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.