Minor victory thread

[ThatNickGuy]

Me: Hmm, I have books to pick up at Strange Adventures (Dartmouth)
Also Me: It's only 10 minutes away by bike.
Me: It's raining.
Also Me: You've biked in rain before.
Me: But...
Also Me: And your bike is muddy. Rain will clean it.
Me: But...
Also Me: Counterpoint? Comics.
Me: Let's go.

Also Me is often an asshole who gets me to do active shit when I'm feeling unmotivated.

But he's mostly an asshole who just likes watching me suffer.

 

[PatrThom]

At this point, I'm not sure who even owns it anymore.

It's not just you. Or even just student loans, for that matter.

--Patrick

 

[Squidleybits]

We just dropped cable in exchange for adding a few new streaming services.

So happy, câble was silly expensive.

 

[Sparhawk]

We just dropped cable in exchange for adding a few new streaming services.

So happy, câble was silly expensive.

We cut cable when we moved into our house 3 years ago. Best decision ever.

 

[Squidleybits]

We finally tossed the land line. Without a bundle it was going to be $34.95/mo plus $10/mo to access their service plus $0.06/min long distance. No thanks.

 

[Tinwhistler]

We finally tossed the land line. Without a bundle it was going to be $34.95/mo plus $10/mo to access their service plus $0.06/min long distance. No thanks.

I was just telling someone today that today's kids will never know about budgeting long distance calls into their monthly phone budget.

 

[GasBandit]

I was just telling someone today that today's kids will never know about budgeting long distance calls into their monthly phone budget.

And tell them about how we used to wait until after 8 to call somebody because then it was free.

 

[Tinwhistler]

And tell them about how we used to wait until after 8 to call somebody because then it was free.

Or how when I was a kid, my parents still paid a monthly fee for the phone, which was still technically owned by the phone company (like how folks pay cable box rentals these days), because of the AT&T monopoly.

Edit: I wasn't sure I was remembering that correctly, so I looked it up. Yup.

AT&T's Successful Spinoffs

Find out why the breakup of AT&T into a number of spinoffs called the Baby Bells was one of the most successful spinoffs in the history of business.

www.investopedia.com

The breakup of AT&T produced many immediate benefits for consumers. For many decades, AT&T did not allow users of their service to connect phones manufactured by other firms. They claimed these phones could degrade the quality of the network. AT&T also would not sell its own phones to consumers, so everyone had to rent phones from AT&T. The Baby Bells controlled the direct connections to consumers after the breakup, and they dropped these restrictions. There was soon a thriving market for selling phones to consumers. Phone prices dropped, quality increased, and renting phones faded away.

I remember I had a rotary phone at home, because renting a touch-tone was more expensive. And my parents would absolutely not buy a 3rd party touch-tone phone because they didn't want to get in trouble with the phone company. Ma Bell was broken up in 1984, which happens to coincide with the year I got my first job, and with my first paycheck, I went straight to Target and bought a touch-tone phone for my room.

 

[Sparhawk]

I was just telling someone today that today's kids will never know about budgeting long distance calls into their monthly phone budget.

No kidding. When we were first married, we moved to Alexandria, LA. We had to plan to budget long distance calls to late evening or weekends to afford the bill (military income and student) of just a once a week call home. Our daughter calls home just about every day just to have someone to talk to while she drives home from work. Huge change in just 20-ish years time passed.
Have to say that not being able to call home made us work out our own issues between us without involving anyone else.

 

[Tinwhistler]

No kidding. When we were first married, we moved to Alexandria, LA. We had to plan to budget long distance calls to late evening or weekends to afford the bill (military income and student) of just a once a week call home. Our daughter calls home just about every day just to have someone to talk to while she drives home from work. Huge change in just 20-ish years time passed.
Have to say that not being able to call home made us work out our own issues between us without involving anyone else.

When I got my first cell phone with 'free nights and weekends' I used to call my grandmother on the weekends a lot more, and even though I'd explained it to her countless times, after about 20 minutes her internal timer went off and she'd go "I should let you go so I don't run up your phone bill"--like clockwork.

