MEngr, while your intention may be good, it appears to me in my humble opinion, you are also extending your 'area of expertise' to an area it may not exist within, as I -know- _I_ am not an attorney, but you may be giving legal opinions, where you should have none, and referring the legal opinions to the proper authority might be a better idea and offer more expertise and show that you are aware of the limits of your own expertise.
MEngr is completely correct in that the manufacturer's local representative/ authorized dealer is the correct place most everyone should turn to first, for information and publications about your forklifts and equipment. you may have to pay, but that is not an excuse to circumvent the proper and legal channels for information.
1st, MEngr's assumption and accusation of 'forkliftbobby' that there may be some intent derived from a request for an e-mail address is over the top, rather rude, and not supported by any posting in this thread, that I can see, currently. Perhaps a going back and editing of ones own posts (like this forum allows) creates confusion some times, and requires those who responded in later posts to also edit their replies? perhaps if MEngr was to care to edit out his accusations, forkliftbobby and I would go back and fix our replies 'to show all due respect'.
2nd your rather affirmative statement of "I would remind you that you are only allowed to make one backup copy. To digitally copy and transmit any publication is a violation of international laws" is patently incorrect and spreading F.U.D. (fear, uncertainty, and doubt), by providing incorrect information. You totally ignore and announce as 'does not exist' (which it most certainly does exist) the right of "fair use" of copyrighted [and other intellectual property rights] material. While these rights are not as clearly understood or delineated as we might like, they make this an incorrect statement; "Exceptions to the rule of law are if one receives written permission from the publisher or authorize payment of per copy fee has been made" as these are NOT the -ONLY- exceptions, regardless of what ever 'warning' is published, nor does "authorize payment of per copy fee has been made" in any manner permit unauthorized (by the copyright holder) republication of copyrighted material, which someone may be confused about from your post, and in fact, a "authorize payment of per copy fee has been made" would be exactly what would be against Intellectual Property law (in the USA), as I understand it.
Just as most of us have seen the signs telling truck drivers they are responsible for chalking the truck, and we know the truth is it is the forklift operator who is the final responsibility to insure the truck is properly chalked, signs posted or published warnings saying one may only use the information if 'one receives written permission from the publisher', in truth there are other reasonable and legal exceptions.
You and us can repeat, word for word, what a manual says in some paragraph (which is copying, digitally, and transmitting the copyrighted words) and not be considered as infringing on the copyright, because we have 'fair use' of those words. Of course, coping page after page and providing them to the world and it's dog would be incorrect, for many reasons, and fear of legal action should only be one reason we would not ever do that.
We do have the right to discuss things protected by IP laws, intelligently and in private.
Can you tell us more about how "the UniCarrier group" would be more involved than Crown Corp (since you don't mention Crown Corp)?

BTW, MEngr, I wanted to thank you for other help you have provided on these forums, while I didn't ask the original question, your answer did help me out. (thanx)