 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, James Powell writes:
>
> > If you did this to one of my GoB sets, and I find out about it, I _will_ take
> > you to small claims court.
>
> Really. So if I look at the Guild of Bricksmith page, and copy one of your
> designs, and place it in my living room, you're going to take me to court?
> Good luck not getting laughed at by the judge. You do realise that you have to
> prove some kind of damages to win an award, even in an American court in the
> 90's and 2000's, right? I mean, I know it doesn't seem that way lately, but >it
> is still true.
I think what James is saying here is that if you copy his design outright
and sell it. THIS breaks copyright laws, and is comperable to selling
bootlegged CDs.
> How exactly is this damaging you? What makes you think you have a right to an
> award? Do you think that TLC would do the same thing if I built a copy of the
> Yellow Castle out of other bricks? What if I built one of the new Life on Mars
> mechs out of parts from one or more of the other Life on Mars sets and played
> with that?
You would be fine, again, using this for your own enjoyment, but not to
sell. I would bet my right arm that TLG would sue, in fact, they are suing
clonebrands in the China/Japan area for copying TLG trademarked items. It
seems that you were interperating James' stance all wrong.
> Do you think you're going to sue LEGO if someone uses this vaporware kit
> designer to build something that resembles one of your models?
>
> > On my page, you will find (if
> > you dig enough) a lamppost, which is free. Why? Because I don't think I
> > could
> > make money selling it. Therefore, I feel that it is good to let the community
> > use it for free.
>
> How magnanimous of you. This member of the community thanks you from the
> bottom of his heart.
>
> > Fine. I am not going to cry over you coming up with your own designs. I wish
> > you _the absolute best_ in designing for yourself. But, I am sure you have
> > taken some ideas from elsewhere, from Lego designs, from the web, from meeting
> > people and seeing what they have done...but, if you want what I have thought
> > up, you have to _pay_ for it in one way or another, at least if I feel
> > reasonable in charging for it.
>
> That's absolutely ludicrous. I wish *you* the best of luck in getting people
> to pay for your designs, but frankly, if you're going to post pictures of your
> creations to the web, you can expect that people are going to look at them,
And what you just said is totally ludicrous! The GOB have made mucho money
on their fine sets. Look on EBAY, over $200 for a beautiful street-car. Or
look at Blackened Brick Custom Sets, beautiful sets, SOLD OUT!!!
> and
> if people are going to look at them, they're going to encorporate them into
> their own experience, and if they do *that*, consciously or unconsciously at
> some point in the future they are likely to do something that is inspired by
> that. Are you really suggesting that you're going to get letigious over it?
Inspired is fine, but blatent copying FOR A PROFIT is wrong!
> Are you high?
>
> This goes back to the same old debate sparked in the lugnet.build,mecha group
> when someone threw a tantrum over people borrowing ideas from his design. If
> you're going to share those pictures, you can expect people to learn from them
> and even copy them. Most of us feel flattered when people do that.
>
> FUT lugnet.general, because this no longer involves LEGO Direct, and I can't
> think of anywhere else to put it.
>
> eric
I don't mean to seem defensive, I know this isn't my fight, but IMHO James
is in the right with his comments.
-John Rudy
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, John Rudy writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, James Powell writes:
>
>
> I don't mean to seem defensive, I know this isn't my fight, but IMHO James
> is in the right with his comments.
Only if you include your modification about selling it.
BTW, where does the law stand if I buy a legitimate set of plans for a set.
I then put together 10 copies of the set out of loose bricks I own and sell
them. I'm I in the wrong? Is this similar to blue prints for homes?
Steve Martin
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> Only if you include your modification about selling it.
>
> BTW, where does the law stand if I buy a legitimate set of plans for a set.
> I then put together 10 copies of the set out of loose bricks I own and sell
> them. I'm I in the wrong? Is this similar to blue prints for homes?
>
> Steve Martin
The same as doing it with software. You own the rights (in my case) to make
unlimited copies for personal use. You can sell the instructions (with or
without the bricks) but if you do so, you must destroy all copies in your
possession or transfer them to the new owner(singular, not multiple). I don't
_think_ other people would buy multi copies of a set that I design, unless I
can beat the Lego price point. In the case of my smaller train sets, as it now
stands, I _do_ beat the lego price point for the pieces contained in the sets.
(it is 14.99 USD for the replacement for the coupler/wheels packs...and there
is more than $5 worth of other parts in either of my small kits)
James Powell, Bricksmith
http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?p=JamesP
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, John Rudy writes:
> I think what James is saying here is that if you copy his design outright
> and sell it. THIS breaks copyright laws, and is comperable to selling
> bootlegged CDs.
If that were what he was saying, I wouldn't care- in fact, I would agree with
him.
But it's not, and his response to me bears that out.
> > That's absolutely ludicrous. I wish *you* the best of luck in getting people
> > to pay for your designs, but frankly, if you're going to post pictures of
> > your
> > creations to the web, you can expect that people are going to look at them,
> And what you just said is totally ludicrous! The GOB have made mucho money
> on their fine sets. Look on EBAY, over $200 for a beautiful street-car. Or
> look at Blackened Brick Custom Sets, beautiful sets, SOLD OUT!!!
That's great for them. I really don't have a problem with these guys selling
the sets, especially because they often have hard-to-find parts in them, or
what have you. If Person A sells Person B something, that's fine, I don't
care.
If Person C sells something to Person B, and a large part of that is the fact
that it's based around a design that Person A came up with, I have a problem
with it regardless of whether or not Person A was trying to make a profit on
it.
But if I sit down to build something in my living room, Persons A-C can go #$@!
themselves. None of them get a say in what I build, or how I came upon the
idea of building it.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> But if I sit down to build something in my living room, Persons A-C can go
> #$@! themselves. None of them get a say in what I build, or how I came upon
> the idea of building it.
