ADM: Tim Just, Illinois
The U.S. Chess Federation’s Official Rules of Chess, 5th Edition, will be available in e-format by June 1, 2012.
ADM: Tim Just, Illinois
The U.S. Chess Federation’s Official Rules of Chess, 5th edition, with all current rulebook updates will be available in e-format by June 1, 2013.
Comments?:
Do you think the USCF will still be around in 18000 years?
I’ll get back to you in 20012 on that!?
You may need to add a qualifier of “If legally allowed”. Or would this be a way to finally see a copy of the contract that would be cited by the publisher in the lawsuit to eliminate the e-format rulebook?
I am trying to get the “powers that be” to address an e-formatted rulebook, no matter what. They have ignored this topic for too long. Besides I hear a rumor that the publisher is currently starting to publish older texts as e-books that they consider similar in nature to our 5th edition.
Is it too late to get my rewrite of Chapter 13 on round robin pairings in?
It depends on what the delegates and the “powers that be” do with the ADMs. ADMs can change on the floor. Your material would be new. My ADMs only address material that has been previously approved.
But Tim, your ADM is even better than that. 2012 would just be the current rulebook but 2013 would have the changes.
Comment: In addition to the above, then amend Page 230, Section 5, point 3 as follows, “3. That the director has a printed copy of this USCF rulebook on the premises and available for consultation during the tournament.”
But maybe I’m just old and low-tech, sayeth the Newton/Palm/Sony Reader/Tablet PC when they weren’t cool/e-Notate/Blackberry owner. 
What is meant by e-format?
I think this should be amended to just say that the USCF rules of chess be posted online, on its website, free to all and with all the latest updates and rules changes included.
If e-format means an ebook solution then I don’t feel that makes the rules as accessible as they should be. It does however have the upside of protecting any income the author gets from the sales of the book. Maybe the author of the book shouldn’t be the one making this particular ADM?
I was under the impression that Mr. Just didn’t receive any royalties from the rulebook. Am I incorrect?
Alex Relyea
Sorry, I get nada in any format. I just want someone at USCF to be forced to put this project on their “to do” list instead of always bumping it for some other project.
The e-book might be easier for the publishers than on-line. I want to leave that open ended so there is wiggle room for negotiations between USCF and the publisher.
That would be a separate motion.
I still think you’re going to have to clarify e-format. Electronic format can take various forms although I definitely think you are correct when you say the publisher will find it easier to do an e-book. I wouldn’t expect them to be interested in posting the rulebook on a website and you may have a much harder time convincing the publisher to include the updates to the initial publication as that will involve a lot more for them to do.
However, I still think what we should be aiming for is to have the USCF to post the rules, not necessarily the TD tips, on it’s website. The rules should be free to anyone and everyone interested in having them.
Let the publisher demonstrate that he has the rights to the e-book or online versions by producing a contract which clearly states that.
If he can, then we negotiate about an e-book, with the stick being that if there is no reasonably-priced e-book made available, the USCF will adopt the FIDE Laws of Chess or, maybe, the rules of the United States Open-Source Chess Rules Association (an independent organization I just made up), and make an e-book version of that available under a Creative Commons license.
Keep that thought in mind as you stand at the mic debating the motion(s).
I doubt the rules committee will go along with adopting the FIDE rules.
Shhh. I guess it will have to be adopting and publishing the US Chess Rules Association rules, then.
True enough, but for me it would flow from the passage of yours (which I have no objections to, so long as it does not cause any further significant legal expenditures.)
And I agree with Jeff Wiewel: Not allowing for an “it’s not legal” exception (or at least specific direction that “Why Not” shall be communicated immediately if the ADM can’t be complied with) gives a reason to sidestep it… unless an attorney can suggest that “I was ordered to by the directors” constitutes a legal defense to copyright breach, DMCA violation, and/or any other tort.