAD>

See what I mean?

><META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
> charset=3Dwindows-1252">
><META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=3DGENERATOR>
><STYLE></STYLE>
></HEAD>
><BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hi,</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Could some kind person email a complete =
> set of=20
> plans to build Norm's router station.&nbsp;</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
> href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A></=
> FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>TIA</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>SeeAll</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:50:27 GMT, HMFIC-1369 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Not many of you give things much thought. You can see that this guy wants
> something for nothing, which he does. On the other hand, should the Federal
> Government have the Right to stop anyone from sharing something you no
> longer need. Think about the full consequences, they now copyright words and
> phrases, the limit to ownership is limitless and the enforcement thereof
> limitless.......... Even having a yard sale families can be prosecuted.

Alarmist and irrelevant to the situation at hand. Guy wants a free copy
of something that is a commercial product. Just because I own a copy
doesn't mean I own the right to give away copies of it. Hardly the same
thing as a rummage sale.

> Currently the movie
> industry is crying the blues blaming the internet (not DVD rentals) for it's
> losses, and they haven't produced a movie of any quality, 98 percent have
> been horrible, but they can advertise out the ass and buyer beware!

I'm the _last_ person to defend how the MPAA and RIAA idiots do
business, but - if it's worth watching, it's worth paying for. If you
don't want to pay for it because it's 98% crap, well then, don't just
steal it because it's no good, just don't _get_ it because it's no good.
"I'm going to steal this because it's not worth what they're asking"
isn't gonna cut it - if it's not worth it, don't steal it.

> Well how
> about they be beware also. Things that have short life spans movies, music
> and software should not have the same ownership rights as that of a classic
> piece of art. You can buy an application today tomorrow they're out of
> business or have been bought out, no more support and then they release a
> new version rendering the one you bought obsolete and incompatible and 3
> months later you have to buy it again. If they want copyright privileges,
> then they should be held responsible for providing owners with specific
> product upgrades and support for the life of the product.....

Why? You buy something, you buy it with the terms and conditions it's
sold under. Some software is great about this, some software is not.
Their upgrade policy should be something you consider when you decide if
you want to buy a package or not. Again, stealing a package just
because you don't like how they do upgrades, is just pretending you're
making an ethical statement when you're really just stealing from the
software developer whose product you're using without paying for. Been
there, done that, stopped writing shareware because of that sort of
people.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:24:37 GMT, HMFIC-1369 <[email protected]> wrote:

> If they want copyright privileges,then they should be held responsible for
> providing owners with specific
> product upgrades and support for the life of the product...

What's that got to do with using something you don't want to pay for?

> What this says is that, the owner has certain rights as do the creator.
> Honestly if anybody is still using software that's 10 years old, I'd say
> that they're having a tough time. If somebody wants copyright's for 20
> years, then fine support that product for 20 years! You have to distinguish
> from devices to software to music and movies! How many times have you bought
> a product that didn't perform as it claims or have it break. The difficulty
> in exchanging and repairing is at most difficult or cost prohibitive.

And this justifies theft how, exactly?

> I have patents and certainly protect myself. I simply feel that owners/users
> should be afforded rights attributed to those who choose to copyright.
> Freeware is freeware user beware, but as for buying I think consumers should
> be given equal footing and protection under the copyright laws. Ever buy
> something that failed that actually cost you more to return, then it did to
> buy? Happens everyday but there are no laws to protect you..............

And what does that have to do with some bozo wandering in asking us to
steal plans for him?

> Your on your own, they're protected and enforced by the Federal Government

In other words, "some guy sold me crappy software so I'm going to steal
software from now on"? If it's crappy, don't use it. If you just say
it's crappy, and then use it anyway, you're just using an excuse to
steal it. Will I support software I wrote 25 years ago? Sure, but
you're gonna pay me by the hour, and if you expect something I wrote in
1980, or 1990, or even 2000 to still be under some sort of warranty,
well, you're delusional.

Dave Hinz

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:46:48 GMT, HMFIC-1369 <[email protected]> wrote:
> See who's talking about stealing anything............If you simply argue for
> arguments sake...........then have at it!

Have you ever noticed that when you top-post it makes it really hard to
quote the context of what you're talking about?

> I basically said that "Equal Protection" should be extended under the
> Copyright law. Consumers Rights, should be as important as the copyright. I
> can see you never paid 10K+ for a computer or software application.... that
> didn't perform as sold.

You have no idea of my technical experience and responsibilities. And
10K would be cheap for most of the software packages I deal with - that
wouldn't even pay yearly maintenance on most of them.

Just because you pay 6 figures for a software package, doesn't mean they
have to, or should, support you forever. And yet, you still don't have
the right to give their work away to someone else, because you bought
the right to use it, not to copy and distribute it.

> Don't get me wrong, just as there are good honest
> company's and good honest people. Both deserve protection under the law! But
> currently the laws weight protects many dishonest company's over an honest
> persons.

So stop buying Microsoft, and 90% of your problems will go away.
Even though I feel strongly that they have set back the world of
computing by a decade or more, making people just accept security and
stability problems as "normal and expected", I _still_ won't steal from
them or help anyone else to do it.

> My point was the abuse of situations that company's claims are
> unsupported and the difficulty or making things to costly to resolve happen
> more and more frequently and in most cases it's buyer beware........

What does that have to do with some guy wandering in here asking for one
of us to steal from Norm for him?

> and don't tell me you never bought something, where the product line or
> company was purchased, the Purchase Agreement thusly null and void, and they
> still sell the same product now under a different name or even the same,
> simply voiding the original contracts for the only purpose of evading
> support for the sake of profit.

That was a really long....sentence? And I'm not sure what it's supposed
to mean.

> I purchased a software firewall 5 months
> ago, it was sold, I now need to pay (the current company) for support or get
> it fixed, even to upgrade. Nothing about that in the License Agreement I
> agreed too!

So don't give them any more money, and get a good firewall from someone
reputable. Or stop fooling yourself and get a hardware firewall.

> I said nothing about stealing but you really got stuck on that! You must
> feel very guilty about something huh?

No, I'm pissed off that I've found copies of programs that _I_ have
written being distributed by people who had no right to do so.
There's no difference, ethically, between stealing software from a
programmer, plans from Norm, or music from a musician. If you want to
use it, pay for it. If you don't like the terms and conditions of the
sale, don't buy it, and don't use it.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:56:11 GMT, HMFIC-1369 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jesus Where Are you Coming From? This has NOTHING to do with NOT PAYING FOR
> SOMETHING!
>
> EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW....................
>
> Are you challenged, why are you so fixated on theft... I WASN'T TAKING OR
> JUSTIFYING IT... ONLY STATING THAT CONSUMERS DESERVE EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER
> THE EXTENT OF THE COPYRIGHT! You want you cake and eat it too, tough!

