But there may be no payment information required if you press the free trial button.
There's almost always a charge for those kinds of sites and it is almost always difficult to stop the payments.
You have totally control of the payments if you pay with a credit card.
You do.
But it can be a pain to stop them without having to call your card company and it can be even more of a pain if your card details are used illegally on other sites before of after you've stopped the payment.
But by all means do enter you card number if you think it prudent.
Finally it seems a stretch to call that manual a "stolen good". Looks more like a digitalized copy just by the file size. How do you know it is "stolen" ?
IANAL
The manual is intellectual property and copyright.
Probably the manual was released to whoever originally leaked it under an NDA or other agreement - a license in other words.
If there is an NDA that comes with the manual. We don't know under which conditions the manual was distributed.
No so it just as unreasonable to assume it was not legally shared, given that Nikon has a distribution method for sharing content they wish to share with the public.
I'd be happy to retract this if you can show me one public link to one nikon service manual.
Probably it was mis-appropriated by an employee - that would probably be theft or the employers property or of Nikons (it is not unusual for property or one legal entity to be loaned to another for some purpose or other - think of hiring, leasing etc).
"Probably" is the key word. We don't know for sure.
No we don't know for sure.
We don't know it's legal either do we.
Like when we download a movie off the internet, there's a very slight possibility the CEO of the company that made it released it intentionally when he was drunk or angry at the board.
It's not likely but it's possible.
I do know however that it is illegal where i live to down load content you know or ought to know is stolen.
Just like it is to pick up property off the street you know or ought to know is stolen.
But assuming that was not the case, assuming it was appropriated by the principal of the entity that signed that agreement with Nikon then it would be a breach of license.
Do we know if there is an NDA to start with ?
No but we don't know there an NDA that's why I said "Probably the manual was released to whoever originally leaked it under an NDA"
Bu we don't know there wasn't an NDA either, do we?
And we do know that Nikon service manuals are hard to come by, despite the internet making most documents easy to come buy and we do know that Nikon controls their channel carefully.
And we have no reason to believe that the manual was distributed publicly legally do we?
Where I live it would probably be a criminal offense to to distribute copyright material in breach of it's license and would certainly be if you knew that doing so was in breach of copyright and you did it on purpose.
It's unethical in all countries and criminal in most, including the Netherlands. It would be very easy for Nikon to stop the distribution of copyrighted material in that country.
Just the same as when someone takes an image and uses it without the photographers permission or a song and uses it without the right holders permission etc etc.
It would be the same if we knew for sure that the manual is distributed in violation of, say, an NDA. That is not the issue I've brought up.
What is the issue you've bought up?
If that is not the issue, then why not tell us what the issue actually is, so we can understand your point and if desirable discuss it?
So yes by the common, current use of the word and possibly by the legal definition the manual is likely stolen.
"Likely", but we're not sure. So may be we should tone down the accusations a bit ? Instead of "pay for stolen goods", it could be "I'd like to be sure that the document is distributed legally before buying and will not make any purchase until the vendor states it explicitly" ?
I'm not accusing or judging anyone. You have me mixed up with someone else.
Why don't you speak to them about what they said?
I'm explaining why someone else suggested that something is likely illegal and not really a stretch.
Given the current state of the law and the amount of coverage IP and copyright law and licensing has had in the last 10 years or so on the internet generally and in the photography sphere specifically it would be a stretch not to assume that a Nikon service manual wasn't technically stolen.
--
Thierry - posted as regular forum member
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/9762497@N05
http://www.jtpix.com.au
