Did I say something to trigger this notification?

[Handy Andy]

Or look at it this way...

You can buy a car, snap a photo tell your friends you have a car...

Or...

Just buy a car and don't tell anyone else...

There will still be events and processes that will happen that will eventually become common knowledge. (Insurance Title taxes fees e&c)

When you don't tell anyone else - you will still have to interact with people and drivers as you use your vehicle - they give you the privilege of operating your vehicle as long as you're not causing harm or damage.

You have a right to own the vehicle - but are given a privilege to operate the vehicle in public places as long as you follow the rules of privilege - and not violate the rights of others using that same privilege.

You can stop driving the vehicle and still own it, but if you refuse to pay for the privilege to drive it again, your ownership has not stopped, but the ability to use it in public is lost until you are allowed privilege to operate it again to prove to others you are responsible.

So, in a way, this becomes more of a license for you to use it - scenario.

But what happens when you need to get it serviced?

You can do it yourself - but to know how to fix it requires knowledge and experience and the right tools.

To apply the above to the thread here, copyrights may belong to the vehicle's parts, but Intellectual Property rights are referencing that they are demanding that the tool manufacture stop making tools, tires or any products, to fix the vehicle.

 

[Handy Andy]

In regard to CB Tricks - if anyone remembers Bennies eBay postings.

He used to post names of people that copied the sites work and sold it on eBay.

The effort only goes so far.

The person that "gleaned or copied" the work is attempting to be compensated for their work. They kind of made their own niche marketing enterprise.

The violation of rights then becomes those who are willing to buy - to enable the eBay user selling it, to sell even more to obtain a profit from otherwise free information. That to me is the violation - the enablement and what is done with the information afterwards from the sale - can be used against others - even though it's free - which becomes recursive and redundant.

 

[Rwb]

yet you can go to some manufacturers sites n download pdf files and no mention of copyrite,open up icom find your radio ,download manual.no asking do you own icom,are you selling it ,personal use,? if its copyrited should have to prove your in need but what do i know? old retired farmer/.truck driver that still works .
icom dont even ask who you are ,kenwood either. never tried yaesu but probably the same.
you can go to a public library n copy sams photo facts n pay the supplys cost n never see trouble? where is the line? im simply curious as not wanting trouble.
this can be a broad long subject

 

[Rwb]

another item ,not radios but look at john deere lawsuits are poping up against them by sealing all repair manuals preventing anybody but authorized jd repair people to work on the machines. id say that might be in a copyrite form.
oh by the way not complaining just my views n opinion,yours might vary n have diffrent milage. id like to hear more on this so we know where whats right n not right not a no to everything,only fair to everybody

 

[Handy Andy]

There is a "fair use" act - which by definition...

Promotes freedom of expression in which you can use copyrighted material for use in Education; Teaching, Learning, Research - even comment and criticism.

It is for the abilities to forward freedoms for consumers - it's is not intended to obtain profits from commercial work, but more for the Edification of Users to PROPERLY use the information - Non-Commercial Interests and Commericial interests are inclusive in sharing knowledge.

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

The whole issue is using someone eles's copyrighted material for your own personal financial gain. THAT is the big difference at issue here. Downloading a radio manual and using it to do work for money is not the same thing as downloading something, copying it and then selling copies of it. In short, just because you CAN do something and nobody has an issue with it does not mean that it is perfectly fine to do. People have put a lot of time and money into compiling some info and they are the only ones that can legally sell or profit from that info if it is copywrited.

 

[Rwb]

The whole issue is using someone eles's copyrighted material for your own personal financial gain. THAT is the big difference at issue here. Downloading a radio manual and using it to do work for money is not the same thing as downloading something, copying it and then selling copies of it. In short, just because you CAN do something and nobody has an issue with it does not mean that it is perfectly fine to do. People have put a lot of time and money into compiling some info and they are the only ones that can legally sell or profit from that info if it is copywrited.

im not wanting to sell or buy either but i need a few pages my printer missed but after all this i will just reprint 100 pages so nobody gets in trouble n waste lots of paper. now i know thank you captain killowatt

 

[sunbulls]

Drat!! That annoying DJ disrupted my cassette copy of Alice's Restaurant, but I’ll keep on keeping on….Perhaps Alice will be so kind to give me what I want.

