Its interesting…although I find it a little dubious. The whole argument seems somewhat based around copyrights…although I suppose this varries from nation to nation. I just don’t think its a big enough issue to consider here. After all this never stopped Apple from taking Linux’s designs for an OS. =( I suppose if you make a few changes here and there its enough to be considered someone elses creation. Thats often what happens to me. Oh well…its just lego. =)

But I would have to say that I agree with Steel, Matthew, Ryan, Mattius, and others. I also think that we all should just try to find a resolution that works for all of us and I suppose follow a principle of the Precautionary view to do no harm.

Cheers,
Marcus

@ Gambort, The correct response is the community response. The individual can make a choice, but ultimately it comes down to how the community feels.

Your entire argument seems to be that the correct response to someone abusing generosity is to address your own behaviour and not theirs. The best response, in my opinion (which is ultimately the only one that counts here) is a two-pronged one: challenge the offender and make my work better available. I’ve taken action on both accounts.

1) My first post wasn’t wrong. It was simply pointing out open consent. Its a simple concept and although you might sometimes think you are a lawyer you have not identified yourself as one. Of course neither have I. So the law is something more elusive for the both of us to attempt to truly convey. Therefore, we have no true authority upon this subject. We simply offer opinions, which I accept and offer freely, like everyone else. This implies I’m neither wrong, nor are you. Nor does this imply you are right.

2) You have yet to prove you are truly right about your posts. Although you might offer conjecture, you can not for any reason claim you are more right than I outside of your opinion (Thus your close minded world).

3) As for adding less, I have not sought out to add or minus. I have sought out to provide sound advice. If you don’t want to take it and hold the moral high road as a standard so be it. After all I was just trying to offer more rational advice that is designed for anyone to see both sides of an open picture rather than just a one sided opinion based upon hurt feelings.

If you’re upset that people are getting bilked, raise awareness (as the author of the post has done). If you’re upset that somebody else is making money, use the information to do it better yourself (as I mentioned in previous posts).

As for having the moral high ground, you lost it the day you sought out action over something that could potentially breed slander, harassment and break several other laws in the process. Having the moral high ground in this situation is understanding something is wrong, contacting the seller and humbly requesting they remove said auctions. Taking further action or Black listing them will only hurt them and your credibility. It shows that you are willing to get down and participate at the same level and abuse others as you feel they have abused you.

As for a solution its simply, just provide designs to your friends, if you want to do it openly, expect abuse and be a cool beaver, let the water slide off your back.

As for myself, I have provided designs, various forms of information and other creations to the world openly where they have been copied and used by various individuals. These designs are never limited to just lego and have more pratical and important implications. So yes, I have had stuff copied on me that are of great importance. However, I care not because the fact is its going to happen either way.

Gambort, its a good post to bring awareness, but you should have left it at that.

Overall I’m quite happy about the scenario and will be even happier once the auction is pulled and the seller has a black mark against their name. There’s even some private discussion going on about a solution which would benefit the whole community.

1) TLG do not have any legal rights here. I know this from copyright lawyers.

2) It is quite clear that a LEGO model is indeed covered by copyright law. Otherwise building brick companies would be ripping each other off willy nilly.

3) The people selling these instructions have stolen copyrighted material and resold it. This is illegal.

Some points on ethics

1) It is not very ethical to sell someone else’s work as your own.

2) If you genuinely believe that you have added to the model yourself then you may feel you have an ethical claim.

3) Thus what these people do is actually more ethical than it is legal.

Some points on practise

1) eBay provide a way to report misuse of copyright. I have used it before and a listing was removed. I’ve used it this time and will encourage James and Tom to do the same. It’s all very easy.

2) I’m not going to be suing anyone. I don’t care enough.

3) I write for a popular blog. This gives me a power over the seller that they can’t fight, argue with or play stupid legal games with. I’ve used it and there’s now people who probably won’t buy from those stores who otherwise may have. I win (as do we all).

4) I can’t embed copyright in the MPD. I could make printed instructions with the copyright embedded but that’s too much like work.

As for all the drivel about capitalism, peace, love and whatnot. I don’t care. If I want to sell instructions I’ll do it. If I want to give them away I’ll continue to do so. If I spot anyone doing this to my work (or anyone else’s) I’ll name and shame again.

PS. Mattiusxavier, can you publish your address here please? I’d like a new TV and figured you wouldn’t mind me breaking in and taking yours. Cheers :)