Old Electronics Kit Manuals Forced Offline Thanks To Copyright
from the can't-learn-unless-you-pay dept
If you’re unfamiliar with the important history of Heathkit and its popular electronics and computer “kits,” it’s worth reading the Wikipedia entry on Heathkit to get some background. The company and its products were an important part of the post-WWII “tinkerers” era. However, one of our readers, Joseph Durnal, just discovered something rather disturbing. Even though the company stopped making and selling kits back in 1992, it apparently just sold the copyrights on its old manuals to another company, which is going around forcing any old manuals offline and demanding people buy them instead:
On October 30, 2008, Data Professionals of Pleasanton, CA purchased the Intellectual property of the Heathkit legacy products from Heathkit in Benton Harbor, Michigan. This rights to these legacy products also includes the copyright. All free manuals have been removed from this site in compliance with copyright laws.
So, now, anyone still playing around with decades old Heathkit products can’t look online for some information from a missing manual, but instead is expected to pay up for a reprint.
Filed Under: copyright, electronics kits, manuals
Companies: data professionals, heathkit
Comments on “Old Electronics Kit Manuals Forced Offline Thanks To Copyright”
On the plus side...
…the copyright holders will surely use the revenue to develop new Heathkit products, thus insuring “the progress of science,” right?
Re: On the plus side...
You are confusing patents with copyrights.
Re: On the plus side...
Ha Ha Ha.
*facepalm*
I still have some ...
I’ve got half a dozen of those old manuals around someplace. Of course the equipment (2-meter rig, QRP xmitter/rcvr, 20″ TV, etc., etc.) are all long gone.
Sorry state we are in for sure.
Sounds fair to me.
Isn’t this just capitalism, plain and simple? The buyer saw an opportunity and acted upon it, and might make a little bit of money in the process. What’s wrong with that?
In the past, I have gladly ponied up a few bucks for manuals for cameras or printers that I’ve bought used, without feeling ripped off. It’s information, and if someone wants it, it has a value.
There’s a whole (illegal) industry out there (mostly home businesses) selling photocopies of any manual you can think of. The buyers in this story are doing the same thing, but within the law.
Re: Sounds fair to me.
“Isn’t this just capitalism, plain and simple? The buyer saw an opportunity and acted upon it, and might make a little bit of money in the process. What’s wrong with that? “
Um, the might of the state enforcing an artificial monopoly? Pretty much the exact opposite of captalism, actually.
Re: Re: Sounds fair to me.
Capitalism and monopolies are not mutually exclusive. The goal of capitalism is to capital or wealth. One way of achieving that is through a monopoly.
Re: Re: Re: Sounds fair to me.
Vincent Clement wrote:
Fair enough. Except that Capitalism is supposed to be about the operation of free markets. There’s a difference between a monopoly that might arise through natural conditions, and one that is artificially propped up by legal regulation by Governments. “Intellectual property” is entirely a product of Government regulation.
Re: Re: Re:2 Sounds fair to me.
“Intellectual property” is entirely a product of Government regulation.
More broadly, property is entirely a product of Government regulation.
Re: Re: Re:3 Sounds fair to me.
More broadly, property is entirely a product of Government regulation.
No, it isn’t. The concept of property is perfectly capable of existing outside the bounds of government regulation. While it may not be as refined or as civilized without such regulation, it still exists.
Re: Re: Re:4 Sounds fair to me.
DanC wrote:
As confirmed by the old adage: “possession is nine-tenths of the law”.
Re: Re: Sounds fair to me.
By the “might of the state,” you are referring to the copyright holder asserting his rights through a letter, which was then complied with? Where was the state in this company to company transaction?
Re: Re: Sounds fair to me.
Actually, chief, a monopoly would be the prime example of capitalism. Nice try though.
Re: Sounds fair to me.
Copyright trolls are no different than patent trolls. This is no more than an excuse for the lazy to make money for nothing. Company must be run by 20 somethings.
Re: Sounds fair to me.
Abandonment of copyright or dedication to the public domain occurs when a copyright owner intentionally gives up copyright protection for a work. When the copyright in a work is abandoned by the owner it enters the public domain. Thus, s/he no longer owns any exclusive rights in the work and cannot bring a claim of copyright infringement against anyone who makes use of the work.
The courts are of the view that rights gained under the Copyright Law may be abandoned. Abandonment of such rights, however, must be manifested by some overt act indicative of a purpose to surrender the rights and allow the public to copy. [Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100 (9th Cir. Cal. 1960)]
From USLegal.com
That's Me
I’m a bit of a techdirt follower, I don’t agree with everything I read here, but I’m learning a lot about copyright and such. This seemed like one of those things that was clearly not what copyright was for. If Data Professionals of Pleasanton, CA really do start making kits again, that will be great, but companies in that business won’t get very far without a really good reputation, and starting out by making life difficult for your future customers is a step in the wrong direction.
