D&M Holdings (Denon/Marantz) served a notice of take down of "copyrighted service manuals" to one of my favorites sites that had those manuals up for free (the site links to manuals where vehiculated a lot here).
In other words, D&M thinks that their products should NOT be fixed by DIY, only by their overpriced service reps.
The story is that the japanese headquartes ASKED the US branch to send that threating letter the website in discussion (because was hosted on GoDaddy servers).
This changed drastically my oppinion about their products. I have 3 players and one receiver from Denon in my house. I was planning to buy more of them, but now I won't touch them, just to make a point.
In the end all their precious "copyrighted manuals" will end up on torrents (like Sony's collection of Michael Jackson audio files).
In other words, D&M thinks that their products should NOT be fixed by DIY, only by their overpriced service reps.
The story is that the japanese headquartes ASKED the US branch to send that threating letter the website in discussion (because was hosted on GoDaddy servers).
This changed drastically my oppinion about their products. I have 3 players and one receiver from Denon in my house. I was planning to buy more of them, but now I won't touch them, just to make a point.
In the end all their precious "copyrighted manuals" will end up on torrents (like Sony's collection of Michael Jackson audio files).
Last edited:
You have heard of copyright infringement right? These manuals can usually be purchased from the manufacturer, if not always for an entirely reasonable price. They are entitled to control the distribution of their IP and to get paid for their work
Posting links to such material here is a violation of forum policy.
Posting links to such material here is a violation of forum policy.I am NOT posting links here. I am just disgusted and practice my free speach rights.
Did you ever saw "free schematics" that came with a TV/radio? I am old enough to remember. They used to give those free before the "greed age". It was done to boost the customer confidence in a specific brand.
Something like the datasheets of the components that Denon used to build their products - datasheets that the manufacturers give away FREE! They use US free publications but they claim copyright on the results.
Also, when Denon/Marantz designed those circuits, did they pay any royalty to the countless people that discovered math laws, electricity laws (ohm law, kirchoff law, etc), electronics theory of feedback, filters, Nyquist law, AC transformation and conversion to DC, the guys who invented the paint they use, the treatment of metal and so on?
No, they didn't. Those are ideas that is supposely ok to use for free because... the corporations paid politicians to say so in a law.
For what I care, legally one cannot copyright previous work done by others. So Denon cannot copyright schematics that have major elements that where published previously in TI/AD/BB/NJM datasheets or in any highscool or college electronics manuals. I think 99% of their schematics can be traced to others.
But they have the money and lawyers and politicians working for them.
Did you ever saw "free schematics" that came with a TV/radio? I am old enough to remember. They used to give those free before the "greed age". It was done to boost the customer confidence in a specific brand.
Something like the datasheets of the components that Denon used to build their products - datasheets that the manufacturers give away FREE! They use US free publications but they claim copyright on the results.
Also, when Denon/Marantz designed those circuits, did they pay any royalty to the countless people that discovered math laws, electricity laws (ohm law, kirchoff law, etc), electronics theory of feedback, filters, Nyquist law, AC transformation and conversion to DC, the guys who invented the paint they use, the treatment of metal and so on?
No, they didn't. Those are ideas that is supposely ok to use for free because... the corporations paid politicians to say so in a law.
For what I care, legally one cannot copyright previous work done by others. So Denon cannot copyright schematics that have major elements that where published previously in TI/AD/BB/NJM datasheets or in any highscool or college electronics manuals. I think 99% of their schematics can be traced to others.
But they have the money and lawyers and politicians working for them.
Last edited:
I try to collect SMs for all pieces of electronics I have at home. Getting a service manual (for free or paid) for the intended purpose (servicing the item) is different from copying or replicating the item, this infringing intellectual properties. In the past you got a SM for every radio and TV set.
SRO, your understanding of copyright law is severely flawed. But that's irrelevant- those companies own the copyrights to their manuals. You may not like their choice of how to sell or otherwise distribute their property, but the point is: it's theirs, not yours. "Free speech" has nothing to do with it, this is property rights.
How is "their" when 99% of the schematic was published by others previously? For example TI published the PCM1791 schematic and recomended schematic with OpAmp filters before Denon put it in their player. Denon didn't change that. NJR published the OpAmp datasheet for their OpAmps before Denon use them. AD published their Blackfin documentation before was included in Denon products. Their engineers used in design electric laws discovered by others and didn't pay a penny. So on and so forth.
Sure, Denon might choose to show those on a SM, but that doesn't give them the copyright.
If I publish a a book containing the story "Five Weeks in a Balloon" it doesn't make it mine, even if Jules Verne's copyright expired.
The only real "intelectual propriety" is the Alpha processing algorithm. And that is not found in service manual.
I know that they have the lawyers and judges in their pocket. But I can voice my disgust - that was the free speech that I am talking about.
