Online Ninja 250 Manual

[cyclepedia]

Subscription for an online manual for the Ninja EX250 (Pre 2008). This Kawasaki Ninja 250 manual that is not an illegal, pirated copy - more info at http://www.cyclepedia.com/kawasaki-e...service-guide/

[Alex]

Interesting, thanks!

[kayfouroh]

Anyone have any reviews on this?

I was thinking of paying for this, but I am not sure how much better it is than my service manual.

[djindia23]

hey guys i just got a Service manual from this guy here in NY.... he's selling the manual shipped for like 30 or 36 bucks... wanted me to let you guys know.... please email him if you need it for the 250 or any other bike....

eggmac217@yahoo.com

[kkim]

If anyone is interested in a pre 08 service manual, PM me. I have a few left.

[watcanido]

Is the 08 and 09 manual different from each other?

[OldGuy]

Originally Posted by watcanido

Is the 08 and 09 manual different from each other?

Doubt if much changed but it would be documented in a supplement.

[kkim]

Originally Posted by watcanido

Is the 08 and 09 manual different from each other?

do you have an 08 manual?

[djindia23]

i dont think the 08 and 09 manuals are different...

[Sailariel]

Originally Posted by djindia23

i dont think the 08 and 09 manuals are different...

They are identical

[cyclepedia]

Cyclepedia.com has just introduced an Online Ninja 500 manual. You can find more information about it at http://www.cyclepedia.com/kawasaki-e...ervice-manual/

The manual features really easy to follow instructions and photos. Almost anyone can use this manual and save money on their own repairs. Free tech support for subscribers too!

[cyclepedia]

I wanted to let you guys know that by popular request we have started work on a 2008-2010 Ninja 250 manual. Thanks for all the emails requesting this newer manual. You can sign up for a notification / read more about it on the Cyclepedia website at:

http://www.cyclepedia.com/2008-2010-...ervice-manual/

Ride safe.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by drsketch

If you own the bike, the you own rights to the manual regardless what format it is in....

Uhhh...actually, no. Copyright law is pretty explicit on this. A manual or any other document is an independent work product and fully subject to copyright laws. A manufacturer or dealer may elect to give you a copy of a document with your purchase if they so choose, but even then the transfer of the document in no way implies any transfer of publication or duplication rights other than what may be covered under fair use doctrines.

And most assuredly, owning a document in one format does not give any rights of ownership in other formats. For instance, say you own a physical book, then download an E-book version from someone other than the authorized publisher or distributor. That's a violation of copyright and the copy you have is pirated, even if it was a copy of the original legitimate E-book version and even though you own a version of the book already.

I hang with several authors and these kinds of discussions come up quite frequently.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Uhhh...actually, no. Copyright law is pretty explicit on this. A manual or any other document is an independent work product and fully subject to copyright laws. A manufacturer or dealer may elect to give you a copy of a document with your purchase if they so choose, but even then the transfer of the document in no way implies any transfer of publication or duplication rights other than what may be covered under fair use doctrines.

And most assuredly, owning a document in one format does not give any rights of ownership in other formats. For instance, say you own a physical book, then download an E-book version from someone other than the authorized publisher or distributor. That's a violation of copyright and the copy you have is pirated, even if it was a copy of the original legitimate E-book version and even though you own a version of the book already.

I hang with several authors and these kinds of discussions come up quite frequently.

Except that it very well may be considered "Fair Use." Copyright holders do not want such things tested in courts, which is why litigation is rare when the infringement does not involve commercial gain. The format argument is irrelevant. For example, you can scan and make a PDF yourself, as long as you don't sell it. That is inarguably fair use and exercising First Sale Doctrine and your right to a backup.

The Home Recording Act of America makes it legal to share audio recording your don't own the copyright to as long as you don't profit, and similar "fair use" considerations may apply to other copyrighted works. Seriously. Why is audio considered so different?

[Alex]

Mike -

I'm not sure that you're reading this situation correctly. The OP has a company that produces service manuals. They are not from Kawasaki. Just like Haynes, Chilton, or any other separate company. To my knowledge, none of those folks are required to pay royalties to anyone for publishing books on a topic, but they likely do have to get permission from Kawasaki at some point to use their name and trademarks in print.

