RE: [bolger] Re: Copyright 'n stuff
Enough with this subject, please. I joined this list because of a
long-standing desire to build wooden boats. I have been fascinated with
Bolger designs for years.
While I heartily support free speech, my email is getting cluttered and I
have learned more than I ever want to know about a few opinions on
intellectual property rights. Perhaps this discussion could be taken off
line?
Jim Chamberlin
long-standing desire to build wooden boats. I have been fascinated with
Bolger designs for years.
While I heartily support free speech, my email is getting cluttered and I
have learned more than I ever want to know about a few opinions on
intellectual property rights. Perhaps this discussion could be taken off
line?
Jim Chamberlin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Belenky, Peter [mailto:peter.belenky@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 7:07 AM
> To: Bolger egroup (E-mail)
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Copyright 'n stuff
>
>
> It seems to me that I have already given this group the
> information it needs
> to settle copyright issues without vituperation:
>http://www.egroups.com/message/bolger/5696?&start=5688(message 5696).
>
> That is, as I read the law, copyright applies to boat hulls if the designs
> are new and registered according to specified conditions, and it then
> applies for ten years. Older and unregistered designs may be
> freely copied
> for construction. (If you can take the dimensions off a hull or
> a published
> plan, go for it.) Printed plans with offsets and scantlings may
> be used for
> construction unless the hull design (not the publication) is copyrighted.
> There is no legal or ethical objection to building from a book. As for
> copying printed plans for study, without commercial distribution,
> that would
> fall under the "fair use" provision and would not violate copyright.
>
> When full-scale plans are purchased from the designer, the
> builder contracts
> to use them for the construction of no more than one hull.
> Contract law, not
> copyright, applies.
>
> Apart from copyright law, the economics and ethics of ordering
> construction
> plans from the designer (as opposed to legally copying an existing hull or
> building from published plans) depend on questions like these:
>
> Has the designer provided all necessary information in published plans, or
> would more be offered if plans were ordered directly?
> Would the builder benefit by the improved accuracy of large drawings?
> How much personal consultation with the designer does the builder need?
> Does the owner require the services of the designer in supervising a
> commercial builder?
> Is the cost of plans reasonable, in relation to the cost of construction?
> Does the builder feel obligated to reward the designer for his work?
>
> Peter Belenky
>
>
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing
> - stay on topic
> - use punctuation
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
>
It seems to me that I have already given this group the information it needs
to settle copyright issues without vituperation:
http://www.egroups.com/message/bolger/5696?&start=5688(message 5696).
That is, as I read the law, copyright applies to boat hulls if the designs
are new and registered according to specified conditions, and it then
applies for ten years. Older and unregistered designs may be freely copied
for construction. (If you can take the dimensions off a hull or a published
plan, go for it.) Printed plans with offsets and scantlings may be used for
construction unless the hull design (not the publication) is copyrighted.
There is no legal or ethical objection to building from a book. As for
copying printed plans for study, without commercial distribution, that would
fall under the "fair use" provision and would not violate copyright.
When full-scale plans are purchased from the designer, the builder contracts
to use them for the construction of no more than one hull. Contract law, not
copyright, applies.
Apart from copyright law, the economics and ethics of ordering construction
plans from the designer (as opposed to legally copying an existing hull or
building from published plans) depend on questions like these:
Has the designer provided all necessary information in published plans, or
would more be offered if plans were ordered directly?
Would the builder benefit by the improved accuracy of large drawings?
How much personal consultation with the designer does the builder need?
Does the owner require the services of the designer in supervising a
commercial builder?
Is the cost of plans reasonable, in relation to the cost of construction?
Does the builder feel obligated to reward the designer for his work?
Peter Belenky
to settle copyright issues without vituperation:
http://www.egroups.com/message/bolger/5696?&start=5688(message 5696).
That is, as I read the law, copyright applies to boat hulls if the designs
are new and registered according to specified conditions, and it then
applies for ten years. Older and unregistered designs may be freely copied
for construction. (If you can take the dimensions off a hull or a published
plan, go for it.) Printed plans with offsets and scantlings may be used for
construction unless the hull design (not the publication) is copyrighted.
There is no legal or ethical objection to building from a book. As for
copying printed plans for study, without commercial distribution, that would
fall under the "fair use" provision and would not violate copyright.
When full-scale plans are purchased from the designer, the builder contracts
to use them for the construction of no more than one hull. Contract law, not
copyright, applies.
Apart from copyright law, the economics and ethics of ordering construction
plans from the designer (as opposed to legally copying an existing hull or
building from published plans) depend on questions like these:
Has the designer provided all necessary information in published plans, or
would more be offered if plans were ordered directly?
Would the builder benefit by the improved accuracy of large drawings?
How much personal consultation with the designer does the builder need?
Does the owner require the services of the designer in supervising a
commercial builder?
Is the cost of plans reasonable, in relation to the cost of construction?
Does the builder feel obligated to reward the designer for his work?
Peter Belenky
I agree with our esteemed moderator that this topic is off-thread and
should probably be halted, but since one of my posts elicited an
explosive response, perhaps I could be permitted to explain a little
further.
There have been a number of times that I have gone to the web site of
a designer to remind myself about one of his designs and found the
design name listed but without a picture, drawing, or any other
information except design name, length, general type and price. From
a business point of view, this seems counterproductive. It's one
thing to buy a $25 study plan, but its another to gamble $25 each on
study plans or catalogs from several designers in the hope of finding
a design that appeals.
In the past, I assumed that it was www-incompetence on the part of
the designers, but it is so common that I wondered if there was some
other explanation.
Mr. Merrell says that the reason is not loss of profit from study
plan sales. His post does give some support to another reason that
occurred to me: to raise the threshold against the "plans voyeur," so
only the seriously interested will apply.
Not all designers do the same thing. Mr. Bolger doesn't really do the
study plan thing at all (except for publishing his books & columns),
and for a long time he sold his complete plans for small boats at
study plan prices. Other designers put all the info on their web
site. Dudley Dix is a good example.
The skills necessary to design boats are fairly disjoint from the
skills necessary to run a small retail business (let alone an e-
business), so I'll put it down to individual choice.
Anyone who sells anything is troubled by tire kickers to some extent.
I am sure that boat designers sometimes spend an hour answering
questions about a plan that sells for $100 - a money losing
proposition even if they make the sale. But some of them ask for it
by the way they do business.
A couple final points. Almost all advertising is copyrighted. The
function of a study plan is clearly advertising. What is it's purpose
otherwise? Whether it's paid for by the customer or not is
irrelevent.
Peter
should probably be halted, but since one of my posts elicited an
explosive response, perhaps I could be permitted to explain a little
further.
There have been a number of times that I have gone to the web site of
a designer to remind myself about one of his designs and found the
design name listed but without a picture, drawing, or any other
information except design name, length, general type and price. From
a business point of view, this seems counterproductive. It's one
thing to buy a $25 study plan, but its another to gamble $25 each on
study plans or catalogs from several designers in the hope of finding
a design that appeals.
