A kayak as a mold

Discussion in 'Boat Design' started by nitsuj, Jun 9, 2011.

  1. nitsuj
    Joined: Jun 2011
    Posts: 29
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 3
    Location: ottawa

    nitsuj Junior Member

    Copyrights and patents are two different things. Th Canadian gov' website on this stuff says it helps to look at the word backwords. copyright - Right to copy.

    A copyright is a right to copy I suppose is the message. Copyrights give the Creator exclusivity for life + 50yrs (designs are created).

    Patents give the Inventor (note the significant difference of terms) exclusive legal right to use, sell AND make (me ->:confused:) the invention.

    The site goes on to say that the purpose is to reward the inventor. I completely agree with this (however for me pharmaceuticals is a grey area and should have a less capitalist approach). The inventor should be able to market the invention free from copycats/imitations of the original as to give a means of monopoly within a market and profit from it, for a finite time in balance with free country ideals . And in addition the site says, patents are an "important means of sharing know-how." & "Eighteen months after a patent application is filed, the document is made public in order to promote the sharing of knowledge"

    Clearly the intent of a patent is not to restrict people from copying* (copyright is) It is to "reward" the Inventor (at the expense of the rest of the country).

    Note that while hull designs are clearly not inventions, the do have an avenue of protection as DCockey pointed out early, Vessel Hull Design Protection Act (im sure Canada would have an equivalent and doubt that many kayak hull designs are listed).

    The two sides of argument here are clear as day, as is the purpose and intent of patents, which should not be confused with copyrights.

    On a side note does anyone here have a patented kayak hull design out there in the market?

    *so there is no confusion, not allowing people to copy an invention is merely the means to "reward" the inventor, again this is not to be confused with a copyright, however it does have everything to do with capitalism.
     
  2. Ad Hoc
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 7,773
    Likes: 1,678, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 2488
    Location: Japan

    Ad Hoc Naval Architect

    Either you’re very very naive or just plain ignorant.

    What has profit got to do with it??

    I find a CD, I copy it….i use for my own personal use. I never sell it to anyone. Oh look, there is another CD, I’ll copy that…I continue and have some 1000 CDs all copies. Total cost of expenditure, burning blank CD, peanuts. Total cost of buying actual CDs $20 x 1000 = a lot of money YOU have saved, wow, this copying lark saves me money!

    You’re not selling them on, YOU'RE saving money.

    You are NOT paying for the CD, ergo you’re NOT paying the Artist that spent years training how to play/write music for his talent, you’re NOT paying for the music studio that made the CD of audible quality, you’re NOT paying the distributor for marketing and disturbing etc etc etc. Aaahh..but that is ok, because it is for you’re own personal use, not for profit.

    You’re stealing, as Jeremy says it is THEFT!...You really don’t understand the concept of copying at all.
     
  3. nitsuj
    Joined: Jun 2011
    Posts: 29
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 3
    Location: ottawa

    nitsuj Junior Member

    lol thats funny because one,

    this is about patents

    two,

    Actually I can go buy a music CD and legally make thousands of copies for personal use.

    I believe digital copying of music can sometimes have built in limitations of the number of copies that can be made, while it is legal to make as many copies as seen fit for personal use, it is illegal to circumvent such Digital Rights Management software controls. While from a legal perspective this is "unfair" it only makes sense, as there is no reason other than pirating, for any particular digital music file to be copied an extensive number of times.
     
  4. Ad Hoc
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 7,773
    Likes: 1,678, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 2488
    Location: Japan

    Ad Hoc Naval Architect

    Oh, that's funny....you are naive then.

    Because:
    1) This has nothing to do with patents, see my previous post. That is just a bit of paper being registered into a Admin system, so what?
    2) So, you're now a licenced braodcasting entity wow...like a Radio Station or TV company, which requires a music licence to play/copy music?...well done, bully for you. Will you be braodcasting your copied CDs for everyone to listen to, here on BDforum?
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. nitsuj
    Joined: Jun 2011
    Posts: 29
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 3
    Location: ottawa

    nitsuj Junior Member

    Those are all different terms (or kinds of) of music licenses.

    Radio stations (and TV) generate revenues from advertisements. Radio stations attract an audience by entertaining them with music. creators of that music are entitled to their share of revenue generated from advertising.

