I built a saw till and plane rack last year. I also had been putting it off for some time. I also searched CZcams, Instructables and Pinterest for inspiration. I would say the finished pieces were a combination of several racks and tills. I couldn't credit any one person with what I decided to build because so many of the ones I looked at were their own customisations for their own requirements and mostly based around the same, similar central theme. I agree we should give credit to, or ask permission when we know the originator or even acknowledge the style that something is based on. But, I think some things are so generic that it would be difficult to pinpoint any one person or company. That is one of your best videos. I really appreciate you sharing it.
Great video and very thought provoking. Having a look at Sara's design it is clear where the inspiration for your modified design came from. Cudos for giving her credit.
Awesome video. I have been in construction for a long time but I'm somewhat new to woodworking. In between you and wwmm I have learned so much I really couldn't thank you enough keep up the great work!!!
It's very seldom one comes up with an idea that hasn't been thought of before. And sometimes the designer may have never seen the idea, and thought it was his own. Maybe some person on a far away island had the same thought at the same time. I enjoyed your commentary and nice build. Thanks.
Spotted several of your tips and techniques from the TotD series - I'm very glad to have watched those videos! Thanks for highlighting many of them in this video, helping them to stick... All the while, starting the important discussion on inspiration and giving credit when credit is due. It is interesting how the internet has dropped the regional/stylistic wall, so to speak. Certain things being so ubiquitous, I imagine many projects are simply "inspired by the internet" - How many makers making the same project should be cited as inspiration before you can safely call it your own style? Important questions, indeed....
Stunning stunning and if you have a spare holdfast I sure could use one friend we have nothing as good as your holdfasts. Keep up the fine work. Pete in the uk
So true, so true. I think acknowledgement is a start, permission is good, and fair royalties if sold. In this case, I suspect the idea creator was honored by your skillful reproduction with this thoughtful acknowledgement, plus, I bet, free advertising 😉. Like listening to the JB Base player, I think we watch you to kinda steal your methods of craftmanship more so than any particular project. Thx
"... Are we just a lot more efficient thieves nowadays?" LOL, Yes, yes we are.... This video and another of yours was enough to make me subscribe. I like your style.
FYI to anyone watching... the "poor man's copyright" of mailing something to yourself, even if its a certified letter, is not legally defensible. Get an actual copyright if you need one.
I couldn't agree more with your view of the world, it seems to me that as a race we derive inspiration from wherever and however we look at the world, it is the essence of man to take inspiration and modify it to his or her own aesthetic, otherwise there would only ever be one of anything ever in existence. I believe it is incumbent on us as honourable people to acknowledge the source of the inspiration if we know it, if not say some where in the work that " I was inspired by the ...art deco movement....or by a piece I saw in such and such a exhibit/journal/CZcams video" I feel this is only right and proper, plagiarism exists in every field of human pursuit but so should honesty.
I both love the project and love the monologue. I just don't find they don't work well together as I mentally find myself constantly focusing on one or the other. My mind can't stick to both. You are very skilled and the end result looks great. I see a good philosopher in you. Very nice project and love the video quality.
Mimicry, if you wish, think of it as an analogy; think of art as speach. Most advances in almost any field are just small changes to things that already exist. Please note, I applaud you for making this video and no one wants blatant rip-offs. The questions you raise are thought-provoking. Everyone deserves pay and credit for their work but what most all of us learn things and have no knowledge of where the ideas come from. If we use it is it stealing? If I would take a Van Gough technique he used in painting and tried to incorporate into wood working am I stealing? If one puts E=MCC or asks for a kleenex art they steeling? I do not know but neither do I know "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"...
Not sure I understand the idea of mimicry as and analogy or speech. There is a big difference between technique, learned skill, and a product. If for example you watch a master teach dovetails and you use a dovetail to make a drawer I don't think there is any relevance to IP protection. But, if a master shows you their technique for making a style of chandilier in which they use hundreds of dovetails at all different angles to form an undulating ribbon that wraps around a light source.... You make the same dovetail ribbon chandelier, sell it and claim I'm just mimicking the master I think there is a case for copyright infringement. Err... patent... eh, one of those IP's.
