John Naka's Bonsai Techniques 1. FREE

[jesseblunt]

I have been reading Vol. 1 for the last couple days and never thought about the legality of what I was doing...I was just too motivated to absorb all I could. I even referenced it today while contemplating shaping a tree I was working on. I checked prices as well and just assumed that Vol. 2 would forever be a mystery.

I can't help but be disappointed with the reactions and debate here and hope that the future of my experiences here are less sour than this thread has become at times.

To those of you who have "gifted" your books and more, I am really impressed by your generosity. If there is anyone else out there willing to pay it forward and send me this (or any other relevant bonsai titles...old pots...tools...magazines ANYTHING useful), I promise to do the same for another poor soul when the opportunity arises.

My address is:

[EDIT] Jesse - I am going to edit this post. It is not a good idea to post your name and address in a public forum. It can be picked up by bots and spammers and used for the wrong purpose. Instead, if someone wishes to contact Jesse on this subject, please send him a private message. - BNut [/EDIT]

 

[sikadelic]

I can't help but be disappointed with the reactions and debate here and hope that the future of my experiences here are less sour than this thread has become at times.

There are a lot of passionate folks here and sometimes it gets a little out of hand. I usually grab my bowl of popcorn and stay out of it. You just gotta look for the good stuff. There's plenty of it here.

Good luck!

 

[jesseblunt]

There are a lot of passionate folks here and sometimes it gets a little out of hand. I usually grab my bowl of popcorn and stay out of it. You just gotta look for the good stuff. There's plenty of it here.

Good luck!

I understand it's typical of internet melting pots to be full of diversity and as a result, conflicting opinions. That's not to say that the law is a matter of opinion, despite ever-cloudy gray areas.

I had an unrealistic expectation that this art form somehow transcended the bickering and flaming that typically drives people away from good forums such as this. I am not new to the practice of selective use and "lurking". I just want to be as active as possible here and avoid those games of internet squabbling and jabbing over largely inconsequential and trivial things.

Thanks again to the OP for bringing this book to light for me and others.

 

[Bonsai Nut]

There are a lot of passionate folks here and sometimes it gets a little out of hand. I usually grab my bowl of popcorn and stay out of it. You just gotta look for the good stuff. There's plenty of it here.

Whether or not I agree with a position, I always try to understand it. In this case I was arguing the legal side from a technical perspective - though heaven knows there are tons of laws that I disagree with. The law is supposed to be black and white. The world is grey. I don't believe it will come to an end because of an out-of-print bonsai book on the Internet.

 

[RKatzin]

There are a lot of passionate folks here and sometimes it gets a little out of hand. I usually grab my bowl of popcorn and stay out of it. You just gotta look for the good stuff. There's plenty of it here.

Good luck!

You can fan the flame or you can put the fire out. A kind word turns away wrath. It only takes one to step up and say it. You always have the choice, the chance to be that one, if you choose. Who was it that said, "Be excellent to one another"?

 

[sherwoodschwartz]

I had an unrealistic expectation that this art form somehow transcended the bickering and flaming that typically drives people away from good forums such as this.

thanks for the laugh. wooooooooo. i'm glad i got that last gulp of coffee down before i read that.

and please don't think i'm laughing at you. not at all.

i'm sure there are people who come here all zen-like to post about trees. maybe they even wear kimonos or post from their freshly raked sand garden. then you run into the grumpy old man faction. they've been doing it like this for 57 years dammit, and they don't need some snot-nosed kid telling them the whatfor. they are usually attacked from the side by the 'why do i have to do it that way' brigade. they have a new, fresh take on a thousand year old art. if you really want to have some fun, mention soil. i'd put on a helmet before i did though.

yeah...transcended bickering. i laughed so hard i sounded like a sheep bleating.

 

[edprocoat]

You can fan the flame or you can put the fire out. A kind word turns away wrath. It only takes one to step up and say it. You always have the choice, the chance to be that one, if you choose. Who was it that said, "Be excellent to one another"?

That is the first paragraph composed of adages I believe I have ever read.

ed

 

[agraham]

"yeah...transcended bickering. i laughed so hard"...me too

 

[michaelj]

Barret Brown? The heroin addict, admitted former member of the hacking group anonymous who is in trouble for everything from threatening FBI agents to trying to release confidential info about their cases and the government? THAT seems like a rational comparison to you?

One of his felony convictions is for the mere act of posting a link. The fact that he's done all sorts of other terrible things isn't an element of that crime. I'm not trying to claim that you and he are brethren or that you are like a heroin addict peddling state secrets or whatever else you're trying to pull from that comment, I'm just pointing out that, yes, the mere act of posting a link to something illegal can be a crime all by itself.

