quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Basically, there is nothing inlife that is free.

And I am more than happy to pay for reloading manuals that do provide good information.

Sadly, a lot of the newermanuals are rediculously conservative.

Conservative, sadly, because they are lawyer proofing the data. And, unfortunately, a lot of what you are paying for are lawyer fees.

quote:

Originally posted by Lost Sheep:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Its IP. It has value to you. The lawyers also must be fed. But don't worry. The OWS crowd feels about the same about all your property as well.

I had to think about it for a while. There are so many different words that "IP" and "OWS" could represent.

Is it "Intellectual Property"?

Is it "Occupy Wall Street"

I try to remember whenever I use an acronym, shorhand terms or abbreviations that are the lease bit obscure to spell out the term the first time the the short version is used.

Thanks for reading.

Lost Sheep

Howdy. Actually I did define IP in the post prior. Ows has but one meaning in the case of subverted ownership by "should be free" context

Taking some thing for nothing when not yours is theft or communism. Your call

I would love for everything to be free - manuals, rifles, scopes, components, gasoline, food, etc. Maybe if we all worked for free it would work out?

Jeff, you can call it what ever you like but the costs of developing the manual were paid for with the bullets you bought. That's how R and D works. You add R and D, material, production costs, markting and labor to figure your costs then add your desired profit to that.

There are plenty of comapanies that provide data for their products when yo buy them. There are plaenty that post their data online you don't eben have to buy their product to look at it. Why? Because after you look at it you buy their product. Some might call that "free" advertising. Oh wait, you said nothing is free.

Perhaps "free" load data on the internet makes money for powder/bullet companies. If a company makes bullets or powder you have to test it, so the data is produces no matter what. Now a company has to get this information out to the buying public. Back in the day, before the internet" a company had to publish a book to get the information out. This cost money. Now the powder/bullet company not only has to sell powder and bullets but now books.

Lets say that in order for me to innovate as a company and get more customers, I can give my customers the information to better use my products. Lets face it I already have a webpage putting a useful information on it doesn't cost more.

It's PR, its good marketing, and it's not free you either bought some powder or some bullets. The only people hurt by online manuals are the book publishers.

It is cool on this site to bash "free" but it is not free if I have bought a companies product because of what I found for "free" on the internet, it is cheap advertisement. I have information to use X companies stuff, I don't what to blow myself up so thank this company by buying their product.

Customer service is not intellectual property.

The data may be free but the cost of paper, covers, binding is most certainly not free.

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:

quote:

Originally posted by CJWinWA:
I don’t mind paying for reloading manuals, what I do mind is that the Speer manual is printed in China. My copy of Speer #8was printed in Portland, Oregon, #14 came from China. All the other American manuals I have were printed in the United States, including Hornady #9.

That's what happens when the government imposes a minimum wage and excessive taxes. The cost of paper goes up, the cost of shipping goes up, the cost of printing and binding goes up. Even the cost of labor goes up because the workers must be paid above and beyond what they would normally need to be paid because everything those workers buy has become unnecessarily bloated in price with excessive fees and taxes.

Would you have bought Hornady #14 if it cost twice the price just for the satisfaction of knowing it was made in the USA? Few people would. You can't blame a business for doing what it must to produce products at reasonable prices. Successful USA businesses are not successful because of the government. They are successful in spite of the government. Hornady just made a good business decision.

I recently purchased Hornady #9 and Nosler #7; both printed in the US, and paid less for them than I did the Speer manual printed in China. In this case your argument isn’t valid.

BTW, there is no Hornady #14, let me know when it comes out.

quote:

The company that makes bullet Y or powder X does product testing to determine how it works and what is or isn't safe. We pay R and D cost when we buy the product. So when you buy the product the data has already been paid for. It would be like saying you can buy a tool but have to pay an extra charge for the instructions.