Spot on.If you have an original creation these days then you can estimate that you "own" it for 12 - 18 months then its gone, everyone else will rip it off.I have a website which shows some of my stuff but it is basically a point of contact where folks refer people to me.When I look at the website I can't see which individual has looked in but I do get a report on which area / country / city is visiting.I am often intrigued as to why a certain place has popped in but I know why regions in China look in. They are looking for ideas to rip off. I don't get upset by this cos like you say I also scan for ideas or inspiration but I like to think that I'm not ripping off but adding my own twist to the idea so maybe they are doing the same.That said, copying is flattering, but I limit my original ideas to the market place to slow down cloning of any type ...... and maintain my originality ..... and prices.Love your stuff!
Wouldn't be the same with straight handled saws. The 3 I have (you can see in video on side wall) are hung on nail. Least amount of space use on wall I can think of at the moment.
Wondering if he ever mentioned where is smaller bow saw design is from? I searched his videos but if he does mention it it's inside some random video. Where to get blade and possibly rough dimensions would be fantastical. Just so we are clear. You do not simply wonder Pinterest. Pinterest is a deep dark hole which no one can escape.
Mailing yourself your music or design as a copyright is an old wives tail. Sorry folks if you want a copyright you have to go through the process with library of Congress
That's one of those yes and no things. Technically you don't have to do anything to have a copyright in the US as it's granted the moment the artist says it's done. But that's being stupid. Getting something published sets a date and author legally. Registering with Congres further cements. Registering it also lets you use that little C symbol if I remember correctly. Doesnt' mean you won't be taken to court. If there is a dispute between two parties claiming a copyright then the case goes to the creator (unless they sold it). A sealed letter is a little bit of insurance/evidence of date of creation in a courtroom (then again in this litigious state I'm sure a lawyer would drag CSI departments in.)
Copyright doesn't protect "giving credit", it kills competition and removes freedom. If you copy something, credit should always be given, but saying you can't copy something at all because some person or corporation is holds some broken copyright law over you, is wrong. Copying isn't theft. Theft deprives the creator of the original.
Without copyright protection we wouldn't have things like Calvin and Hobbes, Game of Thrones, Steven King etc... as these people wouldn't be able to control their image or earn a living. They wouldn't have the time to dedicate to making stuff for the rest of us. Don't see how it kills freedom as the things that are copyrighted are made from thin air (analogy). Because I make a piece of art doesn't prevent you from making another. Competition, maybe. But then again I really only want Charles Schulz (and heirs) producing Snoopy so it does grant them the monopoly on Peanuts.
Without copyright we would still have Calvin and Hobbes, Game of Thrones, etc as people will always want the original. Without copyright, those things would be the same, but we'd also have tons of fan-art in addition without the threat of lawsuit. Imagine someone copyrighting dovetails and then selling the rights to a company who prevents anyone from using them for 100+ years. Do you think that is right? Note: My pseudonym has nothing to do with my stance. In fact, it may counter it in some ways. Nice stab at religious people though? You were less than clear.
How is making your own version of an object you observe any different than employing a new skill or technique you learned by watching someone else? A patent is a legal restraint to prohibit others from profiting (for a limited time) from an idea you have registered with the gov't. But as far as property rights go, If I do or don't build an item (say for my personal use) that I saw you make, maybe by using a technique that I saw you use (or not use), my actions are not infringing on your property rights from your time invested in your object or craft. If I did it and you didn't know then it can't infringe your property right (it won't diminish the value of your object or technique). Once the knowledge is transferred to my brain you don't have ownership of the thoughts in my head. When you create an object and expose it to the world the patent must be registered before doing so because once it is out there it becomes public knowledge. This is why many companies prefer to keep procedures or technologies as trade secrets rather than register a patent. This is actually a very complicated subject. I didn't mean to single you out personally in this post - it was my way of trying to state a different point of view without being too abstract. I thought it was great video and thank you. /John
I think I understand your intent but what you actually did say was justification of theft. It's not stealing if you don't know about it? It doesn't' diminish value if you don't know about it? That's kinda like saying, "if I learn to draw by studying Bill Wattersons work, then draw, produce and sell a Calvin and Hobbes sticker for the back window of trucks. As long as he never knows .... My argument in this was also more a moral one than legal though we did discuss the legality to frame the question.