No, they don't. I'm not going to support something I wrote 10 years ago
for free, and yet, you still don't have the rights to distribute it.
Got it? If you _do_ distribute it, you're stealing from me.

I also see you didn't get the hint about top-posting and how it fucks up
the flow of a conversation.

> did you get left back in 5th grade or something? I don't think I'd pay you
> very much for anything you've ever done.... Looks like it'd never work right
> anyway! You can't even read....................

It's not that I don't understand your points, it's that I _disagree
with_ them, you see. Critical difference, that.

> Ta Ta!

Promise?

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:06:38 GMT, HMFIC-1369 <[email protected]> wrote:
> only anal retentive bottom feeders bottom post!

There's a dash in anal-retentive, by the way.

> You talk shit, bcause if time was money you wouldn't be wasting it posting
> your shit on rec.woodworking!

Actually, I'm waiting for a build to finish at the moment. Not that
you're my boss or anything.

> Find another kid to play in your sandbox!

Well, it's not like you're particularly an interesting turd to play
with...

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:36:34 GMT, HMFIC-1369 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>

First intelligent thing I've seen you say.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:49:33 GMT, BillyBob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>SNIP>
>
>> No, I'm pissed off that I've found copies of programs that _I_ have
>> written being distributed by people who had no right to do so.
>> There's no difference, ethically, between stealing software from a
>> programmer, plans from Norm, or music from a musician. If you want to
>> use it, pay for it. If you don't like the terms and conditions of the
>> sale, don't buy it, and don't use it.

> Hmm - I agree that theft is theft however there is more than one software
> company that could be accused of stealing from it's customers . . .

Which doesn't excuse people from stealing from anyone else.

> If I pay
> for something I expect it to work as advertised or it needs to be fixed ( I
> am not talking about 5-10 years from now I am talking about it having NEVER
> worked correctly)

I guess that's a good reason to go with open-source software, or to at
least research what you're considering buying before you buy it then,
isn't it?

> - ever try to return a software package after it was
> opened because it did not work as advertised - the store will not take it
> back and when you read the warranty it says basically that "the program is
> warranted to be copied correctly to the disc and the media will be replaced
> if defective..."

Well, what alternative does the retailer have? Otherwise, you'd have
people going in, opening up the packaging, making a copy, and returning
it for full credit. Can you see the obvious avenue for abuse if that
was allowed? Just like the auto parts store not taking returns on
electronic components (which can easily be fried by improper handling or
installation), there is no reason a retailer should be expected to help
someone get something they haven't paid for.

> I am not ranting against the tech industry ( I work in
> tech) since when it is asking too much to have a piece of software work as
> expected (and as it has been promoted to work)?

What does that have to do with some guy wanting us to steal Norm's work
for him? There's bad software out there. Do your research and avoid
it.

> A friend of mine works for a large famous software that shall remain
> nameless but he told me how he sat in a meeting with the VP of their
> division as the VP said .."f_ _ k the customers, if they don't like it f_ _
> k them. . . "My friend is in the process of leaving the company . . .

I don't blame him. And yet, none of that should reflect on anything
other than the company in question. Just because there are bad
producers out there doesn't justify stealing from anyone - even those
bad producers.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:30:01 -0700, Tim Douglass <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:33:27 +0000 (UTC), "SeeAll"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I've been using the internet for 15+ years and over those years the web has
>>been taken over by selfish individuals.
>
> As you clearly demonstrate, expecting someone to violate the law to do
> something for you. What a twit.

Exactly. There were clueless twits on the internet 15 years ago too;
most of them either got a clue eventually, or went away. It's always
funny when a persistantly clueless one thinks that their long presence
somehow validates their opinion.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:22:29 GMT, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> What's wrong with top posting? After one has read the post a number of times
> as I'm sure most of us have, it is a pain in the ass to have to scroll down
> all the time to read a reply.

Well then, snip un-needed context (as I have done, and you didn't). You
don't talk backwards, why write that way?

> I agree one should bottom post initially, but
> after the post has been shown a number of times why continue to bottom
> post??

The post shouldn't _be_ seen multiple times. Put enough context in a
layer or two deep to communicate what you're answering, and answer it.
Move to the next point.

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 15:59:36 +0000 (UTC), SeeAll <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi group,
>
> I've monitored all your utterings since my original request for plans. It
> appears many of you spend too much time sitting in front of a monitor
> pontificating, rather than constructing.

Your opinions about how others prioritize time is noted and given
appropriate consideration.

> The reason I wanted the plans was to

(snip self-justification of why stealing plans without paying Norm is
OK, because blah blah blah and that's somehow different than blah blah)

> BTW I have received 52 requests for copies of the plans. In view of the
> strong feelings within the group and the possibility of injury to potential
> builders I have decided not to forward them.

Riiiiiight. I don't believe at least 3 of your points in the above 2
sentences.

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 15:15:37 -0400, Lee Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
><<There's a dash in anal-retentive, by the way.>>
>
> It's called a hyphen. Two of them ( -- ) would be a dash. Sorry. Just
> being anal. <g>

Ah, of course. I understand, and I thank you both for the correction,
and for taking my post exactly as seriously as I did.

SeeAll wrote:
> I've been using the internet for 15+ years and over those years the web has
> been taken over by selfish individuals. The spirit of the internet is to
> freely share information. When you have finished with an item you post it
> for others to share. I suppose it is to be expected that has more and more
> people use the medium commercialism moves in. I will try other boards of
> which thankfully there are many.

I started using computers in the late '60s, as have many on this NG, so
please don't give me any stuff about your bona fides. Freeware is a
wonderful thing as is shareware. If a person decides to copyleft their
publications, that's one thing, if it's copywritten, however, that's a
different thing. Stealing is an entirely subject and can not be excused
by bleating about the ways of the net. If you truly don't understand
the difference, go steal a copy from a store and see if they can explain
it to you.
\disgust mode off

Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.patinatools.org

HMFIC-1369 wrote:
>
> Not many of you give things much thought. You can see that this guy wants
> something for nothing, which he does. On the other hand, should the Federal
> Government have the Right to stop anyone from sharing something you no
> longer need. ...

