Crime that it is not offered on-line as a searchable .pdf
Not all the material in this Manual is all a government copyright. There is some that is copyrighted material by various individuals and is not public domain, so to say. Buy a copy and read some of the info inside on the first few pages. Jim Muth gave an update on this a couple of years ago at an APLS Board of Directors meeting before the new issue was published or was just being released.
Cost?
Cost is an issue for students and technicians. That has been pointed out before.
As taxpayers we already paid for the development of the new Manual, why gouge us for publication costs? They should have printed it and released it at cost and they should have had a digital version from day one.
Just think about all the money that has been spent and is still being spent by BLM traveling all over the U.S. telling us about the new Manual. Just think if they saved the money from traveling the past 5+ years to just about every PLSS state, not once, but two or more times. The money spent on travel alone could have been used to develop the best digital version ever imagined and maybe even paid for free distribution if you think about it.
I always considered the Manual a public document. This is almost like the IRS selling us their handbooks and instructions so we can use them to help us file our tax returns.
Yes, those who want/need the Manual on their bookshelf, be my guest. But to insure a quick implementation of the new Manual, it would be best to put it into the most hands in the quickest manner possible.
Copyright
They made a new manual, they could have put whatever they wanted in it...
Why did they choose stuff that was copyrighted by someone else. You can get the 1973 Manual on-line...why include new stuff that you cannot freely distribute.
Any CFED's on this topic? Does the electronic version exist in the software you get with the course?
Two Questions.
> And, why does the "cowboy" care...NY doesn't care about PLSS does it?
As to the Manual itself, you are right.......we don't use it in NY, NJ or CT, so it doesn't affect me. PLSS is interesting, but of little or no use in the colonial states.
What DOES affect me is seeing posts like this that make us look less than the professionals we are supposed to be.
Almost everyone on here complains about "lowballers" and here we are arguing over who doesn't want to pay $125 or $75 for information vital to the practice of his profession. Again, look at the law books in an attorneys office, or the medical texts you see when you visit your doctor's office......do you hear them carping about the costs.
It's called "overhead", and you can't operate a business properly without dealing with it.
Two Questions.
I retrace GLO surveys done in the 1860's through about 1920, few newer. Is it more professional to have the Manuals and Special Instructions in effect at the time of the survey, or the new one under which very little has been done using it? New is not always better as a resource unless you are taking an exam and the answers wanted may do more harm to those taking that exam than good, when they start to practice. It does make it easy to teach, prepare an exam and be demanding of only one right answer when reality indicates that the proper answer is that it depends. Academia does much harm in their quest for one answer.
jud
Look in the folder in the back...the one that contains the example plats...there should be a CD...
DDSM
(dreaming)
:beer:
Two Questions.
I agree Jud.
Speaking for myself, just as I know the "ins and outs" of surveying in NYC, I would certainly have copies of ALL the versions if I practiced in PLSS areas, and would know which to use under what circumstances.
Part of our professionalism is knowing which tools to use for each task.
Copyright
> They made a new manual, they could have put whatever they wanted in it...
>
> Why did they choose stuff that was copyrighted by someone else. You can get the 1973 Manual on-line...why include new stuff that you cannot freely distribute.
>
>
Because some of the best experts/authors are not in government service and have published their works as private citizens.
If the BLM knows of some top notch publication of, say water boundaries, should they reinvent the wheel if they think the other author already nailed it? Should they plaigerize that work? Why shouldn't they negotiate to include that other work if it reflects the BLM policy on the subject and conveys it well?
It will all go into public domain soon enough. In the meantime $125 for a publication like the 2009 Manual is quite reasonable, and $75 is cheap. When a searchable PDF comes out, I'll get one. But even if it had come out first, I still would have paid $75, or even $125 for a hard copy.
Copyright
>
> If the BLM knows of some top notch publication of, say water boundaries, should they reinvent the wheel if they think the other author already nailed it? Should they plaigerize that work? Why shouldn't they negotiate to include that other work if it reflects the BLM policy on the subject and conveys it well?