When you have a property right in something it means you have a right to control it. You don’t have to create something in order for it to be ownable and not everything you create is necessarily justifiably ownable. For example, if you go out in the woods on unowned land and you fall a tree then that tree is yours because you own your body and your actions that you used to claim that previously unowned tree. You now own the tree, but you didn’t create it. You homesteaded it. Now you go make something out of that tree - say a bookshelf. You mixed your labor with the wood that you owned and that shelf is now also yours. No one could possibly argue any level of ownership of that shelf more than you. You have full right to control that shelf to do with it how you please, as long as you don’t infringe on anyone else’s property rights with it. How is it then that something you create is not justifiably ownable by you? Lets say that I go in that same woods and similarly cut down a tree that is now mine. I too have a right to mix my labor with it to make something that will be mine. I have first property rights in my wood and therefore control of it. Now, your idea for a bookshelf is your idea but do you own it? Why not? Your ownership of the idea would mean you have a right to control it. If your idea prevents me from using my wood to make a shelf it means you are implying you have partial ownership of my property - to control how it is used. One can argue from a moral standpoint that since you are a latecomer to my property which I already owned, that you do not have the right to control how I choose to transform my property. If ownership of your idea implies an invasion of my property rights then can you morally own your idea? This is just another (unpopular I guess) way of looking at it. /John
Uh... ideas are what patents and some copyrights (like a furniture design/style) are, ideas. You don't patent a pill, you patent it's formula. You copyright an original idea of an image not a single print of it. These are pretty international ideas.
No, copyright is not "ideas". As well patents are not. They are so-called "IP rights", which are "rights to intangible things as expressed (copyrights), or as embodied in a practical implementation (patents)." In essence, these are state-defined and state-enforced monopolies, which "try to set up rights in non-scarce things, which in effect grants negative servitudes to some people at the expense of the property rights of others." (See Kinsella's concise book on this topic here - books.google.com.ua/books?id=M-c8POVykzcC&lpg=PA20&ots=jlXgISyx75&dq=kinsella%20why%20IP%20is%20illegitimate&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false ) And as such, they are incompatible with universal property rights. If you are in favor of one, you'll have to cede (and oppose) the other. Also, even though these things are pretty international, they are not more justified because of that. Slavery once was a pretty international idea, it didn't make it justified.
wortheffort no you patent a design, a tangible object. You copyright sentences. This whole video was a wasted effort. This kind of crap is what Facebook groups are for.
a design is a drawing of an idea, a blueprint a representation of a product, a formula... Bill Watterson holds a copyright on Calvin and Hobbs, a character. Not just one specific drawing or caption but the character (idea). There's a reason why these are grouped as "Intellectual Property" i.e. not physical.
What, now you're arguing the opposite? "Intangible" means not real. An idea of something. As far as arguing that negative servitudes. Well, I'm glad Calvin and Hobbs is protected and that drug companies get a few years of a monopoly so they'll take the financial risk designing that first pill. P.S. - Don't include links in CZcams comments. They automatically go into SPAM filters. I just got lucky and found this and approved it. And, I don't really need to read a book on the basics of copyright and patents. They're pretty simple concepts.
Kudos to both you and Sarah R Woods. There's a whole lot more than "simple" in this build. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks
Had to watch it twice. First time I didn't even follow the build as I was too into the words! Good job!
Thanks
Wow nice craftmanship. Handmade to the max
Very fine build and very appropriate commentary. Thanks!
Just beautiful. Your build, your words.
Thanks
Brilliant build! I thought I had finally settled on a design but now.. this. Yikes ! It is awesome. Time to make some sawdust !!
Great craftsmanship and great commentary on art and imitation.
Best video yet. Beautiful project. And beautiful philosophy to live by.