Thanks for posting! 73 de Joseph Durnal
Copyright on Robbery
Note that their website says they provide ‘Support.’
Right! Many of these manuals were ‘free’ – now they cost significant $. Do they provide anything else? No, there’s no links for any ‘real’ support. Thanks for the support! Maybe it’s a benefit that the list looks pretty extensive.
(These guys might be thinking of running for congress – they have the right mindset methinks.)
My suggestion – don’t tell ANYONE who you are – your potential customers will flee! Ah well maybe no chance of that – there’s not even a customer support contact if an order goes bad or something!
Re: Copyright on Robbery
There are several of these sites that archive and reprint old manuals for a fee. I had an issue with an old tractor a few years ago and one of these sites had a great copy of the old manual, which I purchased. I think having someone systematically save these manuals in a single location and make them available for purchase is a marvelous thing.
I wonder whether the copyrights transferred ...
As we learned in the SCO-Novell dustup, one must jump through pretty precise hoops to legally effect a transfer of copyright.
I wonder whether Heathkit and Data Professionals jumped through those hoops. I’m not saying they didn’t. Just wondering.
I wonder whether there is any inexpensive way (not a lawsuit) to find out.
And if they didn’t do the copyright transfer correctly, I wonder whether Heathkit would be cooperative if Data Professionals now asks them to make the transfer.
Lot’s of wondering.
Re: I wonder whether the copyrights transferred ...
If you have access to legal advice then you can look at the contract PDF that is listed under the “forcing any old manuals offline” link above.
The guy did pay $5,000 dollars for the copyrights, at least according to the PDF (use Photoshop to enhance the blocked out “purchase price” clause.)
I might be interested in buying a manual from them if their site weren’t so messed up. In my Firefox it is nearly unreadable. If they can’t properly test their site, what kind of quality can we expect them to deliver if we pay for their products?
Re: Re:
The site isn’t THAT messed up in Firefox, but it IS built for Explorer. I suspect that by ‘properly test their site’ you mean ‘bend over backwards to make it work for everything not just the browser they are technically competent with.’ This is more of a case of whining than them not properly testing the code they decided to use.
Re: Re: Re:
As a professional web designer of many types of web sites using a variety of technologies, I can can feel 100% confident in saying that: if they ‘Designed their site to work with IE only’, they are amateurs…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, their website was designed with Front Page 5.0
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cool. So there actually ARE people out there using Firefox? I am an amateur and I test for IE and call it a day. What, ya want me worrying about Safari too?
Hey, it’s a hobby for me, not a business. you want my content, deal with it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As an IT manager, I agree with your assessment 100%. IE only sites are built by and for amateurs.
Re: Manual Purchase from Data Professionals
I purchased a manual from their website. After not receiving it for a week, I tried calling the number on the web receipt. The phone number was no good. I sent an email and was told the manual was in the mail. What I thought I would get was the construction manual that comes with the kit or a copy of it. What I received was three pieces of double sided paper with a copy of the Operation Manual. I have sent an email requesting a complete kit manual or copy. $15.00 is a lot of money for 3 pieces of paper.
Re: Re: Manual Purchase from Data Professionals
I received an answer to my email. Data Professionals stated that in their files they had the manual for the factory wired version of the Heathkit TC-3 tube tester. They would also check their files for a construction manual and send it for free if they find one. Will post if this happens.
If anyone happens to have a copy of the construction manual for the kit version of the Heathkit TC-3 Tube Checker, I would be happy to purchase a copy of it. You may contact me via email – gdaniel11@columbus.rr.com and please put TC-e in the subject line so I don’t delete it.
Thanks all
Gerald
Re: Re: Re: Manual Purchase from Data Professionals
Don at Data Professionals keeps his word. In today’s mail, I received a copy of the Heathkit assembly manual for the TC-3 Tube Checker.
It boils down to this – whether you like the copyright laws or not, or if you think Don has the rights or not – It doesn’t matter!! If you need a manual and someone has a copy of it to help you accomplish a repair, it is worth a reasonable fee to get a copy of it. The fee of $15 for the manual is worth it to me. Considering he had to search his files, make a copy, provide an envelope, and finally mail it (which costs postage) was well worth the price for his time, and, he sent me the wired version copy and now the kit version copy. (2 versions for $15 – cheaper than most pay-for on-line manuals!!)
Thanks Don!!
Look a little deeper?