If you no longer need it, there's absolutely nothing preventing you from
<giving> it to anyone else (or even selling it). What is proscribed is
making copies for the express purpose of evading copyright protection...

SeeAll wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've been using the internet for 15+ years

That long, huh...wow!

> ...and over those years the web has been taken over by selfish individuals.

Yes, it has, but in the diametrically opposed direction of which you
seem to speak... :(

> The spirit of the internet is to freely share information. When you have > finished with an item you post it for others to share. ...

That's a wholly different concept than deliberately using it to evade
copyright and steal another's work...

HMFIC-1369 wrote:
>
> That's not correct! It has nothing to do with the evasion of copyright
> protection. If you have licensed software, you are prohibited from giving it
> away even if you no longer need it. If I gave you my copy of XP when I
> installed Linux, I broke the law. Over all though it has only to do with
> making a copy.. copy-right. You buy one item and make a "copy" that violates
> the law.

We are not talking of software licensing agreements here...they're not
copyrights.

We're talking about a simple copyright on a document.

It is perfectly ok to take and give away your book after you read it--it
is also perfectly ok to resell it to someone else after your done. It
is <not> ok to make a copy and give that to someone else or resell the
copy.

Same thing here---

> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > HMFIC-1369 wrote:
> > >
> > > Not many of you give things much thought. You can see that this guy
> wants
> > > something for nothing, which he does. On the other hand, should the
> Federal
> > > Government have the Right to stop anyone from sharing something you no
> > > longer need. ...
> >
> > If you no longer need it, there's absolutely nothing preventing you from
> > <giving> it to anyone else (or even selling it). What is proscribed is
> > making copies for the express purpose of evading copyright protection...

Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
> > If you no longer need it, there's absolutely nothing preventing you from
> > <giving> it to anyone else (or even selling it). What is proscribed is
> > making copies for the express purpose of evading copyright protection...
>
> Actually, it depends of the terms of the original purchase agreement.
>
> When I bought a set of plans to build my boat, I received a license to
> build ONE (1) boat.
>
> If I wanted to build several boats, or sell the plans, or give away the
> plans when I'm done with them, that is another matter.

That is a contractual stipulation added in addition too (and probably in
place of) a simple copyright. AFAIK, there are no such stipulations
made on the Abrams plans other than they are copyright material.

It does indeed, depend on the existence of any additional strictures--I
never said it couldn't...

HMFIC-1369 wrote:
>
> Ownership is Ownership regardless of Product, Pretty much everything is
> copyrighted software and everything else. I'd say that if you purchase a
> schematic or plans they to will include an agreement thet further protects
> them. Certainly allow me to build one, but not 10....either to sell or give
> away! As for books themselves let say you purchased the book, and you mother
> is blind it would most certainly be illegal for you to transpose it to
> braille or audio even though no such media exsists for that book. Or even
> say for it's own protection that this book is one of a kind and no longer in
> print,

Man, you're stretching for something to gaff over here, arntcha... :(

You can say whatever you want, and you'll undoubtedly be able to find
some product somewhere that has any specific set of licensing agreement
conditions you wish--folks are invariably creative that way.

For a simple copyright which is all that I <ever> even mentioned, all of
these extraneous conditions are of no bearing whatsoever, there just
crap you're making up to hear yourself type, I guess.

For your own use I don't think it actually defeats the intent of the
copyright to make a single Braille or audio copy--certainly I would
expect virtually any publisher would grant permission on the condition
you did not resell the copy anyway if you were to feel compelled.
Certainly there is a nation-wide organization which does precisely the
audio transcription for the hearing impaired at libraries and other
locations--I know as I have read for them. I'm not sure of what the
organization did precisely, but I suspect they have a blanket
arrangement w/ various publishers.

I'll reiterate--I was speaking <specifically> oa a simple copyright in
the context of the OP wishing to get a product for which rightfully he
would have ahd to pay. The only extent of significance is that one of
the purposes of copyright is specifically to prevent such copying. And,
more specifically, my comment was addressed to the OP in that the
purpose of internet from its origin as ARPAnet was <not> to spread
copyright work around willy-nilly--it was, in fact, a specific condition
of use when I first had access at University to <not> re-transmit such
material.

> The OP probably isn't reading anymore, since he has gotten his plans.
> But my question is: why need a set of plans? If you've seen the item,
> and know its features, make it from scratch yourself. My router table
> is at least similar to Norm's, but I built it to fit a 24" x 36" piece
> of 1.5" butcher block I happened to have and which I used as a top. It
> has given me years of good service, and "I did it myself (thanks, DIY).
> You don't always need a prepared set of plans if you have an idea, a
> ruler, a pencil and some paper. My Dad was a custom cabinet maker; the
> only "plan" he ever worked from was a rough sketch and a good set of
> measurements.

Finally! A modicum of sense! :)

Design & build your own. Make mistakes. Fix the mistakes. Learn!

--
- Andy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Failure: the best learning tool. Criticism: the second...

"Steve Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> my question is: why need a set of plans? If you've seen the item, and
know
> its features, make it from scratch yourself.

I agree wholeheartedly. Isn't that why we all started woodworking, making
something for yourself? It's not like we're operating a production line (at
least not most of us) and mass producing things. Every project is unique in
some way. The enjoyment comes from building to fit our current need and
situation. I think that if someone is capable of properly building something
from one of Norm's plans, they they're entirely capable of building from
scratch. It's just a confidence thing.

I save occasional woodworking shows to DVD. Not for the exact plans, but for
a general idea of how to build something and just for having the idea. If
and when I get around to building any of those projects, I'll improve upon
it so that it benefits me.

What's wrong with top posting? After one has read the post a number of times
as I'm sure most of us have, it is a pain in the ass to have to scroll down
all the time to read a reply. I agree one should bottom post initially, but
after the post has been shown a number of times why continue to bottom
post??