Take it how ever you want to take it- bitch, cry, scream and make idiotic threats and comparisons like this guy is trying to do if it makes you feel like an Internet tough guy. The book is online, for free, deal with it.

Oh, please... I didn't threaten you with anything. I just disagreed with what you posted. But seeing that this discussion clearly upsets you far more than the infringement upsets me, I'll stop now.

 

[RKatzin]

That is the first paragraph composed of adages I believe I have ever read.

ed

Hey, it wasn't easy!

 

[Eric Group]

You can fan the flame or you can put the fire out. A kind word turns away wrath. It only takes one to step up and say it. You always have the choice, the chance to be that one, if you choose. Who was it that said, "Be excellent to one another"?

I believe that quote was from one of the "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" movies and I don't recall the plot quite well enough to say exactly who said it, but I believe it was one of the wise sages they brought back from the future- perhaps it was future version of themselves after the Wild Stalyns had taken over the world and their rock music had lead to work peace... You know... Not that I have seen any of those movies or anything...

While you already got props on this post I must also commend you for being the first person I have ever seen bring Bill and Ted into a Bonsai discussion... Or was this thread a legal debate? Either way, that was a wicked curve!

 

[jesseblunt]

thanks for the laugh. if you really want to have some fun, mention soil. i'd put on a helmet before i did though.

yeah...transcended bickering. i laughed so hard i sounded like a sheep bleating.

You bet! Haha...I think it comes from reading the introductions to too many bonsai books. Lots of fluff and zen-pushing there. Can't blame me for trying to have an optimistic view in spite of all the (plant) death and defeat I've experienced in trying to learn this stuff, can you?

 

[sherwoodschwartz]

You bet! Haha...I think it comes from reading the introductions to too many bonsai books. Lots of fluff and zen-pushing there. Can't blame me for trying to have an optimistic view in spite of all the (plant) death and defeat I've experienced in trying to learn this stuff, can you?

absolutely not. fluffy zen is my favorite kind! and despite the jaundice evident in my post, the forum is a really helpful and wonderful resource filled with good people.

 

[David Kelley]

Just joined up and thought I would add my 2 cents to the discussion. Here are my thoughts:

1. There are people who believe laws are immutable and must be obeyed no matter what, and there are those who don't feel that way. Let's remember that not too long ago in American history slavery was legal. Not that I am comparing slavery to copyright laws, but it goes to show that just because something is legal doesn't make it right, and illegal doesn't necessarily make it wrong. Alot of folks on this thread seem to be overly concerned about the legality of posting this book. You know what, if you don't agree with it being posted don't read it. And if the folks who posted/viewed it get in trouble with the law, then you can smile to yourself and say I told you so.

2. I came across this link while searching for info on bonsai techniques as I am new to the art. I had never heard of Mr. Naka's work before. Now that I have had a chance to read through the text I am very interested in picking up a hard copy if I can find one that is realistically priced.

3. Regarding Mr. Naka, after having read the text and a bit of history about him I feel that he was a person who had a passion for his art and was equally passionate about teaching this art to others. I have no doubt in my mind that he would be okay with this posting, knowing that it has reached someone like myself who can make use of the knowledge to beautify the world with bonsai.

4. Some have mentioned the potential that the owners of Mr. Naka's estate/copyright to this book may someday decide to reprint it and that this posting would negatively effect that. Really? If anything the people who have read this poorly scanned copy would be the first ones in line to buy a new print, myself included. If anything it is the people who are price gouging this book on Amazon and such, charging $80 for a used copy, that would be negatively affected by a reprint.

5. Want a copy of this book for a fair price? Here is a way that may be morally wrong but is entirely legal. See if your local library has a copy. If they do, check it out and tell them you lost it. They will simply charge you the original purchase price. Not that I condone this practice, but at least those folks who can't get over whether something is "legal" or not will not be able to sing that tired refrain about it. And do you all know what? The authorities will not care one bit about some 20 year old, out of print book on Bonsai being posted online. They're two busy removing pirated episodes of Game of Thrones.

6. Lastly I would like to thank Eric for this post, it has helped me to discover a wonderful source of info for my new hobby.

 

[Potawatomi13]

I can tell you how it works. This is an infringement, and by posting it, you are assisting in the infringement.



It's not a slippery slope. It's a fairly well-defined path. Society has enacted laws that answer these questions. The answers, in order, as defined by the law and until the book goes into the public domain, are no, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. My understanding is that this was first published in 1984. It will therefore go into the public domain in 2074 (70 years after John Naka's passing)

Mathematics grasshopper. 90 years you say instead of 70

 

[michaelj]

The math is correct. John died in 2004. Because the book was published in 1984, it is governed by § 302 (Duration of copyright: Works created on or after January 1, 1978). That section provides: "Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death."