 

[Far]

We've never paid for cable since we moved out on our own in 2009. It was thrown in one renewal of our internet despite our protests that we don't want or need it and it sat unused and unwatched the entire 2 years we were contracted. Had to drop off the crap afterward too when we renewed again and insisted we were not paying for it this time, cause the at was the set up all along, bundle it in for "free" then that period is done and suddenly next renewal it's $X extra a month.

 

[PatrThom]

And tell them about how we used to wait until after 8 to call somebody because then it was free.

Heck, remember dialing carrier access codes?

--Patrick

 

[Sparhawk]

Heck, remember dialing carrier access codes?

--Patrick

Was never a thing where we lived, under Ma Bell.

 

[GasBandit]

Bob Wehadababyitsaboy

 

[Frank]

Me: Hmm, I have books to pick up at Strange Adventures (Dartmouth)
Also Me: It's only 10 minutes away by bike.
Me: It's raining.
Also Me: You've biked in rain before.
Me: But...
Also Me: And your bike is muddy. Rain will clean it.
Me: But...
Also Me: Counterpoint? Comics.
Me: Let's go.

Also Me is often an asshole who gets me to do active shit when I'm feeling unmotivated.

But he's mostly an asshole who just likes watching me suffer.

My also me usually goes with the bad impulse of me. Also me is a terrible, terrible influence.

Me: You know what would rule? Not working and getting high all day.
Also Me: Yes.

 

[David]

I got a freelance gig where I'm making less hourly than I probably should, but it's completely remote, I set the hours, work as many hours as I want, I can do the work equally well either from my desktop or when I'm out anywhere on my ipad, and it's work related to my art degree and I have complete creative control over what I'm doing.

Now I just need the self-motivation to actually get the work done and not procrastinate...

 

[Cog]

Today was the first time in two years that I took a bus and walked home from work. It's the second time in my life that I have to rediscover my city.

 

[Tinwhistler]

So, I've been looking at lots of crochet patterns on etsy (among other places). On many of them, the pattern designer has this (or a substantially similar) disclaimer: "For personal use only. You may not sell items created with this pattern."

The thing is, this is not legally binding, at least in the US. You can do whatever you want with the fruits of your own labor. Others demand that you credit the pattern creator. Again, not legally binding.

But it seems on the crochet subreddits, at least when I joined in October, the majority of people believed that not only are these binding, but that they're the morally correct thing to do. I've been very vocally disagreeing, using 'pie' as an analogy. If you use a cookbook to make a pie, no one bats an eye if you sell that pie at a bake sale, or if you make 100 pies and start a pie shop. I've been eating a lot of downvotes since I started this 'campaign', but I find these kinds of clauses morally repugnant.

The minor victory: People are starting to realize that these clauses are wrong...and using my same basic analogy when discussing it. That's a good feeling.

 

[Bubble181]

Hmmmm.
Selling a couple in a yard sale, sure.
Using a public recipe to create pies and open your own shop and genuinely use it for your main source of income? That...would be a risky thing to do. It could qualify as intellectual theft in some cases, depending on how the person offering it has labelled it.
At least in the EU, I'm fairly sure that if an author of a recipe says "credit me if you use this for commercial purposes", that's binding. It definitely is for poetry, or music, or images - even if you don't have any official trademark/copyright/etc.

Sure, nobody can claim they "invented" apple pie, and if you're making apple pie and happen to use the same ingredients as I listed on my site, that's fine. But if I come up with a new dessert, the Bubble Bobbler, which is a sort of lava lamp of alcohol with globs of egg white floating in it, and you steal my idea and use it as the signature dish of your restaurant as the Tin Tingler, I'm still gonna be mighty pissed.

 

[Adam]

Courts have ruled that recipes are not copyrightable for many many years, going back as far as 1996 to say that under the Copyright Law, nothing in a recipe could be found to be creative/expressive enough to justify it. And then in 1998 when it explicitly said recipes are not copyrightable - unless there's significant creative expression within the recipe (A narrative of how the ingredients came to be.) Facts are not copyrightable, so a list of facts (Ingredients and steps to create a final product) are thus not copyrightable as well.

The functional outcome of the recipe would not be defensible as intellectual property. That's why the unique recipes of things like coke/pepsi are closely guarded trade secrets. If the recipe was to hit the public domain, anyone could make it without legal recourse.