"HMFIC-1369" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:iLBye.30998$Fn4.25957@trnddc06...
> only anal retentive bottom feeders bottom post!
>
> You talk shit, bcause if time was money you wouldn't be wasting it posting
> your shit on rec.woodworking!
>
> Find another kid to play in your sandbox!
>
>
>
>
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:46:48 GMT, HMFIC-1369 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > See who's talking about stealing anything............If you simply
argue
> for
> > > arguments sake...........then have at it!
> >
> > Have you ever noticed that when you top-post it makes it really hard to
> > quote the context of what you're talking about?
> >
> > > I basically said that "Equal Protection" should be extended under the
> > > Copyright law. Consumers Rights, should be as important as the
> copyright. I
> > > can see you never paid 10K+ for a computer or software application....
> that
> > > didn't perform as sold.
> >
> > You have no idea of my technical experience and responsibilities. And
> > 10K would be cheap for most of the software packages I deal with - that
> > wouldn't even pay yearly maintenance on most of them.
> >
> > Just because you pay 6 figures for a software package, doesn't mean they
> > have to, or should, support you forever. And yet, you still don't have
> > the right to give their work away to someone else, because you bought
> > the right to use it, not to copy and distribute it.
> >
> > > Don't get me wrong, just as there are good honest
> > > company's and good honest people. Both deserve protection under the
law!
> But
> > > currently the laws weight protects many dishonest company's over an
> honest
> > > persons.
> >
> > So stop buying Microsoft, and 90% of your problems will go away.
> > Even though I feel strongly that they have set back the world of
> > computing by a decade or more, making people just accept security and
> > stability problems as "normal and expected", I _still_ won't steal from
> > them or help anyone else to do it.
> >
> > > My point was the abuse of situations that company's claims are
> > > unsupported and the difficulty or making things to costly to resolve
> happen
> > > more and more frequently and in most cases it's buyer beware........
> >
> > What does that have to do with some guy wandering in here asking for one
> > of us to steal from Norm for him?
> >
> > > and don't tell me you never bought something, where the product line
or
> > > company was purchased, the Purchase Agreement thusly null and void,
and
> they
> > > still sell the same product now under a different name or even the
same,
> > > simply voiding the original contracts for the only purpose of evading
> > > support for the sake of profit.
> >
> > That was a really long....sentence? And I'm not sure what it's supposed
> > to mean.
> >
> > > I purchased a software firewall 5 months
> > > ago, it was sold, I now need to pay (the current company) for support
or
> get
> > > it fixed, even to upgrade. Nothing about that in the License Agreement
I
> > > agreed too!
> >
> > So don't give them any more money, and get a good firewall from someone
> > reputable. Or stop fooling yourself and get a hardware firewall.
> >
> > > I said nothing about stealing but you really got stuck on that! You
must
> > > feel very guilty about something huh?
> >
> > No, I'm pissed off that I've found copies of programs that _I_ have
> > written being distributed by people who had no right to do so.
> > There's no difference, ethically, between stealing software from a
> > programmer, plans from Norm, or music from a musician. If you want to
> > use it, pay for it. If you don't like the terms and conditions of the
> > sale, don't buy it, and don't use it.
> >
>
>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0164_01C58151.102F5A40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Maybe he figures us "YANKS" still owe the Brits something . . . .
"SeeAll" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:[email protected]...
Hi,
Could some kind person email a complete set of plans to build Norm's =
router station.=20


[email protected]


TIA

SeeAll
------=_NextPart_000_0164_01C58151.102F5A40
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Maybe he figures us "YANKS" still owe =
the Brits=20
something . . . .</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"SeeAll" &lt;<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A>&g=
t;=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:[email protected]">news:dae7=
[email protected]</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hi,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Could some kind person email a =
complete set of=20
plans to build Norm's router station.&nbsp;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A></=
FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>TIA</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>SeeAll</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0164_01C58151.102F5A40--

Not many of you give things much thought. You can see that this guy wants
something for nothing, which he does. On the other hand, should the Federal
Government have the Right to stop anyone from sharing something you no
longer need. Think about the full consequences, they now copyright words and
phrases, the limit to ownership is limitless and the enforcement thereof
limitless.......... Even having a yard sale families can be prosecuted. I
agree that abuses are rampant, but it isn't the blame. Currently the movie
industry is crying the blues blaming the internet (not DVD rentals) for it's
losses, and they haven't produced a movie of any quality, 98 percent have
been horrible, but they can advertise out the ass and buyer beware! Well how
about they be beware also. Things that have short life spans movies, music
and software should not have the same ownership rights as that of a classic
piece of art. You can buy an application today tomorrow they're out of
business or have been bought out, no more support and then they release a
new version rendering the one you bought obsolete and incompatible and 3
months later you have to buy it again. If they want copyright privileges,
then they should be held responsible for providing owners with specific
product upgrades and support for the life of the product.....








"SeeAll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi,
>
> I've been using the internet for 15+ years and over those years the web
has
> been taken over by selfish individuals. The spirit of the internet is to
> freely share information. When you have finished with an item you post it
> for others to share. I suppose it is to be expected that has more and
more
> people use the medium commercialism moves in. I will try other boards of
> which thankfully there are many.
>
>
> SeeAll
>
>

The OP probably isn't reading anymore, since he has gotten his plans. But
my question is: why need a set of plans? If you've seen the item, and know
its features, make it from scratch yourself. My router table is at least
similar to Norm's, but I built it to fit a 24" x 36" piece of 1.5" butcher
block I happened to have and which I used as a top. It has given me years
of good service, and "I did it myself (thanks, DIY). You don't always need
a prepared set of plans if you have an idea, a ruler, a pencil and some
paper. My Dad was a custom cabinet maker; the only "plan" he ever worked
from was a rough sketch and a good set of measurements.

Steve

"news.east.cox.net" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:PCDye.149000$sy6.1442@lakeread04...
In spite of all the rationalizations offered and regardless if someone was
willing to give you a copy of the plans, it's thievery, pure and simple.
Norm charges for his plans and you are clearly aware of that fact. Like
downloading music without the paying the royalty, just because it's
available on the 'net doesn't mean that it's free. I guess that if your
personal checking account or SSAN were given to me simply because it was
available somewhere on the 'net, you'd be okay with me charging goods and
services to you? I think not.

When you close your eyes at night, you can't but know that there is
corruption in your heart.

"SeeAll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Hi,
Could some kind person email a complete set of plans to build Norm's
router station.


[email protected]


TIA

SeeAll

You are correct, but we are argueing more then one point. A license
agreement is a a license agreement, the arguement was that the copyright
concerned only violating the software protection, that's not true....


"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <XUAye.30527$Fn4.17322@trnddc06>, "HMFIC-1369"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >That's not correct! It has nothing to do with the evasion of copyright
> >protection. If you have licensed software, you are prohibited from giving
it
> >away even if you no longer need it. If I gave you my copy of XP when I
> >installed Linux, I broke the law.
>
> Not true. You may be in violation of MickeySoft's license agreement, but
not
> copyright law.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

See who's talking about stealing anything............If you simply argue for
arguments sake...........then have at it!

