[QUOTE]wkerriganoh. Stop arguing. You arent speaking from experience ok? Ask CLC. Ask Pygmy. Ask Nick Schade. Ask Glen-L. Ask any naval architect.
ONE SET OF PLANS. ONE BOAT. Ask for permission and they may let you build another or they may ask for a fee but ASK FOR PERMISSION.[QOUTE]
________________________________________________
We are not talking about "navy ships" here. We are talking about one/two person crafts.
______________________________________________
[QUOTE]Coffee. Be quiet. Your giving me a headache and not adding anything of value with your nonsense about hammocks and Uncle Johns skiff. If you had actually built the Uncle John skiff you would understand why you have all those options and that they don't mean you can build 3 different boats out of one set of plans.
Matter of fact, I'm trying to quit smoking and getting sick of both of you so both of you stop it. You are only arguing for the sake of arguing.
I want both of you to go buy a set of plans and build a boat. Then come back and share with the rest of us[QOUTE]
______________________________________________
I am giving you a headache? You have given me a headache with your big city, environmentalist, know everything, model citizen bullsh*t since the day you stumbled upon this site.
You obviously CAN NOT read... My hammock association to the conversation is just that. The topic is about "plans & copyrights" his insertion about the boat is an example of point he is making. The hammock insertion is an example of point for the topic of "plans & copyrights.
Oh, AND... I had built the Pirogue (skiff... whatever), so your argument ends there.
Congrats on the trying to quit smoking.. I have been smoke free since February... GOOD LUCK (sincerely)!!!
Not arguing for the sake of it... Just making a factual point.
I got the plans, AND built the boat AND came back and shared... And it doesn't matter... You all still giver the same old BULLSH*T! You say experience holds fact & truth... Then accept what you theorize....
Don’t let ‘em get to ya DavidH Some folks just thrive on these silly arguments, even when they (clearly) don’t have a leg to stand on. Don’t let the hot air get cha down!
…and congrats on the quitting smokin’ thing David! Old bad habits are hard to admit to – and even harder to deal with. Good for you for putting that one behind you! It took me years to quit myself, so I do know about that one (it’s a bitch!). It’s hard, but worth it! Randall
Well, I think I offered more than that And “one plan, one boat” repeated over and over doesn’t amount to much of an argument either. I’ll refrain from calling it a “childish” one.
As stimulating, amusing and perplexing (and at times irrelevant) as some of these responses have been, it’s really very simple.
Set aside copyright law, intellectual property rights, the hull protection act and all the other crap. What it comes down to is what is the RIGHT thing to do?
If it were me, I’d contact Pygmy and ask them what they would charge for building another boat from the plans. It’s worth 30, 40 or 50 bucks to keep my integrity and know that I am helping keep a good boat designer in business. They may even say no charge, go ahead and build it. All the better for that so I could build in clear conscience.
IMHO, everyone’s getting a bit too carried away trying figure out a way to get somethin for nothin at the expense of a small businessman (and their own integrity). Give him his due, then build away.
One plan, one boat One plan, one boat is what this discussion is about. I don’t understand why you’re being so adamant about refusing to recognize that there are clearly defined conditions on the purchase of the plans.
There’s absolutely nothing childish about respecting the terms of the agreement of sale.
What is childish however, is that yourself and others don’t have enough respect to acknowledge that the plan designer deserves to be properly compensated for the use of the plans.
But you know what? If I choose to use plans that have a one plan, one boat policy, I’ll respect the provision and the designer, and build my boat with a clear conscience.
License worth the small price I purchased a set of plans for a Redfish King from Joe Greenley at Redfish Kayak. This set of plans cost $90.00. The plans include full size station templates for cutting out the forms and a set of instructions. I have the right to build one kayak from this set of plans. I can, when my daughter is ready for a more sophisticated design then her Pungo 100, build another King from the strongback and stations I have already built. The deal is I have to send Joe Greenley a $35.00 fee for the license to another King. I feel this fee is more then fair and will gladly pay it. I know I could get away with building as many Kings as I want on my strongback but I would not feel right about it. After all, the King is Joe’s design and he is a great guy, why would I want to steal from him. It’s only $35.00 were talking about anyway, even if I had to buy another full set of plans at $90.00 it would be worth the price for a design I know is one of the finest kayaks around.
If you want to design your own Kayak with the pygmy design as your insperation that sounds perfectly exceptable. I would suggest designing your own kayak using a software program such as Ross Leidy’s Kayak Foundry
Ross kindly provides this software free of charge although a donation would be a nice way to say thank you. In this way, you can really say I designed and built this kayak myself. And thats a very good thing.
Cites??? Putting something into an agreement doesn’t necessarily make it legally enforceable. Some of us on this thread are legitimately curious about what the relevant law is, not just what the designers want it to be or what the morally correct way of handling the situation is. In that spirit, could you point us to anything to back up your contention that the law is as you say it is?
Anyone comes thourgh SE Ohio Drop me a line if you liek and we’ll got for a paddle. If you’re interested, we can talk about copyright and its boundaries in the ABSTRACT and not as it applies to this or any other specific case. Sorry for offending folks to the point where they feel the need to call me childish, dishonest, or tell me to be quiet. I can’t help it. Ideas interest me. And the IDEA of intellectual property rights, and their boundaries, fascinates me. Would folks be less agitated if I told them that if I ever DID buy plans for a boat I WOULD in fact honor the agreement with the designer, but I’d also like to buy him a cup of coffee and talk about all the possible ramifications of the restriction? That I’ve never illegally downloaded a song from the internet? That I always give due credit to the words and ideas of other authors in my own work?
FWIW, I didn’t think you were off-base at all, and I share your interest in the questions you raised. I’m not sure why folks felt the need to personalize it.
Unfortunately some people are not interested in ‘doing the right thing’ (obvious beyond this bulletin board, also), that’s why we have copyright laws, Patents, contracts and licenses.
These items often trip up the people who do want to do the right thing (as the origional poster appears to be aware of).
There’s no reason why not While unable to find a specific case with respect to boats (I found quite a few with regards to architectural plans), if we assume that the boat designer holds a copyright (which, often only applies if he has built the boat), why does it seem unreasonable for the copyright holder to limit construction of that design to one license one boat? He may give away or sell such licenses as he sees fit.
I don’t see how that is unreasonable (and is not unusual for plans of any kind), so why would it not be enforcable?
(This is rather similar to software - you purchase a license to use it on one computer, or whatever the fine print in the license says. Could you argue that that is unreasonable?)
Assuming it’s not reasonable, how many boats should you be allowed to build? The license (one set of plans, one boat) does not prohibit selling the boat for profit; would you be allowed to sell such boats?
I may be completely wrong about this, but my vague recollection was that copyright protected only the plans themselves, not what you build from them, and that there was a long-standing problem getting effective IP protection for boat designs. What did you find about architectural plans? That's a pretty similar issue in most respects, although it may be that the need for a certain number of physical copies of the drawings--for building permit, etc.--makes it harder to build more than once from a single set of drawings.
Edited to add: what's different about software is that you can't use it on more than one computer without copying the software itself. You can build more than one boat from a set of drawings without copying the drawings.