Wanted - Long EZ and Q2 plans

If I take someones car, I'm denying him use of that property, but if I
take a picture of it, than he's had no loss.

There are other ways to make money with plans other than hoping that
nobody in the world ever draw something similar or copy it. You can
sell support, by the hour, or per call, or manufacture key componants
needed to complete the kit, or simply be first to market.

Most people in the world have no concept of intellectual property.
The value of something is simply what you have to pay to get it, and
if there is a less expensive way to buy something, they'll do that. I
wish it wasn't true, and I wish I didn't have to have locks on my
doors, but thats world we live in. Best bet is to accept this and
work accordingly. As an engineer, most of my work product is simply
designs or ideas, and I realize my value is that the ideas can be made
into physical objects that people trade for money. My company pays me
good money to do that design for them, but they give me nothing if
they use it more than once. I understand thats the deal, and it works
out okay.




osite (RobertR237) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Jay) writes:


Okay, now I get you. I meant to say that somebody should post the
plans for a "Long EZ like" plane- The Extended E-ZEE. It just happens
to also be a tandem seat canard of composite construction much like a
lot of other copies of that ubiquitous airplane. Information needs to
be free. [beware, troll ahead] We have to get away from business
models that depend on the enforcement of unenforceable laws, if forces
business people into bed with law-makers (politicians).



BULL ****! TOTAL BULL ****!

Law or no law, you should have no rights to intellectual property any more than
you have a right to take a pesons car. Making a copy of the planes and calling
it something else is no less theft than stealing his car. Those plans are NOT
information, they are the results of somebodys work and as such deserve
protection and compensation. Would you work for free? I doubt it but even if
you do, would you accept being forced to do so?


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

So why are the plans no longer avilable?

More than likely they were withdrawn out of a fear over liability or the owners just couldn't justify the time and expense of supporting them.

Whatever the reason, Bob is right. Intellectual property law serves
the public good. That's the reason the Constitution gives Federal
government control of copyright and patents - to encourage the
"useful arts and sciences." If Burt wants to put the EZ plans in the
public domain, he's free to do so. No one else.

For all the jawing about "information should be free" - and there is
in fact a TON of taxpayer-funded (nothing's free) aeronautical
information available for the downloading from NASA and the dot-gov
sites, including AC 43 and the AIM/FAR - there doesn't seem to be a
single "open source" airplane design. The closest are arguably the
Pietenpol Air Camper, Evans VP-1, and Bowers FlyBaby, but the plans
aren't *free.* Very reasonably priced, but *not* free.

Excuse me for being stupid, but why keeps a person from selling a set of
plans they bought and built with?

Fred

"Corrie" wrote in message
om...
So why are the plans no longer avilable?

More than likely they were withdrawn out of a fear over liability or the
owners just couldn't justify the time and expense of supporting them.

Whatever the reason, Bob is right. Intellectual property law serves
the public good. That's the reason the Constitution gives Federal
government control of copyright and patents - to encourage the
"useful arts and sciences." If Burt wants to put the EZ plans in the
public domain, he's free to do so. No one else.

For all the jawing about "information should be free" - and there is
in fact a TON of taxpayer-funded (nothing's free) aeronautical
information available for the downloading from NASA and the dot-gov
sites, including AC 43 and the AIM/FAR - there doesn't seem to be a
single "open source" airplane design. The closest are arguably the
Pietenpol Air Camper, Evans VP-1, and Bowers FlyBaby, but the plans
aren't *free.* Very reasonably priced, but *not* free.

As an engineer, I am very disappointed that you as another engineer doesn't
appreciate the intellectual property concept more than others. As an
employee you don't own anything. Your employer is reimbursing you for your
ideas, both good and bad. How many of your ideas or designs were completely
useless to your company? did you give back your 'good money' for those
designs?? I did not think so. Your employer is taking a risk on you that you
will be productive and come up with something that is of tangible value to
them. That's how they manage to pay you when your just being creative to no
profit. Now, just when you design something they can market - you also run
out the back door and sell copies of the prints to others, or even post them
on the internet for public information, how do you think this will be
acknowledged by your employer. Or even if one of your competitors 'copies'
the design - but because of having a larger facility they can mfg it
cheaper, hence sell it cheaper. Whose do you think the public will buy? How
long will you be getting your 'good pay' as long as this is happening?

Lets not even get into the legal liabilities aspect of a 'bootleg' copied
plans built aircraft. heaven forbid, a fatal accident occurs, who do you
think is going to get sued? even if they have 100% proof the plans were
illegally copied, illegally sold/distributed, probably even modified by the
builder or new 'designer', (do you think the family of the deceast cares
about the industry? they just want money from anyone they can link to the
accident) the lawsuits would still make a few lawyers rich at the cost of
the everyone in this sport/hobby/industry.

Sorry, for rambling. I don't post often, but I just had to say this.

Jeff 'Snoopy' T



"Jay" wrote in message
om...
If I take someones car, I'm denying him use of that property, but if I
take a picture of it, than he's had no loss.

