On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 13:37:42 -0700, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark
Remover" wrote:

"Leonard Martin" wrote in message

How did a once-free, and in fact instinctively rebellious, people come
to this?

It seems that to maintain civility, some loss of freedom seems to be
necessary. Like with spam and email. Taking away the ability to spam
anonymously brings complaints from those who say that will also take
away the freedom to email anonymously. Yeah, it seems so. If you want
to remain anonymous by wearing a ski mask, it'd probably make a lot of
difference on how you're treated when you walk into a 7-11.

This brings to mind those who answer their telephone when their caller
ID says "unknown" or "anonymous" or whatever it is. Why would I want the
people whom I'm pestering to not know who I am?


Thanks,
Rich

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:23:16 -0700, Winfield Hill wrote:

keith wrote...

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:06:45 -0400, mc wrote:

How does free distribution of *obsolete* manuals work against "encouraging
creativity"?

We are not attacking the concept of copyright. Many of us are saying HP
would benefit from allowing free redistribution on the Web of old manuals
for equipment that they no longer sell.

In fact you are attacking the concept of copyright. Aligent owns the
copyright and has the last say. It seems that they _have_ reversed their
position, so maybe your whining did help. ;-)

I beg to differ, we did not attack Agilent's legal right to restrict the
manual information if they chose, we attacked Agilent's apparent choice
to do so.

Speak for youself. ...though I did note that you were going to hide
behind your "library" (fair use) rights. Don't get me wrong, I think
their desision was dumb, but it *was* their desision (fortunately
recinded, AIUI).

It now appears they did no more than (roughly) assert their
right to grant permission after it's sought, which we do not question.

It's more than that. You (and others) beleived that their rights were
limited by availability. On the contrary, their rights are limited by
their wishes. ...for whatever business reasons they seem to think is in
their interest.

But we do argue that it would have been unreasonable,

I'm not going to talk about "unreasonable". I don't have the information.
I *do* know that it is *THEIR* choice.

counterproductive, mean-minded and unfair to deprive the legitimate
owners of their older instruments the right to fully run and maintain
those instruments, if they were unfortunate enough not to own one of
the rare original manuals.

Oh, my; "mean-minded"! I want you to publish your books on the internet.
To do otherwise is "mean-minded". You above all here, should understand
the importance of the copyright.

--
Keith

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:03:38 -0500, John Fields wrote:

On 30 Apr 2005 12:46:00 -0700, Winfield Hill
-edu wrote:


I should add, that at this point, after the dust has settled, it does
not appear Agilent is in fact overly restricting the copying of their
old manuals (despite the language of their lawyer's take-down letter),
because they do grant permission when it's sought, including a type of
blanket permission, and also even including the right to charge for the
service, AFAICT.

---
Interesting choice of words, in that there is no "right" being
granted, it's a _privilege_, the exercising of which Agilent
apparently now allows and can curtail at any time, as it sees fit.

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.

--
Keith

I beg to differ, we did not attack Agilent's legal right to restrict the
manual information if they chose, we attacked Agilent's apparent choice
to do so.

Speak for youself. ...though I did note that you were going to hide
behind your "library" (fair use) rights. Don't get me wrong, I think
their desision was dumb, but it *was* their desision (fortunately
recinded, AIUI).

It now appears they did no more than (roughly) assert their
right to grant permission after it's sought, which we do not question.

It's more than that. You (and others) beleived that their rights were
limited by availability. On the contrary, their rights are limited by
their wishes. ...for whatever business reasons they seem to think is in
their interest.

No, I did not believe that. The main point that all of us were making is
that HP was doing something that did not seem to be in HP's own best
interest, whether or not they realized it.

But it seems that a large portion of copyright law has not yet dawned on
you. Laws are not like computer programs. They do not operate simply by
being written. Copyright laws are enforced by courts, largely through suits
for damages. If there is no damage, there is nothing to sue for. That is
how the concept of fair use was originally recognized, although nowadays it
is formally written into the law.

But we do argue that it would have been unreasonable,

I'm not going to talk about "unreasonable". I don't have the information.
I *do* know that it is *THEIR* choice.

