I'd like to ask our membership if we should consider doing anything about the notable absence of the Heathkit manuals, which used to be available from several major websites. Just last night, I was going through five different classic Heathkit test equipment items, and couldn't find the online manuals for any of them; and I know that all these manuals used to be at bama or Pestinger's. I then studied the "new owners" website to find out that he actually doesn't have available any of the older manuals that I need, and any he does have command a good price....nothing is free anymore. His website also explains that we are not allowed to even sell, give away, or barter/trade any Heathkit manuals without his pre-approval. I also recall that I and other ARF members had sent pdf's, djvu's, jpegs, tif's and sometimes mailed the original manuals to these gentlemen so they could post them on their websites so others could download them; but now all that effort is for naught. Last year, another discussion site posted an extended thread that explained that the actual agreement between Heath and that gentleman did not necessarily include these so-called full rights to all of these older classic manuals....but unfortunately, we live in an age where to contest that conclusion might involve extended discussions, etc. I'm confident that most legal aids/attorneys have no concept whatsoever to what the actual situation is with these old manuals, nor do they care about making this information available. I feel strongly that the situation we now have is not what it should be and that we should be trying to change it.

The part that also bothers me is someone may attempt to stop the free access to other brands of manuals, such as Hickok, Triplett, Simpson, Dynaco, Weston etc., etc. by simply using this Heathkit "legacy manuals" so-called document papers to hold precedence.

Fred

See www.dk.mods.com. There is another in the UK and another in China will soon have a huge selection.

Carl

Carl,

Yes, I know that some of the overseas sites that you mention have a few of the Heathkit manuals, but their collections are nowhere near what was at the main sites I mentioned above. As for the Chinese sites, even if that were to take form later, it's pretty sad if we have to resort to having our boatanchor manual sites in China where the U.S. attorneys can't phase them.

Fred

Exactly who is this person (or company) that says he has the rights to all previous Heath information? At least in America any company or person who claims he has been damaged or wronged has to supply the proof in court. Perhaps Heath has implied that it still had the rights to this information when in fact it no longer did; or, the buyer is claiming legal rights he simply doesn't have.
Either way, I wouldn't sweat too much. I have a few Heath manuals, and I will do with them as I please.

Here's the website for the "owner" of the copyrights:
http://www.d8apro.com/

Same here. I'll sell, copy, or trade them if I please. Absolutely nothing wrong or illegal about it. The only way it could be is that the person owning the rights the the manuals may have those rights with the ones they print. Otherwise he has no control.

Yeah they do have control over the copy and selling of the manuals. They shut down not only the BAMA site offerings but also W7FG manual sales of same Heath stuff.

Now that said... as long as you copy and GIVE AWAY to your buddies there isn't anything they can do I think.... and they would probably never know if you did or didn't do it. Now if you go out there waving a flag under their noses then yup your going to hear from their attorney who will make it expensive and painful for you.

John k9uwa

They have shut down several web sites via implied threats and the site owners just folded like wimps. BAMA didnt even attempt to raise a challenge. I even offered to buy his data base and he refused because he "made a promise". Maybe he believes everything he reads and hears every 2 years also.

Carl

What we should do is:
Share with others we trust via PM, when they have a simple need and we can fill it.

Try www dot ebaman dot com. They have a pretty good collection in their file archive.

The person claiming the copyrights is making a lot of unsubstantiated claims, so I am not convinced he has control of anything. For example, it is likely that many of those "copyrighted" manuals had their copyrights expire years ago.

I concur. I bought the damn thing, I'll give it or a copy to anyone I want. Whats next? Intellectual copyrights to used toilet paper?

This is where I've got about 3 so far-

http://www.classicradiomanuals.com/catalog/heathkit.htm


Terry

Some I think are missing the point here.

Anyone who has original manuals that wants to sell their original manuals is perfectly legal to do so. However to make and sell copies is what this guy will come after you over.

Example... you buy a new Car... and a few years later you sell it... no problem.... now if you decided to clone that car and Sell Copies of it then yes they would come for you.