    Have you ever noticed all the internet radio stations out there?

    So yea, I could buy a CD make a thousand copies and play it for you (and whoever else) over the internet. If I were wastefully rich I could build a 50k watt radio station and blast all the hits from my purchased music collection, (Revenue free of course). I would have trouble getting a broadcasting license from the CRTC, but not for copyright violation reasons, because of market reasons.

    Oh and stop being misleading. Copying a kayak has nothing to do with copyright violations, it has to do with the unlikely event the kayak is protected by the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act, a type of patent.

    oh and a music license is what you agree to when you merely buy a CD.
     
  6. PAR
    Joined: Nov 2003
    Posts: 19,126
    Likes: 498, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 3967
    Location: Eustis, FL

    PAR Yacht Designer/Builder

    John, there's no discussion or debate with little boys that haven't the foggiest of the concepts or practicalities involved. This guy's a teenager or young adult, that has no interest in anything other then what he might "get away with", particularity in light of his dismal attempts to justify and distort law and protection acts. He's just one of those sorts who's greatest pleasure is derived, taking the opposing side and attempting meaningless and unfounded debate. When faced with the realities of his position, they're ignored or twisted around in an attempt to misdirect. I know how it works, I've been involved in these cases previously. I know you no how it works, but little Johnny here has still apron string marks on his wrists and not the remotest clue as to how far off base he is. He's pissing up a rope and trying to justify his successful new enterprise.
     
  7. Cheesy
    Joined: Aug 2008
    Posts: 315
    Likes: 12, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 189
    Location: NZ

    Cheesy Senior Member

    If someone goes through the time consuming process of designing a kayak (in this case) it is really their responsibility (in fact doesnt it seem silly to assume your design is safe after all this hard work?) to investigate what sort of protection against 'copying' is available to them. In the case of a boat copyright offers no protection at all, a patent is very unlikely which leaves a registered design. If you dont register it dont complain about it being copied.
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. Poida
    Joined: Apr 2006
    Posts: 1,188
    Likes: 51, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 497
    Location: Australia

    Poida Senior Member

    And if you do splash a hull, put it where no one will see it. In the water:D
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. PAR
    Joined: Nov 2003
    Posts: 19,126
    Likes: 498, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 3967
    Location: Eustis, FL

    PAR Yacht Designer/Builder

    After 5 pages of debate with some, who clearly don't understand the law and are interested in only "free" (stealing), then have the gall to ding my reputation and not put a name to it! The only comment is "abusive". To this I declare abusive as the ball-less wonder that can't stand up and say "hay, I think you're being abusive", particularly on a thread where I'm defending the right to not have work stolen, just because "it's only a kayak".

    I've had work stolen and it's not flattering and it is stealing and the law is in complete agreement, unfortunately the country where this fellow stole my stuff doesn't see things this way and in fact uses these techniques to advance it's GNP annually. After the usual channels and absolutely no success, I hired a buddy to take down the site. After the 5th time it was brought down, it wasn't put back up again. No, not the legal way to do things, but the country he was in supports this type of activity, so I used the "biker friends" analogy I mentioned previously and got the job done. Since, the same fellows have started up a new site, without my work in it, but with others I know and now they're going through the same thing I did.

    Trust me, if your stuff gets stolen, be it splashing or other wise, you don't take kind to it's mentioning, nor the suggestion "it's only a kayak". You'll get pissed, which I've plainly displayed and justifiably.

    As to the weenie that dinged my points, well I can afford it, though after a long list of positive points rewards, it sucks to have an anonymous red ding. I've always put my initials (PAR) on my point rewards, positive or negative. I guess this goes to show the difference between you an I. One of us can stand up and very likely the other is still thinking about stealing.
     
  10. Jeremy Harris
    Joined: Jun 2009
    Posts: 978
    Likes: 60, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 711
    Location: Salisbury, UK

    Jeremy Harris Senior Member

    Very well put. The only reason I can think of for anyone to wish to remain anonymous over an issue like this is because, in their heart, they know full well that what they are proposing to do is theft and they don't want to risk having their name associated with it.

