On Mon, 02 May 2005 10:50:19 -0500, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 03:06:42 GMT, "James Sweet"
wrote:


Exactly! Were I Aligent, I'd publish them and bust the heads of anyone
else doing the same. There is likely a contract to another publishing
company that's getting in the way here too. This stuff isn't as simple as
the academics wish it to be.



We're not talking a work of art, entertainment, or even an optional service
manual. This is an operator manual that originally came with each and every
piece of gear correct? The manual is of no use without the gear and since
each piece of gear originally came with the manual, if you have the gear but
are missing the manual I see no moral or ethical reason not to copy it.
Seems reasonable that by owning the equipment you own the rights to have a
copy of the manual, it's like giving someone a copy of a driver for a piece
of computer hardware they own, only the intellectual property zealots would
have any sort of problem with it.

---
Regardless of what the zealots _might_ have a problem with, the fact
remains that the content of the operator's manual is a piece of
intellectual property covered by copyright law, and owning the piece
of equipment to which the manual pertains doesn't convey a license to
violate that copyright. There is "fair use" to consider, however, and

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

clearly states that making a copy of a document for "research"
purposes is _not_ an infringement. Where it gets tricky is if
someone, for pecuniary reasons and without the consent of the owner of
the copyright, is copying and selling manuals in quantities large
enough to violate 'fair use'.

Copying and selling the manual is *clearly* a violation. Copying a
chapter isn't likely to be. Copying an entire book, even for one's
"research" is considered to be in bad form.

--
Keith