>
> eric
As long as you are not looking at a photo of my (for sale) work when you sit
down to build it, I don't care. Go ahead and copy the ideas from my
skyscraper, or my (very old) sketches of the RPO (you'd have to _dig_ to find a
copy, but it is released). I _don't care_ if you copy them. Copy _ideas_ from
my 'sets', if you want to. If you think my door arangement is neat, fine, copy
it. But, if I see something that bears a _striking_ resemblance to the
_entirety of my work_, I am going to rase a stink.
If you think I don't _know_ that my work owes bits to others, then fine...I
know that there are other trainheads who I have pinched ideas from. However,
in the same vein, I know others have pinched ideas from me, and I am _not_
worried about someone taking ideas from my models. I just want my IP to be
respected _with regards to something I sell_. Is there something wrong with
wanting the letter of the law to be obeyed?
James Powell, Bricksmith
http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?p=JamesP
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, James Powell writes:
> But, if I see something that bears a _striking_ resemblance to the
> _entirety of my work_, I am going to rase a stink.
As I said before, good luck with that. I don't think you really can
"copyright" an arrangement of someone else's patented materials. Let's keep
that in mind here, folks: we are *not* talking about music. Music is a
naturally occuring thing. LEGO doesn't spontaneously develop when you tune a
guitar correctly.
I say again, if I see something I like, I'll build it. If that means I see
something I like on the Guild of Bricksmiths site, and realise I have the
pieces to build it myself, I'll do so. I probably won't post pictures of it to
Lugnet (which is something I only do when I put something together I feel is
particularly cool), but I'll build it and play with it to my heart's content.
I *do* agree that someone dissecting your instructions, creating them as a
document and selling that document is wrong. But I think you're taking this
about three steps beyond the point of ridiculousness.
Actually, I'd be interested in hearing from the other members of the GoB on
their take on all of this.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> Actually, I'd be interested in hearing from the other members of the GoB on
> their take on all of this.
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=1371
Not an official GoB statement, just my opinion. I can dig up where I said
the same thing some time ago if you think it's helpful...
For those that want to give a go to copying my work for their own enjoyment,
there's lots of info at the www.miltontrainworks.com website. You can get
fairly close on some of the easier ones, but not as close on the more
recent, more complex ones. You will, at the end, have a copy, not the "Real
Thing", though.
I'll let my model quality or lack thereof speak for itself.
Larry Pieniazek, Bricksmith
Milton Train Works
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Actually, I'd be interested in hearing from the other members of the GoB on
> > their take on all of this.
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=1371
Eric's and James' statements aside, courts have already spelled out that
certain designs re: construction block toys are open season as far as
duplication or near duplication. MegaBloks and Block-Men are the current
offenders, of course, and their use of the 2x4 brick, nearly identical to
Lego's design, has been allowed by the courts. In addition, isn't there a
clone company (can't remember the name) that produces direct and obvious
knock-offs, even down to similar box designs and very similar if not
identical set designs? Their continued existence suggests that either Lego
has no case, that the case would be too costly to pursue, or that Lego
simply hasn't pursued it yet. At any rate, how are these different from
claims of copyright infringement in this case?
For that matter, let's say hypothetically that MegaBloks produces a clone
version of every Lego piece in existence. If I were to produce a duplicate
of James' model, substituting the Lego bricks with MegaBloks piece-by-piece,
would that still qualify as theft of intellectual property? The design
would be similar, of course, but the materials and implementation would be
fundamentally different. I don't know the answer; I'm honestly curious.
> For those that want to give a go to copying my work for their own enjoyment,
> there's lots of info at the www.miltontrainworks.com website. You can get
> fairly close on some of the easier ones, but not as close on the more
> recent, more complex ones. You will, at the end, have a copy, not the "Real
> Thing", though.
Ah, the "Setness of a Set" debate! My favorite!
> I'll let my model quality or lack thereof speak for itself.
Looking at some of your stuff makes me wish I was more into trains (and,
honestly, that I had a little more green to spend).
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.general, James Powell writes:
>
> > But, if I see something that bears a _striking_ resemblance to the
> > _entirety of my work_, I am going to rase a stink.
>
> As I said before, good luck with that. I don't think you really can
> "copyright" an arrangement of someone else's patented materials. Let's keep
> that in mind here, folks: we are *not* talking about music. Music is a
> naturally occuring thing. LEGO doesn't spontaneously develop when you tune a
> guitar correctly.
>
> I say again, if I see something I like, I'll build it. If that means I see
> something I like on the Guild of Bricksmiths site, and realise I have the
> pieces to build it myself, I'll do so. I probably won't post pictures of it to
> Lugnet (which is something I only do when I put something together I feel is
> particularly cool), but I'll build it and play with it to my heart's content.
Are you saying you would not post the pictures as you want to keep your
copying antics secret, or because we’d not be interested?
>
> I *do* agree that someone dissecting your instructions, creating them as a
> document and selling that document is wrong. But I think you're taking this
> about three steps beyond the point of ridiculousness.
The only problem I have with people copyrighting their own designs is that
we have all most all benefited from LEGO not doing just that - witness
Brickshelf. But I accept that AFOLs may have the right to copyright their
work, and I also accept that they may not have designed the models to start
with without thinking they could copyright the end result.
>
> Actually, I'd be interested in hearing from the other members of the GoB on
> their take on all of this.
What an unfortunate acronym.
Scott A
>
> eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Scott A wrote:
> Are you saying you would not post the pictures as you want to keep your
> copying antics secret, or because we’d not be interested?
I think it would be kept secret because it would bring out a lot of bad blood.
I mean, come on...if you want one of my sets, buy it. It's not like I am
selling them for a excessive amount, when you start looking at the parts prices
I have paid to collect the parts, I don't think many people could go out and
buy the pieces for the cost of the entire set.