There are other ways to make money with plans other than hoping that
nobody in the world ever draw something similar or copy it. You can
sell support, by the hour, or per call, or manufacture key componants
needed to complete the kit, or simply be first to market.

Most people in the world have no concept of intellectual property.
The value of something is simply what you have to pay to get it, and
if there is a less expensive way to buy something, they'll do that. I
wish it wasn't true, and I wish I didn't have to have locks on my
doors, but thats world we live in. Best bet is to accept this and
work accordingly. As an engineer, most of my work product is simply
designs or ideas, and I realize my value is that the ideas can be made
into physical objects that people trade for money. My company pays me
good money to do that design for them, but they give me nothing if
they use it more than once. I understand thats the deal, and it works
out okay.




osite (RobertR237) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Jay) writes:


Okay, now I get you. I meant to say that somebody should post the
plans for a "Long EZ like" plane- The Extended E-ZEE. It just happens
to also be a tandem seat canard of composite construction much like a
lot of other copies of that ubiquitous airplane. Information needs to
be free. [beware, troll ahead] We have to get away from business
models that depend on the enforcement of unenforceable laws, if forces
business people into bed with law-makers (politicians).



BULL ****! TOTAL BULL ****!

Law or no law, you should have no rights to intellectual property any
more than
you have a right to take a pesons car. Making a copy of the planes and
calling
it something else is no less theft than stealing his car. Those plans
are NOT
information, they are the results of somebodys work and as such deserve
protection and compensation. Would you work for free? I doubt it but
even if
you do, would you accept being forced to do so?


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

On 22 Aug 2003 01:23:42 -0700, (Corrie) wrote:

For all the jawing about "information should be free" - and there is
in fact a TON of taxpayer-funded (nothing's free) aeronautical
information available for the downloading from NASA and the dot-gov
sites, including AC 43 and the AIM/FAR - there doesn't seem to be a
single "open source" airplane design. The closest are arguably the
Pietenpol Air Camper, Evans VP-1, and Bowers FlyBaby, but the plans
aren't *free.* Very reasonably priced, but *not* free.

One of the biggest ironies I see in homebuilding are people who are willing
to spend $10,000 or more to build a plane like a Pietenpol, but want to
start by ripping-off the plans vendor for the $50-$100 for the building
instructions.

I have my hopes that some day the Fly Baby will end up public domain.
Still, it does lend itself to some problems. People insist on badly
thought-out modifications, and you'd probably end up with plans sets being
passed around where folks have proudly incorporated their own changes but
unsuspecting builders might think are original. Obviously, an awkward
situation.

One thought was, if the plans went public domain, that they could be
distributed by an official source via web site or CD-ROM. A couple of the
guys on the Fly Baby Yahoo list have experimented with digitizing the
plans. One has run an OCR of the complete plans, but the drawings are
still problematical. Many are full-scale templates, but of course, by the
time the drawings are scanned, converted to JPEGs or GIFs, saved in a
document, and printed from a random computer, the scales have shifted just
enough to make the templates erroneous. Although, after 40 years of
photocopying, the templates are a bit off, anyway....

One niggling problem of the all-electronic approach is that there are still
folks out there who don't mess with computers. They'll want hard-copy
plans, so you're still stuck with dragging a master copy to Kinkos every
once in a while.

Ron Wanttaja

Jay wrote:

If I take someones car, I'm denying him use of that property, but if I
take a picture of it, than he's had no loss.

That is not necessarily correct. You may be denying him/her the opportunity to sell you a photo of the car.
It's that lost sale that he/she loses.

Most people in the world have no concept of intellectual property.

Ignorance is no excuse.

The value of something is simply what you have to pay to get it, and
if there is a less expensive way to buy something, they'll do that.

If they want to pay someone else to design an airplane for them, and that designer charges less, there's no
issue. (Actually, there's no issue if they charge more, either.) The problem is when the designer's work
product, namely the design, is used without compensating the designer. That's IP theft. If the designer sells a
builder one set of plans with a contract stipulating that only one aircraft can be built using those plans, and
then the builder builds more than one (or gives the plans to another who does so), then the original contract has
been violated and the designer's IP has been stolen.

I wish it wasn't true, and I wish I didn't have to have locks on my doors, but thats world we live in. Best
bet is to accept this and work accordingly.

By that logic, you should realize that laws against burglary aren't going to prevent all burglaries, and
therefore you should just accept that sometimes people's stuff gets taken from them and that the burglary
statutes are a waste of time and police shouldn't waste time chasing burglars.

As an engineer, most of my work product is simply designs or ideas, and I realize my value is that the ideas
can be made into physical objects that people trade for money. My company pays me good money to do that design
for them, but they give me nothing if they use it more than once. I understand thats the deal, and it works
out okay.

Not everyone works your way. The value of your work product isn't that it "can be made into physical objects
that people trade for money." (Although that may be why your employer pays for your work product.)

Think about a movie theater. Assume you paid $7 for a ticket. Did it cost $7 to manufacture that ticket? No
freakin' way. So what did you buy? Ans: the right to view (one time) the intellectual property of the movie
maker in that theater at a particular time. Should you be able to copy what you viewed and show it to yourself
(or others) over and over again? No. The IP owner didn't agree to that in the "contract" that covers the ticket
you paid $7 for.

