nobody knows
if a contract is enforcable until the two parties dispute each other and a court makes a ruling.
But sometimes we’re able to make
a very good prediction of what the outcome will be, and that’s all I’m talking about here.
Yes
but the license to build one boat per set of plans sold is not unreasonable, is not unconscienciable or immoral, so my prediction is that it would be enforceable.
More interesting citations:
What makes a contract?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracts
http://www.quicken.com/cms/viewers/article/small_business/40193
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/EEF92280-11CF-4910-8DECF67369130844/111/277/257/ART/
This one seems particularly interesting, although I haven’t read it in its entirety
http://www.lex2k.org/shrinkwrap/overview.pdf
The problem with your prediction
is that you’re treating a question of intellectual property law as if it were purely a question of contract law. IP is kind of weird and interesting stuff. I think at least part of the question depends on whether the designer actually owns the right to control copying of the boat design itself, as opposed to the drawings of the boat design. If he does, then the one boat proviso in the license agreement is probably enforceable. But if he doesn’t, then it probably isn’t, because he’s purporting to sell something he doesn’t own. As noted above, my sense is that the designer probably does not own the design itself (unless it’s a recent design registered under the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act).
What’s interesting is that this looks to me like a situation where the law (if it is what I kind of think it is) doesn’t work very well. It’s perfectly reasonable to think that sellers of small-boat plans ought to be able to enforce a one boat per set of plans rule, since the market for the work is small enough that you’re likely to end up without many designers if plans can be passed around freely in clubs, etc. But that doesn’t mean the law actually works that way.
Architectural Plans & software
There was (I recall reading - can’t find it now) a case where the plans were copied and a huse built from them. While under construction, the origional architect saw the house (and saw the plans, photographed them) and basically sued: even though the plans had a different name on them, he demonstrated, quite easily, that it was his design. All the proceeds/profits from the house went to the origional architect.
What does that mean, here? I dunno.
Copyright protects a creative work: the plans are a set of instructions to duplicate the creative work (i.e. the plans themselves are not directly copyrighted). The copyright holder is giving permission (through a license, and a set of plans) to duplicate that work.
WRT software: software can reside on a server and not necesarily be copied. Likewise, plans can be copied and a boat still be made.The point I was making, is that the software license dictates what you can do with it (software falls under the copyright act) as defined by the copyright holder.
Which comes back to what is reasonable: it is probably not reasonable that the license for the software stipulates that you may not copy it off the media it’s provided with.
Is it reasonable to stipulate that you may only build one boat from one set of plans?
Good questions
– Last Updated: May-24-05 5:11 PM EST –
IIRC, there's some fairly esoteric doctrine about when "copying" happens in the software context. I don't know how that fits with licensing issues, nor do I know how much software-specific copyright law there is (if any; I'm thinking of DMCA, etc.).
In the house example you found, it's not clear from your account whether the infringement was the house itself or the plans for the house. Do you have a link to the decision itself? I'd be interested (yes, I'm a little geeky about some of this stuff). [Edited to add: sorry, just re-read your post and noticed that you'd said you couldn't locate it now.]
But I think I've about reached the limit of what I can add to this discussion without finding an expert or, God forbid, doing some actual research, so I think I'll stop here. I appreciate your thoughts. This really is interesting stuff.
And the bottom line is still that the decent thing to do is talk to the designer and, if he says you need to buy another set of plans to build another boat, do it.
I don’t want involved here but
… why can’t we have “the law of the contract” (the parties strike their bargain) with material that just happens to also be subject to copyright?
I’m going to have a hard time
answering that coherently without doing a bunch more work, and posting at much greater length, than makes sense here, but the basic issue has to do with not being able to sell something you don’t own. If the boat designer has intellectual property rights only in the design itself–a set of drawings–and not in physical objects constructed from those drawings, then I don’t think a contract provision that tries to leverage the ownership of intellectual property rights in the design to control over the construction of physical objects is likely to be enforceable. But I’m way out of my area here, and I’d love to have somebody who actually knows this stuff come along and explain it to us.
some books have plans in them
and allow you to build as many as you wnat. It all depends on what the contract in that goes with the plan.
