(OT) firmware, manual, schematics, etc re copyright comments

First thing a discussion copyright probably does belong on this list since people are discussing making copies of manuals, scematics, eproms, paper tapes, etc to preserve and keep old systems running and all these fall under copyright and reproducing them is a infringe of copyright without the author's consent even if it is done for non-commercial purposes under current US law. ... now my rant ... Companies generally are not interested in maintaining their old copyrights and preserving them, in the vast majority of cases old works are is only maintained by dedicated people like hobbyists, scholars or librarians. This is why "hard copyrights" like we have with the DMCA with encryption and digital restrictions entering firmware and severe criminal or civil penalties for *any* violation, without the character of the infringement even being considered. This is very wrong. Before 1973 the owners of a copyright had to actively acquire it by first claiming copyright on the work and second by registering their copyright to keep it active after the initial 28 years. Before the "No Electronic Theft Act" in 1996(7?) it was not considered infringement to reproduce works as long as the work was not being actively maintained i.e. publicly available and the reproduction was not done for profit. So if I had a copy of a manual or schematic for an old piece of equipment I was free to make a copy and give it to you as long as I did not profit directly from the act. There is no logical reason that many technically infringing uses of abandoned copyrights should be perfectly legal as long as it is not for profit. If your argument to refute this is that the author has a right control of the work, I would say that this right is not absolute since it is legal for me to make a dub of a CD for my car, to sing happy birthday (still copyrighted) at a birthday party in my home, and to record TV off the air without having to pay royalties to anyone. I see it as once an author makes a works publicly available, additional non-commercial uses should fall into fair use if the author does not continue making the work available to the public to prevent useful works My point is that anybody trying to maintain/restore an old piece of equipment is almost certainly violating copyrights if they have had to rely on information reproduced by anybody other than the copyright holder. Thus under US law, as it stands, you are as guilty as anybody who has use NAPSTER, KAZA, etc to download music, and if you want to continue your hobby you should write your representative to get the laws changed to put some reasonable exclusions to infringement. ::sigh:: OK, I have that off my chest for now. Regards, Paul