[banda]

Re: Thanks for the Additional Information

Perhaps Yamaha relented and granted license to the web site because the law wasn't completely on their side. Take a look at this Fair Use FAQ [www.eff.org]

Fair use, which is a limitation of exclusive copyrights, is held up by courts in cases where the reproduction of the work falls into the following categories:

[*]The work is more factual than creative
[*]The copyright holder is denied their commercial opportunity to profit from the work
[*]The reproduction is not for commercial purposes

Certainly a user manual is a factual document. I'd hate to think it was a work of fiction, but after owning a few Italian motorcycles, I can see why a manual author might claim creative ownership.

Next, I think it's pretty clear that Yamaha is in the motor vehicle business much more so than the publishing business. The audience for a FZ-1 manual is pretty much limited to consumers from whom Yamaha has already exacted their profit - in the form of a motorcycle sale. Also, I'd like to point out that each and every original owner of a Yamaha FZ-1 should have been furnished with a FZ-1 user manual at the time of purchase. If fair use guarantees that it's legal for them to make a backup copy of a work that they have already licensed, then what's the difference if someone else makes that backup copy for them?

Finally, I have a hard time believing that the enthusiast web site had any grand design of making their fortune selling user manual re-prints. I could believe that the enthusiast might ask for the cost of shipping and printing from the receiver to defreay the expenses incurred. I bet the user manual re-print was a friendly service provided almost exclusively to people who already held a license to the work, and that there was very little profit motive involved in the reproductions.

You sound like you're just itching to give your rights away to the first bully who will take them. Fortunately, there are patriots among us who won't roll over so easily. Don't take claims of "piracy" at face value. The framers of the United States constitution were very specific in not allowing any person or entity to "own" information.

 

[banda]

Re: Thanks for the Additional Information

Well, now the update says Yamaha has NOT granted license to the entusiast site.

I say "so what?". I don't believe the enthusiast site needs license from Yamaha to reproduce the user manual. Fair use should be enough to allow people to assist each other with the back up and recovery of legitimately licensed works.

Unfortunately, the enthusiast site probably doesn't have the resources to make their case. Just proves that bullies will get their way in today's legal climate.

If you disagree, think about this for a minute: If you and I both own FZ-1s, and you lost your user manual, should it be illegal for me to tell you how many quarts of oil it takes? Or how many miles between valve adjustments? Should that information really be protected so vigorously that you and I can't discuss it? Is that what we all want?

 

[banda]

Re: Thanks for the Additional Information

A shop manual is every bit as much an item of intellectual property as is the latest Grishom novel and the copyright holder is every bit as entitled to protection.

I'm inclined to agree, mostly because the shop manual is not part of the package when you buy a FZ-1. However, the original story only mentions user manuals. User manuals are part of the package when you buy a motorcycle. When your Yamaha dealer hands you the key and the user manual, you have the right to make a backup copy of that manual in case the original is lost, stolen, eaten by wolves, etc. That right is unalienable and unassailable. It's been held up in high profile court cases for decades. The owner of an FZ-1 is a de facto licensee of the FZ-1 user manual.

Now here's the real kicker: Who else but a FZ-1 owner would pay for a FZ-1 user manual? Perhaps there are user manual collectors out there somewhere, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the ony buyers of copied FZ-1 user manuals would be the owners who were entitled to a copy of the dang thing in the first place.

The only party that could conceivably injured here would be the bike owner who was denied his fair use right to create, keep, or obtain a backup copy of a work for which he was a license holder.

If I were to write a Finance textbook (argueably not a work of fiction), would you argue that someone has the right to scan it and burn cds to sell in competition with my publisher?

Certainly not. Your finance textbook, while not a work of fiction, is probably not just an index of facts, either. There is a great deal of creative work that goes into the compilation and editing of a non-fiction publication like a finance textbook. However, a pure reference work, such as the telephone directory, or a listing of handy physics equations would not enjoy the same level of copyright protection because it is less of a creative expression. That's just the way it works in court.