Looks like I have a west coast “admirer”. November issue article “Railroading in 2040” is a west coast clone of my blog post from 2014
https://blerfblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/2040.html
I’d probably be flattered if I was at least acknowledged.
The story line, including lots of detail is identical. Only the places and names have been changed. A few new wrinkles…a bit of PSR, and and hybrid electrics with discontinuous catenary added, but that’s about the difference.
See if you don’t agree.
I, for one, called for your opinion when the article came out, and asked how you’d update the earlier piece in light of what may have changed since then.
I still think a detailed set of comments would be valuable …
Don did you ever submit your 2040 vision to Trains?
Don,
Please contact me off list to discuss this further. Thanks.
Don: If I were still receiving student papers, the article in the November issue would be rightly deemed plagiarized by the submitting author with drastic consequences. Hi changing a few details does not alter the fact that he is taking credit for the intellectual property of another person, YOU. Your piece was not copyrighted, I assume?
My understanding is that it would be automatically copyrighted as occurs according to a recent change in the law. It used to be that an author had to send copies to the copyright office and display a proper copyright notice on the work product in order to have copyright protection. Here is the explanation:
I’m not entirely sure this is intentional plagiarism; there are only so many ways to express the details and ‘tropes’ characterizing future railroading or ways to express them. Certainly the author’s explanation (and appalled apology) speak in some defense, and I think that any fair redress can be handled between Don and him. I’d expect a ‘retraction’-style comment in a future Trains issue (including a link to the blog post) might handle both the issue of ‘priority’ and of motive.
The real issue I have is with Kalmbach for accepting and publishing this. In a moderation atmosphere of rapid and severe consequences for even innocent transgression of often undocumented personal perceptions, of forums in which Don’s piece has been repeatedly and enthusiastically discussed (and linked), it would seem almost ridiculous for the magazine staff to claim they were not aware of the earlier material, even to the extent of referencing or acknowledging it (which I think would have been appropriate). And by acting to change the title, they brought the work into greater perception of its being plagiarized than had its date remained ‘2048’.
I have written a couple of versions of future ‘railroading’ (including one dystopic parody intended for one of the ttrraaffiicc threads) that followed the general Railroad Magazine/Kipling/Boy’s Life telling of the story from the viewpoint of the people running the trains. These would naturally include much of the technical information I think important, including dual-mode lite, block-switching of consists, concentration on certain types of traffic by certain operating companies, some prospective switch to more open access or ‘iron ocean’
Northwest in his original thread some months back Railroading in 2048 tipped his hat to Don. He said Don’s Railroading in 2040 was the inspiration.
It has occurred to me in the past that a more appropriate article for Trains, if to be untimely ripp’d from the pages of these forums, would have been “Visions of railroading in 2040” (with Don’s original serving as the first, acknowledging its priority, and then including views from several posters of various degrees of utopian and dystopian reality – including ttrraaffiicc’s scenario of railroads going bankrupt and their ROWs abandoned or converted into autonomous-truck freightways. Perhaps that is still a possibility in lieu of a formal retraction from Kalmbach?
[quote user=“Overmod”]
charlie hebdo
Don: If I were still receiving student papers, the article in the November issue would be rightly deemed plagiarized by the submitting author with drastic consequences.
I’m not entirely sure this is intentional plagiarism; there are only so many ways to express the details and ‘tropes’ characterizing future railroading or ways to express them. Certainly the author’s explanation (and appalled apology) speak in some defense, and I think that any fair redress can be handled between Don and him. I’d expect a ‘retraction’-style comment in a future Trains issue (including a link to the blog post) might handle both the issue of ‘priority’ and of motive.
The real issue I have is with Kalmbach for accepting and publishing this. In a moderation atmosphere of rapid and severe consequences for even innocent transgression of often undocumented personal perceptions, of forums in which Don’s piece has been repeatedly and enthusiastically discussed (and linked), it would seem almost ridiculous for the magazine staff to claim they were not aware of the earlier material, even to the extent of referencing or acknowledging it (which I think would have been appropriate). And by acting to change the title, they brought the work into greater perception of its being plagiarized than had its date remained ‘2048’.
I have written a couple of versions of future ‘railroading’ (including one dystopic parody intended for one of the ttrraaffiicc threads) that followed the general Railroad Magazine/Kipling/Boy’s Life telling of the story from the viewpoint of the people running the trains. These would naturally include much
I concur Visions of railroading in 2040 should’ve been the fore article including all rights and mentions. I’m sure Northwest meant no harm. Well until Trains fixes this situation. I guess my Railroading in 2050 will be put on hold… It will give Union Pacific time to get ready hauling cat litter, dog food, and recycled tires as that’s what it will be relegated too after poor customer service in my vision of railroading in 2050… Let’s just hope they get that right…
[quote user=“Euclid”]
charlie hebdo
oltmannd
Looks like I have a west coast “admirer”. November issue article “Railroading in 2040” is a west coast clone of my blog post from 2014
https://blerfblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/2040.html
I’d probably be flattered if I was at least acknowledged.