I basically said that "Equal Protection" should be extended under the
Copyright law. Consumers Rights, should be as important as the copyright. I
can see you never paid 10K+ for a computer or software application.... that
didn't perform as sold. Don't get me wrong, just as there are good honest
company's and good honest people. Both deserve protection under the law! But
currently the laws weight protects many dishonest company's over an honest
persons. My point was the abuse of situations that company's claims are
unsupported and the difficulty or making things to costly to resolve happen
more and more frequently and in most cases it's buyer beware........

and don't tell me you never bought something, where the product line or
company was purchased, the Purchase Agreement thusly null and void, and they
still sell the same product now under a different name or even the same,
simply voiding the original contracts for the only purpose of evading
support for the sake of profit. I purchased a software firewall 5 months
ago, it was sold, I now need to pay (the current company) for support or get
it fixed, even to upgrade. Nothing about that in the License Agreement I
agreed too!

I said nothing about stealing but you really got stuck on that! You must
feel very guilty about something huh?










"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:50:27 GMT, HMFIC-1369 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Not many of you give things much thought. You can see that this guy
wants
> > something for nothing, which he does. On the other hand, should the
Federal
> > Government have the Right to stop anyone from sharing something you no
> > longer need. Think about the full consequences, they now copyright words
and
> > phrases, the limit to ownership is limitless and the enforcement thereof
> > limitless.......... Even having a yard sale families can be prosecuted.
>
> Alarmist and irrelevant to the situation at hand. Guy wants a free copy
> of something that is a commercial product. Just because I own a copy
> doesn't mean I own the right to give away copies of it. Hardly the same
> thing as a rummage sale.
>
> > Currently the movie
> > industry is crying the blues blaming the internet (not DVD rentals) for
it's
> > losses, and they haven't produced a movie of any quality, 98 percent
have
> > been horrible, but they can advertise out the ass and buyer beware!
>
> I'm the _last_ person to defend how the MPAA and RIAA idiots do
> business, but - if it's worth watching, it's worth paying for. If you
> don't want to pay for it because it's 98% crap, well then, don't just
> steal it because it's no good, just don't _get_ it because it's no good.
> "I'm going to steal this because it's not worth what they're asking"
> isn't gonna cut it - if it's not worth it, don't steal it.
>
> > Well how
> > about they be beware also. Things that have short life spans movies,
music
> > and software should not have the same ownership rights as that of a
classic
> > piece of art. You can buy an application today tomorrow they're out of
> > business or have been bought out, no more support and then they release
a
> > new version rendering the one you bought obsolete and incompatible and 3
> > months later you have to buy it again. If they want copyright
privileges,
> > then they should be held responsible for providing owners with specific
> > product upgrades and support for the life of the product.....
>
> Why? You buy something, you buy it with the terms and conditions it's
> sold under. Some software is great about this, some software is not.
> Their upgrade policy should be something you consider when you decide if
> you want to buy a package or not. Again, stealing a package just
> because you don't like how they do upgrades, is just pretending you're
> making an ethical statement when you're really just stealing from the
> software developer whose product you're using without paying for. Been
> there, done that, stopped writing shareware because of that sort of
> people.
>

SeeAll (in [email protected]) said:

| I've been using the internet for 15+ years and over those years the
| web has been taken over by selfish individuals. The spirit of the
| internet is to freely share information. When you have finished
| with an item you post it for others to share. I suppose it is to
| be expected that has more and more people use the medium
| commercialism moves in. I will try other boards of which thankfully
| there are many.

Hmmm. Not much sign of sharing in the other direction since 1981. Mind
the wrap.

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=group%3Arec.woodworking+a
uthor%3ASeeAll&qt_s=Search

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

Where I work, I actually had a 20 something kid (who had kids of his own,
believe it or not), tell me that, because businesses screw their customers
everyday, that it is not only okay, but morally justified to steal from all
business everyday. He bragged on the fact that he had found a site online
that gave him passwords and ID's for AOL, and hadn't paid for internet
service for that past couple of years. I told him that, if his parents
weren't ashamed of him, then they were pretty despicable, too.

To be proud that you are stealing...........sorry, I was raised better than
that.


"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "SeeAll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been using the internet for 15+ years and over those years the web
>> has been taken over by selfish individuals. The spirit of the internet
>> is to freely share information. When you have finished with an item you
>> post it for others to share. I suppose it is to be expected that has
>> more and more people use the medium commercialism moves in. I will try
>> other boards of which thankfully there are many.
>>
>>
> Whatever hippy ideal you are babbling about, it is called stealing. If
> you can fins some theives to hang out with, fine.
>
> Just don't give us the nostalgia and morality speech.
>
> It is repugnant.
>
>
>

"SeeAll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi,
>
> I've been using the internet for 15+ years and over those years the web
> has been taken over by selfish individuals. The spirit of the internet is
> to freely share information. When you have finished with an item you post
> it for others to share. I suppose it is to be expected that has more and
> more people use the medium commercialism moves in. I will try other boards
> of which thankfully there are many.
>
>
Whatever hippy ideal you are babbling about, it is called stealing. If you
can fins some theives to hang out with, fine.

Just don't give us the nostalgia and morality speech.

It is repugnant.

SeeAll says...

> Hi,
>
> I've been using the internet for 15+ years and over those years the web has
> been taken over by selfish individuals. The spirit of the internet is to
> freely share information. When you have finished with an item you post it
> for others to share. I suppose it is to be expected that has more and more
> people use the medium commercialism moves in. I will try other boards of
> which thankfully there are many.
>
>
> SeeAll

It is a copyright violation and disrespectful to a person we like to
support. I will concede the plans are over priced, as are most plans,
and why I don't buy them.

Ownership is Ownership regardless of Product, Pretty much everything is
copyrighted software and everything else. I'd say that if you purchase a
schematic or plans they to will include an agreement thet further protects
them. Certainly allow me to build one, but not 10....either to sell or give
away! As for books themselves let say you purchased the book, and you mother
is blind it would most certainly be illegal for you to transpose it to
braille or audio even though no such media exsists for that book. Or even
say for it's own protection that this book is one of a kind and no longer in
print,




"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> HMFIC-1369 wrote:
> >
> > That's not correct! It has nothing to do with the evasion of copyright
> > protection. If you have licensed software, you are prohibited from
giving it
> > away even if you no longer need it. If I gave you my copy of XP when I
> > installed Linux, I broke the law. Over all though it has only to do with
> > making a copy.. copy-right. You buy one item and make a "copy" that
violates
> > the law.
>
> We are not talking of software licensing agreements here...they're not
> copyrights.
>
> We're talking about a simple copyright on a document.
>
> It is perfectly ok to take and give away your book after you read it--it
> is also perfectly ok to resell it to someone else after your done. It
> is <not> ok to make a copy and give that to someone else or resell the
> copy.
>
> Same thing here---
>
> > "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > HMFIC-1369 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Not many of you give things much thought. You can see that this guy
> > wants
> > > > something for nothing, which he does. On the other hand, should the
> > Federal
> > > > Government have the Right to stop anyone from sharing something you
no
> > > > longer need. ...
> > >
> > > If you no longer need it, there's absolutely nothing preventing you
from
> > > <giving> it to anyone else (or even selling it). What is proscribed
is
> > > making copies for the express purpose of evading copyright
protection...