So while it may be that it is 90 years from the date of publication in this instance, the measure is not 90 years from date of publication. It is 70 years from the date of the author's death. Had John lived another ten years, it would have been 2084 before the copyright expires.

 

[sorce]

Now that I have had a chance to read through the text I am very interested in picking up a hard copy if I can find one that is realistically priced.

That wouldn't have happened!
That's it.
I'd buy it too, after I read it.
To have it. (didn't tho)

I wonder why no one brought up the possibility of his work being maintained under his estate with this $.

?

Eric,Eric,Eric!

Sorce

 

[Eric Group]

The math is correct. John died in 2004. Because the book was published in 1984, it is governed by § 302 (Duration of copyright: Works created on or after January 1, 1978). That section provides: "Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death."

So while it may be that it is 90 years from the date of publication in this instance, the measure is not 90 years from date of publication. It is 70 years from the date of the author's death. Had John lived another ten years, it would have been 2084 before the copyright expires.

Jesus, this is still going on?

First- ya'll are welcome for posting a link to a free resource

Second, after all the whining and crying on this thread, I went and did a little research about the legality of posting a link to a site that infringes on a copyright (IF this legitimately does...). The person posting a link is only liable IF they were aware it was an infringement- which I honestly was not aware of (and there is no way to prove otherwise if someone claimed not to believe me on that point..) I thought since he was deceased, and it was such an old book and no longer even IN PRINT... It was pretty much public domain at this point- Apparently, according to some, that isn't the case. Oh well... Even IF some diligent soul at the DMCA read this thread, the worst that could possibly come of it is... Twenty years in prison? 5 floggings a with a wet noodle? The gas chamber? No... They would issue a Notice-and-takedown requiring the thread be deleted.

Yep. All this posturing and big talk from people that think they know what they are talking about.. People acting as if this is some horrible crime? The WORST that could happen here is a government agency MIGHT consider... Asking Bnut to delete it.

Scary shit right?

I guess I should cancel my plans to move to a non- extradition country. I already died my hair and had facial reconstruction... Lucky for me the wife likes my new nose!

LMAO

Ya'll have plenty of fun arguing over stuff that doesn't matter and will never happen. Ima go read the damn book, again!

Thanks to whomever decided to revive this train wreck of a thread today!

 

[michaelj]

Second, after all the whining and crying on this thread, I went and did a little research about the legality of posting a link to a site that infringes on a copyright (IF this legitimately does...). The person posting a link is only liable IF they were aware it was an infringement- which I honestly was not aware of (and there is no way to prove otherwise if someone claimed not to believe me on that point..)

Oh, FFS dude, you're the only one whining and crying in this thread, allcapping and posting long-winded replies with histrionics that protest too much. In any event, your link got the takedown for infringement. Which is cool. Your legal research is off, though. It is well established that innocent intent is not a good defense to infringement, at least not in this country. But you're right. No one is going to come looking for you. Enjoy your victory lap on that one.

FWIW, and not as an assault on Eric, but for anyone who is interested in the rules, I just noticed BNut's post saying that the initial publication date was 1973 (the link had gone to the 1984 paperback edition). I don't know what changes, if any, there were between the two editions, but if there were none, and the 1973 date applies as the first date of publication (which is probably does), the calculations would be different. With a first publication date before 1978, it would be governed by section 304. Thus it would have had an original duration of 28 years, subject to renewal. The latest copyright law extended the renewal term from 28 to 67 years for copyrights that existed as of January 1, 1978, giving it 95 years of protection from the date of publication. If the work was published between 1964 to 1977, the renewal is automatic, so the work automatically gets a 95 year term. Naka's first book, then, would have a copyright expiration date in 2068. So in 53 short years, it hits the public domain, unless Disney's lobbyists manage to get everyone another extension, that is.

 

[Eric Group]

Oh, FFS dude, you're the only one whining and crying in this thread, allcapping and posting long-winded replies with histrionics that protest too much. In any event, your link got the takedown for infringement. Which is cool. Your legal research is off, though. It is well established that innocent intent is not a good defense to infringement, at least not in this country. But you're right. No one is going to come looking for you. Enjoy your victory lap on that one.

You have got to be joking... YOU COMPARED ME TO A FN TERRORIST EARLIER IN THIS THREAD, but I am the one going too far?

I didn't infringe on anything. That is my point. I did not post the book where it is/ was posted, I just found it and posted a link here in which case: "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd, 545 U.S. 913, (2005). As long as you do not know that a work infringes someone's copyright, then you cannot be held liable for contributory infringement for directing users to that work."

The funniest part about all this to me is the first copy I got of this book years ago was given to me as purchased from a book sale at a Library. This Library copy was a PHOTOCOPY of the book bound together in a plastic report binder... THAT was copyright infringement! LOL