Oh, my; "mean-minded"! I want you to publish your books on the internet.
To do otherwise is "mean-minded". You above all here, should understand
the importance of the copyright.

Please, please, please, go and READ A BOOK ABOUT COPYRIGHT LAW. I recommend
"The Copyright Book," by Strong, published by MIT Press.

"keith" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:23:16 -0700, Winfield Hill wrote:

keith wrote...

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:06:45 -0400, mc wrote:

How does free distribution of *obsolete* manuals work against
"encouraging
creativity"?

We are not attacking the concept of copyright. Many of us are
saying HP
would benefit from allowing free redistribution on the Web of old
manuals
for equipment that they no longer sell.

In fact you are attacking the concept of copyright. Aligent owns
the
copyright and has the last say. It seems that they _have_ reversed
their
position, so maybe your whining did help. ;-)

I beg to differ, we did not attack Agilent's legal right to
restrict the
manual information if they chose, we attacked Agilent's apparent
choice
to do so.

Speak for youself. ...though I did note that you were going to hide
behind your "library" (fair use) rights. Don't get me wrong, I think
their desision was dumb, but it *was* their desision (fortunately
recinded, AIUI).

It now appears they did no more than (roughly) assert their
right to grant permission after it's sought, which we do not
question.

It's more than that. You (and others) beleived that their rights were
limited by availability. On the contrary, their rights are limited by
their wishes. ...for whatever business reasons they seem to think is
in
their interest.

But we do argue that it would have been unreasonable,

I'm not going to talk about "unreasonable". I don't have the
information.
I *do* know that it is *THEIR* choice.

counterproductive, mean-minded and unfair to deprive the legitimate
owners of their older instruments the right to fully run and
maintain
those instruments, if they were unfortunate enough not to own one
of
the rare original manuals.

Oh, my; "mean-minded"! I want you to publish your books on the
internet.
To do otherwise is "mean-minded". You above all here, should
understand
the importance of the copyright.

And you should learn the difference between a book and a manual.

--
Keith

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.

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.

Although the present discussion has been defused by Agilent giving BAMA
permission to freely distribute their old HP manual copies from their
website, we're game for the discussion to continue anyway. :)

I agree with your point, James Sweet, but the issue isn't simply an
instrument owner copying an operating manual for his own use; remember,
he doesn't have one to copy! Instead, it's the right of someone who
has a manual (and likely no instrument) to copy it, for a fee, for
someone else. Clearly if that broad right isn't granted, this putative
someone won't have any motivation to provide the sought-after service
to this putative somebody else. Furthermore, our putative somebody else
may well not have an HP instrument either, and may merely wish to peruse
the designs of the masters for his own purposes. Perhaps he is writing
a book, or designing an improved version of the old instrument... We
consider these possibilities just to complicate matters, don't you see.


--
Thanks,
- Win

In article , "Watson A.Name -
\"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\"" says...

"keith" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:23:16 -0700, Winfield Hill wrote:

keith wrote...

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:06:45 -0400, mc wrote:

How does free distribution of *obsolete* manuals work against
"encouraging
creativity"?

We are not attacking the concept of copyright. Many of us are
saying HP
would benefit from allowing free redistribution on the Web of old
manuals
for equipment that they no longer sell.

In fact you are attacking the concept of copyright. Aligent owns
the
copyright and has the last say. It seems that they _have_ reversed
their
position, so maybe your whining did help. ;-)

I beg to differ, we did not attack Agilent's legal right to
restrict the
manual information if they chose, we attacked Agilent's apparent
choice
to do so.

Speak for youself. ...though I did note that you were going to hide
behind your "library" (fair use) rights. Don't get me wrong, I think
their desision was dumb, but it *was* their desision (fortunately
recinded, AIUI).

It now appears they did no more than (roughly) assert their
right to grant permission after it's sought, which we do not
question.

It's more than that. You (and others) beleived that their rights were
limited by availability. On the contrary, their rights are limited by
their wishes. ...for whatever business reasons they seem to think is
in
their interest.