In the past, I assumed that it was www-incompetence on the part of
the designers, but it is so common that I wondered if there was some
other explanation.
Mr. Merrell says that the reason is not loss of profit from study
plan sales. His post does give some support to another reason that
occurred to me: to raise the threshold against the "plans voyeur," so
only the seriously interested will apply.
Not all designers do the same thing. Mr. Bolger doesn't really do the
study plan thing at all (except for publishing his books & columns),
and for a long time he sold his complete plans for small boats at
study plan prices. Other designers put all the info on their web
site. Dudley Dix is a good example.
The skills necessary to design boats are fairly disjoint from the
skills necessary to run a small retail business (let alone an e-
business), so I'll put it down to individual choice.
Anyone who sells anything is troubled by tire kickers to some extent.
I am sure that boat designers sometimes spend an hour answering
questions about a plan that sells for $100 - a money losing
proposition even if they make the sale. But some of them ask for it
by the way they do business.
A couple final points. Almost all advertising is copyrighted. The
function of a study plan is clearly advertising. What is it's purpose
otherwise? Whether it's paid for by the customer or not is
irrelevent.
Peter
000726 0608EDT
May I suggest that you discuss, with civility, your views on moderation
and the moderator in private, and spare the web your intemperate "penny
whistle" ire.
72 y Paz Grover
May I suggest that you discuss, with civility, your views on moderation
and the moderator in private, and spare the web your intemperate "penny
whistle" ire.
72 y Paz Grover
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Merrell" <chuckmerrell@...>
To: <bolger@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 10:32 PM
Subject: OFF TOPIC: [bolger] Re: Copyright 'n stuff
> Gregg:
>
> As far as I'm concerned this is a very important topic particularly
> for this list, the answer and attitude about which may have some
> little something to do with how in the future some better designer
> (maybe even Bolger class)than I decides to draw boats for home
> builders or not. Maybe more important it'll disuade somebody from
> stealing somebody's work.
>
> Moreover, I think your taking acception to my post is both heavy
> handed and dictatorial and stifles open discussion both now and in
> the future.
>
> Also as far as this being an ad hominem attack, it's more of a full
> frontal assult.
>
> Moderation is one thing but it seems to me that you're more into
> control and censorship before the fact and that's a lousy position to
> take in a venue like this where occasional discord may accomplish
> more than all the warm fuzzies in the world.
>
> This is the first post I've made in months, and it'll be the last for
> a long time to come.
>
> Chuck Merrell
>
> --- Inbolger@egroups.com, G Carlson <ghartc@p...> wrote:
> > This is topic has been covered, and it's just BARELY on topic.
> > Let's move on.
> >
> >
> > Gregg Carlson/Moderator
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >The substance of Bill Samson's post is from an email discussion
> that
> > >we have been having off line. That's the genesis of this
> thread . . .
> > >
> > >However, having read Peter Vanderwaart's reply (below) to Bill's
> > >post, I at first thought I'd just let it pass and forget about it
> > >then decided I couldn't.
> > >
> > >l. In the first place, study plans are not a significant part of
> the
> > >income of any designer. I don't know what planet that Peter lives
> > >on, but in this day and age, $15-20 for a booklet showing twenty
> > >study plans is not "fairly high". Even twenty bucks for a full-
> sized
> > >construction sheet or two of a specific boat is very fair. In fact,
> > >study plans are always a losing proposition and the income derived
> > >doesn't usually begin to cover the production costs, postage time
> > >away from other duties, and effort required to get it into the
> mail.
> > >Half the time, study plans are ordered after the designer has spent
> > >time either corresponding with the potential builder with maybe a
> > >long distance phone call thrown in. If Peter has that big of a
> > >problem with spending a twenty dollar bill, I'd advise him to
> forget
> > >the thought of building and maybe start collecting four leaf
> clovers
> > >from the park because no matter how simple or cheap the boat; he
> > >can't afford it.
> > >
> > >2. Study plans are not advertising, and are covered by copyright
> > >laws just like any other intellectual property. The reason for
> study
> > >plans is to give the potential customer a clearer and larger more
> > >detailed look at a design he's seriously thinking of building (as
> > >opposed to a "Plans Voyeur" who collects but never builds), without
> > >having to buy the whole plan set and not using it. Moreover, many
> > >designers including myself will deduct the money paid for the study
> > >plan if the client/customer eventually buys the plan set.
> > >
> > >Dealing with this churlish level of thinking and skewed mentality
> > >makes it quite easy for a designer with any ability to dump the
> baby
> > >with the bath water and turn his back(many have)on ANYONE who
> > >expresses ANY interest in perhaps physically building his own boat.
> > >There are better less irritating ways to spend one's life other
> than
> > >trying to sell a product to those who want something for nothing
> and
> > >are insulting about it to boot!
> > >
> > >I should be used to this by now because I know any type of design
> or
> > >consulting business tends to attract these types, but I'm not.
> > >
> > >Chuck Merrell
> > >
> > >***********************************
> > >CHUCK MERRELL
> > >MERRELL WATERCRAFT
> > >P. O. Box 80264
> > >Seattle, WA 98108-0264
> > >(206) 764-1298
> > >Toll Free Voice Mail and Fax: 1-877-376-3688
> > >Email: chuck@b...
> > >Web Site:http://www.boatdesign.com
> > >**********************************
> > >
> > >--- Inbolger@egroups.com, "Peter Vanderwaart" <pvanderw@o...>
> wrote:
> > >> --- Inbolger@egroups.com, "Samson family" <Bill.Samson@t...>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Let me add this to the mix: I have a sneaking suspicion that the
> > >> sales of study plans are an important part of the income of many
> > >> designers, especially those who design boats for amateur
> builders.
> > >I
> > >> draw this conclusion from the fact that the majority of them do
> not
> > >> put much more that each boat's length and general type on their
> web
> > >> sites (execpt for a few samples), and from the fairly high prices
> > >> they charge (e.g. $15-20 for a booklet of aboutt 20 designs).
> > >>
> > >> Now in general, I think of study plans as advertising which can
> be
> > >> passed around and copied pretty much without restriction, and I
> > >have
> > >> never seen any comment from a designer saying not to share study
> > >> plans. How could they really?
> > >>
> > >> It would be much better if the rights claimed or waived were more
> > >> loudly announced. For example, we discuss Bolger designs and MAIB
> > >all
> > >> the time. Why don't we have a specific handle on what rights
> apply
> > >to
> > >> the Bolger articles in MAIB? Is it (entirely) our fault that we
> > >don't.
