[Icom] Service Manuals on CD

[icom@mailman.qth.net]

Hi, Bill, and everyone else,
> 
> And, to me, this also applies to subsequent owners of that equipment.
> 
> I think the "vigilante mentality" that was apparent in an earlier post
> on this subject might have been a little heavy-handed.

I re-read the posts.  I don't see a "vigilante mentality", unless, of
course, you are accusing me.  I have neither the right nor the desire to
take any action against the CD maker.  I do have the right and perhaps
an obligation to see that the copyright holder is notified, and legal
action (or not) is their choice.

> While I am sure no 
> company wants to pass up the opportunity to make a sale, there is also
> the factor of customer goodwill to be considered. And, this is evident
> from the manuals that Icom and Kenwood (and possibly others) have made
> available for download . . . Without cost!

Quite correct.  The point, which you make very well, is it was the
choice of the copyright holder to freely distribute their material.  The
copyright holder has the right to decide, and nobody has the right to
make copies without their blessing.  Similarly, I am writing some
software now which I will make freely available under the GNU Public
License (GPL).  You have the right to redistribute that code because the
license gives it to you explicitly.  I am still the license holder,
though, and there are some restrictions.  It's my choice, or it's Icom's
choice with their material.   
> 
> So, if they are "giving" them away, what's the big deal when an
> enterprising individual makes them available on CD for a paltry $9.95?

Dick explained the difference very well, so I don't need to repeat or
expound on it.

> Should the consumer be forced to do without 
> something they need just because we must follow the letter of the law
> in instances where it makes no sense?

When an IC-756ProII Service Manual is pirated and sold the law makes
perfect sense, and you are not being forced to do without if the law is
enforced.
> 
> In addition, I seem to remember that Icom was having a difficult time 
> delivering quality, original service manuals a while back . . .
> Complaints about 'poor quality copies' were frequent. So, it just
> might be that they'd rather be in the hardware business and not the
> printing business!

Which may be why they do give some permission to some companies, as Dick
pointed out is, in fact, the case with W7FG and Raymond Sarrio.  These
companies may or may not have paid a fee to Icom for the license to do
so, but the point is that Icom granted it.  If I approach Mizuho for a
similar license and it is subsequently granted, then I may do with those
manuals whatever the license permits me to do.  If I post the ones I
have on my website without permission or sell copies on a CD I am
violating Mizuho's copyright.  Hence no manuals or schematics are on my
unofficial Mizuho site, at least for now.  As I am now indirectly in
contact with Mizuho and buying stuff from them, I do intend to approach
them for just such a license.
> 
> One more thing - How many times have you seen a post here where
> someone offered to copy (or loan for that purpose) an Icom manual.
> Doesn't that amount to the same thing?

Again, Dick explained very nicely that it does not.

What I am arguing for is the right of the holder of intellectual
property, in this case Icom, to determine what is done with their
property.  It is their right to give it away or not as they see fit.  If
they do so (and in some cases they do) then I, as a consumer, am
grateful.  Their decision might even influence my next purchase
decision, so it might very well be in their interest to do so.  I want
it to be their choice.

BTW, I am very pleased to see the respectful tone used by all parties in
this discussion.  Whomever made the "dogfight" comment a few days back,
no... it doesn't have to be that way. 

73,
Caity
KU4QD