As mentioned above, the site is messed up, I can’t even find contact information. I’d venture to say that this guy is a garage shop operation blowing his horn and looking for a way to make some $$, not some big RIAA like outfit with lawyers in their pockets. I don’t think the market would be big enough for this stuff to pay for costly legal battles, heck as “Lots of wondering” mentioned the legal cost to do this correctly in the first place wouldn’t worth it. I can’t discern from Mike’s source (Joe’s Blog) where he got his info in the first place. I think we need a little more info before making a judgment either way. At least Joe’s Blog and Data “professionals” have their 15 minutes.
striesand
Failure Monopoly
This is a text book case of a failure monopoly.
‘The monopoly prices paid by the buyers are still lower than the total cost of production…. The monopoly gains of the firm are so small that they do not make the total venture appear a good investment. It remains malinvestment. It is precisely this fact that constitutes the monopolistic position of the firm. No outsider wants to enter its field of entrepreneurial activity because the production … results in losses.’
Source: ‘Human Action’ by Ludwig von Mises (http://mises.org/humanaction/chap16sec6.asp)
Heathkit Manuals
This Sucks!
AA-100 and AJ-60
I Have a Heathkit/Daystrom AA-100 Stereo Amplifier, and a AJ-60 Tuner… I need a new output transformer for the left channel of the AA-100…
Anyone want to really test their “support” ? 😀
-
I’m actually on the fence about this one since I’m old enough to have worked with some of their stuff in trade school. Personally, I would prefer that these old manuals were made available online for free given that Heathkit (for all piratical purposes) is no longer around these days. Still, a company did go to the effort of spending some cash to buy the copyrights to these manuals for the express purpose of selling the reprints. This sucks IMHO, but it is legal given the current state of copyright laws here in the USA, but someone did feel there was a business opportunity here and did expend the effort to buy the manual copyrights. You can’t fault a guy (or faceless company) for trying to make a buck, but you don’t have to like it. If it were up to me, I’d post all the manuals in a centralized location for free and try to generate cash from advertising or something along those lines.
Another Offshore Business Opportunity Created Thereby
I can just imagine some enterprising person setting up a website in a country that is not party to our copyright laws and selling these manuals for HALF of whatever this misguided entrepreneur will be selling them for.
Once something is out there for free, it is too hard to take it back. Besides, Heathkits are good for only two things nowdays:
1. Collectors use them to hold down the table cloths on their display tables.
2. Boat owners use them as anchors.
It’s hard to sell a manual to either collectors or boat owners. This guy’s business plan is not very well thought out.
I'm of two minds about this...
… On the one hand, it’s deplorable that was made valuable by the Heathkit online community should be exploited by someone for commercial gain.
OTOH, this is probably some newly un-employed guy spending a fair chunk of his savings to have a little ongoing income in a very small niche market.
The prices are not particularly onerous, which also makes it less easy to be outraged. If it’s a complete collection of manuals, it might actually be a net benefit.
I think that, as most likely a bunch of people outside the HeathKit community, it’s easy to be harsh and judgmental about this. In the end, Data Professionals will live or die by the hands of that community. If no one buys their manuals because they are asses, game over for them, whatever we think of the rights and wrongs of copyright.
Re: I'm of two minds about this...
But… that’s not the point.
The issue here is something quite simple: copyright is being enforced in order to make someone cash on a product that was previously available for free, and which the current owner had nothing to do with creating.
That is, these actions completely violate the original purpose of copyright and patents – a limited monopoly to allow and influence the creation of further work. The new copyright owners seem unlikely to be creating anything new with the proceeds of this copyright, it’s just for personal profit. While doing this, they actually make existing HeathKits less valuable (a manual-less HeathKit is now less valuable when sold on because someone needs to buy a manual before or after purchase).
While it’s true that the prices are relatively reasonable, the copyrights for HeathKit manuals are meant to allow the creation of new product, not to make a random 3rd party some extra cash. It’s the same old story we see from the RIAA/MPAA/whoever – these copyrights could have been used to create new products or generate new interest in legacy kit. However, they’ve decided just the try and profit from the old products and try to sue anyone who gets in their way, however counter-productive that might be.
Re: Re: I'm of two minds about this...
That is, these actions completely violate the original purpose of copyright and patents – a limited monopoly to allow and influence the creation of further work.
In a word, your view of the purpose of copyright is simply “incorrect” The incentive provided is for the creation of a new work, and not for the creation of yet another new work at some future date.
Disgusting !!
ChurchHatesTucker and PaulT make good points. If a product is “abandoned” it should fall into the public domain.
