manual for brother XL721

Kate Dicey wrote:
..=2E.
So what? The one you want isn't available except by paying for it.
Cough up or do without.

Well, it's not for me, so I'm more than glad to do without it.

..=2E.
Not it isn't: it's theft if you take something that isn't yours.

Theft is theft, hmm.

"Hugo began to think about Les Mis=C3=A9rables as early as 1829. He
observed
the specific incident that triggers the novel's action on the streets
of
Paris in 1845. On a sunny but cold day, he saw an impoverished man
being
arrested for stealing a loaf of bread."
http://www.lesmis.com/inspiration/author/aboutnovel.htm

That's a very black and white perspective, I'd say there are shades of
grey to everything, even the claim that everything has shades of grey.

No, I don't equate a pdf file to a loaf of bread. The claim that
"theft
is theft," is, well, a bit much, though. Also, IANAL, but I'm not so
sure that copyright infringement is theft, legally. Could be wrong.

Scanning the manual is the service.


And you don't believe in paying for a service?

I pay for service all the time. I, personally, would share the pdf
manual, if I had it, and not shed a tear for the lost income for the
company/entrepeneur whose business model includes scanning in out of
date manuals, nor their employees, which might include someone I know.

I'm not sure if your position comes from empathy for those people, or
what. For such a strong stance, I'm assuming that.

..=2E.

As long as we old machine looneys can keep
our dinosaurs going, they have a diminishing chance of selling us a
brand new machine! They do it as a service to old friends. Also,
most
sewing machine manuals are a lot more complex than fax manuals!

Yes. But cars are even more complex, and there are free manuals for
cars for free download. I think complexity is an arbitrary
distinction,
I'm sure there are some very simple manuals to download and some
complex
ones.

I'm all for you looneys. In many ways it's good for the environment,
humankind, and it's a good hobbey. I just think that this has really
nothing to do with theft and more to do with inconvenience.

..=2E.
Maybe it makes no business sense to them?

Exactly. That doesn't equate copying an old manual to stealing a top
secret formula, though. Intellectual property laws vary from country
to
country.

No manufacturer is in
business to make sewing machines, fax machines, whatever... They are
in
business to make money. If something doesn't make money directly,
they
may do it as a service to further brand loyalty or for good will.
They
do not HAVE to do it at all. Fax manuals were probably prepared on a
computer, and it costs them no time to scan them: the file is
available
at the click of a button. Old sewing machine manuals were type-set
and
printed, with no computer involved. It takes time to scan them,
prepare
them as a PDF file, and get them on a web site for downloading (I
know,
I've done it). There may be insufficient call for the particular
machine machine manual for it to be worth the bother to them.

Sure, I agree with those facts.

For newer
machines, there IS the copyright issue. In addition, why should they
make replacement manuals available at all?

What do you mean by "there IS the copyright issue?"

Fax machines got out of date far quicker than sewing machines.

What about cars? Cars have manuals for download and they last a long
time.

And it's
a different business with different cultural mores. Get over it.

I don't see that this business is different from any other. As you
said, if there was profit in then Brother would give it away. Since
there's no profit, of course there's a charge for the service. Even
herbal tea companies make money. Ben and Jerry's icecream "sold out"
long ago to those evil "corporate" types.

It's an example of copyright run a bit amok, not moral dilemna.


-Thufir

wrote:
"Hugo began to think about Les Misérables as early as 1829. He
observed
the specific incident that triggers the novel's action on the streets
of
Paris in 1845. On a sunny but cold day, he saw an impoverished man
being
arrested for stealing a loaf of bread."
http://www.lesmis.com/inspiration/author/aboutnovel.htm

It is still theft. But maybe the punishment for a starving man stealing
might not be so severe, or maybe it would be waived.

That's a very black and white perspective, I'd say there are shades of
grey to everything, even the claim that everything has shades of grey.

My HS journalism teacher used to tell us all the time:

"If white is good and black is bad,
We all are either grey or plaid."
-- William Kepner, circa 1970

No, I don't equate a pdf file to a loaf of bread. The claim that
"theft is theft," is, well, a bit much, though.

But it's true. It's just that some thefts are not as serious as others.

Someone speeding to get a seriously injured person to the ER is still
speeding and breaking the law, but they probably won't get a ticket for it.


Also, IANAL, but I'm not so
sure that copyright infringement is theft, legally. Could be wrong.

It's theft of intellectual property. If you go read up on it, you will
find out.

Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply wrote:
....
My HS journalism teacher used to tell us all the time:

"If white is good and black is bad,
We all are either grey or plaid."
-- William Kepner, circa 1970

Alright, fair enough.

....
It's just that some thefts are not as serious as others.

In a sense, yes.

No doubt it does violate the law, you say it's theft, to copy this
manual. "On the other hand, I will freely give email copies of the
Singer 66 manual I scanned for a friend to other enthusiasts I know. If
I had to send out a hard copy to a stranger, I'd need to be reimbursed
for my time, the paper, and the postage," so Kate Dicey doesn't see
this as some sort of moral or legal issue, but one of practicality.

The intent of this copyright has nothing to do with consumers but with
competitors. A seachange in how copyrights work is on the horizon. Of
course, there's the piracy issue. There's also open source software,
which is often referred to as "copyleft" material. The very existence
of a service such as this, scanning in copyrighted material and then
e-mailing the file, seems anachronistic given the technology today.