But we do argue that it would have been unreasonable,

I'm not going to talk about "unreasonable". I don't have the
information.
I *do* know that it is *THEIR* choice.

counterproductive, mean-minded and unfair to deprive the legitimate
owners of their older instruments the right to fully run and
maintain
those instruments, if they were unfortunate enough not to own one
of
the rare original manuals.

Oh, my; "mean-minded"! I want you to publish your books on the
internet.
To do otherwise is "mean-minded". You above all here, should
understand
the importance of the copyright.

And you should learn the difference between a book and a manual.

Ok, maybe you want to explain what this "difference" has to do with
copyright law.

--
Keith

I read in sci.electronics.design that Keith Williams
wrote (in ) about
'Copyright on HP service manuals', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

Win Hill wrote:
And you should learn the difference between a book and a manual.

Ok, maybe you want to explain what this "difference" has to do with
copyright law.

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.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

John Woodgate wrote...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Keith Williams
wrote (in ) about
'Copyright on HP service manuals', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

Win Hill wrote:
And you should learn the difference between a book and a manual.

Ok, maybe you want to explain what this "difference" has to do with
copyright law.

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.

Actually, I didn't write any of the above.


--
Thanks,
- Win

I read in sci.electronics.design that Winfield Hill
-edu wrote (in
) about 'Copyright on HP service manuals',
on Mon, 2 May 2005:
John Woodgate wrote...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Keith Williams
wrote (in ) about
'Copyright on HP service manuals', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

Win Hill wrote:
And you should learn the difference between a book and a manual.

Ok, maybe you want to explain what this "difference" has to do with
copyright law.

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.

Actually, I didn't write any of the above.


Indeed you did not. Sorry. The line about learning the difference was by
Watson A.Name.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

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'.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

On 2 May 2005 04:32:18 -0700, Winfield Hill
-edu wrote:

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.

Although the present discussion has been defused by Agilent giving BAMA
permission to freely distribute their old HP manual copies from their
website, we're game for the discussion to continue anyway. :)

---
Then what's this about:

QUOTE
So, it all appears to be a non-issue. Move along, nothing to see
here.


--
Thanks,
- Win
END QUOTE:

and who is "we"?
---


I agree with your point, James Sweet, but the issue isn't simply an
instrument owner copying an operating manual for his own use; remember,
he doesn't have one to copy! Instead, it's the right of someone who
has a manual (and likely no instrument) to copy it, for a fee, for
someone else. Clearly if that broad right isn't granted, this putative
someone won't have any motivation to provide the sought-after service
to this putative somebody else.

---
Clearly you don't understand the difference between a right and a
privilege.
---

Furthermore, our putative somebody else
may well not have an HP instrument either, and may merely wish to peruse
the designs of the masters for his own purposes. Perhaps he is writing
a book, or designing an improved version of the old instrument... We
consider these possibilities just to complicate matters, don't you see.

---
And how simple it would be, in order to sidestep problems, to obtain
permission from the owner of the copyright in the first place if the
copies are going to be used for commercial purposes.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

John Fields wrote...

Then what's this about:

QUOTE
So, it all appears to be a non-issue. Move along, nothing to see
here.

and who is "we"?

Clearly I have failed to move along just yet.

I agree with your point, James Sweet, but the issue isn't simply an
instrument owner copying an operating manual for his own use; remember,
he doesn't have one to copy! Instead, it's the right of someone who
has a manual (and likely no instrument) to copy it, for a fee, for
someone else. Clearly if that broad right isn't granted, this putative
someone won't have any motivation to provide the sought-after service
to this putative somebody else.

---
Clearly you don't understand the difference between a right and a
privilege.
---

Furthermore, our putative somebody else
may well not have an HP instrument either, and may merely wish to peruse
the designs of the masters for his own purposes. Perhaps he is writing
a book, or designing an improved version of the old instrument... We
consider these possibilities just to complicate matters, don't you see.

---
And how simple it would be, in order to sidestep problems, to obtain
permission from the owner of the copyright in the first place if the
copies are going to be used for commercial purposes.

Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? Are you
trying to pick a fight? I have no argument with legal enforcement
of copyrights, as I've repeatedly stated, and HP seems to respond
favorable when people ask, as I also stated several times above.

