Copyright on HP service manuals

Tektronix has specifically released their copyrights on obsolete manuals.

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. BTW, I received an email from the (former) co-leader of HP's company-wide committee handling this issue, and this was their economically-derived carefully-thought-out company policy six years ago, and it would still appear to be, unless we learn otherwise.

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

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.

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 is very much in the right direction. However, as you note...

...it's not a substitute for a full manual. I have designed a layout of three 20x4 screens on a (very much simpler) instrument. Each one had to display some data plus give labels for soft keys to switch screens, and even this was interesting to make fit.

True. It might be nice, though, to be able to get it printed somehow, or at least read it on a machine with a full keyboard so you could do text searches and such.

One of the problems I see with this is that you need to know the IP address of the instrument to make this work. If the IP address is fixed and noted on the serial number label or something, it's easy. If the user can adjust it, or if it uses DHCP, it might be trickier... you'd need to have a way to show it on the built-in display or otherwise make it known to the user so they know where to point their browser. I guess you could put the MAC address on the serial number label and let the user use ARP to figure it out. Another way might be to have a note on the case that holding the "4" key during power-up resets the IP address to 10.0.0.1 or whatever. A clever user could directly connect the instrument to the PC and run a port scan, although this might take a while.

You know what would be entertaining? Put the manual on the instrument's internal Web site, and then ship exactly one piece of printed documentation with the instrument: a piece of paper that explains how to access the manual. Put a Web bug in the last page of the manual that loads from your Internet Web site and logs the serial number of the instrument. You could work out exactly how many people actually RTFM... (OK, this isn't practical for marketing/customer acceptance/privacy reasons, but it would be fun.)

To the other points that have been raised: I was originally thinking of using the instrument's built-in CPU so all the user would need would be a "dumb" flash drive. However, if the user has a flash drive, there is also a PC available to read the files on it, so it's not too unreasonable to put the ROM USB drive in the instrument and let the user hook up a PC. Also, the ROM drive can then be powered over the USB port, so it will work even if the instrument is broken -- unless the instrument got stepped on by an elephant or something. This also means that the USB port can be isolated from the instrument circuitry, which could be important for safety reasons. Also, a ROM drive with USB connector could conceivably be small enough to include in something like a hand-held DMM. The ROM would make it a little harder to include the addenda pages - maybe the drive has a big ROM and a little flash chip to make this possible. I still want to use ROM because if it can be erased it will be. I am also quite serious about this being firmly attached (potted?) to the instrument... if it's not, people will remove and promptly misplace it, or sell it separately from the instrument later.

Matt Roberds

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.