I will even go a step further. If you buy a product, especially if it is a device that requires a manual for constructing it, you are entitled to the manual. In this case copyright could be considered a liability. The product was sold with the manual and a company should not be able to sever that link. Obtaining a replacement manual should not be considered a violation of copyright.
I will acknowledge in the old paper and mail era, that a company would be entitled to charge for the reproduction and the mailing of a replacement manual. But in the internet era, this is plain wrong.
Electronics Kit Manuals
This isn’t capitalism. It’s just plain greed.
Re: Electronics Kit Manuals
I hate to break the news to you, but it is capitalism. Unfortunately, capitalism in the U.S. now includes whatever unfair “rights” and “laws” you can buy from Congress.
Congress was never known for its integrity, but these days, they don’t even pretend to be anything but whores.
Torrent time
Sounds like a good time for anyone who has all these manuals to package them up in a rar file a seed a torrent
Re: Torrent time
Heathkit manuals want to be free!
Re-Torrent Time
Scanners at the ready folks! Time to scan and seed…
Charging for 30 year old manuals even HeathKit couldn’t make money on, a prime example to two annoying American truths:
copyright is killing knowledge for future generations..
and
bottom feeders STILL can’t come up with a real business model.
Re: Re-Torrent Time
Your statement makes no sense whatsoever. How is charging for an old manual “killing knowledge for future generations”? Indeed, I think they have a great business model. Get all the old manuals for classes of products and put them into one place, making them easier to find and preserving knowledge for future generations, and charge for the pleasure of reducing the time it would otherwise take to find those manuals.
I guess I just don't understand...
What the fuss is, I mean. I loved building Heathkit projects when I was in high school. It was understood that when you bought a kit, you were buying the manual and pretty much getting parts with it. The parts could come right off the shelves at Radio Shack a lot cheaper than the kits cost, but if you didn’t know how to build the thing, then what was the point? These manuals are good for more than archival references, especially to people who still like to build things as a hobby. To say that they have no other value, however, is a shame, since they are still a basis for today’s technology. Personally, I find it more a shame that people are so willing to pitch out whole boards rather than troubleshoot an issue down to the specific part. Hell, that’s how I kept a 20 year old RCA cabinet TV working for another 10 years, through 2 lightning strikes. Basic electronics such as these are a great way to understand exactly how a thing works, and I see no problem shelling out $5-30 (and that depends on the page count, if you take the time to play around with the order site) for all the plans and instructions to build what everyone else seems to think of as ‘neat little toys.’ This is really no different than an author’s estate selling the copyrights to novels to a printer that is going to actually print and sell the old manuscripts out.
If an item comes with and needs an instruction manual in order to be used then anyone who owns that item should be allowed to have that instruction manual for free. Any charge they should incur should only be the costs of printing and postage. If neither of these are needed then they shouldn’t have to pay anything. Anyone who would produce an electronic product that you then need to purchase an additional manual for is acting unethically. The very fact of needing the manual should be evidence by which one can be obtained for free. This is common sense. Unfortunately common sense is not common amongst the judiciary and plain decency is not common in business.
Wow
I spent pretty much all my allowance money back in the 80s buying Heathkits and Loved it, I still have several items I built from back in those days. Pretty sad.
Jess
http://www.Privacy-Center.net
YARRRRR!!!!
Data Pro website
Ass Holes! I hope they lose their ass.
Welcome to the world of music...
Musicians have been unsuccessfully battling this for decades.
A work can be POP (permanently out of print) and the copyright holder or publisher can refuse a request to sell a copy to you, while at the same time forbidding you from making a copy.
On the bright side, a Heathkit manual published in say, 1967, will be in the public domain in 2057, so hang on…
It might be a good idea to put the scans on a Russian or Chinese web site and let the copyright holder try to get any traction with a foreign government.
But this is a manual for a defunct product
I built a superheterodyne shortwave radio that picked up Radio Moscow and the Australian news in the late ’50s. I don’t have it anymore, and I kind of miss it. Now, what exactly is there to copyright here? The directions to fix a radio that I left in an attic 30 years ago? Seriously. When we were getting things done as a country, we made money making something, in this case kits, and our general skill level was very high. Now, instead of forming a new Heathkit company, these “lawyers,” to use a hated word, have nothing to do but demand that hobbyists pay for the ability to repair things that we made long ago. What a sick devolution. I guess the next time the Nazis declare war on us, we’ll sick our intellectual property lawyers and claim copyright infringement on their smart bombs.