>
Dang...I spent $1056 for a copy of Simpson's River and Lake Boundaries...but that included 40 hours of one on one instruction from Jim Simpson and Jerry Knight...maybe the cost was due to the autographed copy of the book...wink
DDSM
21st century
I haven't heard Lucas's argument. Many surveyors have the incorrect
concept that since the Supreme Court can overrule any State Supreme Court,
the Feds write a book, and it overrules all state laws and court precedents.
Of course not, each state controls its public lands by its laws and
court precedents.
Copyright
I'm sure that autograph was well worth the extra $900. 😀
Copyright
When exactly the new manual "will all go into the public domain"?
I think the copyright material only goes into the public domain 70 years after the death of the author.
At least 85-90% of the new manual is public domain material right now and could be released immediately in .pdf format. If the authors authorize a .pdf version wouldn't that remove the obstacle that BLM keeps bringing up as the reason for not releasing a .pdf version?
Supposedly BLM has been working on this question for over a year. Why is it taking so long to resolve? BLM could at least give the profession a 90% .pdf version right now.
It is a government manual and it should be available without copyright.
If you go and write something and it gets put in there then you shouldn't have a copyright on it. Certainly it is reasonable to compensate authors for their contribution but once it is in the manual then I think it should be available for the cost of reproduction which is nill once it is a PDF on the website.
This is the way it has been and the way it should be. The 1973 Manual is available on-line and I don't see how they can impose the 2009 Manual when it is only available from a non-governmental source.
I realize the Attorneys may point out the incorrectness of my opinions but I am talking about the way it should be more than the way it is.
"It is a government manual and it should be available without copyright."
That is correct. The concept has been around for 200+ years. It's already fully paid for by the taxpayers.
And a publication lacking a copyright notice, whether government or not, is not copyrighted, and has no rights reserved.
> It's already fully paid for by the taxpayers.
>
>
Maybe, maybe not. It depends upon how the agreement for use of the materials of the non-governmental authors was structured. If they got all their payment up front, then you are right, tax money has already paid for all the obligations associated with it. If there is a provision for continued royalties, and contactual minimum amounts, then the payment for use of the material of non-gevernmental origin has not yet been paid for.
I realize we live in budget challenged times but this is not a good plan for a government document at least in an ideal world.
"If there is a provision for continued royalties, and contactual minimum amounts, then the payment for use of the material of non-gevernmental origin has not yet been paid for."
That may well be true. But if copyright or reservation of rights notice does not appear in the publication, it is in the public domain. Has anyone seen that notice in the 2009 "Manual"? I don't have a copy so I have no idea.
> And a publication lacking a copyright notice, whether government or not, is not copyrighted, and has no rights reserved.
Copyright automatically attaches at the instant a work is created in fixed form. United States law no longer requires a copyright notice. That requirement was eliminated when the U. S. adhered to the Berne Convention on March 1, 1989.
The Berne Convention Explained
A work of the United States government, as defined by United States copyright law, is "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties."[1] The term only applies to the work of the federal government, including the governments of "non-organized territorial areas" under the jurisdiction of the U.S Government,[2] but not state or local governments. In general, under section 105 of the Copyright Act,[3] such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law, sometimes referred to as "noncopyright."
The act only speaks about domestic copyright. The U.S. government can still hold the copyright of those works in other countries.[4]
1 ^ 17 U.S.C. § 101
2 ^ a b Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices, § 206.02(e)
3 ^ a b 17 U.S.C. § 105
4 ^ "Does the Government have copyright protection in U.S. Government works in other countries?". http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#317.
So the Berne Convention only applies to international copyright.
The Berne Convention Explained
Maybe $75 with all the typos is a fire sale.
Maybe Nancy Pelosi was a co-author.
"We have to pass the law in order to know what is in it."
or
"We have to publish the Manual to know what is in it."
