ATM Re: TM Reprints

[Atmj1@aol.com]

Telescope Making Reprints Re-Visited

Hello Gang:

With ATMJ #12 at press, I have had time to look at a few of the messages here
on the List. As you might suspect, the messages concerning TM reprints have
been of special interest to me. The passionate idea of having reprints made
available to us has surfaced several times over the last few years. Still, in
the way it has been presented thus far, we are no further ahead than we were 5
years ago. Let me offer some food for thought - in no particular order. 

1) Those who find it hard to believe that "THEY" have only received two emails
asking for reprints are showing good sense. I have personally contacted
Kalmbach personnel no less than half a dozen times regarding reprints. I have
used the phone, mail, fax, AND email.

This should, however, be tempered by the fact that they are changing personnel
all the time and I believe there have been 2 editors since Richard's exodus.
In such a large organization, it would not be hard to have such bothersome
communications swept under the subconscious rug. 

2) According to my grapevine, TM never enjoyed a readership of 10,000. It
peaked at about 8,000 and was teetering around 7,500 at the time publication
ceased. What do those two figures tell you? Well, they told Kalmbach officials
the same thing! What would you do if it were your money? Please remember two
important things. First, that even at 10,000 subscribers, TM was "gum of their
shoes." We may not want to look at it that way. That's too bad. That's how it
is. In running the Journal, I have any number of people send me messages
wanting me to do things that I couldn't do if my life depended on them and
things that make ABSOLUTELY no business sense whatsoever. Some folk think that
wishing makes it so. They should really be looking for openings at Disney.
Secondly, even with ASTRONOMY'S readership of nearly 200,000, it is not their
only concern. Kalmbach was into MANY other types of publishing before they
even bought ASTRONOMY. So, while TM-ing might be OUR life's blood, it is
DOLLARS that keep a publishing company going.

3) Hounding Kalmbach is not going to do anything positive for the cause. To
quote Dan Brown, "Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy
and taste good with ketchup."

4) If EVERYONE on the List contacted Kalmbach and honestly promised to buy all
the back issues, the effort would STILL fall 7,000 short of their MINIMUM
commitment. Now let's supposed for a moment that we ALL worked for Disney and
we could muster the 7,500 inquiries. Kalmbach would probably push the number
higher. Folks, they just don't want to deal with the headaches of working with
such a small special interest group; and, that's just what we are.

5) I think some folks are clamoring for the rights to TM back issues just
because they seem to need a cause. I have jousted with enough windmills to
limit my causes to the necessary and attainable. We have seen that, as
proposed, our goal is not attainable. But, is it even NECESSARY? Let's stand
back and have a realistic (though unscientific) look. 

Telescope Making averaged about 8 articles over 46 issues. That would be about
368 articles. Now let's allow a conservative 1.5 (actually 1.47) articles on
star parties (which you folks say you don't want to see), to be taken out of
the picture. Now we have 300 articles left. Then, let us remove the articles
in which the subject matter has already been presented in other publications
and in which nothing really new has been presented (and yes, ATMJ will do the
same thing), and we can probably knock off another 150. That takes us down to
about 150. Now then, considering that TM was getting started just about the
same time as the Dobsonian Revolution was catching on, there are a lot of
articles on making Dobsonians. However, since then, Dobsonian design and
construction have been highlighted in a number of books, including the
definitive book on Dobsonians by Dave Kreige and Richard Berry. With that in
mind, can we not drop up to another 100 articles? Well, you get the picture. 

Some may think I am throwing stones at TM. Well, if so, I must be throwing
stones at the Journal as well, because if we tried to publish only cutting
edge material we would be gone in a heartbeat. I am merely wanting to state
that the number of articles published in TM that were first presented there
and which have not been cover well elsewhere, is quite manageable. In other
words, there are no articles within TM's hallowed pages that have not been
superceded by more current data or which cannot be duplicated by the original
author or others.

I would like List subscribers and ATMA members to have a look at an email
message I sent to David Eicher, ASTRONOMY's Managing Editor, and tell me what
you think of my proposal to him. If you think I am off base, just tell me.
Hey, I've got teens! I've been called everything. Anyway, I'm just trying to
serve the ATM community in what I feel is a more logical, easier to manage
way; and one which may not be seen as a bother to the folks at Kalmbach.  

>>Dear David:

I am writing to you as the creator of one small astronomy publication to
another. As you may have been told, I have tried to get the rights to the old
TM magazines so that I could reprint them for the benefit of the ATM
community. As the creator of Deep Sky, I'm sure you realize that I certainly
would not be getting rich even if such a request were granted. Still, it never
worked out. And still, those on the ATM List keep scratching their collective
heads to come up with a way to bring it about. During the last round - still
fresh on the List - they have mentioned just going back to the original
authors of important articles and having them reproduce their material. I have
what may be a better solution.

If Kalmbach would provide me with written permission, I would:

1) go to members of the ATMA and ask which articles they felt were most
important.
2) reprint those articles at a rate of 1 or 2 per issue of ATM Journal.
3) redo the typesetting (DP of course) and enhance the photos and graphics
where ever possible.

This would:

1) be of benefit to the ATM community.
2) provide ATM Journal with an ongoing and reliable source of articles.
3) change Kalmbach's role in the matter from Grinch to Santa as each article
would plainly state that it was reprinted from TM with Kalmbach's permission.

Well, there you have it. If you feel so inclined, I would ask that you take
the idea before Mr. Larson for his approval. 

If the answer should be "yes," I would get on the List, make it known, and get
to work on the project right away. If I have come up empty handed again - well
at least I tried.

Kindest Regards,

William J. Cook,
Editor / publisher, Amateur Telescope Making Journal<<


There is my proposal to ATMA members and to Mr. Eicher. I have yet to hear
from him so far, but I would be interested in what you folks think of the
plan.

Regards,

Bill