> >
> > I *do* agree that someone dissecting your instructions, creating them as a
> > document and selling that document is wrong. But I think you're taking this
> > about three steps beyond the point of ridiculousness.
>
> The only problem I have with people copyrighting their own designs is that
> we have all most all benefited from LEGO not doing just that - witness
> Brickshelf. But I accept that AFOLs may have the right to copyright their
> work, and I also accept that they may not have designed the models to start
> with without thinking they could copyright the end result.
>
>
No. The Lego instructions _are_ copywrited. However, TLC has _allowed_ the
use of the instructions in the manor of Brickshelf. I'm sure if you went and
took a TLC set, and tried selling it (like you could for a profit) with copied
instructions, they would come down on you like a ton of bricks. This is what I
am mostly saying...that if you take my ideas, I will get upset, and take
apropriate action. This action will be consistant to the limits of the law,
whatever they are here in Canada. If those actions are just telling someone
via Email that they shouldn't be copying something for free, and that's it,
fine...but I am _not_ going to say go copy my (for sale) sets for free, because
they are _my_ designs. If you had spent the time building the set, and
expected some (very meger, let me tell you, when you work out the time
involved) compensation for your work, would you get upset?
James Powell
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, James Powell writes:
> Scott A wrote:
>
> > Are you saying you would not post the pictures as you want to keep your
> > copying antics secret, or because we’d not be interested?
>
> I think it would be kept secret because it would bring out a lot of bad blood.
No, as I said before, out of simple disinterest. If I build a copy of
something someone else built, what is the point of discussing it? What purpose
could discussing it possibly serve? What would I gain as the poster, and what
would people reading my post gain as readers? Nothing! They're not seeing a
new model, they aren't seeing new building techniques, etc etc etc.
> I mean, come on...if you want one of my sets, buy it. It's not like I am
> selling them for a excessive amount, when you start looking at the parts
> prices
> I have paid to collect the parts, I don't think many people could go out and
> buy the pieces for the cost of the entire set.
But let's say I don't want your set. I don't want to buy the pieces you've
collected. I want to use the pieces I already have to build my own copy.
You're saying you'd be upset about that?
Do you realise that according to Larry, at least two other members of the Guild
of Bricksmiths disagree with you on that point?
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> But let's say I don't want your set. I don't want to buy the pieces you've
> collected. I want to use the pieces I already have to build my own copy.
>
> You're saying you'd be upset about that?
No. I would be upset if you went and copied the entire set from the images
provided to help sell the set on my web page. (see below)
> Do you realise that according to Larry, at least two other members of the • Guild
> of Bricksmiths disagree with you on that point?
Yes, I do understand that other members do not feel exactly the same. I would
be quite willing to sell a set of my plans to people...frankly, if you want a
set of colour printed instructions, I am going to seek around 1/3rd of the
price of the set, but I am willing to sell them without the parts (since, yes,
you may well have the parts)
(and yes, I do consider that to be reasonable, given the price of colour
reproduction on a small scale- a buck a sheet quickly adds up, when the sum
total you are looking at is $15 or so)
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell writes:
>
> > But let's say I don't want your set. I don't want to buy the pieces you've
> > collected. I want to use the pieces I already have to build my own copy.
> >
> > You're saying you'd be upset about that?
>
> No. I would be upset if you went and copied the entire set from the images
> provided to help sell the set on my web page. (see below)
So, in other words, "yes".
1) Fred decides Fred likes your design, and would like to have it in his train
layout, in his basement. Fred has an extensive LEGO collection already,
though, and has all the parts he needs.
2) Fred sits down with a printout of your webpage, and recreates your set.
3) Fred places the set in his layout.
If you heard about this happening, you would be upset, according to what you've
said.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> But let's say I don't want your set. I don't want to buy the pieces you've
> collected. I want to use the pieces I already have to build my own copy.
>
> You're saying you'd be upset about that?
>
> Do you realise that according to Larry, at least two other members of
> the Guild of Bricksmiths disagree with you on that point?
Um, I'm not sure I disagree with James about anything. I'm mildly upset and
disappointed when someone chooses to copy my work, but I'm also kind of
flattered. Neither of those emotions translate into my actually *doing*
anything about it, as I've said before. Nor does it for James, as he's said
before.
James is being painted as taking a 'hard line' stance but I don't see it
that way at all. He and I are saying the same thing. If someone starts
knocking off his designs or mine, and making GoBs of money at it, we are
going to take whatever action is available and appropriate. But come on, we
do this mostly for fun, and partly to fund our hobby, just as part sellers
do. We aren't any of us making any huge sums of money and we are not in any
way shape or form a "threat" to TLC's market position and none of us is
delusional enough to think we are. There is no big threat of someone making
gobs of money at this.
Depending on how exactly TLC structures this "custom" model thing of theirs,
that can change. You can be sure that if it's structured properly I will be
submitting designs to it at a rapid clip (.005 royalty per brick maybe??).
On the other hand, have we increased the quality of models out there? I'd
like to think maybe a little. When I scan the lego-net I can find half a
dozen copies, imitations, knockoffs and designs inspired by my hopper (which
after all is one of the first kits released ever...) and most of those pages
acknowledge the inspiration. That's payment enough for me.
Have we opened people's eyes (even TLC's??) to what is possible with small
production run high end craftsman kits? Again, I'd like to think maybe a
little as well.
And we're not the only kit builders out there. Mechanised Brick, for
example, is not GoB affiliated. And that's fine. Let a hundred flowers bloom.
Frankly, if one reads the entire sub thread (in all its sprawling majesty,
across all three groups it's appeared in) I think most all of us (the
reasonable ones, anyway) are all actually saying the same thing, so I'm not
sure why we are in apparent disagreement!