 

[Rwb]

Drat!! That annoying DJ disrupted my cassette copy of Alice's Restaurant, but I’ll keep on keeping on….Perhaps Alice will be so kind to give me what I want.

you can get anything you want at alices restaurant cept alice

 

[Handy Andy]

….Perhaps Alice will be so kind to give me what I want.

♫ ♪ "... You can Get Anything you want - At Alices' Restaurant ..." ♪ ♫


Just don't throw me in jail for helping fix a radio...

 

[AudioShockwav]

Old school stuff there guy's.
The other one said
It should be easy to see
"The crux of the biscuit
is the apostrophe"
No one will remember that one.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.........

73
Jeff

 

[brandon7861]

It is my opinion, and I'd take my opinion to court if need be, that once you buy a radio (or anything else), the documentation associated with it or that required by the FCC for approval should be accessible to the purchaser and the right to repair guaranteed.

If someone uses a ranger schematic to build a clone of a ranger, selling said clone should be a crime. However, when I buy a radio, I physically own it. To me, this means the radio itself, along with its design, is now physically in the public domain, in my hands. There is no law against me taking a ranger apart, drawing the schematic myself, then posting it to the internet. Sure, the guys at ranger did the work, but they put that work in the public domain in the form of the product. A manual need not be published or released for the intellectual property to already be in the public domain. For that reason, I believe a court would have a hard time telling me I broke copyright law by possessing or sharing a pdf of a schematic of something anyone can take apart and make drawings for. We are not talking about a chemistry book here, we are talking about technical descriptions of a physical object in the public domain. And because those technical descriptions can be deduced from said object existing in the public domain, the documents themselves represent, IMO, public information. Profit based on the work of another, or causing the designer to incur a loss due to your actions, should be the sole basis of any legal action. The end user, typically, is merely trying to repair for themselves what they already paid to possess, and that includes the design!

To sue for financial damage requires actual damage or loss to be proven. It also requires the service of a cease and desist before taking said legal action in court. So unless you have caused them damage or made profit in excess of the legal expense of pursuing the case, nobody is coming after you. And if they do and lose, they pay your legal expense.

I believe the only reason the FCC started allowing these companies to make their documentation (that was filed with their application for FCC approval) confidential is because the FCC would prefer the schematics remain elusive to reduce the instances of illegal modification like channel expansion (and I'd love to see the law that permits them to do so).

 

[Riverman]

"The crux of the biscuit
is the apostrophe"
No one will remember that one.
73
Jeff

Frank Z.

 

[Handy Andy]

...oh my baby Harp Seal...

He taught us a lot...
♪ ♫ Do Go Where The Huskies Go...
and Don't EAT THAT (Ahemn) snow... ♫ ♪

​

... I think I'm catching Cabin Fever...

 

[AudioShockwav]

The FCC really never actually puts hands on a radio for approval now.
The process has changed over the years and
they no longer submit a radio directly to the fcc, instead the manufacturer has a third party facility test the radio and submit the paperwork to the fcc before approval.
All they see is the report from the lab.
They no longer are required to provide a schematic of the radio, and a service manual was never required as part of the approval process.

A lot of this secrecy can be traced back to Uniden and the pb010 circuit board, that board with one band up and one band down and it's variants are the most cloned boards in the history of cb/export radio.
Jim Peng grabbed that design and ran hard with it resulting in what Ranger is today.
Manufactures got to the point they did not want to release service manuals or schematics.
I think there may have been pressure on Benny from some of the players about the disclosures on his site over this, but that's just my feeling on that last part.

73
Jeff