Careful in interpretation of Copyright versus Intellectual Property rights
To show or demonstrate a repair, a "Copyrighted" item needs to be shown - but the repair itself uses the abilities of the person repairing the radio - The Intellectual(s) - but the process to show it - is the repair itself using the knowledge gleaned from the technology under the Copyright, but the Person showing the procedure has rights to the Intellectual Property (the process to fix it) - that if shown in publicly free viewing sites - is their choice to waive any income based upon the procedure - and let the site itself reap the benefits of the effort the person did to fix the radio by traffic viewing the sties repository of these efforts.
People get paid to fix radios - but if the person offering the repair procedure - publishes this publicly, anyone has access and can utilize that information versus having someone paid to fix this problem - whom has the right to be compensated - is pretty straightforward - because the responsibility of the repair and any costs are placed on the owner of the Copyrighted equipment needing repair.
Whether they try to fix it or they provide the process to help the person they selected to fix it get paid for the effort - the person offering the repair procedure "don't" lose, the person paid to do the work is getting compensated for their effort. The efficiency of the repair then becomes common knowledge that can be applied to the greater good for anyone willing to work in doing the effort can apply their standards to be compensated or not.
To me, this goes back to the Proprietary versus Common Principles.
Proprietary means ownership.
Common often occurs or shared.
The person willing to "share" is not always compensated monetarily - as a choice they made.
Proprietary means they own it, so they become the RESPONSIBLE party that if this gets published, they must be willing to accept that they lost "ownership" of the information because thru their efforts they produced and published for their own - but have to accept the issue of showing such information and the responsibility of ownership is no longer theirs for showing it.
We'd never have TV let alone have watched TV - if "copyright" and Intellectual Property rights we not given a level of lateral space in which they're allowed to show something for others to see, without recourse.
I can't lay claim to "offset" .
But then too, we are using information that was previously published and has now become archived in repositories - but for someone to lay claim to it even though the manufacturing of said technology was completed long time ago - it's like the game of marbles - someone comes along and tries to gather them all up and has to work for that aquisition of mateirals as compensation.
Once you get your head around the game of marbles, does the current events and chronology of history show that many whom benefited from the game of playing marbles - had to stop playing the game - they simply ran out of product to play with - but that doesn't stop the marbles from ever existing - just one person wants it all - so you have to play to win it back.
It is a general notice to everyone in an effort to stop "things" from happening.