John k9uwa

Sell is the operative word here. You can make copies and give them away but you can not sell them. I guess it could be assumed even this is not fair to the copyright holder. But whats next? Thats where you are cutting into some ones elses intellectual property rights.

I guess some one would really have to see if any of those rights have expired in order to pursue sale of them.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Therefore, it should be possible to post them on a website and legally give downloads away for free like BAMA was doing, right?

Dave

I have to agree with k9uwa. Sell or give, it doesn't matter. If you purchase a song on iTunes, can you copy it and give it away? No. That was the whole thought behind Napster. The songs were “purchased� by at least one person and then “shared� on the net. The courts closed them.

Look at any recent book. The copyright notice will discuss “duplication�.

I started searching and found an interesting website.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

He looks like he has some credibility.

Here's a pretty good tutorial on copyright law.

http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectua ... rtindx.htm

fair use is the term copyright folks use for being able to make copies without permission. This is like copying a page from a book at a library. That's considered fair use but you can't copy the entire work.

Libraries can, however, lend out books without an author's permission - even electronically. That got me wondering if there's a way to use the ARF system to set up a lending library for manuals (heathkit) where BAMA or others can't distribute them.

By the way, I did look at some of the heathkit manuals I have here that were published before 1967 and at least one did not have a copyright notice. That means it's now in the public domain and not subject to copyright law. If it did have the copyright notice, it would be 95 years from the date of first publication before it's in the public domain. After 1989, even if it didn't have a copyright notice, it's still covered under copyright law.

arnie

This guy's copyright claims are a load of nonsense. Under the agreement that he's so aggressively waved in the nose of those providing Heathkit manuals online, he bought the rights to something called "Heathkit's Legacy Manual Duplication and Distribution Service", whatever that is. (Perhaps a pile of old manuals that the Heath company had kicking around that they could use to fill requests for old manuals.) The agreement makes no mention of copyright transfer whatsoever:

http://www.tech-systems-labs.com/pdf.../Agreement.pdf

There is no mention of Don Peterson, Donald Peterson, or Data Professionals in the post-1978 online searchable copyright database, which includes Heathkit manuals published after that date:

http://www.copyright.gov/records/

So....absent any other agreement, Heathkit is still the copyright holder, not Don Peterson or Data Professionals. Even so, it's unclear whether Heath ever renewed it's any or all of its copyrights and whether they retain any such rights.

It's also not clear whether Heath actually *registered* the copyrights. This is important, because otherwise the copyright holder would be limited to actual damages rather than statutory damages. Actual damages would be pretty much zero because the current value of the copyrighted documents is so minimal (We're not talking Harry Potter here.) About the only way to search pre-1978 copyright registration would be to go to the Library of Congress.

Some of this is discussed on this thread:

http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=187806

Don Peterson/Data Professionals is a person/entity that bought something or other from Heathkit, but it wasn't a copyright. He'd be laughed out of court if it ever got that far. It's unfortunate that so many people have been intimidated by a threatening letter. I'd have told him to hold onto it in case he ran short on toilet paper.

Bob

Personally, I think the best thing to do is as follows:

1.) Don't buy anything from this Peterson clown. Never. He's not providing any benefit to this hobby other than obstruction, and there's no reason to give him any satisfaction.

2.) Ignore anyone who tells you that you can't sell, trade, or give away original copies of manuals.

3.) If you need a Heath manual, and have trouble locating it, post a message here.

4.) If someone posts a request for a Heath manual, and you have one or know where he/she could get a copy, ..., well, you know what to do.

In other words, business as usual. The bottom line is that most companies could really care less what happens to manuals for equipment that hasn't been manufactured in over 20 years or longer. There's really no commercial interest for Hickok to enforce a copyright on an old tube tester manual, unless they themselves want to go into the publishing business. And, in almost all cases, that's not worth the trouble. In fact, I seem to recall that some Tektronix hobbyists on a Yahoo group even got Tektronix lawyers to agree to allow them to post scans of manuals for older equipment, even though Tek still owns the copyright.

If Peterson actually had possession of the copyrights, I may feel a bit differently on some points. But, just saying you own a copyright when you probably don't is hugely different from actually owning a copyright.

Sounds like the guy is a greedy f***, plain and simple.