All in all, I am done with them.
Sure, Denon might choose to show those on a SM, but that doesn't give them the copyright.
If I publish a a book containing the story "Five Weeks in a Balloon" it doesn't make it mine, even if Jules Verne's copyright expired.
The only real "intelectual propriety" is the Alpha processing algorithm. And that is not found in service manual.
I know that they have the lawyers and judges in their pocket. But I can voice my disgust - that was the free speech that I am talking about.
All in all, I am done with them.
Last edited:
If the ones that wrote those books just copy the information from somewhere else, there is no "intelectual propriety":
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.pdf :
"(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material."
But that is not the point. The point is that nice people help others. With advices or with schematics. D&M could choose to help DIY instead of harping on those service manuals. DIY brought more publicity and helped manufacturing companies more than billions spend on advertisments.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.pdf :
"(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material."
But that is not the point. The point is that nice people help others. With advices or with schematics. D&M could choose to help DIY instead of harping on those service manuals. DIY brought more publicity and helped manufacturing companies more than billions spend on advertisments.
Last edited:
But that's not what a manual is. Any "copied" (in the copyright sense) information is from other copyrighted documents (e.g., internal documentation, photos) owned by the copyright holder.
Your understanding of copyright seems to be quite flawed, but thanks for the link.
No problem at all unless it's a link to something objectionable (e.g., a torrent site offering copyrighted material without permission).
The words in a book don't have to be invented by the author in order to claim copyright. It is the arrangement of those words which constitutes the book. In a similar way, an arrangement of what may be perfectly standard circuits is copyright. All that is necessary is that the arrangement constitutes a 'work' i.e it is not completely trivial. It doesn't have to be complicated or clever.
Hiding, or charging large amounts for, a circuit diagram may be annoying but it is perfectly legal and moral. You are free to do what you like with your own property. They have the same rights over their property, both physical and intellectual.
Piracy (i.e. theft) is now so commonplace that some people seem to regard it as a right.
Hiding, or charging large amounts for, a circuit diagram may be annoying but it is perfectly legal and moral. You are free to do what you like with your own property. They have the same rights over their property, both physical and intellectual.
Piracy (i.e. theft) is now so commonplace that some people seem to regard it as a right.
Only the drawing of it is copyrightable, not the circuit itself. Yes, every single one of those disclaimers that we see so often ("This circuit is for personal use only and may not be used for commercial purposes") is completely invalid unless the circuit is patented.
Maybe a difference here between US and EU law. My understanding (possibly a bit out of date) is that redrawing a circuit would still be a copyright infringement. Most circuits could not be patented in Europe, as they are insufficiently novel. We tend to use copyright in places where the US uses patents - software is an example.
Well, I guess if a manual says that 1+1=3, then yes, it's "new art".
If a manual say that 1+1=2, then that informantion cannot be copyrighted per US law (and other countries I would guess).
US law doesn not allow copyright of schematics that are mere copies of others work either. Denon cannot copyright schematics that where published by TI before.
Sure, if the circuit is completelly new, never published by others, one can choose to patent the device that incorporates that circuit. It cannot patent the ideea behind that circuit thou (in US ideeas cannot be patented):
If a manual say that 1+1=2, then that informantion cannot be copyrighted per US law (and other countries I would guess).
US law doesn not allow copyright of schematics that are mere copies of others work either. Denon cannot copyright schematics that where published by TI before.
Sure, if the circuit is completelly new, never published by others, one can choose to patent the device that incorporates that circuit. It cannot patent the ideea behind that circuit thou (in US ideeas cannot be patented):
Last edited:
Denon couldn't if it's the drawing published by TI. it isn't.
Information cannot be copyrighted. Text and pictures can be.
It could be if the copy closely follows the original drawing. If there are any changes or substantial added elements, then it's not a simple redrawing and it's a new work.
I don't understand what you try to say.
You say that Denon uses a substantially different connection of the PCM1791 that was not described by TI? That they used a substantial connection of the OpAmps that was not shown in TI datasheet or OpAmp manufacturer datasheet or is not present in any previously published work about OpAmps? Denon used a new way of transforming AC into DC that is not published anywhere else?
All those elements cannot be copyrighted, even if included in a "service manual".
You say that Denon uses a substantially different connection of the PCM1791 that was not described by TI? That they used a substantial connection of the OpAmps that was not shown in TI datasheet or OpAmp manufacturer datasheet or is not present in any previously published work about OpAmps? Denon used a new way of transforming AC into DC that is not published anywhere else?
All those elements cannot be copyrighted, even if included in a "service manual".
I'm trying to say that you don't understand the basics of copyright law- or you do and you're desperately trying to rationalize your desire to steal.
Information cannot be copyrighted. Text and pictures can be.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.