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> James is being painted as taking a 'hard line' stance but I don't see it
> that way at all. He and I are saying the same thing. If someone starts
> knocking off his designs or mine, and making GoBs of money at it, we are
> going to take whatever action is available and appropriate.
This is where you're making your mistake:
We aren't talking about someone selling sets that resemble GoB sets.
We *are* talking about someone building the set FOR THEIR OWN USE without
buying it.
I agree completely that if someone copied one of your for-sale (or even
not-for-sale) designs, and began selling it as a set, you'd be well within your
rights to get upset, and even take legal action of some kind if you felt like
it.
I disagree that if someone simply feels they can build one of your sets without
buying it from you, and does so for their own enjoyment, there's any reason for
you to get upset.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> I disagree that if someone simply feels they can build one of your
> sets without buying it from you, and does so for their own enjoyment,
> there's any reason for you to get upset.
I can get upset if I want. I can be flattered if I want. I can be both at
the same time if I want. I can do so for any reason or no reason at all if I
want.
What I won't do (and what James won't do) is *do* anything about it, other
than perhaps present an economic analysis of why it may or may not be cost
effective (but then, when is anything we do about our hobby actually
rational from a purely economic point of view unless you assign a monetary
value to happiness) to copy our work in some cases.
I reiterate, I don't see any disagreement here. Everyone agrees on what's
reasonable and what isn't.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Um, I'm not sure I disagree with James about anything. I'm mildly upset and
> disappointed when someone chooses to copy my work, but I'm also kind of
> flattered. Neither of those emotions translate into my actually *doing*
> anything about it, as I've said before. Nor does it for James, as he's said
> before.
That's not how I read
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=1349
and James' later posts.
I think James is saying he will take you to court if you look at
a picture of his creation and try to build it out of your own bricks,
even if you don't then sell it. Later he backpedals slightly and
says he would try to resolve it out of court first.
Still, trying to forbid attempts by others to create a single copy
from a published picture for their own use is, IMHO, unusual and
unenforceable. Furthermore, I really doubt that that position
has any legal basis, but I would be interested to hear ideas about
this from someone who knows more about copyright law, both in
Canada and the USA and internationally.
/Eric McC/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
>
> > But let's say I don't want your set. I don't want to buy the pieces you've
> > collected. I want to use the pieces I already have to build my own copy.
> >
> > You're saying you'd be upset about that?
> >
> > Do you realise that according to Larry, at least two other members of
> > the Guild of Bricksmiths disagree with you on that point?
>
> Um, I'm not sure I disagree with James about anything. I'm mildly upset and
> disappointed when someone chooses to copy my work, but I'm also kind of
> flattered. Neither of those emotions translate into my actually *doing*
> anything about it, as I've said before. Nor does it for James, as he's said
> before.
Why does it disappoint you? I've spent all my working life trying to get
others to copy me.
>
> James is being painted as taking a 'hard line' stance but I don't see it
> that way at all. He and I are saying the same thing. If someone starts
> knocking off his designs or mine, and making GoBs of money at it, we are
> going to take whatever action is available and appropriate. But come on, we
> do this mostly for fun, and partly to fund our hobby, just as part sellers
> do. We aren't any of us making any huge sums of money and we are not in any
> way shape or form a "threat" to TLC's market position and none of us is
> delusional enough to think we are. There is no big threat of someone making
> gobs of money at this.
>
> Depending on how exactly TLC structures this "custom" model thing of theirs,
> that can change. You can be sure that if it's structured properly I will be
> submitting designs to it at a rapid clip (.005 royalty per brick maybe??).
I doubt LEGO will put GoBed sets in the shops. Or if they did, they'd dumb
them down a little - would have accept that at even 0.006 / brick?
>
> On the other hand, have we increased the quality of models out there? I'd
> like to think maybe a little. When I scan the lego-net I can find half a
> dozen copies, imitations, knockoffs and designs inspired by my hopper (which
> after all is one of the first kits released ever...) and most of those pages
> acknowledge the inspiration. That's payment enough for me.
But it also disappoints you?
>
> Have we opened people's eyes (even TLC's??) to what is possible with small
> production run high end craftsman kits? Again, I'd like to think maybe a
> little as well.
I imagine they could make better sets than they do - do you doubt that? But
what would they cost? How many would they sell? Remember LEGO are in this
for the $$.
Scott A
>
> And we're not the only kit builders out there. Mechanised Brick, for
> example, is not GoB affiliated. And that's fine. Let a hundred flowers bloom.
>
> Frankly, if one reads the entire sub thread (in all its sprawling majesty,
> across all three groups it's appeared in) I think most all of us (the
> reasonable ones, anyway) are all actually saying the same thing, so I'm not
> sure why we are in apparent disagreement!
>
> ++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
(cross-posting to o-t.debate, this falls in between the cracks, I think. If
it moves more Lego-wards, please drop .debate, vice versa if it moves more
off-topic. Thanks)
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
>
> > But let's say I don't want your set. I don't want to buy the pieces you've
> > collected. I want to use the pieces I already have to build my own copy.
> >
> > You're saying you'd be upset about that?
> >
> > Do you realise that according to Larry, at least two other members of
> > the Guild of Bricksmiths disagree with you on that point?
>
> Um, I'm not sure I disagree with James about anything. I'm mildly upset and
> disappointed when someone chooses to copy my work, but I'm also kind of
> flattered. Neither of those emotions translate into my actually *doing*
> anything about it, as I've said before. Nor does it for James, as he's said
> before.
OBDisclaimer: IMHO!
I don't know James' mind(1), or yours, but FWIW, I don't think that
everyone's agreeing here, as you've asserted in a few places.