Thanks
I built a saw till and plane rack last year. I also had been putting it off for some time. I also searched CZcams, Instructables and Pinterest for inspiration. I would say the finished pieces were a combination of several racks and tills. I couldn't credit any one person with what I decided to build because so many of the ones I looked at were their own customisations for their own requirements and mostly based around the same, similar central theme. I agree we should give credit to, or ask permission when we know the originator or even acknowledge the style that something is based on. But, I think some things are so generic that it would be difficult to pinpoint any one person or company. That is one of your best videos. I really appreciate you sharing it.
Thanks, and I agree. Well worded.
speaking of great inventions, the MUTE function is my all time favorite.
Aren’t you a pleasant man.
@yeager17832 the block and delete buttons would be more suitable for you!
On a metaphysical plane, excellent. And as far as down to earth hand work, par excellence. Thank you
Thanks
I enjoyed your ruminations. Oh, and your handiwork too.
One of my favorite videos! Great job...
Thanks
Great homage to another maker Shawn. Great video and commentary. Thanks.
Thanks
Functional and a work of art, thanks for sharing this and all your other videos.
Thanks
Great video and very thought provoking. Having a look at Sara's design it is clear where the inspiration for your modified design came from. Cudos for giving her credit.
Thanks
Excellent video and great monologue. Thank you for sharing this.
Thanks
Very nice! It's good to see you build something again! Thank you.
Thanks
Very well presented and spoken, Makes you think about a lot of idea's and where they originated.
Keep your video's coming.
Regards Shayne......
Thanks
That was a most enjoyable presentation. Thanks to both of you.
Thanks
OMG! That table raising idea. Never have I seen that before!
Idea stolen from jewelry venders at art markets.
I really like your build videos especially this one 👍
Thanks
Thank you for sharing this build and your thoughts too. Extra thanks for crediting SarahRoseWood too
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Outstanding video and great points.
Thanks
I really enjoyed this particular style of video. The narration was done so well, and the editing was spot on.
Thanks
In other cultures 'stealing' a design and credit the owner for the design is the highest form of respect.
That was smooth. Very nice
Thanks
Wow, blew me away!
It's a simple design.
Awesome video. I have been in construction for a long time but I'm somewhat new to woodworking. In between you and wwmm I have learned so much I really couldn't thank you enough keep up the great work!!!
Thanks
Awesome build
Thanks
A very nice video, great to see something different.
Thanks.
Actually it's a return to old form.
A great project. I really liked the relaxed tone of the narration as compared to your normal monologue.
I ran outa caffeine.
It's very seldom one comes up with an idea that hasn't been thought of before. And sometimes the designer may have never seen the idea, and thought it was his own. Maybe some person on a far away island had the same thought at the same time. I enjoyed your commentary and nice build. Thanks.
That is an interesting subject. Thanks.
Thanks
Spotted several of your tips and techniques from the TotD series - I'm very glad to have watched those videos! Thanks for highlighting many of them in this video, helping them to stick... All the while, starting the important discussion on inspiration and giving credit when credit is due. It is interesting how the internet has dropped the regional/stylistic wall, so to speak. Certain things being so ubiquitous, I imagine many projects are simply "inspired by the internet" - How many makers making the same project should be cited as inspiration before you can safely call it your own style? Important questions, indeed....
Good points.
Stunning stunning and if you have a spare holdfast I sure could use one friend we have nothing as good as your holdfasts.
Keep up the fine work.
Pete in the uk
Look at "Tools for Working Wood" I think a pair is $40 which even shipping (they might have a distributer over there) that's cheap.
Points for mentioning Clyde Stubblefield!!
So true, so true. I think acknowledgement is a start, permission is good, and fair royalties if sold. In this case, I suspect the idea creator was honored by your skillful reproduction with this thoughtful acknowledgement, plus, I bet, free advertising 😉. Like listening to the JB Base player, I think we watch you to kinda steal your methods of craftmanship more so than any particular project. Thx
I learned everything I know, from someone else.
Love the outfeed table 😁
gotta make due
awesomely said.
Well done.