 

[Tinwhistler]

Courts have ruled that recipes are not copyrightable for many many years, going back as far as 1996 to say that under the Copyright Law, nothing in a recipe could be found to be creative/expressive enough to justify it. And then in 1998 when it explicitly said recipes are not copyrightable - unless there's significant creative expression within the recipe (A narrative of how the ingredients came to be.) Facts are not copyrightable, so a list of facts (Ingredients and steps to create a final product) are thus not copyrightable as well.

The functional outcome of the recipe would not be defensible as intellectual property. That's why the unique recipes of things like coke/pepsi are closely guarded trade secrets. If the recipe was to hit the public domain, anyone could make it without legal recourse.

Yup, which is why I explicitly said "at least in the US". I know the EU has different rules even about copying the look and feel of an object, whereas in the US reverse engineering and offering the exact same product as a competitor (but cheaper) is a time-honored tradition of US capitalism.

It's also why, nowadays, if you google up a recipe for something, it's preceded by a 16 page backstory about how this particular crumb cake changed the authors life because their grandmother was a saint and that cake made their normally dull or unbearable childhoods a magical wonderland.

 

[Bubble181]

Courts have ruled that recipes are not copyrightable for many many years, going back as far as 1996 to say that under the Copyright Law, nothing in a recipe could be found to be creative/expressive enough to justify it. And then in 1998 when it explicitly said recipes are not copyrightable - unless there's significant creative expression within the recipe (A narrative of how the ingredients came to be.) Facts are not copyrightable, so a list of facts (Ingredients and steps to create a final product) are thus not copyrightable as well.

The functional outcome of the recipe would not be defensible as intellectual property. That's why the unique recipes of things like coke/pepsi are closely guarded trade secrets. If the recipe was to hit the public domain, anyone could make it without legal recourse.

Yes, in the US. I just looked it up, and in the EU, you can actually get a copyright going on a dish or recipe.
Recipes themselves (as in, the text) can be protected as text as long as they're not just a listing of ingredients.
A dish can be protected if it goes beyond its utilitarian function (i.e. "nourishment"). In the US it was decided by the courts a dish could not be separated from its function as food; in the EU it was ruled that it *can*.

 

[Tinwhistler]

Yes, in the US. I just looked it up, and in the EU, you can actually get a copyright going on a dish or recipe.
Recipes themselves (as in, the text) can be protected as text as long as they're not just a listing of ingredients.
A dish can be protected if it goes beyond its utilitarian function (i.e. "nourishment"). In the US it was decided by the courts a dish could not be separated from its function as food; in the EU it was ruled that it *can*.

It's worth noting that on reddit, I do preface all of my argumentation as "us-centric" to allow for other countries having different theories about it.

 

[Far]

In the EU, what stops me from adding a half teaspoon more sugar than what the printed recipe calls for and saying it's mine now cause it's different.

 

[mikerc]

In the EU, what stops me from adding a half teaspoon more sugar than what the printed recipe calls for and saying it's mine now cause it's different.

I'd imagine the same thing that stops you from exporting a copy of LOTR to a word processor, doing a find & replace on "hobbit" to "shortling" and claiming it's yours now cause it's different. It needs to be a substantial change to avoid copyright.

Of course, this just then leads to the question of how much you need to change for it to be considered a different recipe?

 

[figmentPez]

Yup, which is why I explicitly said "at least in the US". I know the EU has different rules even about copying the look and feel of an object, whereas in the US reverse engineering and offering the exact same product as a competitor (but cheaper) is a time-honored tradition of US capitalism.

It's also why, nowadays, if you google up a recipe for something, it's preceded by a 16 page backstory about how this particular crumb cake changed the authors life because their grandmother was a saint and that cake made their normally dull or unbearable childhoods a magical wonderland.

Which is why comparing a pattern to a recipe is a bad analogy. You can copyright a pattern. A pattern is a creative work, just like a novel or a painting. That someone made their own object from the pattern doesn't change that they're copying the creative work of someone else.

A crochet pattern isn't a list of ingredients, any more than a painting is a list of paint colors. A crochet pattern has more in common with clip art and stock photographs than it does with a recipe.

 

[Tinwhistler]

Which is why comparing a pattern to a recipe is a bad analogy. You can copyright a pattern. A pattern is a creative work, just like a novel or a painting. That someone made their own object from the pattern doesn't change that they're copying the creative work of someone else.