Framing this within the technicalities of theft strikes me as
overblown. I'm of the belief that the users right to the manual trumps
this concern over theft. It's not that Brother and the company which
scans in these documents don't have rights but that the individuals
rights trump the corporate in this situation. If the manual was
something that Brother invested alot into, perhaps to get money from
printing them or to increase the value of the sewing machine, then I
might see a moral element here. It's about *why* the manual is
copyrighted, not that it is.



-Thufir

wrote:

Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply wrote:
....

My HS journalism teacher used to tell us all the time:

"If white is good and black is bad,
We all are either grey or plaid."
-- William Kepner, circa 1970


Alright, fair enough.

....

It's just that some thefts are not as serious as others.


In a sense, yes.

No doubt it does violate the law, you say it's theft, to copy this
manual. "On the other hand, I will freely give email copies of the
Singer 66 manual I scanned for a friend to other enthusiasts I know. If
I had to send out a hard copy to a stranger, I'd need to be reimbursed
for my time, the paper, and the postage," so Kate Dicey doesn't see
this as some sort of moral or legal issue, but one of practicality.

Not at all: the 66 manual is WELL out of copyright, and already freely
available on the net. SINGER give it away! I scanned mine to preserve
a copy (it's almost 100 years old and rather yelloed and tatty) and
provide one for a friens WHO HAD A COPY in less good condition than mine
and no access to a scanner or the internet at the time. Like anyone, I
do things for friends that stangers have to pay for. Today I'm altering
some jacket sleeves for a neighbour and very old friend: she gets that
as a freebie, whereas I'd be charging between £20 and £40 as a pay job
to a stranger who rang me after finding my ad in Yellow Pages.
'Reimbursement for paper and postage' comes no-where near covering the
costs of me feeding the thing through the scanner anfd nannying the
printing, when I charge between £10 (simple straight seams) and £30
(teaching complex sewing processes or English Lit to university entrance
leverl)an hour for my time. I bought a scanned copy of the Jones Family
CS manual from a fellow enthusiast because I could find it no other way:
it's a nicely bound, well scanned, hi-res printed facsimile copy of the
original, and well worth what I paid for it: she made no profit out of
the deal, and at the price and level of presentation, I doubt she
covered her costs fully. But I'm well pleased with my manual and she
has kept a fellow ancient sewing machine enthusiast sewing on this dear
little old lady of a machine.

The intent of this copyright has nothing to do with consumers but with
competitors. A seachange in how copyrights work is on the horizon. Of
course, there's the piracy issue. There's also open source software,
which is often referred to as "copyleft" material. The very existence
of a service such as this, scanning in copyrighted material and then
e-mailing the file, seems anachronistic given the technology today.

Framing this within the technicalities of theft strikes me as
overblown. I'm of the belief that the users right to the manual trumps
this concern over theft. It's not that Brother and the company which
scans in these documents don't have rights but that the individuals
rights trump the corporate in this situation. If the manual was
something that Brother invested alot into, perhaps to get money from
printing them or to increase the value of the sewing machine, then I
might see a moral element here. It's about *why* the manual is
copyrighted, not that it is.

So if you are stupid enough to lose the manual, you 'deserve' a new one
free? Try running that under the noses of the machine makers and see
how well it trots...

--
Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls
Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons
http://www.katedicey.co.uk
Click on Kate's Pages and explore!

Kate Dicey wrote:
....
Not at all: the 66 manual is WELL out of copyright,

I didn't know that.

and already freely
available on the net. SINGER give it away! I scanned mine to preserve
a copy (it's almost 100 years old and rather yelloed and tatty) and
provide one for a friens WHO HAD A COPY in less good condition than mine
and no access to a scanner or the internet at the time. Like anyone, I
do things for friends that stangers have to pay for.
....
So if you are stupid enough to lose the manual, you 'deserve' a new one
free? Try running that under the noses of the machine makers and see
how well it trots...
....

It's not that the user is entitled to having the company provide the
manual, or any support, years later and after the machine has been
re-sold; I don't think anyone would put that forward.

Where we part ways is probably over the intent of the copyright law.
Absolutely, competitors shouldn't infringe on each others manuals.
Where's the harm in distributing a copy of a manual for a machine
that's no longer in production? I apply that question to fax machines,
sewing machines, cars, anything that needs a manual.

The difference between your machine and my friends machine is one of
degree in that yours is older. I'd go further and suggest manuals
would be better released under something like the GNU GPL which'd allow
that kind of distribution. I'm not for more laws to fix bad laws, but
alternately the copyright laws could be changed.

In this case, a manual for a sewing machine/fax/car, there's no
intrinsic value to the manual. Why is photocopying the manual theft
when the manual itself has no value? If there's a value inherent to
the manual I'm not seeing it. The copyright laws paint with too broad
a brush.

I never really considered it, but I suppose all the PDF manuals I've
ever downloaded are probably coprighted, meaning it's illegal for me to
distribute them. I can't think why I would, though, since they're free
and if someone asked for the manual I'd probably just point them to the
download. If this particular machine had been made recently the manual
would be free; if not, I can't imagine why not.


-Thufir