> > >>
> > >> Peter
> > >>
> > >> > SOME amateur boatbuilders (or wannabes) have little
> appreciation
> > >of
> > >> the need
> > >> > for designers, publishers and writers to make a living. The
> > >> thought never
> > >> > occurs to them, though if anybody asked them to do their work
> for
> > >> nothing
> > >> > they might take a different view.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Bolger rules!!!
> > >- no cursing
> > >- stay on topic
> > >- use punctuation
> > >- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> > >- add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
>
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing
> - stay on topic
> - use punctuation
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
>
Chuck,
firstly I think you got the wrong end of the stick regarding what Peter
was saying. I may well be wrong, but my impression was not that he was
complaining about the price of the study plans, rather that he was
saying that maybe the designers should spell out their usage more
clearly. Then IF a designer thinks of the study plans as advertising,
they would probably be happy to have the reproduction and distribution
cost vanish as people distribute copies for them; IF they see then as
income then they would not be happy to see this and would say so.
In my opinion (i'll say that again - in my opinion) Gregg is not being
heavy-handed, dictatorial or anything else in asking a) for this topic
to close and b) for you and others to refrain from ad hominem attacks
(for the not Latin readers - attacks on the person rather than the
substance of their post).
Personally, I am happy to see such discussions - but Gregg is simply
exercising his duty as a MODERATOR ie to try to moderate the discussion
and avoid acrimonious exchanges about whos is anasty person etc :)
I also think that your post about Peter (intentionally or not) and
certainly this one about Gregg are 'ad hominem' attacks and wish you
didn't feel the need to respond that way, neither of them was (so far as
I can tell) attacking you. Please don't take your bat and ball and go
home to sulk! I value the comments of all people on this list. But I
would rather not see members attacking each other :)
Cheers,
Chris
Chuck Merrell wrote:
firstly I think you got the wrong end of the stick regarding what Peter
was saying. I may well be wrong, but my impression was not that he was
complaining about the price of the study plans, rather that he was
saying that maybe the designers should spell out their usage more
clearly. Then IF a designer thinks of the study plans as advertising,
they would probably be happy to have the reproduction and distribution
cost vanish as people distribute copies for them; IF they see then as
income then they would not be happy to see this and would say so.
In my opinion (i'll say that again - in my opinion) Gregg is not being
heavy-handed, dictatorial or anything else in asking a) for this topic
to close and b) for you and others to refrain from ad hominem attacks
(for the not Latin readers - attacks on the person rather than the
substance of their post).
Personally, I am happy to see such discussions - but Gregg is simply
exercising his duty as a MODERATOR ie to try to moderate the discussion
and avoid acrimonious exchanges about whos is anasty person etc :)
I also think that your post about Peter (intentionally or not) and
certainly this one about Gregg are 'ad hominem' attacks and wish you
didn't feel the need to respond that way, neither of them was (so far as
I can tell) attacking you. Please don't take your bat and ball and go
home to sulk! I value the comments of all people on this list. But I
would rather not see members attacking each other :)
Cheers,
Chris
Chuck Merrell wrote:
>
> Gregg:
>
> As far as I'm concerned this is a very important topic particularly
> for this list, the answer and attitude about which may have some
> little something to do with how in the future some better designer
> (maybe even Bolger class)than I decides to draw boats for home
> builders or not. Maybe more important it'll disuade somebody from
> stealing somebody's work.
>
> Moreover, I think your taking acception to my post is both heavy
> handed and dictatorial and stifles open discussion both now and in
> the future.
>
> Also as far as this being an ad hominem attack, it's more of a full
> frontal assult.
>
> Moderation is one thing but it seems to me that you're more into
> control and censorship before the fact and that's a lousy position to
> take in a venue like this where occasional discord may accomplish
> more than all the warm fuzzies in the world.
>
> This is the first post I've made in months, and it'll be the last for
> a long time to come.
>
> Chuck Merrell
>
> --- Inbolger@egroups.com, G Carlson <ghartc@p...> wrote:
> > This is topic has been covered, and it's just BARELY on topic.
> > Let's move on.
> >
> >
> > Gregg Carlson/Moderator
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >The substance of Bill Samson's post is from an email discussion
> that
> > >we have been having off line. That's the genesis of this
> thread . . .
> > >
> > >However, having read Peter Vanderwaart's reply (below) to Bill's
> > >post, I at first thought I'd just let it pass and forget about it
> > >then decided I couldn't.
> > >
> > >l. In the first place, study plans are not a significant part of
> the
> > >income of any designer. I don't know what planet that Peter lives
> > >on, but in this day and age, $15-20 for a booklet showing twenty
> > >study plans is not "fairly high". Even twenty bucks for a full-
> sized
> > >construction sheet or two of a specific boat is very fair. In fact,
> > >study plans are always a losing proposition and the income derived
> > >doesn't usually begin to cover the production costs, postage time
> > >away from other duties, and effort required to get it into the
> mail.
> > >Half the time, study plans are ordered after the designer has spent
> > >time either corresponding with the potential builder with maybe a
> > >long distance phone call thrown in. If Peter has that big of a
> > >problem with spending a twenty dollar bill, I'd advise him to
> forget
> > >the thought of building and maybe start collecting four leaf
> clovers
> > >from the park because no matter how simple or cheap the boat; he
> > >can't afford it.
> > >
> > >2. Study plans are not advertising, and are covered by copyright
> > >laws just like any other intellectual property. The reason for
> study
> > >plans is to give the potential customer a clearer and larger more
> > >detailed look at a design he's seriously thinking of building (as
> > >opposed to a "Plans Voyeur" who collects but never builds), without
> > >having to buy the whole plan set and not using it. Moreover, many
> > >designers including myself will deduct the money paid for the study
> > >plan if the client/customer eventually buys the plan set.
> > >
> > >Dealing with this churlish level of thinking and skewed mentality
> > >makes it quite easy for a designer with any ability to dump the
> baby
> > >with the bath water and turn his back(many have)on ANYONE who
> > >expresses ANY interest in perhaps physically building his own boat.
> > >There are better less irritating ways to spend one's life other
> than
> > >trying to sell a product to those who want something for nothing
> and
> > >are insulting about it to boot!
> > >
> > >I should be used to this by now because I know any type of design
> or
> > >consulting business tends to attract these types, but I'm not.
> > >
> > >Chuck Merrell
> > >
> > >***********************************
> > >CHUCK MERRELL
> > >MERRELL WATERCRAFT
> > >P. O. Box 80264
> > >Seattle, WA 98108-0264
> > >(206) 764-1298
> > >Toll Free Voice Mail and Fax: 1-877-376-3688
> > >Email: chuck@b...
> > >Web Site:http://www.boatdesign.com
> > >**********************************
> > >
> > >--- Inbolger@egroups.com, "Peter Vanderwaart" <pvanderw@o...>
> wrote:
> > >> --- Inbolger@egroups.com, "Samson family" <Bill.Samson@t...>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Let me add this to the mix: I have a sneaking suspicion that the
> > >> sales of study plans are an important part of the income of many
> > >> designers, especially those who design boats for amateur
> builders.