Thanks
Nice
Thanks for sharing
What is not stolen today?
What I approve is when someone makes a twist or actually make it better.
Great build!
Very nice job 👍🏼
Thanks
"... Are we just a lot more efficient thieves nowadays?" LOL, Yes, yes we are.... This video and another of yours was enough to make me subscribe. I like your style.
Thanks and welcome aboard.
A great project !
Thanks
From one Texan to another....EEEEhhhhaaawww! Enjoyed your new format!
Thanks (It's actually the old format.)
great video!!!!!
Thanks
nice job and great video my friend
Thanks
A wise man once said, "Good design is little more than selective thievery".
That was the MELLOIST, ZEN, CALM, QUIETEST, I've ever seen you...You ok? cheers...rr
Ran outa caffiene.
👍👍👍🇹🇷
made me think of the H. O. Studley tool chests. As a suggestion - that might make an interesting video - so much art in his work.
That chest is locked away never to be seen again. They had a big presentation last WIA about it before going to private museum.
Pretty cool!!!
Thanks for what u do!!!!
Thanks
Thumbs up #2. Love your stuff.
Thanks
FYI to anyone watching... the "poor man's copyright" of mailing something to yourself, even if its a certified letter, is not legally defensible. Get an actual copyright if you need one.
Very nice!!! Thanks for sharing. Later, Murph
Thanks Murph
Nice!
Thanks
I couldn't agree more with your view of the world, it seems to me that as a race we derive inspiration from wherever and however we look at the world, it is the essence of man to take inspiration and modify it to his or her own aesthetic, otherwise there would only ever be one of anything ever in existence. I believe it is incumbent on us as honourable people to acknowledge the source of the inspiration if we know it, if not say some where in the work that " I was inspired by the ...art deco movement....or by a piece I saw in such and such a exhibit/journal/CZcams video" I feel this is only right and proper, plagiarism exists in every field of human pursuit but so should honesty.
Sweet !
Thanks
I both love the project and love the monologue. I just don't find they don't work well together as I mentally find myself constantly focusing on one or the other. My mind can't stick to both. You are very skilled and the end result looks great. I see a good philosopher in you. Very nice project and love the video quality.
Watch it twice! :)
ROFL
You know what... I obviously missed the obvious solution
Thanks ;-)
Mimicry is a high form of compliment.
mimicry is a form of parody, protected under free speech.
Mimicry, if you wish, think of it as an analogy; think of art as speach. Most advances in almost any field are just small changes to things that already exist. Please note, I applaud you for making this video and no one wants blatant rip-offs. The questions you raise are thought-provoking. Everyone deserves pay and credit for their work but what most all of us learn things and have no knowledge of where the ideas come from. If we use it is it stealing? If I would take a Van Gough technique he used in painting and tried to incorporate into wood working am I stealing? If one puts E=MCC or asks for a kleenex art they steeling? I do not know but neither do I know "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"...
Not sure I understand the idea of mimicry as and analogy or speech. There is a big difference between technique, learned skill, and a product. If for example you watch a master teach dovetails and you use a dovetail to make a drawer I don't think there is any relevance to IP protection. But, if a master shows you their technique for making a style of chandilier in which they use hundreds of dovetails at all different angles to form an undulating ribbon that wraps around a light source.... You make the same dovetail ribbon chandelier, sell it and claim I'm just mimicking the master I think there is a case for copyright infringement. Err... patent... eh, one of those IP's.
Okay.
Spot on.If you have an original creation these days then you can estimate that you "own" it for 12 - 18 months then its gone, everyone else will rip it off.I have a website which shows some of my stuff but it is basically a point of contact where folks refer people to me.When I look at the website I can't see which individual has looked in but I do get a report on which area / country / city is visiting.I am often intrigued as to why a certain place has popped in but I know why regions in China look in. They are looking for ideas to rip off. I don't get upset by this cos like you say I also scan for ideas or inspiration but I like to think that I'm not ripping off but adding my own twist to the idea so maybe they are doing the same.That said, copying is flattering, but I limit my original ideas to the market place to slow down cloning of any type ...... and maintain my originality ..... and prices.Love your stuff!