    Personally, I don't take any notice of the rep points thing on here. People earn credibility, in my view, by the quality of their contributions, not by an arbitrary points system that I suspect few take any notice of.
     
  11. carball
    Joined: May 2011
    Posts: 5
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Canda

    carball Junior Member

    I now have a Mission sit on. My 4 wheel drive doesn't fit under the carport with the kayak on the roof rack. One day I forgot it was there and rammed the kayak into the roof of the carport. No damage to the kayak but put a fair dent in the front of the carport.

    I would definately recommend a Mission Kayak for ramming carports.
     
  12. Nurb
    Joined: Jan 2011
    Posts: 65
    Likes: 6, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 82
    Location: IL

    Nurb Junior Member

    I am offended by the idea of stealing money out of someone else's pocket as I hope all others are. It always surprises me when I encounter someone who doesn’t share my upbringing and belief “thou shalt not steal” but they are out there and I think it is relevant to know what exact laws exist and apply.

    I found DCockey's two posts on pages 2 and 3 very informative and maybe shocking (I have trouble coming to terms with the reasoning why an engineered design like an exact boat hull's shape isn't automatically offered the same order of protection as an artistic work.) I don't make my living either designing or building boats but the 10 year protection of the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act is not very long to profit from all the work that goes into many designs I'm sure. The finite time period does push innovation forward maybe.
     
  13. Nurb
    Joined: Jan 2011
    Posts: 65
    Likes: 6, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 82
    Location: IL

    Nurb Junior Member

    The very broad analogies did get me thinking. Morally, is there anything to an analogous idea from the digital realm of "one instance in use" rights? I do make a copy of my software discs in case they are lost or damaged and I need them. I also clone the entire harddrive which is within the law as long as it’s a backup only called if the active install is destroyed. Brainstorming, I thought of buying plans for a small sailboat. I build the boat and one week after I'm finished but before I have it insured, a hurricane comes and completely destroys it in the driveway. Morally, I would feel ok about building a replacement boat from the same plans in this scenario. But this topic is splashing a mold from an existing hull. If the boat is already destroyed beyond restoration, you don't have anything to splash from. If many are available, it will be much cheaper to buy a replacement than splash one as kroberts and maybe others have already said on page 4.

    On page 1 http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/kayak-mold-38411.html#post468238 the idea was put forth of someone who “regularly crashed his kayak. It was an extremely light weight thing. So he went and replaced the wreck each time by making a new one.” Maybe this could be analogous to keeping a backup copy of software with only one instance being "in use." I also read about paddlers who are so competitive that they replace their boat after a short time. Any damage or softness that comes with time makes them less competitive. But they still have some resale value so this doesn't work. How many people in the entire world are in a position they can “clone” their boat for personal use? People whose family own a fiberglass shop? Only if the design was so rare they couldn't find a similar design to license and build for profit to cover the mold cost. And this new a design would be covered by the vessel hull design protection act's 10 year protection. These competitive people won't be in a 10 year old design I think.

    A one in a million could be you have a very rare hull. Can't buy another. Somehow you know it’s worth a herculean effort. It can be faired but has been compromised beyond restoration - 100# of bad bondo added all over crushed glass to get it fair or terribly inferior resin used in the original layup maybe.


    Legally, and please correct me if I have this wrong, it appears you can “splash” a boat after either 10 or 14 years :(

    Financially and practically I have trouble thinking of a single real case when this makes sense for replacement purpose.

    Morally I wouldn’t do it for anything except replacement purpose.
     
  14. PAR
    Joined: Nov 2003
    Posts: 19,126
    Likes: 498, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 3967
    Location: Eustis, FL

    PAR Yacht Designer/Builder

    There's only two reasons someone would splash an existing hull form: to reproduce it as a "new venture" or because they haven't a clue about actually building boats and think this is an easy way to get one.
     
    1 person likes this.

  15. kroberts
    Joined: Mar 2009
    Posts: 318
    Likes: 12, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 210
    Location: Chicago area

    kroberts Senior Member

    3: They are the original designer, the hull is a plug and they find it easier to build the positive plug than the negative mold. But you already knew that. :)

    PAR, I'm totally on your side. The only people who think it's no big deal are those who have never built anything and can't comprehend that anything they ever would build might be desirable enough for somebody else to want to buy it.
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.