But we've been generally exploring the *advisability* of an
instrument company unduly restricting the propagation of their
old manuals. It's merely an interesting hypothetical question.


--
Thanks,
- Win

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 13:37:42 -0700, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark
Remover" wrote:
If you want
to remain anonymous by wearing a ski mask, it'd probably make a lot of
difference on how you're treated when you walk into a 7-11.

Mnay stores where I am have signs posted around Halloween that masks aren't
allowed to be worn while you're in their store...

This brings to mind those who answer their telephone when their caller
ID says "unknown" or "anonymous" or whatever it is. Why would I want the
people whom I'm pestering to not know who I am?

The problem with caller ID is that it's either "phone number and name" or
"nothing at all." People such as school teachers have legitimate reasons for
not wanting to hand out a return call number, yet with the current caller ID
system they can't reveal their identity without doing so.

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

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:58:22 -0400, mc wrote:


"Winfield Hill" -edu wrote in
message ...
keith wrote...

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:06:45 -0400, mc wrote:

How does free distribution of *obsolete* manuals work against
"encouraging
creativity"?

We are not attacking the concept of copyright. Many of us are saying HP
would benefit from allowing free redistribution on the Web of old
manuals
for equipment that they no longer sell.

In fact you are attacking the concept of copyright. Aligent owns the
copyright and has the last say. It seems that they _have_ reversed their
position, so maybe your whining did help. ;-)

I beg to differ, we did not attack Agilent's legal right to restrict the
manual information if they chose, we attacked Agilent's apparent choice
to do so.

Precisely. They have the legal right to restrict redistribution of this
stuff any way they want. However, it does not benefit them to do what they
were doing. That was everyone's point except Keith's.

Yer an idiot (no surprise here). My argument is simply that *ONLY*
they have the right to decide what is to be done with their IP. If they
want to be stupid, so be it. Indeed they may not have had control over
that IP (apparently not the case). For instance, car manufacturers have
sold the reproduction/sales rights for their manuals to a third party.

Apparently HP has rethought their position, so be it. That doesn't
change the fact that they have that right.

--
Keith

On Mon, 02 May 2005 13:46:45 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Keith Williams
wrote (in ) about
'Copyright on HP service manuals', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

Win Hill wrote:
And you should learn the difference between a book and a manual.

Ok, maybe you want to explain what this "difference" has to do with
copyright law.

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.

--
Keith

"keith" wrote in message
news
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.

It is legal.

"keith" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:58:22 -0400, mc wrote:

Precisely. They have the legal right to restrict redistribution of this
stuff any way they want. However, it does not benefit them to do what
they
were doing. That was everyone's point except Keith's.

Yer an idiot (no surprise here).

This leaves me wondering whether to dignify your message with a response.
However...

My argument is simply that *ONLY*
they have the right to decide what is to be done with their IP.

And who among us has denied that? You've been quarreling at great length
with things that nobody was saying.

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.

On Mon, 02 May 2005 23:06:14 -0400, mc wrote:


"keith" wrote in message
news
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.

It is legal.

What's legal? Copying an entire book is questionable, "for research".
Try copying a CD "for research".

--

On Mon, 02 May 2005 23:08:24 -0400, mc wrote:

"keith" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:58:22 -0400, mc wrote:

Precisely. They have the legal right to restrict redistribution of this
stuff any way they want. However, it does not benefit them to do what
they
were doing. That was everyone's point except Keith's.

Yer an idiot (no surprise here).

This leaves me wondering whether to dignify your message with a response.
However...

Since you're the one *COMPLETELY* misrepresenting my position, you're the
idiot.

My argument is simply that *ONLY*
they have the right to decide what is to be done with their IP.

And who among us has denied that? You've been quarreling at great
length with things that nobody was saying.

You did, by misrepresting my postion. ...at least.

--

Keith

keith wrote...

On Mon, 02 May 2005 23:08:24 -0400, mc wrote:

"keith" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:58:22 -0400, mc wrote:

Precisely. They have the legal right to restrict redistribution of this
stuff any way they want. However, it does not benefit them to do what
they
were doing. That was everyone's point except Keith's.