I think, from what I've read here, that James Powell feels that someone who
sees his Bricksmith page, thinks "that's a cool model", and builds his own
instead of buying one from him, is doing him a disservice. This is (as far
as I can tell) regardless of wether the model stays hidden in a box in a
basement, has pictures posted of it, is used at a train show, or is sold on
street corners. It also appears to be regardless of wether or not James
gets the credit for the design.
I think that is a seriously excessive expectation. He's welcome to have it
- I'm not in the business of telling people what to think - but I don't
think it's realistic, "fair" or accurate.
As far as I'm concerned (and I *think*, as far as general opinion & law
regarding copyright reflects), what James is due is credit for the design.
Period. That's the risk that is run when something becomes public
knowledge. And some aspects of that design (pictures) are public knowledge.
If I work backwards from that public knowledge, and design something
similar, or even identical, I am required to (and believe I should) credit
my source. But no more than that. If you don't want derivative works, or
copies, you do not provide information about your work to the general public.
If you want the kind of protection you seem to think you have, then you have
to trademark your design. That is a whole different ball of wax.
James
1: Unless, of course, I'm the James in question, and sometimes not even then. :)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, James Brown writes:
> As far as I'm concerned (and I *think*, as far as general opinion & law
> regarding copyright reflects), what James is due is credit for the design.
> Period. That's the risk that is run when something becomes public
> knowledge. And some aspects of that design (pictures) are public knowledge.
> If I work backwards from that public knowledge, and design something
> similar, or even identical, I am required to (and believe I should) credit
> my source. But no more than that. If you don't want derivative works, or
> copies, you do not provide information about your work to the general public.
>
> If you want the kind of protection you seem to think you have, then you have
> to trademark your design. That is a whole different ball of wax.
>
> James
I think I understand what the point is but, we are usually working from a
picture or the actual building/engine and I don't see credits that the model
is representive of a pix in Model Railroading or the the XYZ building in
town A. When is a model just a different representation of the same basic
thought? If I build a model similar to others taking design elements from
several others plus design modification of my own creation, is this my
design or all of ours? I'm talking about designs for my own use not for sale.
There were some great model of WWII tanks recently, trouble is I model in 6
wide trains and needed 6 wide tanks to carry on them. I used the general
concept to the larger models but scaled everything down. Is this my design
or theirs?
Matthew Greene
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, James Powell writes:
> Scott A wrote:
>
> > Are you saying you would not post the pictures as you want to keep your
> > copying antics secret, or because we’d not be interested?
>
> I think it would be kept secret because it would bring out a lot of bad blood.
> I mean, come on...if you want one of my sets, buy it. It's not like I am
> selling them for a excessive amount, when you start looking at the parts prices
> I have paid to collect the parts, I don't think many people could go out and
> buy the pieces for the cost of the entire set.
>
>
> > >
> > > I *do* agree that someone dissecting your instructions, creating them as a
> > > document and selling that document is wrong. But I think you're taking this
> > > about three steps beyond the point of ridiculousness.
> >
> > The only problem I have with people copyrighting their own designs is that
> > we have all most all benefited from LEGO not doing just that - witness
> > Brickshelf. But I accept that AFOLs may have the right to copyright their
> > work, and I also accept that they may not have designed the models to start
> > with without thinking they could copyright the end result.
> >
> >
>
> No. The Lego instructions _are_ copywrited. However, TLC has _allowed_ the
> use of the instructions in the manor of Brickshelf.
Yes. This is what I was thinking - I jsut did not type it.
> I'm sure if you went and
> took a TLC set, and tried selling it (like you could for a profit) with copied
> instructions, they would come down on you like a ton of bricks.
By copied, I assume you mean re-drafted - otherwise it happens all the time.
> This is what I
> am mostly saying...that if you take my ideas, I will get upset, and take
> apropriate action. This action will be consistant to the limits of the law,
> whatever they are here in Canada. If those actions are just telling someone
> via Email that they shouldn't be copying something for free, and that's it,
> fine...but I am _not_ going to say go copy my (for sale) sets for free, because
> they are _my_ designs.
But could Lego not argue that you are using/adapting thier ideas to build
your sets - eg click slopes together to form a roof? I'm not saying they'd
be correct - but is it an argument?
Scott A
> If you had spent the time building the set, and
> expected some (very meger, let me tell you, when you work out the time
> involved) compensation for your work, would you get upset?
>
> James Powell
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> What an unfortunate acronym.
Hah!
Man, I am so glad you said this instead of me. I have been laughing out
loud for months over this...
=)
Anyway, maybe it's ironically fitting -- it kinda says it all.
I dunno. People here get SO serious about stuff. I agree that giving away
one's hard work to a company like Lego is obnoxious (because they can and do
pay others to produce the same work), and I wouldn't do it without pay
either. But sharing one's ideas here, amongst users, is a different animal
altogether.
This has always been my point: I'd rather "share and play", than "design and
get paid." That's just too much like ACTUAL work for me, and would take all
the fun out of it.
-- Richard
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > I say again, if I see something I like, I'll build it. If that means I see
> > something I like on the Guild of Bricksmiths site, and realise I have the
> > pieces to build it myself, I'll do so. I probably won't post pictures of it
> > to
> > Lugnet (which is something I only do when I put something together I feel is
> > particularly cool), but I'll build it and play with it to my heart's content.
>
> Are you saying you would not post the pictures as you want to keep your
> copying antics secret, or because we’d not be interested?
Because you most likely wouldn't be interested. If someone else creates
something, and posts it to Lugnet/Brickshelf/the internet in general, I
wouldn't see the reason to post pictures of my copy of it. What's the point?
If I think it's particularly cool and not getting attention it deserves, I'll
post a link to the pictures of the original.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
>
> > > I say again, if I see something I like, I'll build it. If that means I see
> > > something I like on the Guild of Bricksmiths site, and realise I have the
> > > pieces to build it myself, I'll do so. I probably won't post pictures of it
> > > to
> > > Lugnet (which is something I only do when I put something together I feel is
> > > particularly cool), but I'll build it and play with it to my heart's content.