> > >I
> > >> draw this conclusion from the fact that the majority of them do
> not
> > >> put much more that each boat's length and general type on their
> web
> > >> sites (execpt for a few samples), and from the fairly high prices
> > >> they charge (e.g. $15-20 for a booklet of aboutt 20 designs).
> > >>
> > >> Now in general, I think of study plans as advertising which can
> be
> > >> passed around and copied pretty much without restriction, and I
> > >have
> > >> never seen any comment from a designer saying not to share study
> > >> plans. How could they really?
> > >>
> > >> It would be much better if the rights claimed or waived were more
> > >> loudly announced. For example, we discuss Bolger designs and MAIB
> > >all
> > >> the time. Why don't we have a specific handle on what rights
> apply
> > >to
> > >> the Bolger articles in MAIB? Is it (entirely) our fault that we
> > >don't.
> > >>
> > >> Peter
> > >>
> > >> > SOME amateur boatbuilders (or wannabes) have little
> appreciation
> > >of
> > >> the need
> > >> > for designers, publishers and writers to make a living. The
> > >> thought never
> > >> > occurs to them, though if anybody asked them to do their work
> for
> > >> nothing
> > >> > they might take a different view.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Bolger rules!!!
> > >- no cursing
> > >- stay on topic
> > >- use punctuation
> > >- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> > >- add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing
> - stay on topic
> - use punctuation
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
Buying the plans of the boat you build is the ethical thing to do. It is
generally the economical thing to do as well since you can ask questions
of the designer.
I don't like having my computer programs stolen especially by my friends.
But it happens. I imagine boat designers have simular feelings.
If I am going to take the time and trouble to build a boat that some one
else designed I want to be able to look him in the eye and say I what I
think about the his boat I built. I would have a hard time doing that if I
didn't buy his plans.
Gordon
Gordon Cougergcouger@...
Stillwater, OK www.couger.com/gcouger
405 624-2855 GMT -6:00
generally the economical thing to do as well since you can ask questions
of the designer.
I don't like having my computer programs stolen especially by my friends.
But it happens. I imagine boat designers have simular feelings.
If I am going to take the time and trouble to build a boat that some one
else designed I want to be able to look him in the eye and say I what I
think about the his boat I built. I would have a hard time doing that if I
didn't buy his plans.
Gordon
Gordon Cougergcouger@...
Stillwater, OK www.couger.com/gcouger
405 624-2855 GMT -6:00
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Merrell" <chuckmerrell@...>
To: <bolger@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 9:32 PM
Subject: OFF TOPIC: [bolger] Re: Copyright 'n stuff
> Gregg:
>
> As far as I'm concerned this is a very important topic particularly
> for this list, the answer and attitude about which may have some
> little something to do with how in the future some better designer
> (maybe even Bolger class)than I decides to draw boats for home
> builders or not. Maybe more important it'll disuade somebody from
> stealing somebody's work.
>
> Moreover, I think your taking acception to my post is both heavy
> handed and dictatorial and stifles open discussion both now and in
> the future.
>
> Also as far as this being an ad hominem attack, it's more of a full
> frontal assult.
>
> Moderation is one thing but it seems to me that you're more into
> control and censorship before the fact and that's a lousy position to
> take in a venue like this where occasional discord may accomplish
> more than all the warm fuzzies in the world.
>
> This is the first post I've made in months, and it'll be the last for
> a long time to come.
>
> Chuck Merrell
>
> --- Inbolger@egroups.com, G Carlson <ghartc@p...> wrote:
> > This is topic has been covered, and it's just BARELY on topic.
> > Let's move on.
> >
> >
> > Gregg Carlson/Moderator
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >The substance of Bill Samson's post is from an email discussion
> that
> > >we have been having off line. That's the genesis of this
> thread . . .
> > >
> > >However, having read Peter Vanderwaart's reply (below) to Bill's
> > >post, I at first thought I'd just let it pass and forget about it
> > >then decided I couldn't.
> > >
> > >l. In the first place, study plans are not a significant part of
> the
> > >income of any designer. I don't know what planet that Peter lives
> > >on, but in this day and age, $15-20 for a booklet showing twenty
> > >study plans is not "fairly high". Even twenty bucks for a full-
> sized
> > >construction sheet or two of a specific boat is very fair. In fact,
> > >study plans are always a losing proposition and the income derived
> > >doesn't usually begin to cover the production costs, postage time
> > >away from other duties, and effort required to get it into the
> mail.
> > >Half the time, study plans are ordered after the designer has spent
> > >time either corresponding with the potential builder with maybe a
> > >long distance phone call thrown in. If Peter has that big of a
> > >problem with spending a twenty dollar bill, I'd advise him to
> forget
> > >the thought of building and maybe start collecting four leaf
> clovers
> > >from the park because no matter how simple or cheap the boat; he
> > >can't afford it.
> > >
> > >2. Study plans are not advertising, and are covered by copyright
> > >laws just like any other intellectual property. The reason for
> study
> > >plans is to give the potential customer a clearer and larger more
> > >detailed look at a design he's seriously thinking of building (as
> > >opposed to a "Plans Voyeur" who collects but never builds), without
> > >having to buy the whole plan set and not using it. Moreover, many
> > >designers including myself will deduct the money paid for the study
> > >plan if the client/customer eventually buys the plan set.
> > >
> > >Dealing with this churlish level of thinking and skewed mentality
> > >makes it quite easy for a designer with any ability to dump the
> baby
> > >with the bath water and turn his back(many have)on ANYONE who
> > >expresses ANY interest in perhaps physically building his own boat.
> > >There are better less irritating ways to spend one's life other
> than
> > >trying to sell a product to those who want something for nothing
> and
> > >are insulting about it to boot!
> > >
> > >I should be used to this by now because I know any type of design
> or
> > >consulting business tends to attract these types, but I'm not.
> > >
> > >Chuck Merrell
> > >
> > >***********************************
> > >CHUCK MERRELL
> > >MERRELL WATERCRAFT
> > >P. O. Box 80264
> > >Seattle, WA 98108-0264
> > >(206) 764-1298
> > >Toll Free Voice Mail and Fax: 1-877-376-3688
> > >Email: chuck@b...
> > >Web Site:http://www.boatdesign.com
> > >**********************************
> > >
> > >--- Inbolger@egroups.com, "Peter Vanderwaart" <pvanderw@o...>
> wrote:
> > >> --- Inbolger@egroups.com, "Samson family" <Bill.Samson@t...>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Let me add this to the mix: I have a sneaking suspicion that the
> > >> sales of study plans are an important part of the income of many
> > >> designers, especially those who design boats for amateur
> builders.