The story line, including lots of detail is identical. Only the places and names have been changed. A few new wrinkles…a bit of PSR, and and hybrid electrics with discontinuous catenary added, but that’s about the difference.
See if you don’t agree.
Don: If I were still receiving student papers, the article in the November issue would be rightly deemed plagiarized by the submitting author with drastic consequences. Hi changing a few details does not alter the fact that he is taking credit for the intellectual property of another person, YOU. Your piece was not copyrighted, I assume?
My understanding is that it would be automatically copyrighted as occurs according to a recent change in the law. It used to be that an author had to send copies to the copyright office and display a proper copyright notice on the work product in order to have copyright protection. Here is the explanation:
Just a Thought! [:-^] I have not seen the issue of the magazine, but it sounds like Editorially, somebody, really 'Smooched the Pooch" [banghead]
Sounds to me, like someone is owed a Major Mea-Culpa [:'(]
And just another random thought… In light of this , [This one sounds like an ‘atomic level’ FUBAR?] Would it not be very appropriate to release lour friend, 'Magic Mike’ ( wanswheel) from FORUM JAIL ???
IF he WANTS TO COME BACK?[:-^]
Theft of intellectual property is just that, theft. How on earth some on here can continue to make light of the theft of a fellow member’s writing is beyond me. I would not expect anyone to minimize the theft of money, phones or vehicles.
And in the same post. a member calls for allowing Wanswheel to return, in spite of the fact that he repeatedly posted entire written works on here. He refused to adhere to forum rules for reinstatement and instead kept passing materials on to other members, such as Miningman, to post for him. Habitual illegal/unethical behaviors which clearly violated the rules which Kalmbach must adhere to.
We hear about people taking legal action over the infringement of their copyright. How does that work? How does the aggrieved party go about establishing the amount of the monetary claim and how do they collect it?
In light of what Kalmbach used as reasons to ban him, this is highly ironic.
He does not. Neither does Vince (miningman).
It’s a suit in Federal court, under some applicable provision like 17 USC 101. The great problem here is the recent Supreme Court decision in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com LLC (docket 17-571; I don’t know the published cite), which more narrowly defines standing to sue to active copyright registration – something I doubt Don has done for a blog post, or that his blog provider does as a matter of course for content on the site.
In any case, the initial step is negotiation, and it appears that is under way via PM, precisely as it should be, and I’m sure the two will come to an amicable resolution, again as it should be.
If it were to proceed to a suit, assigning a monetary value to a specialized post in a hobby community might be difficult, especially as the text was, and is, freely disseminated without charge on the Internet. This is a much different objective matter: one of assigning intellectual precedence, and to my knowledge there is not and has not been a legal method to enforce this, particularly not in the one place it would be most important: patent priority.
Does the person suing for infringement need to hire legal council, and if so, what would that cost a person suing for say $25,000 ?
I would think that some people would sue over a very small amount of infringement that most people would not go after. Woud such tiny cases end up in Federal Court?
The problem with this question is that in order to be ‘suing’ not only would it need to be ‘stipulated’ that valid registered copyright was in force, but also that all friendly negotiation had been exhausted. I do not know the fee schedule and requirements for filing a case in United States district court; I certainly wouldn’t advise pro se unless you were knowledgeable enough about copyright law … I know for certain I would not consider bringing and handling a suit of that kind myself.
Expect a retainer up front, (probably at least $5000) and then periodic expenses (some of which might be substantial). It is possible that some of the ‘plan legal’ companies might offer a flat fee for handling a case of undisputed copyright, but again I don’t know what they would charge for this.
I don’t think you were listening; the case has to be brought in Federal court. With any appeals in Federal appellate court, and the United States Supreme Court as final arbiter, as in Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com.
Again, there will be minimum fees far in excess of any ‘small amount of infringement’, so unless you feel you can prevail and are due large money damages, there is little point in bringing the suit. I don’t think there is added value in having a known registered copyright affirmed in court. In the absence of cheap contingent-fee representation (which itself would only be offered with a firm prospect of large damages) there is little to no point in engaging in a formal suit unless you have much more money to
Sorry I haven’t been keeping up well here lately. Mother-in-law in hospital, rehab, then hospital again…
I’ll do a comparison soon.