Free Copy
If anyone wants a copy of the manual for a Heathkit Timing Light they can get a copy from me. Try to stop that.
abandoned rights
If I had a client who received one of these notices from Data Professionals of Pleasanton, CA., I’d be tempted to do a bit of research to see if the rights had been donated to the public. Off the cuff (meaning not my legal opinion, only an observation), given the obvious awareness, the lack of any previous policing of the rights, etc., there might actually be a case made that the rights had been abandoned.
Don Peterson is an idiot
This guy is a real piece of work (from the offerings on http://www.d8apro.com)
“The following manuals are all 1st generation copies made directly from an original manual. They are not copies of copies… Most manuals are double sided 8 1/2 x 11. Most illustrations and schematics are on 11 x 17 paper. We currently do not offer .PDF or any other ‘electronic’ copies for sale.”
this is a nonstory
this is a legitimate use of copyright, despite all of the criminal warezers here posting to the contrary. idiots.
Re: this is a nonstory
The law is wrong. The original intent was to encourage the production of creative material by rewarding its author for a limited period of time, and thereby increase public knowledge. Current law inhibits innovation, unfairly restricts transmission and rewards those who would monopolize information for their own personal gain. The law must be changed. The law must be ignored until it is changed.
Re: Re: this is a nonstory
Great idea Buster, encourage others to break the law! Incidentally, if you encourage others to break the law, then you are committing a criminal act yourself.
As for innovation, having all out of print Heathkit manuals is innovative. Where could you obtain those manuals in one place prior to this site? Further, it encourages transmission, because only some manuals were previously available.
Re: Re: Re: this is a nonstory
Why not label me a terrorist while you’re at it? Have me packed off to Guantanamo. I guess you don’t care much for the right to free speech, either.
It is the moral duty of free men to disobey unjust laws.
If the so-called service that the “copyright holder” is offering were valuable, then he would have no need of using the force of law to protect his monopoly — people (using any browser) would flock to his site as the ultimate source of perfectly-reproduced Heathkit manuals. This is how you’d still have a profit motive without Copyright. Instead he (and others like him) is trying to use force to keep others from having that which may already be in their possession.
Re: Re: Re:2 this is a nonstory
Buster:
Why do you bring terrorism into this conversation, unless you are about to admit to some other crime?
It may be the “moral duty of free men to disobey unjust laws,” but you will still have to pay in court. The better approach would be to get the laws changed, if society so deems the changes appropriate.
Incidentally, your fellow citizens also disobey other laws that they apparently think are unjust. Let me give you examples:
Wearing seatbelts.
Obeying the speed limit.
Signaling before changing lanes and turning.
Stopping completely at stop signs and lights.
The list goes on. Regardless, be prepared to pay for breaking the law when you are caught.
As for your final comment, I am unsure where you were headed with that. I do not see where anyone was kept from having something already in their possession. However, they were kept from making those copies available on the internet.
solution to the problem
TPB
manuals
It seems like an issue of fair use to me. If the new owner of the copyrights are not making a product, then they are no better than patent-sharks. Charging for what was offered freely when nothing new has been added to increase the value of the item seems fraudulent.
Re: manuals
Bill:
Something new was added; all the Heathkit manuals are available in one location. Further, they are making a product, Heathkit manuals.
People tend to forget that the heart of capitalism is charging for what was previously available for free, but making people feel as though paying was in their best interest. I ran a lawn service as a teenager where I did what homeowners previously did for free for a modest fee, and they were thrilled to pay me.
This individual is replacing the time you would have spent looking for, and perhaps not finding, an old Heathkit manual, apparently guaranteeing you that these manuals are the real deal, and complete. That seems like a lot of value to me.
Re: Re: manuals
This individual is replacing the time you would have spent looking for, and perhaps not finding, an old Heathkit manual, apparently guaranteeing you that these manuals are the real deal, and complete. That seems like a lot of value to me.
And they could have done that *without* forcing the old manuals offline.
If they’re really adding value, then why not actually compete in the marketplace?
Re: Re: Re: manuals
Mike:
You are making multiple comments that I consider to be separate from each other.
Re value: I have used manual services in the past. They are great places to find storehouses of manuals that require minimal effort to locate. That has provided value to me. Indeed, considering that most of the children that post on your site (in my eyes, anyone under 30 is a child) have never even heard of most of the things I have sought manuals for, few, if any, have ever been posted anywhere.
Re “forcing old manuals offline”: Legally, they were within their rights (or so it seems). That was a business decision that they made in consonance with rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America and supported by laws passed by Congress. If you do not like the laws, work to get them changed.
Re “why not actually compete in the marketplace”: This is a separate issue from the other two. If you are asking why they do not permit others to use their copyright, then I would suggest that, as I noted above, they are within their rights to prevent copyright infringement. Otherwise, how much competition is there for old Heathkit manuals? I am guessing that there is not a lot, and perhaps none at all.