I have no reason to believe that this online company does or does not get the same assurances from Kawasaki that the other manual creators do, I just don't know and neither does anyone else. What we can be sure of is that their opinion is correct, that freely copied copyrighted service manuals, produced by Kawasaki, are by the letter and spirit of the law, illegal.

There have been any number of questions about this on online forums and even enthusiast magazines for years. What it comes down to is it's highly unlikely any manufacturer would make a stink about some sharing of those manuals from time to time, as the profit center is the bike, and not trying to make huge margins on manuals afterwards. And more manuals mean more people working on their bikes anyway. But it's still not a great idea for us to rub Kawi's or any other manufacturer's noses in it, because if push came to shove they would have a right to enforce copyright as they see fit. That's the reason that these electronic manuals aren't traded openly on sites like this.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by CZroe

Except that it very well may be considered "Fair Use." Copyright holders do not want such things tested in courts, which is why litigation is rare when the infringement does not involve commercial gain. The format argument is irrelevant. For example, you can scan and make a PDF yourself, as long as you don't sell it. That is inarguably fair use and exercising First Sale Doctrine and your right to a backup.

Making a copy of a CD or songs thereof for personal use would be considered fair use. AFAIK scanning a printed document into an electronic format, though in itself probably not considered infringement, is almost always only done as a means to illegally distribute bootleg copies of the work, and as such is merely one possibly legal step in a series of illegal ones. I know for a fact that my author friends routinely win copyright infringement actions against people creating and distributing unauthorized electronic versions of their printed works.

Originally Posted by CZroe

The Home Recording Act of America makes it legal to share audio recording your don't own the copyright to as long as you don't profit, and similar "fair use" considerations may apply to other copyrighted works. Seriously. Why is audio considered so different?

Sounds like you need to pursue a test case. Turn yourself in for bootlegging written works and then you'll have standing to pursue the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. Personally, I'd like to see some stuffing knocked out of the copyright laws, especially the extended time of protection. But until then, downloading or distributing unauthorized copies in any format of written works is still considered illegal.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by drsketch

It's called the RIAA brother, and their billions in the pockets of our senators.

Look a little closer. I was pointing out that the Home Recording Act gives you MORE freedom with copyrighted audio, which is NOT something the RIAA allowed or influenced.

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Making a copy of a CD or songs thereof for personal use would be considered fair use. AFAIK scanning a printed document into an electronic format, though in itself probably not considered infringement, is almost always only done as a means to illegally distribute bootleg copies of the work, and as such is merely one possibly legal step in a series of illegal ones. I know for a fact that my author friends routinely win copyright infringement actions against people creating and distributing unauthorized electronic versions of their printed works.


Sounds like you need to pursue a test case. Turn yourself in for bootlegging written works and then you'll have standing to pursue the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. Personally, I'd like to see some stuffing knocked out of the copyright laws, especially the extended time of protection. But until then, downloading or distributing unauthorized copies in any format of written works is still considered illegal.

Yes, downloading and distributing audio is illegal too, as determined by RIAA vs. Napster. The crux of the matter was that the annonymity and automation was not protected by Home Recording Act provisions, intended for person-to-person sharing and not offering en masse. HRA never applied to anything but audio in the first place and was probably meant to ensure that rare one-of-a-kind recordings still have value to someone who physically has them and can be archived/shared to preserve/prevent loss. As for making digital versions, there are MANY reasons. I use the PDF of my owners' manual all the time for searching. I can't find every page containing a specific word and jump right to them with the physical one. I can also have them all on my phone right next to instructions and DIY guides that rely on it for reference similar to having your CD on an MP3 player, laptop,or home entertainment center (having my CDs on my PS3 as ATRAC3 files does not demonstrate intent to distribute in any way). There is plenty of legitimate reason to make a personal-use-only fair use copy that doesn't involve distribution or even potential infringement.

