On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 01:09:47PM -0000, Ensoniq-VFX-SD@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 05:47:36 -0000
> From: "rf_erf" <msmdowling@...>
> Subject: Re: Posting VFX manual bad idea
>
> Hey it's the manual mafia... how's biz these days? Slow?
>
> I'd be very interested in hearing more about the supposed legalities
> of copying a user manual for an obsolete keyboard. I doubt you have
> any grounds for this bluff and are probably just trying to "protect
> your ricebowl".
Gee, you're a real swell guy. I'll give you my understanding of the
legalities, even though I don't think you are actually "very
interested."
[ NOTE: I AM NOT A LAWYER. I have watched some actors play lawyers on
TV, however. I was on a jury once, saw real lawyers. The TV ones are
much more entertaining. ]
There is a copyright on the contents of the manual. This gives the
original authors, or whoever they sell the rights to, the legal right
to control who makes copies of the work.
They have licensed two companies to make copies of this and sell to
customers. I have no affiliation with either of those companies, by
the way. I don't believe I've even purchased anything from either of
them.
Whether the instrument described in that manual is still manufactured
or supported is irrelavent from a legal point of view. The copyright
on the manual still extends the normal length of any copyright (which
is apparently something like 100 years or whenever the Disney company
goes out of business, whichever comes last... but that's another
subject entirely.)
Interestingly enough, if you've ever read the VFX manual, and compared
it to, e.g. Roland manuals from the same era, I think you'll agree
that this manual is very well written, and probably worth MORE than
most other manuals I've come across. It's clearly written, and IMHO
you REALLY understand the instrument after you've read it.
(Contrast: the info on how a Roland JV-1080 *really* works is hidden
in the sys-ex implementation chart in the back of the manual; the rest
of the manual is push this, do that, blah blah blah, but doesn't
really give you a good feel for how the pieces of the puzzle fit
together. And you're left guessing about when you might actually use
some features.)
Richard at Route 66 simply addressed those considering posting of the
manuals, and let them know the would be stepping on other's toes. He
didn't introduce his lawyer, didn't threaten to sue. I'm sure if
someone put up a web page with the PDF, he'd have to persistently
persue having it taken down to protect his interests -- personally, I
think he'd ask nicely first, but probably not stop there if nothing
happened. From my point of view, he was very good natured about
the subject, and in no way deserves to be labeled "the manual mafia."
> [keyboard user manuals] - they should be and will be distributed
> freely.
Why are they any less deserving of copyright protection than any other
work of authorship?
I know that copyright claims get all lumpped together with the RIAA
suits in people's minds nowdays, but I can't fault a guy for
protecting his bread & butter.
> I am after a copy of the VFX manual (preferably PDF) to decide
> whether or not I'd like to acquire one of these keyboards, but I'm
> certainly not going to buy a manual to make such as assessment.
Find a library (good luck) or a friend that has a copy of it and
browse through it, then.
You can probably gather from my comments above that I do believe some
people / entities have pushed copyright too far (in the US at least,
it's supposed to be a balance of benefits to the author and benefits
to the public), but I do not believe they should be abolished, just
brought back in line.
And I don't think Richard is pushing too far on this one. Certainly
not under current law.
--> Steve