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C5818D.4D08C780
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In spite of all the rationalizations offered and regardless if someone =
was willing to give you a copy of the plans, it's thievery, pure and =
simple. Norm charges for his plans and you are clearly aware of that =
fact. Like downloading music without the paying the royalty, just =
because it's available on the 'net doesn't mean that it's free. I guess =
that if your personal checking account or SSAN were given to me simply =
because it was available somewhere on the 'net, you'd be okay with me =
charging goods and services to you? I think not.

When you close your eyes at night, you can't but know that there is =
corruption in your heart. =20

"SeeAll" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:[email protected]...
Hi,
Could some kind person email a complete set of plans to build Norm's =
router station.=20


[email protected]


TIA

SeeAll
------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C5818D.4D08C780
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>In spite of all the rationalizations =
offered and=20
regardless if someone was willing to give you a copy of the plans, it's=20
thievery, pure and simple.&nbsp; Norm charges for&nbsp;his =
plans&nbsp;and you=20
are clearly aware of that fact.&nbsp; Like downloading music without the =
paying=20
the royalty, just because it's available on the 'net doesn't mean that =
it's=20
free.&nbsp; I guess that if your personal checking account or SSAN were =
given to=20
me simply because it was available somewhere on the 'net, you'd be okay =
with me=20
charging goods and services to you?&nbsp; I think not.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>When you close your eyes at night, you =
can't but=20
know that there is corruption in your heart.&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"SeeAll" &lt;<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A>&g=
t;=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:[email protected]">news:dae7=
[email protected]</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hi,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Could some kind person email a =
complete set of=20
plans to build Norm's router station.&nbsp;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A></=
FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>TIA</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>SeeAll</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C5818D.4D08C780--

"HMFIC-1369" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:DLzye.29909
> months later you have to buy it again. If they want copyright privileges,
> then they should be held responsible for providing owners with specific
> product upgrades and support for the life of the product.....

You have a really poor grasp of the concept of ownership. Copyright, patent
or whatever, someone else created it and that gives them certain rights to
protection. Just because you don't consider what someone has created to be a
work of art doesn't automatically dismiss their right to protecting it.

I'd like to see what you'd have to say if you created a piece of software or
made a movie and then watched as people downloaded it for free while you
lost money from poor sales.

Not saying I've never downloaded anything I shouldn't have, just that I'm
not going to advocate it or lobby for it online.

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Steve Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> my question is: why need a set of plans? If you've seen the item, and
> know
>> its features, make it from scratch yourself.
>
> I think that if someone is capable of properly building something
> from one of Norm's plans, they they're entirely capable of building from
> scratch. It's just a confidence thing.

Both methods are right. Plans can be very educational for the person that
is learning what joinery is good for certain situations. Plans serve as a
guide and should be modified to suit the situation at hand

how do you keep a troll busy!

I have an excellent grasp, you didn't read it correctly.

I don't dismiss it you made that assumption.

If they want copyright privileges,then they should be held responsible for
providing owners with specific
product upgrades and support for the life of the product...

What this says is that, the owner has certain rights as do the creator.
Honestly if anybody is still using software that's 10 years old, I'd say
that they're having a tough time. If somebody wants copyright's for 20
years, then fine support that product for 20 years! You have to distinguish
from devices to software to music and movies! How many times have you bought
a product that didn't perform as it claims or have it break. The difficulty
in exchanging and repairing is at most difficult or cost prohibitive.

I have patents and certainly protect myself. I simply feel that owners/users
should be afforded rights attributed to those who choose to copyright.
Freeware is freeware user beware, but as for buying I think consumers should
be given equal footing and protection under the copyright laws. Ever buy
something that failed that actually cost you more to return, then it did to
buy? Happens everyday but there are no laws to protect you..............
Your on your own, they're protected and enforced by the Federal Government


"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "HMFIC-1369" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:DLzye.29909
> > months later you have to buy it again. If they want copyright
privileges,
> > then they should be held responsible for providing owners with specific
> > product upgrades and support for the life of the product.....
>
> You have a really poor grasp of the concept of ownership. Copyright,
patent
> or whatever, someone else created it and that gives them certain rights to
> protection. Just because you don't consider what someone has created to be
a
> work of art doesn't automatically dismiss their right to protecting it.
>
> I'd like to see what you'd have to say if you created a piece of software
or
> made a movie and then watched as people downloaded it for free while you
> lost money from poor sales.
>
> Not saying I've never downloaded anything I shouldn't have, just that I'm
> not going to advocate it or lobby for it online.
>
>

"SeeAll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi,
>
> I've been using the internet for 15+ years and over those years the web
has
> been taken over by selfish individuals.
> SeeAll
>
>

Are you referring to selfish cheapskates like yourself who won't fork over a
couple of bucks for somebody else's hard work? Twit.

That's not correct! It has nothing to do with the evasion of copyright
protection. If you have licensed software, you are prohibited from giving it
away even if you no longer need it. If I gave you my copy of XP when I
installed Linux, I broke the law. Over all though it has only to do with
making a copy.. copy-right. You buy one item and make a "copy" that violates
the law.


"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> HMFIC-1369 wrote:
> >
> > Not many of you give things much thought. You can see that this guy
wants
> > something for nothing, which he does. On the other hand, should the
Federal
> > Government have the Right to stop anyone from sharing something you no
> > longer need. ...
>
> If you no longer need it, there's absolutely nothing preventing you from
> <giving> it to anyone else (or even selling it). What is proscribed is
> making copies for the express purpose of evading copyright protection...

Correction. Theft still exists.

