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.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

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

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

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

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

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 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

"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.

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".

--