On the other hand, if you have an old Heathkit manual and you are not using it, why not put the thing up on eBay and sell it? That kind of competition is perfectly legal and allowable.
Yes, they did get someone to pull manuals from the internet. On the other hand, they are providing an innovative resource. Mixed bag, but you will have that.
Again, if you do not like the laws, work to get them changed or repealed. Complaining about them on your site may be cathartic, but does little otherwise. Where is a grass roots campaign for copyright reform?
Re: Re: Re:2 manuals
The Constitution authorizes Congress “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
It takes a pretty broad definition of “author” to include the “Data Professionals” in question.
The current law is immoral and unconstitutional.
Re: Re: Re:3 manuals
Buster:
Morality is a personal attribute. In your opinion the “current law,” which is actually an array of laws, is immoral. Obviously, for a huge chunk of the population, and many other countries in the world, the laws are quite moral. Further, other than your statement, you offer no support for copyright laws being immoral.
As for unconstitutional, that is also clearly your opinion, and your opinion is erroneous. Copyright laws have been challenged in the past in a variety of ways, and the U.S. Supreme Court has found that the laws are constitutional. Below are a few samples:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=copyright&url=/supct/html/01-618.ZO.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=copyright&url=/supct/html/00-201.ZO.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=copyright&url=/supct/html/04-480.ZC1.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=copyright&url=/supct/html/90-634.ZO.html
I give you similar advice to what I provided to Mike earlier. If you do not care for the laws, you must work to get the laws changed. However, in this case you may also need to get the Constitution changed as well.
Re: Re: Re:2 manuals
Re value: I have used manual services in the past. They are great places to find storehouses of manuals that require minimal effort to locate. That has provided value to me. Indeed, considering that most of the children that post on your site (in my eyes, anyone under 30 is a child) have never even heard of most of the things I have sought manuals for, few, if any, have ever been posted anywhere.
I don’t deny that there’s value. However, YOU were making the claim that this was a reasonable move because of the value. I was merely pointing out those are two separate issues. If there is real value here (and I don’t deny there is) then the new company should convince people that it’s worth paying for that convenience.
You talked about mowing lawns, which people could do for free. That’s different than this scenario, because in this scenario, the company that’s offering the lawn mowing service has made it illegal for anyone to mow their lawns for free.
Re “forcing old manuals offline”: Legally, they were within their rights (or so it seems). That was a business decision that they made in consonance with rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America and supported by laws passed by Congress. If you do not like the laws, work to get them changed
What the hell do you think we’re doing?
Again, if you do not like the laws, work to get them changed or repealed. Complaining about them on your site may be cathartic, but does little otherwise. Where is a grass roots campaign for copyright reform?
Keep watching.
Re: Re: Re:3 manuals
Mike:
I don’t deny that there’s value. However, YOU were making the claim that this was a reasonable move because of the value.
Well, I am unsure of I ever said the move was reasonable. What I said is that there is value in having all the manuals of a certain type (like all the manuals for old International Harvester tractors) in one place. Of course, the value is for the person looking for that kind of manual.
The post supposedly from Barry Watzman explains my feelings the best. I struggle to believe that there would be very many people seeking old Heathkit manuals, which makes the entire exercise appear (to me) to be a poor business decision. However, regardless of what I think, it was their decision to make. Ultimately, the market will either applaud the move or spank them for it. Time will tell.
What the hell do you think we’re doing?
Sometimes I wonder. I see a lot of meaningless rants and comments by uninformed people that make my eyes roll. In fairness, there are also some well thought out comments with excellent insight. Unfortunately, I think that people look too often at the rants and less at the well thought out posts and blow off web sites such as this as an unimportant fringe element.
Keep watching.
Back at you on this one, what the hell do you think I’m doing?
manuals
You have a poor understanding of the term “morality.” It properly refers to the common standards of behavior, not personal opinion. And, since it goes against common acceptable standards of behavior to use force to constrain that which others may do with their own property (e.g., copies of technical manuals), then the use of such force, even when validated by law, is objectively immoral.
The cases you cited above do not address the issue of transfer of ownership of copyright. The Constitution grants it to the author. Any law that would extend these rights to others is UNconstitutional.
If you do not care for the Constitution, you must work to the it amended, not ignore it.
Re: manuals
Oh, so preventing you from burning tires on your property, which is clearly constraining you from doing what you want with your own property, is immoral. However, I disagree.
Copyright laws have been in existence for a long time. When you purchase a copyrighted item (or infringe upon a copyright), you knew or should have known those laws were in force. If you do not wish the constraints, then do not infringe. I accept that copyright laws are moral, therefore they are moral. It is a common standard of behavior that copyright is acceptable. If that were not the case, the laws would have been changed by now.