> > >I
> > >> draw this conclusion from the fact that the majority of them do
> not
> > >> put much more that each boat's length and general type on their
> web
> > >> sites (execpt for a few samples), and from the fairly high prices
> > >> they charge (e.g. $15-20 for a booklet of aboutt 20 designs).
> > >>
> > >> Now in general, I think of study plans as advertising which can
> be
> > >> passed around and copied pretty much without restriction, and I
> > >have
> > >> never seen any comment from a designer saying not to share study
> > >> plans. How could they really?
> > >>
> > >> It would be much better if the rights claimed or waived were more
> > >> loudly announced. For example, we discuss Bolger designs and MAIB
> > >all
> > >> the time. Why don't we have a specific handle on what rights
> apply
> > >to
> > >> the Bolger articles in MAIB? Is it (entirely) our fault that we
> > >don't.
> > >>
> > >> Peter
> > >>
> > >> > SOME amateur boatbuilders (or wannabes) have little
> appreciation
> > >of
> > >> the need
> > >> > for designers, publishers and writers to make a living. The
> > >> thought never
> > >> > occurs to them, though if anybody asked them to do their work
> for
> > >> nothing
> > >> > they might take a different view.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Bolger rules!!!
> > >- no cursing
> > >- stay on topic
> > >- use punctuation
> > >- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> > >- add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
>
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing
> - stay on topic
> - use punctuation
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
>
Ah yes, my favorite sort of barb!
134 W.26th St. 12th Floor
New York, NY 10001
(212) 247-0296
>> My latin is even rustier than my rhetoric. Anyone want to give aCRUMBLING EMPIRE PRODUCTIONS
>translation?
>
>Britannica says:
>
>- ad hominem - (speaking "against the man" rather than to the issue), in
>which the premises may only make a personal attack on a person who holds
>some thesis, instead of offering grounds showing why what he says is false.
>
>
>
>
>Bolger rules!!!
>- no cursing
>- stay on topic
>- use punctuation
>- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
>- add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
134 W.26th St. 12th Floor
New York, NY 10001
(212) 247-0296
> My latin is even rustier than my rhetoric. Anyone want to give atranslation?
Britannica says:
- ad hominem - (speaking "against the man" rather than to the issue), in
which the premises may only make a personal attack on a person who holds
some thesis, instead of offering grounds showing why what he says is false.
Gregg:
As far as I'm concerned this is a very important topic particularly
for this list, the answer and attitude about which may have some
little something to do with how in the future some better designer
(maybe even Bolger class)than I decides to draw boats for home
builders or not. Maybe more important it'll disuade somebody from
stealing somebody's work.
Moreover, I think your taking acception to my post is both heavy
handed and dictatorial and stifles open discussion both now and in
the future.
Also as far as this being an ad hominem attack, it's more of a full
frontal assult.
Moderation is one thing but it seems to me that you're more into
control and censorship before the fact and that's a lousy position to
take in a venue like this where occasional discord may accomplish
more than all the warm fuzzies in the world.
This is the first post I've made in months, and it'll be the last for
a long time to come.
Chuck Merrell
As far as I'm concerned this is a very important topic particularly
for this list, the answer and attitude about which may have some
little something to do with how in the future some better designer
(maybe even Bolger class)than I decides to draw boats for home
builders or not. Maybe more important it'll disuade somebody from
stealing somebody's work.
Moreover, I think your taking acception to my post is both heavy
handed and dictatorial and stifles open discussion both now and in
the future.
Also as far as this being an ad hominem attack, it's more of a full
frontal assult.
Moderation is one thing but it seems to me that you're more into
control and censorship before the fact and that's a lousy position to
take in a venue like this where occasional discord may accomplish
more than all the warm fuzzies in the world.
This is the first post I've made in months, and it'll be the last for
a long time to come.
Chuck Merrell
--- Inbolger@egroups.com, G Carlson <ghartc@p...> wrote:
> This is topic has been covered, and it's just BARELY on topic.
> Let's move on.
>
>
> Gregg Carlson/Moderator
>
>
>
>
> >The substance of Bill Samson's post is from an email discussion
that
> >we have been having off line. That's the genesis of this
thread . . .
> >
> >However, having read Peter Vanderwaart's reply (below) to Bill's
> >post, I at first thought I'd just let it pass and forget about it
> >then decided I couldn't.
> >
> >l. In the first place, study plans are not a significant part of
the
> >income of any designer. I don't know what planet that Peter lives
> >on, but in this day and age, $15-20 for a booklet showing twenty
> >study plans is not "fairly high". Even twenty bucks for a full-
sized
> >construction sheet or two of a specific boat is very fair. In fact,
> >study plans are always a losing proposition and the income derived
> >doesn't usually begin to cover the production costs, postage time
> >away from other duties, and effort required to get it into the
mail.
> >Half the time, study plans are ordered after the designer has spent
> >time either corresponding with the potential builder with maybe a
> >long distance phone call thrown in. If Peter has that big of a
> >problem with spending a twenty dollar bill, I'd advise him to
forget
> >the thought of building and maybe start collecting four leaf
clovers
> >from the park because no matter how simple or cheap the boat; he
> >can't afford it.
> >
> >2. Study plans are not advertising, and are covered by copyright
> >laws just like any other intellectual property. The reason for
study
> >plans is to give the potential customer a clearer and larger more
> >detailed look at a design he's seriously thinking of building (as
> >opposed to a "Plans Voyeur" who collects but never builds), without
> >having to buy the whole plan set and not using it. Moreover, many
> >designers including myself will deduct the money paid for the study
> >plan if the client/customer eventually buys the plan set.
> >
> >Dealing with this churlish level of thinking and skewed mentality
> >makes it quite easy for a designer with any ability to dump the
baby
> >with the bath water and turn his back(many have)on ANYONE who
> >expresses ANY interest in perhaps physically building his own boat.
> >There are better less irritating ways to spend one's life other
than
> >trying to sell a product to those who want something for nothing
and
> >are insulting about it to boot!
> >
> >I should be used to this by now because I know any type of design
or
> >consulting business tends to attract these types, but I'm not.
> >
> >Chuck Merrell
> >
> >***********************************
> >CHUCK MERRELL
> >MERRELL WATERCRAFT
> >P. O. Box 80264
> >Seattle, WA 98108-0264
> >(206) 764-1298
> >Toll Free Voice Mail and Fax: 1-877-376-3688
> >Email: chuck@b...
> >Web Site:http://www.boatdesign.com
> >**********************************
> >
> >--- Inbolger@egroups.com, "Peter Vanderwaart" <pvanderw@o...>
wrote:
> >> --- Inbolger@egroups.com, "Samson family" <Bill.Samson@t...>
wrote:
> >>
> >> Let me add this to the mix: I have a sneaking suspicion that the
> >> sales of study plans are an important part of the income of many
> >> designers, especially those who design boats for amateur
builders.