Russell Kent

In article _yn1b.223504$Ho3.28382@sccrnsc03, "Frederick Wilson"
writes:


Excuse me for being stupid, but why keeps a person from selling a set of
plans they bought and built with?

Fred


Probably the arrangement made at the time of purchase. You buy the plans with
an agreement to use them once and once only. Depending on the purchase
contract, if you never use them you might be able to transfer them.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

In article ,
(Jay) writes:


If I take someones car, I'm denying him use of that property, but if I
take a picture of it, than he's had no loss.


You were not talking about taking a picture of the complete aircraft, you were
talking about the plans and their use. They are property, no less than the car
is and you have NO legal or moral right to them. If you take them and copy
them it is a loss and no matter how you try to deny it, it is a fact.

There are other ways to make money with plans other than hoping that
nobody in the world ever draw something similar or copy it. You can
sell support, by the hour, or per call, or manufacture key componants
needed to complete the kit, or simply be first to market.


Drawing something similar is one thing but copying it is another. The plans
are a result of mental and some physical effort to produce. It is no different
that someone building a structure or any other physical object. Once built,
the structure is not free for use by all who wish. It belongs to the owner and
should be used or not used at his discretion. If he wishes to sell support it
is his business but if not, it should not be your choice to take the use
anyway.

I have heard this same stupid argument regarding the software that I have
created over the years and it is a total bull**** concept. If I expend the
effort and hours to create a new and useful program, what damn right do you
have to take it and do as you please with it. If you want a similar program
then get off your lazy fat ass and create it yourself. Don't steal mine and
don't copy mine. The same goes for stealing or copying an aircraft design.

Most people in the world have no concept of intellectual property.

Clearly you rank among those.

The value of something is simply what you have to pay to get it, and
if there is a less expensive way to buy something, they'll do that.

Buy it, you have not been discussing buying you have been trying to justify
stealing it by copying it.

I wish it wasn't true, and I wish I didn't have to have locks on my
doors, but thats world we live in. Best bet is to accept this and
work accordingly. As an engineer, most of my work product is simply
designs or ideas, and I realize my value is that the ideas can be made
into physical objects that people trade for money. My company pays me
good money to do that design for them, but they give me nothing if
they use it more than once. I understand thats the deal, and it works
out okay.


You have a contract with your company that gives them the legal and moral
rights to your intelectual property. They pay you for your ideas and you
gladly accept that payment. You find that arrangement to be OK since you are
selling your ideas to a company and are getting paid rather they use them or
not.

You on the otherhand would deny that same payment to others who sell their
intellectual property the same way you do, just to individual buyers. You are
guaranteed a customer by the contract with your company and are isolated from
most problems with your ideas and designs by that same company. The maker of
the plans, which you don't think you should have to pay for, had to do the
design without a guaranteed market, market those plans, and accept the
potiential problems associated with them. They get nothing until someone pays
for their work by buying the plans. You would have them do so for free?

If you are not willing to pay for the plans then either don't build the plane
or show us how commited you are to your concept and design your own and give
the plans away for free. If you design your own, make it your design and not a
copy of someone elses with a few cosmetic changes. Start from scratch and
design it with proven design concepts without stealing from other peoples
actual plans.





Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

One niggling problem of the all-electronic approach is that there are still
folks out there who don't mess with computers. They'll want hard-copy
plans, so you're still stuck with dragging a master copy to Kinkos every
once in a while.

Nah, mail 'em a CD and a letter telling them to go to Kinko's with the "shiny
plastic disc." :-)

Russell Kent

That's the deal because you're an *employee*. They own your designs.
If you were an independent contractor, you could *license* the design
and get paid for each copy. (Assuming that you were successful in
negotiating that deal.)

But most experienced people know that negotiating a deal that's
difficult to verify or enforce is a recipie for disaster (AKA giving
lawyers lots of money). I had some first hand experience with that
when we, a small company, brought some ideas to a large company to see
if they would be interested in licencing the technology. In order to
get in the door in the first place we had to agree to sign their NDA
which is common place. So a year later they come out with a product
that has this feature we were showing them. Their response was "Prove
we weren't already working on it in our own R&D." We realized that
would be pretty tough to do considering their legal departments budget
was larger than our yearly gross, so we learned from that experience
and moved on.

What you don't realize is that the designs - the ideas themselves -
have intrinsic value. The VP-1 plans on my shelf have value above and
beyond the cost of the paper and ink even if I never build a plane
from those plans.

Thats true in theory with perfect enforcement of property rights, but
in the real world, its the ideas that give a manufacturer an advantage
to make something sooner, or better than the others that counts. In
some countries if you're big enough you can sue for protection in that
market, but everywhere else, its open season on the idea.

I think the Japanese have it figured out, they never try to license
any ideas, they just adopt other peoples, make incremental
improvements and sell goods. You want to get the technology, you're
going to have to try to reverse engineer it. Sure they get US
patents, but there are lots or ways to circumvent the disclosure
requirement without breaking the letter of the law.