> >
> > Are you saying you would not post the pictures as you want to keep your
> > copying antics secret, or because we’d not be interested?
>
> Because you most likely wouldn't be interested. If someone else creates
> something, and posts it to Lugnet/Brickshelf/the internet in general, I
> wouldn't see the reason to post pictures of my copy of it. What's the point?
> If I think it's particularly cool and not getting attention it deserves, I'll
> post a link to the pictures of the original.
That is what I thought you meant.
Scott A
>
> eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Lorbaat wrote:
>
> In lugnet.general, James Powell writes:
>
> > But, if I see something that bears a _striking_ resemblance to the
> > _entirety of my work_, I am going to rase a stink.
>
> As I said before, good luck with that. I don't think you really can
> "copyright" an arrangement of someone else's patented materials. Let's keep
> that in mind here, folks: we are *not* talking about music. Music is a
> naturally occuring thing. LEGO doesn't spontaneously develop when you tune a
> guitar correctly.
Eh? Copyright does equal patent; they're two separate animals. Go take
a picture with a camera. Is that photo Kodak's (or Fuji's in my case) now?
Or Nikon's? Both the camera and the film are patented...
Same with painting a picture. Betcha the paints have a patent.
> I say again, if I see something I like, I'll build it. If that means I see
> something I like on the Guild of Bricksmiths site, and realise I have the
> pieces to build it myself, I'll do so. I probably won't post pictures of it to
> Lugnet (which is something I only do when I put something together I feel is
> particularly cool), but I'll build it and play with it to my heart's content.
This probably falls within the realm of fair use. Copyright law comes into
play when the copyright law holder can claim lost income. So if you build
your own, great. But don't start selling them on Ebay... Did you know that
if the copyright holder claims $2500 or more in lost income it can be tried
as a felony?
Chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> As I said before, good luck with that. I don't think you really can
> "copyright" an arrangement of someone else's patented materials.
A HUGE point. It kind of reminds me of Duchamp's "ready-mades", or whatever
-- the placement of a urinal in a museum as if he had sculpted it himself.
Legos can be seen as a kind of medium, but it's a very dictatorial one at
that...
In my own view, I PLAY with lego -- I do not consider it art with a capital
"A". It is creative, and I do respect people's various creations -- BUT do
let us keep perspective on what is going on here. PLAY -- not art, and
certainly not your own personal commercial enterprise.
I do write, draw, paint, sculpt, etc. Whether those creations are in the
way of art with a capital "A" is probably for someone else to decide --
although I think I am not at all bad as a traditional artist, even if I do
say so myself.
Some of you want to be TLC so badly you can taste it - but it's a no go. It
is a privately owned company and you are SOL (Sadly Out of Luck, right?).
-- Richard
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > As I said before, good luck with that. I don't think you really can
> > "copyright" an arrangement of someone else's patented materials.
>
> A HUGE point. It kind of reminds me of Duchamp's "ready-mades", or whatever
> -- the placement of a urinal in a museum as if he had sculpted it himself.
> Legos can be seen as a kind of medium, but it's a very dictatorial one at
> that...
OK, so _everything_ has no copywrite? Is this what you are trying to tell me?
That, because I only took something physical, and put it into a new
arrangement, like these Electrons in the computer, that I don't hold any rights
to exploit my work? Tell that to Microsoft, or to a iron foundry, or to a
farmer...or anyone else. I cannot patent the idea (at least not in the sense
of a patent on the bricks...not sure how it is differenciated worldwide), but I
can (and have) copywrite on the images, and the ideas/arrangements contained
within the images.
> In my own view, I PLAY with lego -- I do not consider it art with a capital
> "A". It is creative, and I do respect people's various creations -- BUT do
> let us keep perspective on what is going on here. PLAY -- not art, and
> certainly not your own personal commercial enterprise.
And why not? Define a Personal Commerical Enterprise? Is it not offering
something for sale? Regardless of who designed it?
James
(note, this is redirected into .debate, and no longer strictly about GoB, in
fact, I would like to disassociate this from GoB, because this is more a
.debate topic than a real topic at this point...)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell writes:
> OK, so _everything_ has no copywrite? Is this what you are trying to tell me?
> That, because I only took something physical, and put it into a new
> arrangement, like these Electrons in the computer, that I don't hold any >rights to exploit my work? Tell that to Microsoft, or to a iron foundry, or >to a farmer...or anyone else. I cannot patent the idea (at least not in the >sense of a patent on the bricks...not sure how it is differenciated >worldwide), but I can (and have) copywrite on the images, and the >ideas/arrangements contained within the images.
In a way, there are no copyrights -- not actually. Rights are sustained by
belligerent contest in court, and less formally by social custom -- but the
idea that others will ACTUALLY not copy your work is illusory. Trust me,
it's true. And I wouldn't tell it to MS because they can win a legal battle
with me -- it has nothing to do with the right or wrong of it; it has to do
with the fact that they can sustain the legal battle longer than can I, and
therefore I would be forced to an early capitulation.
But the question is: can you legally steal anything you want to? The answer
is yes, especially if you have money to back up your thievery! Don't
believe me? Why don't you check out the intellectual property rights
concerning ideas like a GUI and how it stands between Apple and MS. Settled
out of court last time I checked -- although if right had been done, it
would have put MS out of business. So why didn't it? Might makes right, of
course!
And if you don't like that proof -- go research the subject of fonts in
terms of copyright and patent (as I have mentioned elsewhere in this
thread). But don't blame me, I am just the messenger.