The cases I cited relate to the validity of copyright laws in general. Note that the constitution says that authors are granted the exclusive right to their work for a period of time. Interpretation of this clause, both in common law and in formal law, holds that this means that no one other than the author can reproduce a particular work covered by copyright.
If you do not care for the Constitution, you must work to have it amended, not ignore it.
Re: manuals
I missed a point in your comments.
When you say “author,” in this case you are speaking of a company. Intellectual property has been held to be transferable property, which it must be or a publisher could never print a book. By that same theory, it has long been held, since the creation of copyright laws, that the rights to property, such as books, poems, etc., may be transferred to another for whatever purpose.
Also, property such as writings, performances, recordings, etc., are protected by the fifth amendment of the constitution. If you wish property of this type to not have constitutional and the legal protection derived therefrom, you must work to have the constitution amended, not ignore it.
This seems just bizarre to me ....
[Some of you may recognize me, I was a senior executive at Heathkit from 1979 to 1983]
First, let me say that both the ignorance of and the attitudes towards [intellectual] property shown by many of the posters on this board are just appalling to me. Some of you don’t understand it, some of you are franly socialists (or expressing socialist values), and others (whether they recognize it themselves or not) just want to be able to take (steal) the work of others without having to pay for it. These manuals are products whose creation cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per [significant] manual. Someone paid that money, way back when, and they (or their successors) OWN that creation, and have a right to do with it as they wish, including selling it and/or banning it’s unauthorized distribution by 3rd parties.
THAT SAID, this strikes me as bizarre. The demand for Heathkit manuals just cannot, at this point, be that great. Not great enough, in my estimation, to make it worth the trouble and expense. In principle, I see nothing wrong with this, but as a PRACTICAL matter, it seems senseless and stupid IN THIS INSTANCE, because of the very small number of people who either want this stuff or who will actually end up paying for it. The reality is that most of these manuals have been floating around on the internet for a decade (with no serious objection from the then-owners), the number of people who want them is tiny and I seriously doubt that there is any way to make a profitable business selling this stuff at a reasonable price. But, a significant degree of harm will be accomplished in the process of trying to do so.
Sincerely,
Barry Watzman
A sad day
Free online manuals make some of the older Heathkit equipment worth buying. I can (or could) check out the documentatin and make sure that parts are available. Some of the parts used are long out of production. Ordering manuals of questionable quality in advance will make it worthless. I’ll still look at Heathkit equipment, but I won’t buy any that don’t come with the documents and I’ll only buy if I can view the manual in advance. I’ll never order a manual from the new owners.
Paying For Old Tech Manuals
I don’t feel too bad about this. It depends on how badly you want it. Had to pony up for a re-print of a tech manual for my old Hammond organ not too long ago. My credit card didn’t catch fire or anything.
Heathkit and the Founding Fathers.
When talking about copyrights, sooner or later, you have to deal with the intent of the founding fathers. The “useful arts” clause in the Constitution does not stand in isolation. The American 1790 Copyright and Patent Acts are substantial regurgitations of the corresponding English laws, the Copyright Act of 1709 and the Statute of Monopolies (patent act) of 1624. We are talking about laws which had stood in place for such a length of time as to be “semi-constitutional,” especially in a country such as England which did not have a written constitution, but instead relied on accumulated tradition in the shape of judicial precedent. If the authors of the Constitution had been prompted to expand the “useful arts” clause to a hundred words or so, they would surely have incorporated certain key concepts, such as the term of fourteen years, renewable once, and the requirement of the author applying in his own proper person.
I think I can say with some confidence that under the “founders’ copyright,” Heathkit’s copyrights would have lapsed by now. During Heathkit’s lifetime, this would have had little or no practical significance. After all, to keep up with the market, they had to go from tubes to transistors to small-scale-integrated circuits (7400 series logic gates, operational amplifiers, etc), and I am given to understand that the company ceased operations when it failed to make the transition to large-scale integration, with its proprietary integrated circuits. I have some catalogs, circa 1990, which seem to be mostly full of pre-assembled gear. I would be interested if Barry Watzman could comment on this, and also on what role the spread of wave soldering might have played.
Re: Heathkit and the Founding Fathers.
You speak of the founding fathers as if they were divine creatures, not a bunch of lawyers and businessmen intent on looking after their own interests.
Others have even mentioned socialism, as if americans have the faintest idea what socialism is about. You only hear the bull that interested parties feed us with and think that because one makes some money one is free. As to Capitalism Congress is an example.
