Isn't that the point? Copyright law is still in the 18th century and
should be replaced by something SENSIBLE in the context of the 21st
century.

IP law is certainly broken, but this is *not* an example, IMO.

In my opinion it is, because the situation with manuals is like the
situation with backup copies of software. It is nowadays explicitly legal
to make backup copies of software. The reason is that once you've paid for
the software, making and using a backup copy of it does not cause _further_
distribution of the manufacturer's IP -- it merely ensures that you can use
the IP you've already paid for.

Someone else pointed out that when you buy an instrument, a manual comes
with it. If you lose it and need to procure a copy, you are not further
redistribuing the manufacturer's IP. Arguably, the IP stays with the
instrument and has already been paid for. And you own the instrument.

I also pointed out that if the manufacturer is not offering these manuals
for sale, then the manufacturer is not losing sales when other people copy
the manuals. That was my point about copyright lawsuits and damages, to
which you have not responded at all. If Agilent wanted to enforce its
copyright on an out-of-print manual which was being reprinted in small
quantities by others, the judge would ask, "And how much harm is Agilent
suffering from this?" If it could be shown that Agilent was actually
benefiting from it (suffering negative harm), Agilent would have great
difficulty pursuing the lawsuit.

As I said (and you called me an idiot), laws are not computer programs; they
don't work just by being written. They work through the mechanism of the
courts.