On page 91 of the 1986 paperback edition of "Michaelmas" by
Algis Budrys, it says "He ribbed out the sender..." I realized
that it should say "He ripped out the sender," which I confirmed
in the original 1977 edition (which can be borrowed for an hour
from the Internet Archive). Is this a ploy like mapmakers use,
intentionally inserting an error to expose counterfeiters?

On 2023-07-09 1:36 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
> On page 91 of the 1986 paperback edition of "Michaelmas" by
> Algis Budrys, it says "He ribbed out the sender..." I realized
> that it should say "He ripped out the sender," which I confirmed
> in the original 1977 edition (which can be borrowed for an hour
> from the Internet Archive). Is this a ploy like mapmakers use,
> intentionally inserting an error to expose counterfeiters?

No. Mapmakers did that because you can't copyright real landforms but
you can copyright fictional landforms.

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 4:59:22 AM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2023-07-09 1:36 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
> > On page 91 of the 1986 paperback edition of "Michaelmas" by
> > Algis Budrys, it says "He ribbed out the sender..." I realized
> > that it should say "He ripped out the sender," which I confirmed
> > in the original 1977 edition (which can be borrowed for an hour
> > from the Internet Archive). Is this a ploy like mapmakers use,
> > intentionally inserting an error to expose counterfeiters?
> No. Mapmakers did that because you can't copyright real landforms but
> you can copyright fictional landforms.

Similarly, dictionaries contain some fictional words.

Mailing lists that are rented out for limited time use always include some
addresses that go straight back to the renter.

pt

On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 08:36:28 UTC+1, Charles Packer wrote:
> On page 91 of the 1986 paperback edition of "Michaelmas" by
> Algis Budrys, it says "He ribbed out the sender..." I realized
> that it should say "He ripped out the sender," which I confirmed
> in the original 1977 edition (which can be borrowed for an hour
> from the Internet Archive). Is this a ploy like mapmakers use,
> intentionally inserting an error to expose counterfeiters?

Or rather, copiers? I don't see a use for it in a book of fiction,
because the text is copyrighted anyway, except when it isn't.
In non-fiction, there could be a role, where protection
is weaker.

I think an argument also is made or is legislated
from time to time that a new edited edition, or a digital
media edition, of previous work, deserves a new copyright -
but that's not very clear. In that case, a distinctive new
"misprint" can be an easier indicator that another edition of
the book after 1986 was copied from the 1986 edition,
not from the 1977 edition. If that somehow matters.
Does an editor get paid for reprints? Does the previous
publisher?

I see with interest that the case I had in mind, of
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Da_Vinci_Code>
repeating in fiction claims from "history" book
_The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail_ - to speak loosely,
it was ruled that "facts" you claim not to have invented
are not your property - apparently there is a coded
message in the /judgment/. If I follow, it's still secret.

You've reminded me of a local business directory that
I was involved in preparing, in which I don't think we
were responsible for a garden and paving company
whose services were set by the printer in the first draft
as "Landscaping and slapping".

I don't think it's the same firm, but this trader review page
<https://www.checkatrade.com/trades/vrfencingandlandscapes>
has one customer complimenting them for work on
"Decking and slapping". Apparently "He came recommend
by my aunt as he done her garden", and he lived up to
the standard.

Referring to <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etaoin_shrdlu>
the Linotype printing keyboard does not put b and p
together, and neither does qwertyuiop asdfghjkl,
so it doesn't appear to be for that reason.