The real madness of your position asserts itself in cases where certain
corporations are claiming the rights to seemingly generic ideas -- like an
online auction, or an online bookstore, etc. Where does one draw the line
between intellectual property and something so generic as to belong to a
business culture as a whole? My argument is often that things are NOT
created by individuals as much as we would like to think -- that there comes
key moments in time when there is a "buzz" in the air that creates movements
- be they artistic, poliitical, socio-econmic, or even business model
movements. Just be sure that your ability to litigate a position and even
to win based on that position, doesn't make it "right." Our legal system
is based on the fiction of "doing right" and "establishing justice" -- but
these are ideas only, the means to sell you on the idea of it (the marketing
aspect, if you will), and nothing to do with the actuality/reality of it at
all! There is no right, there is no justice.
And BTW, the images of a Lego brick construct may or may not be
copyrightable, the Lego logo appears on every brick!!! You can claim the
right to the item, but it might just be nonsense. Your use of their bricks
as a subset of your product might be actionable without a specific license
to do it
But, I am quickly losing interest in this specific topic...you have your
particular take on this subject, and I have my own.
-- Richard
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell writes:
> OK, so _everything_ has no copywrite? Is this what you are trying to tell me?
> That, because I only took something physical, and put it into a new
> arrangement, like these Electrons in the computer, that I don't hold any >rights to exploit my work? Tell that to Microsoft, or to a iron foundry, or >to a farmer...or anyone else. I cannot patent the idea (at least not in the >sense of a patent on the bricks...not sure how it is differenciated >worldwide), but I can (and have) copywrite on the images, and the >ideas/arrangements contained within the images.
In a way, there are no copyrights -- not actually. Rights are sustained by
belligerent contest in court, and less formally by social custom -- but the
idea that others will ACTUALLY not copy your work is illusory. Trust me,
it's true.
And I wouldn't tell it to MS because they can win a legal battle with me --
it has nothing to do with the right or wrong of it; it has to do with the
fact that they can sustain the legal battle longer than can I, and therefore
I would be forced to an early capitulation.
But the question is: can you legally steal anything you want to? The answer
is yes, especially if you have money to back up your thievery! Don't
believe me? Why don't you check out the intellectual property rights
concerning ideas like a GUI and how it stands between Apple and MS. Settled
out of court last time I checked -- although if right had been done, it
would have put MS out of business. So why didn't it? Might makes right, of
course!
And if you don't like that proof -- go research the subject of fonts in
terms of copyright and patent (as I have mentioned elsewhere in this
thread). But don't blame me, I am just the messenger.
The real madness of your position asserts itself in cases where certain
corporations are claiming the rights to seemingly generic ideas -- like an
online auction, or an online bookstore, etc. Where does one draw the line
between intellectual property and something so generic as to belong to a
business culture as a whole? My argument is often that things are NOT
created by individuals as much as we would like to think -- that there comes
key moments in time when there is a "buzz" in the air that creates movements
- be they artistic, poliitical, socio-econmic, model, or even toy model
movements (lego Lamppost, doh!). Just be sure that your ability to litigate
a position and even to win based on that position, doesn't make it "right."
Our legal system is based on the fiction of "doing right" and "establishing
justice" -- but these are ideas only, the means to sell you on the idea of
it (the marketing aspect, if you will), and nothing to do with the
actuality/reality of it at all! There is no right, there is no justice.
And BTW, the images of a Lego brick construct may or may not be
copyrightable, the Lego logo appears on every brick!!! You can claim the
right to the item, but it might just be nonsense. Your use of their bricks
as a subset of your product might be actionable without a specific license
to do it
-- Richard
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell writes:
<SNIP>
> I can (and have) copywrite on the images, and the ideas/arrangements contained
> within the images.
<SNIP>
Actually, you might have copyRIGHT, but I'm not an IP lawyer, so I can't say
for sure.
Paul Sinasohn
Writer and Instructional Designer - Editor when required
LUGNET #115
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> As long as you are not looking at a photo of my (for sale) work when you sit
> down to build it, I don't care. Go ahead and copy the ideas from my
> skyscraper, or my (very old) sketches of the RPO (you'd have to _dig_ to find a
> copy, but it is released). I _don't care_ if you copy them. Copy _ideas_ from
> my 'sets', if you want to. If you think my door arangement is neat, fine, copy
> it. But, if I see something that bears a _striking_ resemblance to the
> _entirety of my work_, I am going to rase a stink.
James,
This is the most absurd position I have ever heard. You would get upset
with me if I saw one of your models on the Internet and tried to build it
myself with my own lego bricks, in my own room?
I don't think Lego would particularly care if I tried to build a model I
don't have with the pieces I do have. Besides, there is not a single legal
precedence you could bring up that would solidify your position.
At least not in the U.S.
Lars
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, James Powell writes:
>
> > But if I sit down to build something in my living room, Persons A-C can go
> > #$@! themselves. None of them get a say in what I build, or how I came upon
> > the idea of building it.
> >
> > eric
>
> As long as you are not looking at a photo of my (for sale) work when you sit
> down to build it, I don't care. Go ahead and copy the ideas from my
> skyscraper, or my (very old) sketches of the RPO (you'd have to _dig_ to find a
> copy, but it is released). I _don't care_ if you copy them. Copy _ideas_ from
> my 'sets', if you want to. If you think my door arangement is neat, fine, copy
> it. But, if I see something that bears a _striking_ resemblance to the
> _entirety of my work_, I am going to rase a stink.
I can make a copy of your work, looking at your photo or not, but that's
about as far as it goes. I cannot sell a copy of your work. I cannot
obtain an illegally duplicated copy of your instructions on how to build
your work. I cannot publish my copy of your work. I could sell the exact
parts mix to duplicate your work, but not the instructions or image to help
build it.
The "ideas" (door arrangement for example) I don't believe are
copyrightable. Those would have to be patented, which is a rather large tin
of slithery things.
