Copyright on HP service manuals

like

"mad"

Whatever's

by

while

out

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

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'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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"encouraging

saying HP

manuals

the

their

restrict the

choice

question.

in

information.

maintain

of

internet.

understand

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

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.

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.

Clearly I have failed to move along just yet.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.