> >I
> >> draw this conclusion from the fact that the majority of them do
not
> >> put much more that each boat's length and general type on their
web
> >> sites (execpt for a few samples), and from the fairly high prices
> >> they charge (e.g. $15-20 for a booklet of aboutt 20 designs).
> >>
> >> Now in general, I think of study plans as advertising which can
be
> >> passed around and copied pretty much without restriction, and I
> >have
> >> never seen any comment from a designer saying not to share study
> >> plans. How could they really?
> >>
> >> It would be much better if the rights claimed or waived were more
> >> loudly announced. For example, we discuss Bolger designs and MAIB
> >all
> >> the time. Why don't we have a specific handle on what rights
apply
> >to
> >> the Bolger articles in MAIB? Is it (entirely) our fault that we
> >don't.
> >>
> >> Peter
> >>
> >> > SOME amateur boatbuilders (or wannabes) have little
appreciation
> >of
> >> the need
> >> > for designers, publishers and writers to make a living. The
> >> thought never
> >> > occurs to them, though if anybody asked them to do their work
for
> >> nothing
> >> > they might take a different view.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Bolger rules!!!
> >- no cursing
> >- stay on topic
> >- use punctuation
> >- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> >- add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
>Chuck,My latin is even rustier than my rhetoric. Anyone want to give a translation?
>
>This is an ad hominem attack where I come from.
More on topic, I am very excited by this pilfered drawing of the KS
55. The interior address many of my big boat questions rather nicely.
On the other hand, my only open water/flat bottomed experience is in
my teal. I'd sorely love to get out in a little weather in a Bolger
box. Anyone in the neighborhood want to take me for a ride?
-D
CRUMBLING EMPIRE PRODUCTIONS
134 W.26th St. 12th Floor
New York, NY 10001
(212) 247-0296
Chuck,
This is an ad hominem attack where I come from.
Gregg Carlson
This is an ad hominem attack where I come from.
Gregg Carlson
>The substance of Bill Samson's post is from an email discussion that
>we have been having off line. That's the genesis of this thread . . .
>
>However, having read Peter Vanderwaart's reply (below) to Bill's
>post, I at first thought I'd just let it pass and forget about it
>then decided I couldn't.
>
>l. In the first place, study plans are not a significant part of the
>income of any designer. I don't know what planet that Peter lives
>on, but in this day and age, $15-20 for a booklet showing twenty
>study plans is not "fairly high". Even twenty bucks for a full-sized
>construction sheet or two of a specific boat is very fair. In fact,
>study plans are always a losing proposition and the income derived
>doesn't usually begin to cover the production costs, postage time
>away from other duties, and effort required to get it into the mail.
>Half the time, study plans are ordered after the designer has spent
>time either corresponding with the potential builder with maybe a
>long distance phone call thrown in. If Peter has that big of a
>problem with spending a twenty dollar bill, I'd advise him to forget
>the thought of building and maybe start collecting four leaf clovers
>from the park because no matter how simple or cheap the boat; he
>can't afford it.
>
>2. Study plans are not advertising, and are covered by copyright
>laws just like any other intellectual property. The reason for study
>plans is to give the potential customer a clearer and larger more
>detailed look at a design he's seriously thinking of building (as
>opposed to a "Plans Voyeur" who collects but never builds), without
>having to buy the whole plan set and not using it. Moreover, many
>designers including myself will deduct the money paid for the study
>plan if the client/customer eventually buys the plan set.
>
>Dealing with this churlish level of thinking and skewed mentality
>makes it quite easy for a designer with any ability to dump the baby
>with the bath water and turn his back(many have)on ANYONE who
>expresses ANY interest in perhaps physically building his own boat.
>There are better less irritating ways to spend one's life other than
>trying to sell a product to those who want something for nothing and
>are insulting about it to boot!
>
>I should be used to this by now because I know any type of design or
>consulting business tends to attract these types, but I'm not.
>
>Chuck Merrell
>
>***********************************
>CHUCK MERRELL
>MERRELL WATERCRAFT
>P. O. Box 80264
>Seattle, WA 98108-0264
>(206) 764-1298
>Toll Free Voice Mail and Fax: 1-877-376-3688
>Email:chuck@...
>Web Site:http://www.boatdesign.com
>**********************************
>
>--- Inbolger@egroups.com, "Peter Vanderwaart" <pvanderw@o...> wrote:
>> --- Inbolger@egroups.com, "Samson family" <Bill.Samson@t...> wrote:
>>
>> Let me add this to the mix: I have a sneaking suspicion that the
>> sales of study plans are an important part of the income of many
>> designers, especially those who design boats for amateur builders.
>I
>> draw this conclusion from the fact that the majority of them do not
>> put much more that each boat's length and general type on their web
>> sites (execpt for a few samples), and from the fairly high prices
>> they charge (e.g. $15-20 for a booklet of aboutt 20 designs).
>>
>> Now in general, I think of study plans as advertising which can be
>> passed around and copied pretty much without restriction, and I
>have
>> never seen any comment from a designer saying not to share study
>> plans. How could they really?
>>
>> It would be much better if the rights claimed or waived were more
>> loudly announced. For example, we discuss Bolger designs and MAIB
>all
>> the time. Why don't we have a specific handle on what rights apply
>to
>> the Bolger articles in MAIB? Is it (entirely) our fault that we
>don't.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> > SOME amateur boatbuilders (or wannabes) have little appreciation
>of
>> the need
>> > for designers, publishers and writers to make a living. The
>> thought never
>> > occurs to them, though if anybody asked them to do their work for
>> nothing
>> > they might take a different view.
>
>
>
>
>Bolger rules!!!
>- no cursing
>- stay on topic
>- use punctuation
>- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
>- add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
This is topic has been covered, and it's just BARELY on topic.
Let's move on.
Gregg Carlson/Moderator
Let's move on.
Gregg Carlson/Moderator
>The substance of Bill Samson's post is from an email discussion that
>we have been having off line. That's the genesis of this thread . . .
>
>However, having read Peter Vanderwaart's reply (below) to Bill's
>post, I at first thought I'd just let it pass and forget about it
>then decided I couldn't.
>
>l. In the first place, study plans are not a significant part of the
>income of any designer. I don't know what planet that Peter lives
>on, but in this day and age, $15-20 for a booklet showing twenty
>study plans is not "fairly high". Even twenty bucks for a full-sized
>construction sheet or two of a specific boat is very fair. In fact,
>study plans are always a losing proposition and the income derived
>doesn't usually begin to cover the production costs, postage time
>away from other duties, and effort required to get it into the mail.
>Half the time, study plans are ordered after the designer has spent
>time either corresponding with the potential builder with maybe a
>long distance phone call thrown in. If Peter has that big of a
>problem with spending a twenty dollar bill, I'd advise him to forget
>the thought of building and maybe start collecting four leaf clovers
>from the park because no matter how simple or cheap the boat; he
>can't afford it.