Or so my understanding of copyright goes (my wife deals with intellectual
property rights), consult your lawyer and bar the door. :-)
Bruce
>
> If you think I don't _know_ that my work owes bits to others, then fine...I
> know that there are other trainheads who I have pinched ideas from. However,
> in the same vein, I know others have pinched ideas from me, and I am _not_
> worried about someone taking ideas from my models. I just want my IP to be
> respected _with regards to something I sell_. Is there something wrong with
> wanting the letter of the law to be obeyed?
>
> James Powell, Bricksmith
> http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?p=JamesP
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
If somebody can sell an exact copy of a official lego sets, using the
bricks from other sets, as "without box and instructions", I think
anybody also can reproduce and sell all of the models around the net,
including GOB sets as "without certificate". I don't think the original
model builder could have a legal support for his/her case. Also I can
still can't imagine how someone can sue others if they are currently
living in different parts of the world, having different law codes with
different interpretations of IP. I really can't imagine any code of law
outside of US which stretch the IP thing to the extreme like US ones.
Of course one can get public support (from other AFOLS) for his case and
make this supposedly "thief" of his/her original design labeled.
Selçuk
James Powell wrote:
>
> > But if I sit down to build something in my living room, Persons A-C can go
> > #$@! themselves. None of them get a say in what I build, or how I came upon
> > the idea of building it.
> >
> > eric
>
> As long as you are not looking at a photo of my (for sale) work when you sit
> down to build it, I don't care. Go ahead and copy the ideas from my
> skyscraper, or my (very old) sketches of the RPO (you'd have to _dig_ to find a
> copy, but it is released). I _don't care_ if you copy them. Copy _ideas_ from
> my 'sets', if you want to. If you think my door arangement is neat, fine, copy
> it. But, if I see something that bears a _striking_ resemblance to the
> _entirety of my work_, I am going to rase a stink.
>
> If you think I don't _know_ that my work owes bits to others, then fine...I
> know that there are other trainheads who I have pinched ideas from. However,
> in the same vein, I know others have pinched ideas from me, and I am _not_
> worried about someone taking ideas from my models. I just want my IP to be
> respected _with regards to something I sell_. Is there something wrong with
> wanting the letter of the law to be obeyed?
>
> James Powell, Bricksmith
> http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?p=JamesP
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, John Rudy writes:
> I think what James is saying here is that if you copy his design outright
> and sell it. THIS breaks copyright laws, and is comperable to selling
> bootlegged CDs.
Umm.. no. James' position is more like the whole Napster/Music thing. Should
I be able to play an artist's music whenever I want without paying them for
it? Can I burn my own CD's of their music for my own personal use? Can I
sing their songs in the car? If I'm in a band, can I play their songs on
Open Mike Night? Can I turn around and sell my band's cover of their songs?
As far as I'm concerned, yeah, James has a point, but it'd be useless to him
and me for him to take me to court over something that trivial. There's
almost NO way of proving that I ripped off his idea, and how much it's been
modified from his design is another issue too. I can just modify the model
before the court date. Or I can just wreck the model and claim it never
existed. Also, I DIDN'T make a profit, therefore James' loss is minimal if
existant. If you can prove that I WOULD have bought the set from him if I
couldn't copy it, but COPIED it instead so I could save a few bucks, then
that's an example of damages on James' part. But again, VERY hard if not
impossible to prove, and again, small beans worth of damages, really. The
time spent in court simply wouldn't be worth it, unless he thought that by
doing it he could set an example that he'd think that other people would
follow, which I doubt, unless he gets me sent to prison or something.
Anyway, James runs the risk of being copied. If you make your items
publically available, you take that risk. Doesn't matter if you're a
songwriter, artist, moviemaker, poet, whatever. And to expect people to
always pay you for your designs is rather presumptious and very naive.
Were I James, I'd say that I'd be mad if someone made the designs publically
available (I.E. giving away instructions for free). But really if someone
wants to copy him, I'd say fine. My services (in his place) are to offer a
pre-made product to save someone the work and effort of copying it
themselves. That's where I'd consider my profit. Not in the designs. Anyway,
that's my take. (Bear in mind that's Lego-specific too)
.02,
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.general, John Rudy writes:
> > I think what James is saying here is that if you copy his design outright
> > and sell it. THIS breaks copyright laws, and is comperable to selling
> > bootlegged CDs.
>
> Umm.. no. James' position is more like the whole Napster/Music thing. Should
> I be able to play an artist's music whenever I want without paying them for
> it? Can I burn my own CD's of their music for my own personal use? Can I
> sing their songs in the car?
This last one seems to me to be the most relevant in this case. If I sit down
with
my guitar and pluck out the beginning of "Enter Sandman", it would be
completely
ludicrous for Metallica to sue me for it - and if the law believes it is
possible, then
to quote Mr. Clemens, "the Law is an Ass."
J
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Jeff Johnston writes:
> to quote Mr. Clemens, "the Law is an Ass."
Baby, it always was...
A lot of bad law is coming down in terms of intellectual property primarily
because the main participants can afford to assert their views. And as far
as the computer industry is concerned -- the whole thing is built on
"swipes", or "reverse engineering" if you will.
It happens that I like fonts. Something I once wrote can be found here:
http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~luc/legal.html (scroll down until you see the name
"Richard", there is a short intro) or go here directly:
http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~luc/blueofnoon.html
I find that there are striking similarities between what is being discussed
here and what I opined about elsewhere. And a lot of it could easily apply
to anything: sheet music, cds, books, etc.
The main point would be: if you give me a picture of a thing, and I --
through my own devices -- copy the thing, I have created an intellectual
property legally on par with the original. Now amongst friends, that's not
necessarily cool -- but when it comes to commerce, I have noted that
friendship goes by the boards.
-- Richard
| | | | | | |
