e-Flight Manuals

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:07:33 GMT, Dave in San Diego
wrote:

Charlie Wolf wrote in
:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:09:46 GMT, "billwg" wrote:


"Jeroen Wenting" jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl wrote in message
...
Sorry, but sharing copyrighted information is a criminal offense.

Nonsense. Copyright violations are not criminal unless they are done
for financial gain or exceed personal copying of more than $1000 worth
of material in any 180 period. No one in the history of the country has
been prosecuted for non-commercial copying. While that irks the RIAA,
it is still a fact of life.
I've never heard that "loose" an interpretation of the copyright laws,
however....

many of manuals he's after (military) are For Official Use Only (FOUO)
and aren't for general dissemenation to anyone asking for them on the
internet.
Regards,

Read all about it he
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...sup_01_17.html
My point is - we are talking about 2 different subjects here. The
portion of USC you cited is unrelated to DoD regulations concerning
classified material --- and before you say it, FOUO IS a valid
classification of DoD documents. It's right above UNCLAS.
Regards,


Dave in San Diego

Charlie Wolf wrote in
:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:07:33 GMT, Dave in San Diego
wrote:

Charlie Wolf wrote in
m:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:09:46 GMT, "billwg" wrote:


"Jeroen Wenting" jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl wrote in
message ...
Sorry, but sharing copyrighted information is a criminal offense.

Nonsense. Copyright violations are not criminal unless they are done
for financial gain or exceed personal copying of more than $1000 worth
of material in any 180 period. No one in the history of the country
has been prosecuted for non-commercial copying. While that irks the
RIAA, it is still a fact of life.
I've never heard that "loose" an interpretation of the copyright laws,
however....

many of manuals he's after (military) are For Official Use Only (FOUO)
and aren't for general dissemenation to anyone asking for them on the
internet.
Regards,

Read all about it he
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...sup_01_17.html
My point is - we are talking about 2 different subjects here. The
portion of USC you cited is unrelated to DoD regulations concerning
classified material --- and before you say it, FOUO IS a valid
classification of DoD documents. It's right above UNCLAS.
Regards,

You are absolutely correct, we are talking about two things here, and FOUO
is a valid classification. My intent was to provide some correct info to
Jeroen Wenting and billwg regarding the copyright law so they might be
better informed the next time they want to inject that into a discussion.
Sorry if I caused any further confusion.