e-Flight Manuals

[RaVeNCiO]

Hi everybody I'm searching someone for exchange e-flight manuals, here
put my list of my e-FM, if you want someone, not doupt in contact with
me:


Airbus A318/19/20/21 about 2000 pages, also QRH and Training Manual
Boeing 707 + QRH
Boeing 717-200 5 Manuals (FMS, Performances, System Description,
Operating Procedure and QRH)
Boeing 727 + QRH
Boeing 737-200 + QRH
Boeing 737-300 -400 -500 + QRH
Boeing 737BBJ (Boeing Bussiness Jet) + QRH
Boeing 737NG (-600 -700 -800 -900) + QRH
Boeing 747-200 + QRH
Boeing 747-400 + QRH
Boeing 757-200PW + QRH
Boeing 757-200RR + QRH
Boeing 767-300PW + QRH <---- All in the same file
Boeing 767-300RR + QRH <---- All in the same file
Boeing 777-200 -200ER -300 -300ER + QRH <---- All in the same file
Boeing MD-10 4 Manuals (FMS, System Description, Operating Procedure
and QRH)
Boeing MD-11 4 Manuals (FMS, System Description, Operating Procedure
and QRH)
Boeing MD-80 4 Manuals (FMS, System Description, Operating Procedure
and QRH)
Boeing MD-90 4 Manuals (FMS, System Description, Operating Procedure
and QRH)
(All this Manuals are from Boeing)
A-10 1st Chapter
Aero L-39
AH-64 Apache
BF-109 and Assambly Manual
CH-47 Chinook
F-18A/B/C/D/E/F Hornet and Super Hornets NATOPS
FW-190
Hawker Hurricane
Il-2 Sturmovick
Il-28 Beagle
il-76
Ju-87 Stuka
Mig-21PF; Mig-21UM
Mig-23UB
Mig-29UT; Mig-29UM
Mosquito
OH-58 Kiowa
P-38 Lightning
P-39 Airacobra
P-40 Warhawk
P-51 Mustang III
S-3 Viking Weapon and Electronic Systems
Supermarine Spitfire
T-34C Turbo Mentor
Tu-154B
Hawker Typhoon
UH-60 Black Hawk
SR-71 Blackbird
ATR-42
Mirage 2000C
Su-27 Flanker
Bell 412
An-2
An-26


RaVeN


P.S: Excuse my english
P.S: Send me an email for contact with me

[Jeroen Wenting]

Sorry, but sharing copyrighted information is a criminal offense.

[billwg]

"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.

[Charlie Wolf]

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,

>
>

[Dave in San Diego]

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 here:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17.html

Dave in San Diego

[Dave in San Diego]

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,

Also note: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_
00000105----000-.html

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 105

§ 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works

Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the
United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded
from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment,
bequest, or otherwise.

[Charlie Wolf]

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 here:
>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_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

[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
:
>>
>>> 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 here:
>>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_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.

[billwg]

"Dave in San Diego" > wrote in message
. 30...
> 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 here:
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17.html
>
Exactly:

(a) Criminal Infringement.- Any person who infringes a copyright
willfully either-
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means,
during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or
more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than
$1,000,

[Dave in San Diego]

"billwg" > wrote in news:S%Ocf.1326$Xx4.202
@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

>
> "Dave in San Diego" > wrote in message
> . 30...
>> 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 here:
>> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17.html
>>
> Exactly:
>
> (a) Criminal Infringement.- Any person who infringes a copyright
> willfully either-
> (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
> (2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means,
> during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or
> more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than
> $1,000,

My point, which I failed to make obvious, was that it's not copyrighted
material anyway.

TITLE 17, CHAPTER 1

§ 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works

Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the
United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded
from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment,
bequest, or otherwise.

Dave in San Diego