A crochet pattern isn't a list of ingredients, any more than a painting is a list of paint colors. A crochet pattern has more in common with clip art and stock photographs than it does with a recipe.

Following the directions on a pattern is not the same as copying the pattern. Copyright exists on the *pattern* not on the *results*. A pattern is a series of functional, instructional steps. It's not creative. That said, knitting and crochet patterns do have a murky area in that they can also be expressed visually as charts (and commonly were), which might be why they are specifically called out as copyrightable in the law. Regardless as to the reasoning, unlike a recipe, I acknowledge that copyright extends to patterns (as noted in my previous posts).

Also, there may be some argument that the finished product, if unique and not utilitarian, may qualify as sculpture and enjoy some protection, but it's worth noting that there have been exactly zero cases of copyright infringement brought before the courts to test this matter. Likewise, there have been zero cases brought to court to sue someone for selling an item made with someone else's pattern. It's also worth noting that every intellectual property lawyer I was able to find online that weighed in on the matter seemed to agree with me that you can sell items made from other peoples patterns. So I feel pretty confident in my assertion that, at least in the US, you can sell what you make from a pattern.

 

[GasBandit]

And how many extra/missing loops in a crochet pattern would you have to make before it becomes "legally" distinct from a pattern? Could a number even be decided?

 

[figmentPez]

And how many extra/missing loops in a crochet pattern would you have to make before it becomes "legally" distinct from a pattern? Could a number even be decided?

How many changed words in a book before it's legally distinct? How many lines of code in a program? How many notes in music?

Following the directions on a pattern is not the same as copying the pattern. Copyright exists on the *pattern* not on the *results*. A pattern is a series of functional, instructional steps. It's not creative. That said, knitting and crochet patterns do have a murky area in that they can also be expressed visually as charts (and commonly were), which might be why they are specifically called out as copyrightable in the law. Regardless as to the reasoning, unlike a recipe, I acknowledge that copyright extends to patterns (as noted in my previous posts).

Also, there may be some argument that the finished product, if unique and not utilitarian, may qualify as sculpture and enjoy some protection, but it's worth noting that there have been exactly zero cases of copyright infringement brought before the courts to test this matter. Likewise, there have been zero cases brought to court to sue someone for selling an item made with someone else's pattern. It's also worth noting that every intellectual property lawyer I was able to find online that weighed in on the matter seemed to agree with me that you can sell items made from other peoples patterns. So I feel pretty confident in my assertion that, at least in the US, you can sell what you make from a pattern.

I bet there have been cases where people have been sued over architectural plans. There absolutely have been cases where people have been sued over clothing patterns. I imagine the only reason there hasn't been a lawsuit over knitting or crochet is because there's not enough money involved.

If you're going to argue that the "results" can't be copyrighted, then is it okay if someone else prints out a copy of your novel and sells it? After all, they're just copying the "pattern" of words and the physical book they made is just the result.

 

[Tinwhistler]

How many changed words in a book before it's legally distinct? How many lines of code in a program? How many notes in music?

I bet there have been cases where people have been sued over architectural plans. There absolutely have been cases where people have been sued over clothing patterns. I imagine the only reason there hasn't been a lawsuit over knitting or crochet is because there's not enough money involved.

If you're going to argue that the "results" can't be copyrighted, then is it okay if someone else prints out a copy of your novel and sells it? After all, they're just copying the "pattern" of words and the physical book they made is just the result.

That's just a silly argument that doesn't hold. I think you're stretching just a bit too far here to argue for the sake of argument at this point, so won't bother commenting further on your reply. Last I checked, you're not an intellectual property lawyer, so debate/lawyer up the arguments all you want. I'll side with their theories.

My novel is not a series of instructions for how to make itself. Your argument lacks sense.

 

[GasBandit]

How many notes in music?

If Vanilla Ice and Katy Perry are to be taken as examples, somewhere between 4 and 8.

 

[PatrThom]

How many notes in music?

somewhere between 4 and 8.

I believe the "Standard" is 8 notes, which was the inspiration for the attempt to copyright all the melodies.

As far as copyrighting other people's patterns go, imagine the sort of legal thicket there could be if this recipe/pattern argument got applied to DNA, a.k.a. the "human" recipe.
Oh wait...