>
>2. Study plans are not advertising, and are covered by copyright
>laws just like any other intellectual property. The reason for study
>plans is to give the potential customer a clearer and larger more
>detailed look at a design he's seriously thinking of building (as
>opposed to a "Plans Voyeur" who collects but never builds), without
>having to buy the whole plan set and not using it. Moreover, many
>designers including myself will deduct the money paid for the study
>plan if the client/customer eventually buys the plan set.
>
>Dealing with this churlish level of thinking and skewed mentality
>makes it quite easy for a designer with any ability to dump the baby
>with the bath water and turn his back(many have)on ANYONE who
>expresses ANY interest in perhaps physically building his own boat.
>There are better less irritating ways to spend one's life other than
>trying to sell a product to those who want something for nothing and
>are insulting about it to boot!
>
>I should be used to this by now because I know any type of design or
>consulting business tends to attract these types, but I'm not.
>
>Chuck Merrell
>
>***********************************
>CHUCK MERRELL
>MERRELL WATERCRAFT
>P. O. Box 80264
>Seattle, WA 98108-0264
>(206) 764-1298
>Toll Free Voice Mail and Fax: 1-877-376-3688
>Email:chuck@...
>Web Site:http://www.boatdesign.com
>**********************************
>
>--- Inbolger@egroups.com, "Peter Vanderwaart" <pvanderw@o...> wrote:
>> --- Inbolger@egroups.com, "Samson family" <Bill.Samson@t...> wrote:
>>
>> Let me add this to the mix: I have a sneaking suspicion that the
>> sales of study plans are an important part of the income of many
>> designers, especially those who design boats for amateur builders.
>I
>> draw this conclusion from the fact that the majority of them do not
>> put much more that each boat's length and general type on their web
>> sites (execpt for a few samples), and from the fairly high prices
>> they charge (e.g. $15-20 for a booklet of aboutt 20 designs).
>>
>> Now in general, I think of study plans as advertising which can be
>> passed around and copied pretty much without restriction, and I
>have
>> never seen any comment from a designer saying not to share study
>> plans. How could they really?
>>
>> It would be much better if the rights claimed or waived were more
>> loudly announced. For example, we discuss Bolger designs and MAIB
>all
>> the time. Why don't we have a specific handle on what rights apply
>to
>> the Bolger articles in MAIB? Is it (entirely) our fault that we
>don't.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> > SOME amateur boatbuilders (or wannabes) have little appreciation
>of
>> the need
>> > for designers, publishers and writers to make a living. The
>> thought never
>> > occurs to them, though if anybody asked them to do their work for
>> nothing
>> > they might take a different view.
>
>
>
>
>Bolger rules!!!
>- no cursing
>- stay on topic
>- use punctuation
>- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
>- add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
The substance of Bill Samson's post is from an email discussion that
we have been having off line. That's the genesis of this thread . . .
However, having read Peter Vanderwaart's reply (below) to Bill's
post, I at first thought I'd just let it pass and forget about it
then decided I couldn't.
l. In the first place, study plans are not a significant part of the
income of any designer. I don't know what planet that Peter lives
on, but in this day and age, $15-20 for a booklet showing twenty
study plans is not "fairly high". Even twenty bucks for a full-sized
construction sheet or two of a specific boat is very fair. In fact,
study plans are always a losing proposition and the income derived
doesn't usually begin to cover the production costs, postage time
away from other duties, and effort required to get it into the mail.
Half the time, study plans are ordered after the designer has spent
time either corresponding with the potential builder with maybe a
long distance phone call thrown in. If Peter has that big of a
problem with spending a twenty dollar bill, I'd advise him to forget
the thought of building and maybe start collecting four leaf clovers
from the park because no matter how simple or cheap the boat; he
can't afford it.
2. Study plans are not advertising, and are covered by copyright
laws just like any other intellectual property. The reason for study
plans is to give the potential customer a clearer and larger more
detailed look at a design he's seriously thinking of building (as
opposed to a "Plans Voyeur" who collects but never builds), without
having to buy the whole plan set and not using it. Moreover, many
designers including myself will deduct the money paid for the study
plan if the client/customer eventually buys the plan set.
Dealing with this churlish level of thinking and skewed mentality
makes it quite easy for a designer with any ability to dump the baby
with the bath water and turn his back(many have)on ANYONE who
expresses ANY interest in perhaps physically building his own boat.
There are better less irritating ways to spend one's life other than
trying to sell a product to those who want something for nothing and
are insulting about it to boot!
I should be used to this by now because I know any type of design or
consulting business tends to attract these types, but I'm not.
Chuck Merrell
***********************************
CHUCK MERRELL
MERRELL WATERCRAFT
P. O. Box 80264
Seattle, WA 98108-0264
(206) 764-1298
Toll Free Voice Mail and Fax: 1-877-376-3688
Email:chuck@...
Web Site:http://www.boatdesign.com
**********************************
we have been having off line. That's the genesis of this thread . . .
However, having read Peter Vanderwaart's reply (below) to Bill's
post, I at first thought I'd just let it pass and forget about it
then decided I couldn't.
l. In the first place, study plans are not a significant part of the
income of any designer. I don't know what planet that Peter lives
on, but in this day and age, $15-20 for a booklet showing twenty
study plans is not "fairly high". Even twenty bucks for a full-sized
construction sheet or two of a specific boat is very fair. In fact,
study plans are always a losing proposition and the income derived
doesn't usually begin to cover the production costs, postage time
away from other duties, and effort required to get it into the mail.
Half the time, study plans are ordered after the designer has spent
time either corresponding with the potential builder with maybe a
long distance phone call thrown in. If Peter has that big of a
problem with spending a twenty dollar bill, I'd advise him to forget
the thought of building and maybe start collecting four leaf clovers
from the park because no matter how simple or cheap the boat; he
can't afford it.
2. Study plans are not advertising, and are covered by copyright
laws just like any other intellectual property. The reason for study
plans is to give the potential customer a clearer and larger more
detailed look at a design he's seriously thinking of building (as
opposed to a "Plans Voyeur" who collects but never builds), without
having to buy the whole plan set and not using it. Moreover, many
designers including myself will deduct the money paid for the study
plan if the client/customer eventually buys the plan set.
Dealing with this churlish level of thinking and skewed mentality
makes it quite easy for a designer with any ability to dump the baby
with the bath water and turn his back(many have)on ANYONE who
expresses ANY interest in perhaps physically building his own boat.
There are better less irritating ways to spend one's life other than
trying to sell a product to those who want something for nothing and
are insulting about it to boot!
I should be used to this by now because I know any type of design or
consulting business tends to attract these types, but I'm not.
Chuck Merrell
***********************************
CHUCK MERRELL
MERRELL WATERCRAFT
P. O. Box 80264
Seattle, WA 98108-0264
(206) 764-1298
Toll Free Voice Mail and Fax: 1-877-376-3688
Email:chuck@...