Thanks
nice
Thanks
Nice. How about one for Japanese saws.
Wouldn't be the same with straight handled saws. The 3 I have (you can see in video on side wall) are hung on nail. Least amount of space use on wall I can think of at the moment.
I've now seen both you and Paul Sellers use a router place in place of a wheel gauge or marking knife. When should this method be used?
When you're lazy and don't want to spend time setting two tools.
To expand:. The router is used when you are going to be using it to finish up what you now want to Mark out.
You deserve more subscribers. It will happen. Please continue doing what you're doing. Cheers. $0.02
Thanks
As you learn, then teach.
Wondering if he ever mentioned where is smaller bow saw design is from? I searched his videos but if he does mention it it's inside some random video. Where to get blade and possibly rough dimensions would be fantastical.
Just so we are clear. You do not simply wonder Pinterest. Pinterest is a deep dark hole which no one can escape.
same design based on size of coping saw blade.
wortheffort Like a longer coping saw blade? Looks longer but video could make it look that way. Assuming normal length.
Are you an English major? You write well.
I'm not sure people consider Texan real English. But Thanks.
Eh... derived?
one way of thinking about it.
Because you can never have enough cla...errr...........holdfasts ? :-)
cheaper than squeeze clamps.
Mailing yourself your music or design as a copyright is an old wives tail. Sorry folks if you want a copyright you have to go through the process with library of Congress
That's one of those yes and no things. Technically you don't have to do anything to have a copyright in the US as it's granted the moment the artist says it's done. But that's being stupid. Getting something published sets a date and author legally. Registering with Congres further cements. Registering it also lets you use that little C symbol if I remember correctly. Doesnt' mean you won't be taken to court. If there is a dispute between two parties claiming a copyright then the case goes to the creator (unless they sold it). A sealed letter is a little bit of insurance/evidence of date of creation in a courtroom (then again in this litigious state I'm sure a lawyer would drag CSI departments in.)
Copyright doesn't protect "giving credit", it kills competition and removes freedom. If you copy something, credit should always be given, but saying you can't copy something at all because some person or corporation is holds some broken copyright law over you, is wrong. Copying isn't theft. Theft deprives the creator of the original.
Note: If they don't want it copied, they should keep it a secret.
Without copyright protection we wouldn't have things like Calvin and Hobbes, Game of Thrones, Steven King etc... as these people wouldn't be able to control their image or earn a living. They wouldn't have the time to dedicate to making stuff for the rest of us. Don't see how it kills freedom as the things that are copyrighted are made from thin air (analogy). Because I make a piece of art doesn't prevent you from making another. Competition, maybe. But then again I really only want Charles Schulz (and heirs) producing Snoopy so it does grant them the monopoly on Peanuts.
Guess I should of looked at your pseudonym before answering.
Without copyright we would still have Calvin and Hobbes, Game of Thrones, etc as people will always want the original. Without copyright, those things would be the same, but we'd also have tons of fan-art in addition without the threat of lawsuit. Imagine someone copyrighting dovetails and then selling the rights to a company who prevents anyone from using them for 100+ years. Do you think that is right? Note: My pseudonym has nothing to do with my stance. In fact, it may counter it in some ways. Nice stab at religious people though? You were less than clear.
How is making your own version of an object you observe any different than employing a new skill or technique you learned by watching someone else? A patent is a legal restraint to prohibit others from profiting (for a limited time) from an idea you have registered with the gov't. But as far as property rights go, If I do or don't build an item (say for my personal use) that I saw you make, maybe by using a technique that I saw you use (or not use), my actions are not infringing on your property rights from your time invested in your object or craft. If I did it and you didn't know then it can't infringe your property right (it won't diminish the value of your object or technique). Once the knowledge is transferred to my brain you don't have ownership of the thoughts in my head. When you create an object and expose it to the world the patent must be registered before doing so because once it is out there it becomes public knowledge. This is why many companies prefer to keep procedures or technologies as trade secrets rather than register a patent. This is actually a very complicated subject. I didn't mean to single you out personally in this post - it was my way of trying to state a different point of view without being too abstract. I thought it was great video and thank you. /John
google search - Against Intellectual Property by stefan kinsella for a free pdf book download.