"SeeAll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi All,
>
> Just to let the selfish members know some kind person, or hippy, has very
> kindly emailed a copy of his plans. Sharing still does exist.
>
> Thanks
>
> SeeAll
>
>

Hi,

I've been using the internet for 15+ years and over those years the web has
been taken over by selfish individuals. The spirit of the internet is to
freely share information. When you have finished with an item you post it
for others to share. I suppose it is to be expected that has more and more
people use the medium commercialism moves in. I will try other boards of
which thankfully there are many.


SeeAll

SeeAll wrote:

> Hi,
> Could some kind person email a complete set of plans to build Norm's
> router station.
>
Sorry, but that's copyrighted material.

Can't you design your own router table?

Hi All,

Just to let the selfish members know some kind person, or hippy, has very
kindly emailed a copy of his plans. Sharing still does exist.

Thanks

SeeAll

Hi group,

I've monitored all your utterings since my original request for plans. It
appears many of you spend too much time sitting in front of a monitor
pontificating, rather than constructing.

The reason I wanted the plans was to assist me with my own router table. To
see if Norm had any innovative features I could adapt, I fear not the table
is very simple in concept. In fact it has features which would cause many
problems with dust accumulation around the router, possibly a fire risk with
the very fine dust from MDF. One or two mentioned if I had seen the table,
I haven't I have only seen it mentioned on the newsgroups and photo's on
TNYW site.

BTW I have received 52 requests for copies of the plans. In view of the
strong feelings within the group and the possibility of injury to potential
builders I have decided not to forward them.

I look forward to comments

SeeAll

Okay, okay, the whole issue of copyright is VERY CLEAR.

But look at this from a woodworking standpoint. I'm going to be
redesigning my router table. Of course, I'll be looking at commercial
products. I'll be studying photos and videos-- whatever I get for free
on PBS or DIY, that is. I'll examine the photos of the router table
Rockler sells, which seems pretty nice. And if I don't buy _that_...
well, I will design and build my own.

I mean, I watched Norm's show on the router table, and liked the design.
But I knew that I didn't need to buy the plans: I could watch his show
and then design my own, with no problem, and it'd probably be closer to
my own needs.

Now, if this guy wants plans handed to him, that's nice (if a bit
infantile). But if this guys a woodworker, then _why doesn't he try to
design one for himself_? I mean, I have no problem designing my
workshop, my projects, jigs, etc. I like doing it. So why does this guy
_need to buy plans_? Is he so bereft of ideas or creativity or simple
engineering skill? Is he so lacking in imagination that he can't shape a
tool to his own needs?

To me, this is like a wannabe journalist coming to a newsgroup and
saying, "I want to write an article about third-world poverty. Can
someone give me an article I can put my name on?"

<<There's a dash in anal-retentive, by the way.>>

It's called a hyphen. Two of them ( -- ) would be a dash. Sorry. Just
being anal. <g>

Lee


--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"

How you keep a troll busy!

only anal retentive bottom feeders bottom post!

You talk shit, bcause if time was money you wouldn't be wasting it posting
your shit on rec.woodworking!

Find another kid to play in your sandbox!





"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:46:48 GMT, HMFIC-1369 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > See who's talking about stealing anything............If you simply argue
for
> > arguments sake...........then have at it!
>
> Have you ever noticed that when you top-post it makes it really hard to
> quote the context of what you're talking about?
>
> > I basically said that "Equal Protection" should be extended under the
> > Copyright law. Consumers Rights, should be as important as the
copyright. I
> > can see you never paid 10K+ for a computer or software application....
that
> > didn't perform as sold.
>
> You have no idea of my technical experience and responsibilities. And
> 10K would be cheap for most of the software packages I deal with - that
> wouldn't even pay yearly maintenance on most of them.
>
> Just because you pay 6 figures for a software package, doesn't mean they
> have to, or should, support you forever. And yet, you still don't have
> the right to give their work away to someone else, because you bought
> the right to use it, not to copy and distribute it.
>
> > Don't get me wrong, just as there are good honest
> > company's and good honest people. Both deserve protection under the law!
But
> > currently the laws weight protects many dishonest company's over an
honest
> > persons.
>
> So stop buying Microsoft, and 90% of your problems will go away.
> Even though I feel strongly that they have set back the world of
> computing by a decade or more, making people just accept security and
> stability problems as "normal and expected", I _still_ won't steal from
> them or help anyone else to do it.
>
> > My point was the abuse of situations that company's claims are
> > unsupported and the difficulty or making things to costly to resolve
happen
> > more and more frequently and in most cases it's buyer beware........
>
> What does that have to do with some guy wandering in here asking for one
> of us to steal from Norm for him?
>
> > and don't tell me you never bought something, where the product line or
> > company was purchased, the Purchase Agreement thusly null and void, and
they
> > still sell the same product now under a different name or even the same,
> > simply voiding the original contracts for the only purpose of evading
> > support for the sake of profit.
>
> That was a really long....sentence? And I'm not sure what it's supposed
> to mean.
>
> > I purchased a software firewall 5 months
> > ago, it was sold, I now need to pay (the current company) for support or
get
> > it fixed, even to upgrade. Nothing about that in the License Agreement I
> > agreed too!
>
> So don't give them any more money, and get a good firewall from someone
> reputable. Or stop fooling yourself and get a hardware firewall.
>
> > I said nothing about stealing but you really got stuck on that! You must
> > feel very guilty about something huh?
>
> No, I'm pissed off that I've found copies of programs that _I_ have
> written being distributed by people who had no right to do so.
> There's no difference, ethically, between stealing software from a
> programmer, plans from Norm, or music from a musician. If you want to
> use it, pay for it. If you don't like the terms and conditions of the
> sale, don't buy it, and don't use it.
>

HMFIC-1369 wrote:

<snip>

> If I gave you my copy of XP when I installed Linux, I broke the law.

Regarding ownership transfer my Windows XP EULA reads:

"Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the
Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to
another end user. The transfer has to include all
component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and
if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity."


--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
(Remove -SPAM- to send email)

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 03:28:08 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"SeeAll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Just to let the selfish members know some kind person, or hippy, has very
>> kindly emailed a copy of his plans. Sharing still does exist.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> SeeAll
>>
>>
>
>Correction. Theft still exists.
>

Maybe not. Maybe the person who e-mailed the plans then deleted them
from his own computer and destroyed any hardcopies thereof. Maybe.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00D0_01C58151.378D2C20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

why don't you try paying for them at the new yankee website?