As for copyright extentions... the government forgot that the laws, including the original limits, were also supposed to spur innovation for the consumer's sake as well. The ACTA treaty proves that they still haven't realized that, as it is done without the people's knowledge or consent for the pure benefit of the copyright holders. How is that of, by or for the people?! Our rights don't matter when they are the only ones getting any representation. It's why our right to a backup of software can be summarily tossed by Clinton's DMCA.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by CZroe

...Clinton's DMCA.

A point of clarification: The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 2281 by Republican North Carolina Representative Howard Coble on July 29, 1997, run through the Republican-dominated House Judiciary Committee chaired by Republican Henry J. Hyde and the Republican-dominated House Commerce Committee chaired by Republican Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., then passed by voice vote in the Republican-dominated House on August 4, 1998. It then went to the Republican-dominated Senate where it was passed just weeks later on September 17, 1998. All Clinton did was sign it, he had nothing to do with it's form or structure. This was most emphatically not "Clinton's DMCA."

There have been some attempts to roll back portions of the DMCA such as H. R. 107 (D) and H. R. 1201 (R) but to date the media industry has been successful at buying, err..., influencing the House and Senate enough to block such attempts.

But lets not let this get political as, based on my observation, political threads rapidly deteriorate into unsocial behavior and name calling, resulting in a sore loss of comity.

I think we can mostly all agree that the DMCA was, and still is, a real piece of junk legislation designed mainly to benefit a commercial industry at the expense of citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital...%27_Rights_Act
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comity

[KimR]

Back to the topic. If you have a copy of the owner's manual, all well and good. But I'm pretty sure you did not buy a service manual with the bike and it was not included in the price. you can order these separately from KAwi or other vendors or order an after-market service and repair manual from suppliers like Haynes, Childers, etc.

[adouglas]

Originally Posted by drsketch

If you own the bike, the you own rights to the manual regardless what format it is in....

and no thanks, I don't want to pay a site for access to something I already have rights to.

Uh, yeah. Head on down to your local Kawi dealer, march on up to the parts counter and DEMAND the service manual you own the rights to!

Let us know how that works out for ya.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by adouglas

Uh, yeah. Head on down to your local Kawi dealer, march on up to the parts counter and DEMAND the service manual you own the rights to!

Let us know how that works out for ya.

No kidding. I wonder what judges think as they convict people that tried using this excuse. You know what they say about bliss...

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

A point of clarification: The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 2281 by Republican North Carolina Representative Howard Coble on July 29, 1997, run through the Republican-dominated House Judiciary Committee chaired by Republican Henry J. Hyde and the Republican-dominated House Commerce Committee chaired by Republican Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., then passed by voice vote in the Republican-dominated House on August 4, 1998. It then went to the Republican-dominated Senate where it was passed just weeks later on September 17, 1998. All Clinton did was sign it, he had nothing to do with it's form or structure. This was most emphatically not "Clinton's DMCA."

There have been some attempts to roll back portions of the DMCA such as H. R. 107 (D) and H. R. 1201 (R) but to date the media industry has been successful at buying, err..., influencing the House and Senate enough to block such attempts.

But lets not let this get political as, based on my observation, political threads rapidly deteriorate into unsocial behavior and name calling, resulting in a sore loss of comity.

Partisan politics has nothing to do with it. My mention of Clinton wasn't meant to be partisan... it was meant to point to the administration most directly responsible which could have championed an effective resistance to it but, instead, whole-heartedly endorsed and enacted it. ACTA has been in the works over two completely different administrations (opposing political parties) who seemed to agree completely on the goal and the need to keep it secret from the general public, so this isn't about partisan politics. That said, the DMCA had a unanimous vote in the US Senate, which goes to show that it doesn't matter what political party was "in power" there either. The ones who would have been most effective in fighting it certainly would have been those in the Executive branch who ultimately signed it into law, so they hold much of the blame and earn the criticism regardless of their party affiliation.

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

I think we can mostly all agree that the DMCA was, and still is, a real piece of junk legislation designed mainly to benefit a commercial industry at the expense of citizens.

Darn tootin'!