Intellectual Property
Here’s a really good essay on IP for those who are interested:
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
Re: Intellectual Property
I have read this “really good essay on IP.” It is quite biased and does a great job of ignoring the many studies that show that patents have been a positive force in a number of industries. However, I should also point out that this essay does admit that IP has been good for the pharmaceutical industry and admits that an alternative needs to be found to patents, should the unlikely event happen that patents are eliminated.
Free manuals.
Free manuals: AX-190, HW-100, Realistic PRO-2022M, Realistic PRO-2022 Cellular restoration, Oscilloscope 1707A/H60. I just charge for shipping.
Don Peterson is an asshole.
Heatkit manuals now in hands of cartel
Heatkit manuals are now in the hands of a cartel.
How sad that it is even a old time heathkit person.
Data should think about giving back to the industry to make it stronger not strangling the hobbyist that were the beginnings of the high tec. boom in America.
If we help each other we all win.
If not look to China to see where you kids jobs in the high tec industry will be.
With no experience at the hobby level we will loose our future.
Did Heathkit defend their copyright on their manuals for all the years they were being distributed free online? Somebody may have paid for copyrights that are no longer valid!
find it share it screw the laws crime does pay look at the world
searching for service manual on line
i have seen other people search for service manuals and parts cross reference lists and data sheets on components online with out running into problems at all. however when i try to do this i can find information on everything but what i was trying to locate . so here i am tring to locate information on a piece of equipment brought in for repair and i can’t locate a service manual with out having to pay some one or some thing for it. we have a library full of old manuals here for buisness band two way radio equipment but it is all useless for the equipment i am staring at now.
Want HeathKit manuals? Very reasonable access for a small donation or contribution of a new manual to the collection.
http://www.mods.dk/manual.php?brand=heathkit
Copyrightholder forcing off old copies
Someone apparently doesn’t understand the rights of a copyright holder. Old, legitimately published copies of a copyright work come with an implied license to hold and resell the original print. A copyright holder in due course who attempts to “force” the sale of new prints is abusing the copyright and is subject to losing those very rights. Such an action, if it’s true also borders on criminal.
Data Professionals are patent trolls. Plain and simple
The US copyright office says the Heath still owns the copyright. A lawyer looked at the sales agreement. He said it gives the gentleman repro rights only. Reports that he bought copyrights are false. Only a copyright owner can enforce them, and the US Government says that is still Heath. Look it up for yourself and stop the BS and dishonesty that is going on.
Copyright enforcement
I’m trying to research the subject and finding difficulty getting a straight forward answer to the following question. If a company or individual does not actively enforce their copyright for several years does this not negate any copyright they have or have the right to sell? I’m still digging away and hope to get a definitive answer. I’ve heard that if a company ot individual does not ACTIVELY protect their copyright that this essentially negates any intellectual rights they have. Maybe this is incorrect. That’s why I’m trying to find out. It would make sense to me but, then, the courts have a tendancy to make up there own laws or interpretations.
Copyright abandonment
I found this legal interpretation.
Abandonment of copyright or dedication to the public domain occurs when a copyright owner intentionally gives up copyright protection for a work. When the copyright in a work is abandoned by the owner it enters the public domain. Thus, s/he no longer owns any exclusive rights in the work and cannot bring a claim of copyright infringement against anyone who makes use of the work.
The courts are of the view that rights gained under the Copyright Law may be abandoned. Abandonment of such rights, however, must be manifested by some overt act indicative of a purpose to surrender the rights and allow the public to copy. [Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100 (9th Cir. Cal. 1960)]
This is what happened to Heathkit manuals. The copyright was not enforced and abadonded. The intellectual proprety has been in public domain for years. Now we someone claiming to have bought the rights to them and wants you to pay for public domain property.
Copyright infringement
I find it strang that Don Peterson sent me a note back that only his lawyer knows the law and no one else does, even fellow lawyers. With this in mind and his “bullying” tactics to remove Heathkit kit manuals from all sites, why is it that the site mods.dk has many of the heathkit manuals available for free download? Why hasn’t he pursued them and made them remove the manuals? Could it be they are in a different country or that they see the manuals for what they really are, public domian, orphaned and abandonded copyrights. Interesting and open to interpretation.
Heathkit
I am telling you the fact about Data Professional was fake. They did not purchase and take over Heathkit property. Someone asked them to provide a proof in black and white. So far, they did not provide the documentation. Therefore that person was doing illegal behavior also he never work for Heathkit in Michigan.
That person was doing for greedy.
Heathkit Manuals
Is there someone out there with a legal background who is willing to crowd fund a response to this nonsense of taking manuals off line for Heathkit gear.