"SeeAll" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:[email protected]...
Hi,
Could some kind person email a complete set of plans to build Norm's =
router station.=20


[email protected]


TIA

SeeAll
------=_NextPart_000_00D0_01C58151.378D2C20
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>why don't you try paying for them at =
the new yankee=20
website?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"SeeAll" &lt;<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A>&g=
t;=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:[email protected]">news:dae7=
[email protected]</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hi,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Could some kind person email a =
complete set of=20
plans to build Norm's router station.&nbsp;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A></=
FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>TIA</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>SeeAll</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_00D0_01C58151.378D2C20--

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:24:37 GMT, "HMFIC-1369" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I have an excellent grasp, you didn't read it correctly.
>
>I don't dismiss it you made that assumption.
>
>If they want copyright privileges,then they should be held responsible for
>providing owners with specific
>product upgrades and support for the life of the product...

So the author of a book should keep re-writing it and sending you new
copies each year? The product may be complete garbage, but it is still
under copyright. Copyright says nothing about quality or usability, or
even if you can sue to get your money back, it simply says that *you*
can't make copies to sell or give away.

If the product sucks why would you want to make copies to give away
anyway?

--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:33:27 +0000 (UTC), "SeeAll"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I've been using the internet for 15+ years and over those years the web has
>been taken over by selfish individuals. The spirit of the internet is to
>freely share information. When you have finished with an item you post it
>for others to share. I suppose it is to be expected that has more and more
>people use the medium commercialism moves in.


Copyright has been around far longer than both the Internet and your
self-serving notion of what its "spirit" is. Freeloading twit.


--
Chuck Taylor
http://home.hiwaay.net/~taylorc/contact/

In article <XUAye.30527$Fn4.17322@trnddc06>, "HMFIC-1369" <[email protected]> wrote:
>That's not correct! It has nothing to do with the evasion of copyright
>protection. If you have licensed software, you are prohibited from giving it
>away even if you no longer need it. If I gave you my copy of XP when I
>installed Linux, I broke the law.

Not true. You may be in violation of MickeySoft's license agreement, but not
copyright law.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Jesus Where Are you Coming From? This has NOTHING to do with NOT PAYING FOR
SOMETHING!

EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW....................

Are you challenged, why are you so fixated on theft... I WASN'T TAKING OR
JUSTIFYING IT... ONLY STATING THAT CONSUMERS DESERVE EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER
THE EXTENT OF THE COPYRIGHT! You want you cake and eat it too, tough!

did you get left back in 5th grade or something? I don't think I'd pay you
very much for anything you've ever done.... Looks like it'd never work right
anyway! You can't even read....................


Ta Ta!




"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:24:37 GMT, HMFIC-1369 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > If they want copyright privileges,then they should be held responsible
for
> > providing owners with specific
> > product upgrades and support for the life of the product...
>
> What's that got to do with using something you don't want to pay for?
>
> > What this says is that, the owner has certain rights as do the creator.
> > Honestly if anybody is still using software that's 10 years old, I'd say
> > that they're having a tough time. If somebody wants copyright's for 20
> > years, then fine support that product for 20 years! You have to
distinguish
> > from devices to software to music and movies! How many times have you
bought
> > a product that didn't perform as it claims or have it break. The
difficulty
> > in exchanging and repairing is at most difficult or cost prohibitive.
>
> And this justifies theft how, exactly?
>
> > I have patents and certainly protect myself. I simply feel that
owners/users
> > should be afforded rights attributed to those who choose to copyright.
> > Freeware is freeware user beware, but as for buying I think consumers
should
> > be given equal footing and protection under the copyright laws. Ever buy
> > something that failed that actually cost you more to return, then it did
to
> > buy? Happens everyday but there are no laws to protect you..............
>
> And what does that have to do with some bozo wandering in asking us to
> steal plans for him?
>
> > Your on your own, they're protected and enforced by the Federal
Government
>
> In other words, "some guy sold me crappy software so I'm going to steal
> software from now on"? If it's crappy, don't use it. If you just say
> it's crappy, and then use it anyway, you're just using an excuse to
> steal it. Will I support software I wrote 25 years ago? Sure, but
> you're gonna pay me by the hour, and if you expect something I wrote in
> 1980, or 1990, or even 2000 to still be under some sort of warranty,
> well, you're delusional.
>
> Dave Hinz
>

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:33:27 +0000 (UTC), "SeeAll"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I've been using the internet for 15+ years and over those years the web has
>been taken over by selfish individuals.

As you clearly demonstrate, expecting someone to violate the law to do
something for you. What a twit.

> The spirit of the internet is to
>freely share information. When you have finished with an item you post it
>for others to share.

OK, so you are also a communist twit.

> I suppose it is to be expected that has more and more
>people use the medium commercialism moves in. I will try other boards of
>which thankfully there are many.

Fortunately, the thieves like you who tried to push that vision of the
Internet have been bludgeoned into submission so that the entire thing
has survived this far. Only an idiotic, communistic, twit would think
that the Internet can possibly survive without commercialism.

Enjoy your quest for someone who desires to see the economy collapse
as the amoral majority grasp greedily for what they have no right to.

--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

When you get done building your new router table I'm thinking of stopping by
your house and loading it onto my truck. You won't mind, will you?

Lee

--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>SNIP>

> No, I'm pissed off that I've found copies of programs that _I_ have
> written being distributed by people who had no right to do so.
> There's no difference, ethically, between stealing software from a
> programmer, plans from Norm, or music from a musician. If you want to
> use it, pay for it. If you don't like the terms and conditions of the
> sale, don't buy it, and don't use it.

Hmm - I agree that theft is theft however there is more than one software
company that could be accused of stealing from it's customers . . . If I pay
for something I expect it to work as advertised or it needs to be fixed ( I
am not talking about 5-10 years from now I am talking about it having NEVER
worked correctly) - ever try to return a software package after it was
opened because it did not work as advertised - the store will not take it
back and when you read the warranty it says basically that "the program is
warranted to be copied correctly to the disc and the media will be replaced
if defective..." I am not ranting against the tech industry ( I work in
tech) since when it is asking too much to have a piece of software work as
expected (and as it has been promoted to work)?

A friend of mine works for a large famous software that shall remain
nameless but he told me how he sat in a meeting with the VP of their
division as the VP said .."f_ _ k the customers, if they don't like it f_ _
k them. . . "My friend is in the process of leaving the company . . .

BillyB

SeeAll wrote:
> Hi,
> Could some kind person email a complete set of plans to build Norm's router station.


Hey cheap skate, buy the plan or don't you recognise copyright laws?

Lew