Publication, copyright and information sharing
 

Hello good people,

Internet did open a lot of possibilities and opportunities.
Fighting against this tool is, definitely, a lost war.

Of course, it did open opportunities for “rookies” to spray bad and wrong data. This is OUR responsibility to fight against this; and it’s a daily work since this media is faster than any publishing schedule.
What is the situation?
- People who already published are facing every day new discoveries.
- People who want publish are facing every day new discoveries and are, daily, postponing their publication awaiting for more news to come... Without end.
- The electronics tools do permit to share data, screen prints, scans … Who is the guy who wants to fight against that? Seriously?
- Who, seriously, is the owner of an eBay picture put in line by that company? Not me, of course, not LRG/LEMB2.0 of course.

You want money for your future/planned publication? Of course you do!
How, in such Internet environment, are you planning that?
Be serious, once in your life.

So, can we open a true “brainstorming” conversation in order to satisfy … Well … researchers AND fans who are providing information FOR FREE to both “real” experts (let me lough) and ass-lickers?

Are we able to do that?

Re: LEMB 2.0
 

Franck, you have a perfectly good point to make about copyright ownership without the need to mention another forum's policies.

For your benefit and that of anyone else who wants to respond to this thread, I'll repeat the TOCH moderators' position: we do not care how any other forum is run, that is completely up to the people who take the time and trouble to organise it. All we care about is that conflicts elsewhere stay where they are and that no one tries to open a second front on TOCH.

Re: LEMB 2.0
 

Thank you very much for your answer Nick.

This is what I expected from you in particular.

Best and respectful regards, Franck.

Re: LEMB 2.0
 

Permit me an Add-on concerning my sentence:
" People who want publish are facing every day new discoveries and are, daily, postponing their publication awaiting for more news to come... Without end."
One of us is facing that situation. I did ask him "are you going to publish or not?". His answer was "Normally yes, it was planned to be, but things aren't that easy; I'm going to open an Internet site the way Nick did"!

Funnily you are, Nick, the one who did start to answer this thread!..

Re: LEMB 2.0
 

But was the point of the original post apart from random thoughts?

Re: LEMB 2.0
 

Dear All,

I can see Franck's dilemma. In the past, when someone published a book, they would get some amount of corrections sent to them. The author would then feel:

"Gee, if only I had this information before I published, I could have written a more complete history."

Today, we have multiple forums and e-mail and new information keeps coming in as a response to our inquiries, some leading to new leads and paths to pursue, so where do you stop and finally publish? It does give one pause. I have a series of statements that covers this dilemma and they are progressive:

I don't know enough to know that I don't know enough.

I know enough to know that I don't know enough.

Is there a point that I feel comfortable enough to think I've got a pretty complete grasp of the history to publish?

The newbie at stage 1 is ready to publish. His is generally a regurgitation of previously published works, errors and all.

At stage 2 you know you don't know it all and face the question as to whether to publish with what you do have, even though your gut feel says it won't be complete by any means.

At stage 3 you are essentially paralyzed from publishing because you know darn well you don't have it all and won't settle on anything but complete, if that's even possible.

I've long been in stage 3 and, darn it, I certainly don't have it all. Still, there is the ongoing thrill of the new discovery.

Added to this mix is that what is out there can be pure tripe - bad information. Running this to ground is a task unto itself. Always look for primary references. To be even more sure, examine the primary references yourself. Look for corroboration. Even primary references can be wrong.

Anyway, food for thought.

Regards,
Richard

Re: LEMB 2.0
 

Having worked at a fiction book publisher for a while and having read non-fiction books, I can say that good non-fiction is a building block. A good researcher who continues on, eventually becomes a very good researcher. Pardon my lack of modesty but that has been my experience. I say, publish what you have.

Among the spectrum of people/researchers on the internet, one must include the vagaries of the internet itself. Compound that with a desire for quick and usually incomplete answers. I wonder how the impatient can accomplish much.

And then there is the nagging question - is this enough? As more and more once thought lost material comes to light, each potential author should, as time allows, publish so that others are encouraged to come forward. My God, why sit on dusty files for 10 to 15 years or keep them in private collections only to show them to a select group for the sake of boasting and self-aggrandizement? Certainly, there are those who wish to keep their private records private and that should be respected.



Best,
Ed

Re: LEMB 2.0
 

Ed,

I completely agree with what you are saying. If one has reached the point of thinking "this is what I have and it is documented", then go for it. As you mention there are always corrections forums like TOCH that will weigh in. That being said, there are people who:

1. Sit out there for years, trying get the perfect complete book--not possible, but you'll not knock them off this approach.

2. Those who have lots of data, etc., but enjoy whacking publications and authors. They could have helped, but did not, and, they will never publish--sad.

Re: LEMB 2.0
 

.. errr...how about the unfortunate collector/researcher who spends a small fortune buying it, only to then have some 'enthusiast' post it 'copyright unknown' on his web site..

Re: LEMB 2.0
 

Dear Neil,

Good point!

I can see a “little” difference, however, between a 35 million Euros Van Gogh painting owner who will show it, print it on high quality publications open to everyone...
And a 400Euros stamp size photo collector who will never show it except on cigarette thin paper, cut, many times for "publication reason" if not enlarged on two pages size (again cut right in the middle) ...
And who will declare ...err (sic) ... "you don't see the detail I'm talking about in the publication, but, believe me, I have THE HIGH resolution original one etc. etc. bla bla bla."
Do you know what I mean?

As for eBay ownership - you know what I mean too; well I hope. If not please refer to LGR rules - I'm talking about, I'm not the owner of the links I provide, I don't pretend to be.
But some do; indeed they do, but do not follow the rules they want to establish for others, not for themselves.

As for scans put on line with "copyright unknown", if the copyright is unknown, well it's because it's unknown for who did put this photo on line. As when he knows I think he's always indicating the source ... except for eBay pictures; Isn't he?

I know - you know, of course you know - another worst case, a case where a guy is putting all necessary references, always, even referring to the one who did point it the picture (I think you know the meaning of the word "via") .. But still has been roughly insulted, asking him to prepare his lawyer, putting, at last, his own Professional capacities in doubts ...

You know Neil I really don't like your contemptuous “enthusiast”. For who the hell are you publishing? Who feeds on “enthusiasts”?
By the contrary are you pretending you’re able to publish something without the help of those enthusiasts?
Do you know the guy who is, actually, doing it ONLY with the help of enthusiasts? (And who, by the way, is always expecting the last eBay picture to complete his pictured history; which is the other and main aspect of my thread) And who, too, and indeed, does adopt contemptuous sentences when he is not satisfied by the provided answers … falling deep inside and using the exactly same comments received by the one whose professional capacities have been put in doubts!
…
What a lack of insights!

Kind regards, Franck.

PS: Do you really need an augmented and CORRECTED edition? I thought it was already perfect … Wasn’t it?
But “enthusiasts” are pointing some inconsistencies, as usual. The Hell of the “enthusiast”!