I think I understand your intent but what you actually did say was justification of theft. It's not stealing if you don't know about it? It doesn't' diminish value if you don't know about it? That's kinda like saying, "if I learn to draw by studying Bill Wattersons work, then draw, produce and sell a Calvin and Hobbes sticker for the back window of trucks. As long as he never knows ....
My argument in this was also more a moral one than legal though we did discuss the legality to frame the question.
When you have a property right in something it means you have a right to control it. You don’t have to create something in order for it to be ownable and not everything you create is necessarily justifiably ownable. For example, if you go out in the woods on unowned land and you fall a tree then that tree is yours because you own your body and your actions that you used to claim that previously unowned tree. You now own the tree, but you didn’t create it. You homesteaded it. Now you go make something out of that tree - say a bookshelf. You mixed your labor with the wood that you owned and that shelf is now also yours. No one could possibly argue any level of ownership of that shelf more than you. You have full right to control that shelf to do with it how you please, as long as you don’t infringe on anyone else’s property rights with it. How is it then that something you create is not justifiably ownable by you? Lets say that I go in that same woods and similarly cut down a tree that is now mine. I too have a right to mix my labor with it to make something that will be mine. I have first property rights in my wood and therefore control of it. Now, your idea for a bookshelf is your idea but do you own it? Why not? Your ownership of the idea would mean you have a right to control it. If your idea prevents me from using my wood to make a shelf it means you are implying you have partial ownership of my property - to control how it is used. One can argue from a moral standpoint that since you are a latecomer to my property which I already owned, that you do not have the right to control how I choose to transform my property. If ownership of your idea implies an invasion of my property rights then can you morally own your idea? This is just another (unpopular I guess) way of looking at it. /John
John Woolfrey ya lost me. Property rights is different than intellectual property.
I think we both have better things to do. Cheers. /John
Sorry, what was that? I wasn't listening.
An advance tip on a penny stock. But it it's already peaked, sorry.
:)
Calm down, you can't stole an idea. Ideas are not legitimate objects of property rights.
Uh... ideas are what patents and some copyrights (like a furniture design/style) are, ideas. You don't patent a pill, you patent it's formula. You copyright an original idea of an image not a single print of it. These are pretty international ideas.
No, copyright is not "ideas".
As well patents are not.
They are so-called "IP rights", which are "rights to intangible things as expressed (copyrights), or as embodied in a practical implementation (patents)."
In essence, these are state-defined and state-enforced monopolies, which "try to set up rights in non-scarce things, which in effect grants negative servitudes to some people at the expense of the property rights of others." (See Kinsella's concise book on this topic here - books.google.com.ua/books?id=M-c8POVykzcC&lpg=PA20&ots=jlXgISyx75&dq=kinsella%20why%20IP%20is%20illegitimate&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false )
And as such, they are incompatible with universal property rights. If you are in favor of one, you'll have to cede (and oppose) the other.
Also, even though these things are pretty international, they are not more justified because of that. Slavery once was a pretty international idea, it didn't make it justified.
wortheffort no you patent a design, a tangible object. You copyright sentences. This whole video was a wasted effort. This kind of crap is what Facebook groups are for.
a design is a drawing of an idea, a blueprint a representation of a product, a formula... Bill Watterson holds a copyright on Calvin and Hobbs, a character. Not just one specific drawing or caption but the character (idea). There's a reason why these are grouped as "Intellectual Property" i.e. not physical.
What, now you're arguing the opposite? "Intangible" means not real. An idea of something.
As far as arguing that negative servitudes. Well, I'm glad Calvin and Hobbs is protected and that drug companies get a few years of a monopoly so they'll take the financial risk designing that first pill.
P.S. - Don't include links in CZcams comments. They automatically go into SPAM filters. I just got lucky and found this and approved it. And, I don't really need to read a book on the basics of copyright and patents. They're pretty simple concepts.