Yer an idiot (no surprise here).

This leaves me wondering whether to dignify your message with a response.
However...

Since you're the one *COMPLETELY* misrepresenting my position, you're the
idiot.

My argument is simply that *ONLY*
they have the right to decide what is to be done with their IP.

And who among us has denied that? You've been quarreling at great
length with things that nobody was saying.

You did, by misrepresting my postion. ...at least.

I agree with mc. Your new claim is ironic, because you are the
one who's been massively misrepresenting other's folks positions.
Certainly you've repeatedly misrepresented my own, despite my
direct statements, to the point where I've given up responding,
despite my interest in the topic.


--
Thanks,
- Win

On 2 May 2005 12:44:37 -0700, Winfield Hill
-edu wrote:

John Fields wrote...

Then what's this about:

QUOTE
So, it all appears to be a non-issue. Move along, nothing to see
here.

and who is "we"?

Clearly I have failed to move along just yet.

I agree with your point, James Sweet, but the issue isn't simply an
instrument owner copying an operating manual for his own use; remember,
he doesn't have one to copy! Instead, it's the right of someone who
has a manual (and likely no instrument) to copy it, for a fee, for
someone else. Clearly if that broad right isn't granted, this putative
someone won't have any motivation to provide the sought-after service
to this putative somebody else.

---
Clearly you don't understand the difference between a right and a
privilege.
---

Furthermore, our putative somebody else
may well not have an HP instrument either, and may merely wish to peruse
the designs of the masters for his own purposes. Perhaps he is writing
a book, or designing an improved version of the old instrument... We
consider these possibilities just to complicate matters, don't you see.

---
And how simple it would be, in order to sidestep problems, to obtain
permission from the owner of the copyright in the first place if the
copies are going to be used for commercial purposes.

Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? Are you
trying to pick a fight?

---
Not at all, I've just decided to take issue with a few of the
statements you've made, not the least of which was the cop-like: "Move
along, nothing to see."
---

I have no argument with legal enforcement
of copyrights, as I've repeatedly stated, and HP seems to respond
favorable when people ask, as I also stated several times above.

But we've been generally exploring the *advisability* of an
instrument company unduly restricting the propagation of their
old manuals. It's merely an interesting hypothetical question.

---
To which which I choose to respond with: "It doesn't make any
difference what the _advisability_ may seem to be, it's entirely
within the purview of the instrument company to decide for themselves
if and how their old instrument manuals should be propagated."

And what do you mean by "unduly restricting"?

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

John Fields wrote...

Not at all, I've just decided to take issue with a few of the
statements you've made, not the least of which was the cop-like:
"Move along, nothing to see."

Actually, I was thinking of Obi-Wan's line in Star Wars.

---
To which which I choose to respond with: "It doesn't make any
difference what the _advisability_ may seem to be, it's entirely
within the purview of the instrument company to decide for themselves
if and how their old instrument manuals should be propagated."

See, that's a different issue, with which I have to agree.

And what do you mean by "unduly restricting"?

By that I refer to companies that choose to make restrictions
so tight that the owners of their instruments who are without
manuals are screwed. Not Agilent, we see now, but a few
others. While they may have the legal right, it's unduly
restricting to those who now own their old instruments,
bought fair and square.


--
Thanks,
- Win

On Sat, 07 May 2005 00:20:48 -0500, Leonard Martin wrote:

In article .com,
"Chris" wrote:
....
And as for me, I'll "pay for my pleasures", and have my employers and
customers pay for theirs, not so much because I can afford to light my
cigars with $100 bills as that's just the right way to do it. You
know, the right thing to do? Like, ethics and honesty and all that? I
know it seems obsolete in these times, but some of us (at least as many
Blue as Red) still feel that way.


Copyright is fine. Patents are fine. But their continual extension, both
in time and ambit, at the behest of lobbyists for big corporations just
contributes to the increasing concentration of assets in fewer and fewer
hands.

Remember the Golden Rule: The guy who's got the Gold makes the Rules.
--
The Pig Bladder from Uranus