Any company making a product has loads of internal data from which they draw to create their products, they are under no obligation to have to give it to you whether or not you feel you have already paid for it in the cost of the item. The reloading book is simply another product the bullet or powder company produces. It can;t be comprehensive due to the variables we have in reloading ammo. I talked to Swift in Reno and asked them when their next book would be out and the guy said something to the effect of "When I can get all the data compiled and in one place." I suppose you would have said "Well, you've R&Ded the bullet just give me the data!" A-Frames and Scirrocos have been around for a while, the R&D is pretty low nowadays but Swift feel compelled to create a published book using new powders for example and sell that information to the public.

Your tool/instruction example sounds plausible, but in fact it's not. The bullet's (tool) function is flying and expanding in substance. How you get that tool to work(instructions), with the help of another persons (powder company) product is a whole different beast. FOr example.... let's take .308 caliber bullets...how many cartridges use a .308 caliber bullet? I'll save you the time, LOTS! Now, when a bullet company, say Nosler is testing a Partition, do you think (during BULLET R&D) they care what case it comes from? No! They want the bullet going x fps, so they use whatever works best for them to achieve that, they don't grab cases from each cartridge that shoots a .308 caliber bullet and develop the bullet in EACH case, that's silly. Their goal is to see how the bullet performs, not how to make it go X FPS from a certain cartridge. Now, once they get the bullet doing what they want at various fps, and are happy with it, then they have to go back and go through each different cartridge that can use that same .308 caliber bullet (whose R&D is finished) and do load tests to see how it performs for EACH caliber. Tell me...how is the development of EACH load in EACH caliber already paid for by bullet R&D? Who pays for the technicians time to load each case to test, who pays for the bullets that are shot, who pays for the powder, primers? It's a specious argument. Go buy a book or don't go buy a book, but valet park the high horse that somehow a company owes YOU something without paying for it, because you have not paid for that information via bullet R&D.

quote:

Originally posted by Sam:
Jeff, you can call it what ever you like but the costs of developing the manual were paid for with the bullets you bought. That's how R and D works. You add R and D, material, production costs, markting and labor to figure your costs then add your desired profit to that.

There are plenty of comapanies that provide data for their products when yo buy them. There are plaenty that post their data online you don't eben have to buy their product to look at it. Why? Because after you look at it you buy their product. Some might call that "free" advertising. Oh wait, you said nothing is free.

However the product and risk belong to them. It ain't yours. It ain't public property or public domain
No more than the dollars in your pocket being too anyone but you. Or the guns you own


But it's obvious that some of you don't comprehend private property vs public Domain

In fact the OWS and copy left people even have the concept that you own it.

I own a lathe. Shouldn't the maker provide me a master machinist training manual for free? Of course not. And not everyone that uses a hammer knows how to use it. Some people use framing hammers for finish work.

In short. The data belongs to the publisher. Many give it away free some don't. If you don't want to pay, Use the free ones but don't communist out and demand something for free that isn't.

I guess for some people become a moocher or looter is acceptable. Who is John Galt

Sam
It is obvious that you don't work as a knowledge worker
Doctors data fades. I bet you haven't been retrained in your job for at least two years. But I bet you want more money today for "data" already paid for than you made two years ago.

Many people wants raises and havent learned a single new thing.
Think that through

Good posts jeffeosso...

I suppose all those fly fishing guide books should be free to the purchaser of a single Royal Coachman given the OWS line of reasoning...after all, once someone learned that a pattern worked, is it not their sacred duty to share that information for nothing given the sale of a single fly? Else they are simply throwing an unusable 'tool' on the market...

i can't imagine reloading with my only source for data being the internet. I have no problem buying reloading manuals. Most of mine are purchased second hand.

Wow, Jeff, did I touch a nerve or something? Not that it makes a difference, but I work in military electronics. I'll let you decide on how much "knowledge" is in that.

As far as the original question, $30 for a rehash of the last several versions of someones manual with the same stories and one new bullet isn't worth it.