Web Site:http://www.boatdesign.com
**********************************
--- Inbolger@egroups.com, "Peter Vanderwaart" <pvanderw@o...> wrote:
> --- Inbolger@egroups.com, "Samson family" <Bill.Samson@t...> wrote:
>
> Let me add this to the mix: I have a sneaking suspicion that the
> sales of study plans are an important part of the income of many
> designers, especially those who design boats for amateur builders.
I
> draw this conclusion from the fact that the majority of them do not
> put much more that each boat's length and general type on their web
> sites (execpt for a few samples), and from the fairly high prices
> they charge (e.g. $15-20 for a booklet of aboutt 20 designs).
>
> Now in general, I think of study plans as advertising which can be
> passed around and copied pretty much without restriction, and I
have
> never seen any comment from a designer saying not to share study
> plans. How could they really?
>
> It would be much better if the rights claimed or waived were more
> loudly announced. For example, we discuss Bolger designs and MAIB
all
> the time. Why don't we have a specific handle on what rights apply
to
> the Bolger articles in MAIB? Is it (entirely) our fault that we
don't.
>
> Peter
>
> > SOME amateur boatbuilders (or wannabes) have little appreciation
of
> the need
> > for designers, publishers and writers to make a living. The
> thought never
> > occurs to them, though if anybody asked them to do their work for
> nothing
> > they might take a different view.
Well said,
I have been a professional musician/educator for the past thirty
years, and as everyone knows the right to intellectual property has
really been brought to the forefront recently with the issues
surrounding the Napster website.
When one builds a boat from plans that they have not purchased,
or
a second boat from a single set of plans they are stealing someones
intellectual property whether they have intended the theft or not is
immaterial. This is exactly like making digital copies of songs with
mp3 files, or scanning in copywrited documents for the general public
to peruse. The artists and writers lose out. I could go on for
pages
about the history of recordings and lawsuits filed, but that would
get
off topic.
I think that Steven King has found a great way to deal with this
with his offering an on-line book for $1 per download. So far, his
results have been good with a large percentage of persons downloading
the material and paying. Perhaps a few designers could offer their
study plans this way! Then the issue of what is right to copy and
what is not would be simple to figure out.
I have been a professional musician/educator for the past thirty
years, and as everyone knows the right to intellectual property has
really been brought to the forefront recently with the issues
surrounding the Napster website.
When one builds a boat from plans that they have not purchased,
or
a second boat from a single set of plans they are stealing someones
intellectual property whether they have intended the theft or not is
immaterial. This is exactly like making digital copies of songs with
mp3 files, or scanning in copywrited documents for the general public
to peruse. The artists and writers lose out. I could go on for
pages
about the history of recordings and lawsuits filed, but that would
get
off topic.
I think that Steven King has found a great way to deal with this
with his offering an on-line book for $1 per download. So far, his
results have been good with a large percentage of persons downloading
the material and paying. Perhaps a few designers could offer their
study plans this way! Then the issue of what is right to copy and
what is not would be simple to figure out.
--- Inbolger@egroups.com, "Samson family" <Bill.Samson@t...> wrote:
Let me add this to the mix: I have a sneaking suspicion that the
sales of study plans are an important part of the income of many
designers, especially those who design boats for amateur builders. I
draw this conclusion from the fact that the majority of them do not
put much more that each boat's length and general type on their web
sites (execpt for a few samples), and from the fairly high prices
they charge (e.g. $15-20 for a booklet of aboutt 20 designs).
Now in general, I think of study plans as advertising which can be
passed around and copied pretty much without restriction, and I have
never seen any comment from a designer saying not to share study
plans. How could they really?
It would be much better if the rights claimed or waived were more
loudly announced. For example, we discuss Bolger designs and MAIB all
the time. Why don't we have a specific handle on what rights apply to
the Bolger articles in MAIB? Is it (entirely) our fault that we don't.
Peter
> SOME amateur boatbuilders (or wannabes) have little appreciation of
the need
> for designers, publishers and writers to make a living. The
thought never
> occurs to them, though if anybody asked them to do their work for
nothing
> they might take a different view.
Hi guys,
No names, no flame wars, BUT!!!
SOME amateur boatbuilders (or wannabes) have little appreciation of the need
for designers, publishers and writers to make a living. The thought never
occurs to them, though if anybody asked them to do their work for nothing
they might take a different view.
A rich shoe manufacturer in Austria invited Wagner, the composer, to dinner
one evening. After the excellent meal, the host took his guests to the
music room, and invited Wagner to play the piano for them, which he did
without a murmur. A few weeks later, Wagner invited the shoe manufacturer
to his home for dinner. After the meal, Wagner took his guests to a drawing
room where a cobbler's bench was set up, and invited the shoe manufacturer
to repair all the family's shoes. I think he got the message.
It's funny, though, how easy it is for the obsessed amateur to completely
ignore the commercial reality of the professional, especially if they've
never been self-employed or without some independent means of support.
Phil Bolger is very generous with his time to the purchasers of his
drawings, and
even to those who are just tyre-kicking. Equally, he's very appreciative of
the efforts of people like myself who promote his work, with no personal
gain involved.
Of course, we all like to get something for nothing, but there's big
difference between a gift, freely given, and the theft or misuse of
copyright material. Whether or not this is enforceable under the law is
neither here nor there - it's simply a matter of honesty and self-respect.
There! I've said it.
Bill
--bill.samson@...
Chebacco News can be viewed on:
http://members.xoom.com/billsamson
No names, no flame wars, BUT!!!
SOME amateur boatbuilders (or wannabes) have little appreciation of the need
for designers, publishers and writers to make a living. The thought never
occurs to them, though if anybody asked them to do their work for nothing
they might take a different view.
A rich shoe manufacturer in Austria invited Wagner, the composer, to dinner
one evening. After the excellent meal, the host took his guests to the
music room, and invited Wagner to play the piano for them, which he did
without a murmur. A few weeks later, Wagner invited the shoe manufacturer
to his home for dinner. After the meal, Wagner took his guests to a drawing
room where a cobbler's bench was set up, and invited the shoe manufacturer
to repair all the family's shoes. I think he got the message.
It's funny, though, how easy it is for the obsessed amateur to completely
ignore the commercial reality of the professional, especially if they've
never been self-employed or without some independent means of support.
Phil Bolger is very generous with his time to the purchasers of his
drawings, and
even to those who are just tyre-kicking. Equally, he's very appreciative of
the efforts of people like myself who promote his work, with no personal
gain involved.
Of course, we all like to get something for nothing, but there's big
difference between a gift, freely given, and the theft or misuse of
copyright material. Whether or not this is enforceable under the law is
neither here nor there - it's simply a matter of honesty and self-respect.
There! I've said it.
Bill
--bill.samson@...
Chebacco News can be viewed on:
http://members.xoom.com/billsamson