okayfine

Naw, Ratsun really isn't my bag.

Jesus christ! Get off your high horse, jackass. You don't want to contribute to DQ, that's your choice. I don't care one lick, I didn't ask you specifically. DQ doesn't "take hostage" anything - lest you construe what happened in the tach thread to be "taking hostage." Rest assured you'd be singing a different tune if/when you put your effort into something that was hijacked by someone else simply because they're too lazy to bother to subscribe and get the content in a fair manner. As an aside, DQ's restrictions are actually pretty lax compared to actual magazines, so I hope you didn't have dreams of becoming published. Hell, even America's Funniest Home Videos keeps your tape - those BULL SHIT THIEVES! Charles, I don't understand your need to be such a BMOC, but whatever. I'm sure you've got millions of words in articles strewn about the four winds, so keep the good work up:rolleyes:

I completely agree.

What's the difference between that and taking the Mona Lisa and adding in a mustache and some buildings in the background? Or taking one of your illustrations and making changes? He created original material, material that didn't exist previously, right? But, in the case of DQ articles, what would be the point? The article was already written and photographed, why rewrite and rephotograph the article? Just to be able to post it on Ratsun without causing a fuss? Seems counter to the point of DQ existing. That was actually done already here on Ratsun with another DQ article, the DIY grill piece I wrote. Someone posted here like they came up with it and didn't mention they got the idea from DQ until they were called out about it. If someone wants to document working through a DQ article as such, no problem, but at least point to the DQ issue the original work appeared in instead of making it seem like they came up with it on their own. I agree. Fortunately, we do not operate like that. zuum510 doesn't have any examples he can point to of us doing so, and for the one article in which we did, we have all the permission it is possible to obtain (original author "ok," original publisher "ok."). Where is "there?" DQ has a forum, but it is lightly trafficed and none of the DQ staff frequent it. I believe "datsunfreak" is already a Ratsun member, but speaking for the rest of the staff they don't have the time or inclination to register here and post articles that we would otherwise print in DQ. That defeats the purpose of DQ, while the opposite does not defeat the purpose of Ratsun.

Why? :blink: The point of that section of my post was to help preserve and document the information that has been developed by Ratsun members. I'm sure you guys have all sorts of stuff you have come up with. Getting it into DQ spreads the information to a wider audience, but it also provides a "backup" of sorts if that info has already been posted here. The goal is preservation of the information. Ratsun.net may or may not be around forever (precident says not) and may or may not always be online when you need it (again, precident is that web sites go down without notice all the time). Printed DQ issues on your bookshelf will be there regardless of the state of technology. There are more points I could make, but I get the feeling you're not interested. That's fine. I didn't expect a warm welcome given my topic du jour. The 510 community doesn't benefit from a mish-mash of technical content strewn to the four winds.

There is what's called "fair use." There are certain requirements for that to be permissible. Copying an article for personal use doesn't fit. See all the hub-bub with the music industry. If this is all that had happened, I wouldn't have bothered with all this. Even if he posted the text from the online posting of the article I wouldn't have cared much - we put it online, we expect that to happen to a certain extent. Posting of scans of the actual published article stepped over the line. Once you do that, what's the point in continuing DQ? If all the material will be available for free in it's published form, no one is going to pay for it.

None were previously printed in UFO. I have the bound UFO collection purchased from Ray Johns and there is no overlap. We have printed one article that previously was printed by FTA, the 5-speed trans adapter piece, which was written by Randy York. I received permission and the materials from Randy. Permission from FTA came from Ray Johns himself, who posted on The Realm giving everyone permission to redistribute the FTA newsletters he was responsible for. Please to be pointing them out before calling me a hypocrite. I wager you are incorrect.

The statement you found on our website regarding reprint/republishing is also printed in the newsletter, which is more to the point since the tach article was copied from a newsletter and not taken from the website. For those who missed it: "All materials accepted become the sole property of The Dime, Quarterly, which reserves the right to reprint and/or republish any accepted materials." Linking to web-published articles at http://www.dimequarterly.com is more than fine. It's why the articles are posted online.

Hello Ratsun, It is unfortunate that my first Ratsun post had to be a take-down request. I have previously read posts appropriating DQ content and let it slide, however the actual posting of scans of a DQ article really stepped over the line. I'm not concerned with increasing DQ's subscriber base (despite my pitch below), but if these sorts of actions continue and increase, DQ will cease to exist, plain and simple. The Dime, Quarterly, is the only technical resource out there for 510 enthusiasts. We put together top-notch issues full of relevant content and make sure the articles are proofed (which means they do what they claim and won't offend your English teacher) and photographed or illustrated as well as possible (no scribble illustrations, no blurry pictures). We don't do this for money as none of the DQ staff get paid. We do this so that there IS a technical resource out there for 510 enthusiasts. You all might not think that DQ is all that, and that there's much information on Ratsun all by itself. The latter is definitely true, however I would ask if Ratsun has ever gone down, or had half the answer, or had crap/no pictures, etc. In any case, Ratsun could go off the air tomorrow, or your internet connection could be on the fritz the moment you try to find out the procedure on Ratsun. DQ issues, sitting on your bookshelf, will sit on your bookshelf whether Ratsun is up, down, or sideways. It's one reason we haven't gone digital. A subscription to DQ is a paltry $15. That's the same price it has been since last century. Ressurrecting one 510 tach is easily worth the $4.50 for a back issue showing you how to do so. Moreover, supporting DQ via a subscription does provide funds to DQ to help support events like JCCS (we have been a sponsor of JCCS for some time, if not all five years) and helps pay the hosting fees for http://www.dimequarterly.com, where there is much content that we don't charge for. Lastly, as there are a number of fine 510s and 510 owners that call Ratsun their home, I'd like to seek out you fellows to contribute to DQ. Whether you have a rare part, a regional club, a in-depth project, a finished 510, or a technical article, we have a column for each. DQ is all-volunteer and while we have incentives for contributors, the main idea is to get all the information into print so it will always be around and be properly documented for future 510 owners to reference. Thanks, Julian DQed

Mr. Atom, please remove those scans of The Dime, Quarterly. You do not have permission to replicate the material. This also goes for Mr. Klotz. It is unfortunate that my first Ratsun post has to be such an annoucement. I have seen this occur previously on Ratsun and let it slide, however it would seem that has only led to more of this happening, and now full scans have appeared. The Dime, Quarterly, is the only technical resource out there for 510 enthusiasts. We try to put together top-notch issues full of relevant content and make sure the articles are proofed and photographed or illustrated as well as possible. We don't do this for money, as none of the DQ volunteers get paid. We do this so that there IS a technical resource our there for 510 enthusiasts. A subscription to DQ is a paltry $15. That's the same price it has been since last century. Ressurrecting one 510 tach is easily worth the $4.50 for a back issue. Moreover, supporting DQ via a subscription does provide funds to DQ to help support events like JCCS (we have been a sponsor of JCCS for some time) and helps pay the hosting fees for http://www.diimequarterly.com, where there is much content that we don't charge for. Thank you, Julian DQed