Ah, Sam. There is a huge difference in you having our not having value in someone else's IP and the concept that THEIR IP "should" be free. Forcing a person to give their property to the allegorical you for free. This is called theft.

As for hitting a nerve, yep when people begin nationalizing property for the greater good. Well there is a steep slope.

So. Do you expect a raise for the same skills you learned 20 years ago?

If you don't want it then don't buy it. But to take by force rather than commerce then you are headed towards the destruction of the concept of personal property which leads to the fall of all rights. Just like that idiot zumbo declaring there was no sporting us for AR rifles

So by saying that something should be free (as several companies provide) you have determined that I think we should make them provide it for free. Two different things. You are the first person to say anything about nationalizing property.

I get paid fairly well for the 27 years of experience I have. If I hadn't learned any new equipment I'd still be using tubes not computers(commonly called continuing education for most of the civilian certifications). But since you mention it a PN junction hasn't changed much in that time just gotten a lot smaller.

Saying something should be free is not the same as taking it. As you said "If you don't want it don't buy it." I've bought three manuals including the manual in my first kit. Would I buy another manual, maybe. Berger has one now. In the past they would provide info if they had it. Now that they have a manual they may not.

PS. Hodgdon's free data is more accurate than the Sierra data I paid for.

Just a little hint to everybody: Whether or not it was "free", you paid for it. One way or another. Intro to biz 101 tells you that you've got to make at least the total overhead of your operation. How you divide it up makes no difference. If you're not making your overhead, you're out of business. No matter how you parse things around.
If you think there isn't a price on everything that's "free", you probably voted for Barry.

Wasbeeman is half right. Even when you pay for it, you are paying a small portion for that which was stolen. Those who take things for free are getting it from those who pay for it. If that "getting" is not authorized, it is stealing.

When a bullet manufacturer chooses to share load data it "owns" (produced in its laboratory, on its dime) for free or not for free it is the manufacturer's choice. If you usurp that choice, it is theft.

Lost Sheep

I recall a story about an artist who, when asked how he could charge high prices for a work of art that only took him a few hours of actual labor to produce, replied, "You are not paying for the hours in this work. You are paying for 30 years of experience required to make it."

I recall another story. A baker noticed a man who, every morning, would stand near the bakery, smiling and taking great, deep breaths of the flavorful odors coming from the ovens. He resented the freeloader's enjoyment of the smells and took him to court, wanting payment for the "goods" the baker provided.

The judge agreed. The baker deserved payment. He asked the freeloader if he had any money and ordered him to shake it and allowed the baker to listen to the jingle.

The judge declared the Baker paid in full.

Lost Sheep

If you think powder manufacturers should provide load data to all for free, you COULD pass a law saying that. Of course, powder would cost a lot more than it does now, but the load data would be free to all. This is not actually unreasonable. Those who use the powder more would pay in proportion to the amount of powder they consume. Kind of like the gas tax for using gasoline and diesel on the highways.

You could do that. Or you could let the market rule. The founding fathers made a decision when the Copyright clause of the Constitution of the United States in 1787 was included "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." They might have included researchers and scientists in with the authors and inventors.

Said before in this thread, if you are not allowed to sell your intellectual property (IP) for value, people will cease to produce a lot of it. Musicians will still play (because their artistry compels them), but they will produce few recordings.

Would ballisticians still test? Will Alliant still produce new and better powders? If they cannot sell the IP, they will either not produce or include the price in the product.

Of course, maybe a powder tax for ballistic science is being suggested in place of paying for loading data.

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

Lost Sheep

quote:

Originally posted by Sam:
So by saying that something should be free (as several companies provide) you have determined that I think we should make them provide it for free. Two different things.

Is it? You vote dont you?

A friend of mine recentlty said to me, and I quote; "You know what, I want health care, do you know how much I pay in taxes"?

I disagree with him too..

When you buy bulllets, you pay for bullets! You dont like it, dont buy the bullets..

When you pay taxes, you arent making a house payment or buying groceries..