--Patrick

 

[figmentPez]

That's just a silly argument that doesn't hold. I think you're stretching just a bit too far here to argue for the sake of argument at this point, so won't bother commenting further on your reply. Last I checked, you're not an intellectual property lawyer, so debate/lawyer up the arguments all you want. I'll side with their theories.

You're right, it is silly. It was hyperbole to get to the root of the problem: When do you respect someone's artistic creation? If someone comes up with an artistic work, what makes it okay to copy it? If someone designs a really cute crochet animal, why shouldn't their copyright of the design give them control over who can copy it? They worked hard to design an artistic work, why does the medium of crochet mean that people can copy their art?

I'm a little at a loss as to why a clothing designer has the rights to their design, but a crochet designer doesn't. Why does a fabric pattern have rights against being reproduced, but a crochet pattern doesn't? Hell, the pattern printed on a paper cup has rights, but a crochet pattern doesn't? What the fuck?

I suspect that you're not understanding what these lawyers have actually said.

 

[Tinwhistler]

You're right, it is silly. It was hyperbole to get to the root of the problem: When do you respect someone's artistic creation? If someone comes up with an artistic work, what makes it okay to copy it? If someone designs a really cute crochet animal, why shouldn't their copyright of the design give them control over who can copy it? They worked hard to design an artistic work, why does the medium of crochet mean that people can copy their art?

You know, then maybe don't sell the pattern if you don't want someone making it?

I'm a little at a loss as to why a clothing designer has the rights to their design, but a crochet designer doesn't. Why does a fabric pattern have rights against being reproduced, but a crochet pattern doesn't? Hell, the pattern printed on a paper cup has rights, but a crochet pattern doesn't? What the fuck?

I suspect that you're not understanding what these lawyers have actually said.

I suspect the misunderstanding lies with you.

This:

Round 1: Make 6 SC in a magic ring
Round 2: 6 INC
Round 3: [1 SC, 1 INC] X 6
Round 4: [2 SC, 1 INC] X 6

Is a pattern. In fact, it's the same basic start of a pattern most crochetters will run into when making any rounded shape such as a ball, egg, or beanie. It's copyrightable. Maybe not those 4 rows, mind you, but the pattern in its entirety.

This:

Is not a pattern. It is the result from following the instructions similar to the above. Someone may copyright their pattern (instructions). I can't reproduce and sell that. But that resulting thing I'm making? I can totally sell that.

 

[figmentPez]

You know, then maybe don't sell the pattern if you don't want someone making it?

Does that apply to music as well? "If you don't want someone using your song, don't sell the sheet music." But that doesn't apply, because selling the sheet music doesn't give the buyer the rights to perform the song in any and all circumstances. Musicians can choose how to license their song. They can sell the sheet music for people to play in their own home, but not use the song on the soundtrack of a motion picture.

How is the pattern of notes showing how to construct a song different from a pattern showing how to make art out of crochet?

Is a pattern. In fact, it's the same basic start of a pattern most crochetters will run into when making any rounded shape such as a ball, egg, or beanie. It's copyrightable. Maybe not those 4 rows, mind you, but the pattern in its entirety.

No, it probably isn't copyrightable. You can't copyright the design of a utility item. Hats, blankets, socks, etc. You can't copyright how to construct a basic utility item. You can't copyright how to make a blanket. You can copyright a quilt that looks like an original artwork when pieced together. Both the pattern and the resulting art could be copywritten, and presumably the rights holder should have just as much control over what could be produced from the pattern as someone licensing rights to a photograph or clip art.

Utility designs aren't copyright, they're patents. What should be copyrightable is artistic design. A pattern that makes art, and you absolutely can copyright that, and someone copying the artwork is breaking copyright, no matter what medium they copy it in. I can't paint a picture of someone else's photograph and then sell it without being in potential violation of copyright. If someone has a pattern for a hat, unless they've got a novel way for a hat to function, they can't patent or copyright that. If someone has a pattern for a unique art design for a hat, something that makes it a unique artistic work, and not just a utility item, then I think that should be respected.

Something like this is an artistic work, and shoudn't just be copied without respecting the original designer:

Something like the beanie you posted is a utility item, and that pattern can't be copyrighted. Maybe a specific color pattern could, but not the basic shape of a beanie.