My opinion
I may have a different opinion than many, I do not object to the individual who purchased my plans building as many boats as they want from the set of plans they purchase. On the other hand, When I email a download for a set of plans I include the following statement: “intended for “one user” only. Transferring our patterns via any means for use by any individual other than the purchaser will be considered a violation of our copyright. Opening the file constitutes understanding and acceptance of this agreement.” When someone ‘gives’ (as they see it) a set of plans to a friend they are very simply stealing. Although they do not sell them, they prevent a sale which in principal is the same as stealing and they encouraged their friends to be dishonest. I do post plans (without dimensions) on the internet to encourage the first time builder by showing them exactly what’s involved. I’m fully aware that there are those who save the plans and build from them. But I’m willing to take that risk so that the novice can understand what they will be doing and to encourage them that they can successfully build a boat.
My goal is to introduce people to boat building. Offering a product that gives the first time builder confidence that they can actually build a boat while keeping the cost low enough that it will not prevent them from taking the step. While writing this I received the following email “Thank you so much for e-mailing these plans so quick. My husband has been wanting a boat for years, but they are so expensive. Now with these plans the cost will not be as much as buying one. When I call him and let him know they are here he will be so excited that I’m sure he will leave work early. Thank you again, Holly”. That is an example of my goal achieved.
I know it’s not a perfect world and a certain amount of ‘shoplifting’ takes place. Some people are honest, some aren’t and some never think. There are those that say “you only need to change it 10%”. That is like saying, “I’ll only steal 90% of the money in the bank and it’ll be OK”. If one person purchased my plans, changed them by 10% and gave them away on the internet. I would be out of business and the effort spent to develop and draw the plans would be lost. There also would be no one to offer often needed support. It would not be long before we who design would disappear and there would be nothing new. It’s all the same, plans, music, books, or software, take away our source of income and we will not be there. We may not do it for the money alone but we do deserve a return on our effort. People can split hairs anyway they want but it all comes down to knowing and doing what’s right.
Uncle John
talk about
the pot calling the kettle black!
Thanks for stepping in
with your view. Great website too. Much appreciated.
What about a library book?
If I check out a book on boat building and loft a set of plans from the book, then can build as many as I want if i keep checking out the book?
plans & ethics
I’ve built two boats, one a kit (Pygmy) and one from plans (a merganser). I’ve also paddled with another designer who sells plans and kits. All of these folks go out of their way to help out, answering questions etc. All of these arguments make me think about what is right (and wrong) with the world today. I guess I would think about it this way. How would you feel if you went paddling with the designer of a boat that you built, but didn’t pay for the plans? My original plans for the Merganser were $75 (I think, I could be wrong). Three years later, I still love the boat. The cost of the plans is long forgotten. If it were me, I would pay. You’re not making someone rich (most of these companies donate $$, plans, boats, etc. to organizations protecting the environment anyway).
Ok, interesting point
I was thinking about software licensing agreements, and how they may or may not be similar.
Software is IP, subject to copyright, is sold with licensong provisions that restrict the number of copies the purchaser is allowed to install and use, but it is difficult for the author to actually control and limit the number of copies installed and used from any set of disks.
Software companies have mostly been successful in enforcing their license agreements.
Another similar area would be counterfeit “designer goods”, Louis Viton bags, Rolex watches and such that I can buy on the street for $10. There is no copyright here, the only thing is the “design”. The legitimate designers have recently been successful in the courts in slowing down the trade in counterfeits.
Hey, I can remember (not to long ago)
When I asked a simple question about flotation…
Nuff said?
Other than that, if you actually check history, I have only been a jerk in defense. I would post an opinion & a certain few would come back with personal attacks. Do a serious check… You will see what I am talking about. You will see that I give my opinion or experience about a topic with no harm nor foulf & someone would spout off. Then & only then would I come back at that. That is when it all starts.
I can even remember my first thread on p.net- A simple question, a simple reply, & some asshat jumps in. I won’t say who it was, but it starts with an “m”.
You have been one of those people a time or two, also.
Paddle easy,
Coffee
lol
It isn’t
what your say Coffee,it how you say it.
I guess in your mind you’re a victim.
Seems like everytime I’ve posted…
– Last Updated: May-25-05 8:36 AM EST –
but only by a certain handfull..............
Seems that after 4 years on p.net, people would realiz exactly that. And say to themselves... "Hmmmm, it is how he wrote it that sounds ______, but it is valid."
And then instead of being d*ckheads about it with a smarta$$ remark, they would actually answer the question.
But enough about that, this thread is about "ethics of one boat"! That is it! Not "plans & copyrights, using boat building as an example".
Paddle easy,
Coffee
Paddle easy,
Coffee
doesn’t count
Plans published in a book do not usually carry the one boat stipulation. They are published into the public domain. There may or may not be other conditions, depends on the book.