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

"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

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 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

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.

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.