This thread makes me think of some pics in a couple old Speer manuals that have several pics of ballisticians doing their job. There is one of an enclosed testing range, others of testing being done outdoors, pics of labs with expensive equipment. WE didnt invest in all of these things and hire people to do those jobs. Speer did! And you can bet that at that time it was a VERY substantial investment!

Have you worked up a load for a single rifle latley? Try doing it for every caliber in production, and dont forget to include velocities, trajectories, bullet expansion characteristics, pressures etc. and then being told you should pass your findings on for nothing..

They have every right to charge for the friuts of their labor. And this subject isnt really about bullets or manuals. It is about Liberty vs Marxist class warfare.. There is no private property in Communisim. But private property is essential to freedom.

Be carefull when wishing away the freedoms of your fellow countrymen. What goes around comes around.

Well said guys. Intellectual property is property. Failure to respect someone else's property degrades your claims to your own

Wstrnhnter, you have proven my point. The owner invested in the equipment. The investment was made at his or their risk. They have been paid been back by the product you purchased.

It is up to the manufacturer to decide how they are going to charge for their data. On way or the other it's paid for, either when you buy the manual or buy the product that gives you the data. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

I've read a lot of words attributed to my posts that were no where near what I said or think.

Final post, life's to short to be misconstrued by a bunch of people who'd rather argue politics than talk guns. Free data exists, it's called free advertising. (Remember what I said, there's no such thing as a free lunch.)

I know Sam. You are not trying to be political, you just want to talk reloading and such. But the truth is that the original post IS a political question.

"It is up to the manufacturer to decide how they are going to charge for their data."

We are in complete agreement on that point..

Happy shooting..

Is there anyone, ever, who has worked up load data from a ballistics lab.....who does not get revenue from anything other than that load data?

(I imagine there must be somewhere.)

Should they share (or allow the sharing) of the fruits of their labor without recompense?

Even if there is no such organization or person; Who has the authority to say how Speer, Sierra, Lyman, Hornady, Alliant or the cottage industry bullet caster/seller who produces no ballistic data should construct their business model?

The morality of taking free information (my cousin used to claim he was "liberatin' watermelons" when he helped himself to his neighbor's field with his Cub Scout knife) aside. The Capitalist system that is our model for freedom demands the producer of the information choose and control how he or she is compensated.

Lost Sheep

quote:

Originally posted by Blacktailer:
By the time the component folks do the testing, compiling and printing, I don't have a problem with them charging for their manuals. I have the option of purchasing or not depending if I am using their components or if there are updates that I want. With the advent of info on the web, manuals are probably going to be less and less common.
...

yep

of course not! it's called MARKET. technically, it's also an artistic work with copyright protections attaching. it cost them something to make so why shouldn't it cost the market buyer something for the information? barring that one could always borrow a copy of someone else's bought and paid for reloading manual!

quote:

Originally posted by JBoutfishn:
NOTHING should be free. My reason is simple. If you get something for free, someone else is paying for it.

That would be the same person who buys the product. We all pay for the free online Hodgdon manual each time we buy their propellant.

As I tell my kids ALL the time, there ain't nothin free in this life but the righteousness of Christ. Period.

I haven't bothered to read all the previous responses to this question. You asked for individual opinions, so I'll give mine.

1. Regaredless what government and schools try to teach us, NOTHING IS FREE.

2. No one HAS to buy ANY loading data from the component manufacturers. That is individual choice. People who do not make components also put together manuals and sell them. There is also lots of free data from other shooters through a large variety of sources, too.

3. Some of us know how to develop our own data without buying manuals and know the advantages of doing so.

4. So, why should those of us who don't want the manual of any particular manufacturer be forced to pay for ALL the available manuals, even the ones we don't buy or use, through increased cost of components?

No one tests, compiles, writes and prints manuals free of charge for the component manufacturers, so someone HAS to pay for all that! Shouldn't the people who want their data and use it, pay for it?