Grannies and Pirated Software

dthomas731 writes, "After reading Ed Foster's blog about how the Embroidery Software Protection Coalition (ESPC) is suing grandmothers over using pirated digitized designs, I thought you might want to call your own grandmothers and tell them they are going to be needing a lawyer. And the ESPC is very serious. On the ESPC faq page they scare these grandmothers by telling them even if they didn't know the software was pirated, that 'Unfortunately, when it comes to copyright violations, ignorance is no defense.'"

Comments

not quite correct.

[geekoid]

" 'Unfortunately, when it comes to copyright violations, ignorance is no defense.'""

heh, thats not quite correct.

If A company makes a book, and I buy it from them, and then latter it turns out they didn't have permission to do that, I still can not be sued.

Re:not quite correct.

[morgan_greywolf]

Now, IANAL, but from what I know, it doesn't actually matter whether or not you knew that company had permission to sell the book.

You see, copyright protects the right to copy. When you're buying a book, you're not making a copy of the book. Someone else is. And that person, company, whatever, is the one who bears the legal liability for making the copy, not you.

Re:not quite correct.

[Doc Ruby]

You didn't copy the book, so you didn't violate the copyright. The company you bought it from is guilty/liable, not you. Similarly, these grannies didn't copy the CDs they bought, so I don't see how they violated anyone's copyright.

This is a different situation than the familiar RIAA vs filesharers. The RIAA is suing the publishers of the files. And even downloaders can be argued to be "making a copy", of the data from their network connection eventually to their HD.

Re:not quite correct.

[zenthax]

I think they probably are correct in this case because it concerns embroidery. Not being a person who does embroidery on a regular basis I can only guess that this software is most likely some type of digital blueprint for embroidery designs. Basically instead of a book this seems to be more like sheet music or even music files in general. Think charges for playing music in restaurant, elevators, etc. The copyright is on the embroidery design it's self and the program hence both the person who made the illegal copy and the one who uses the data on the copy are both responsible for copyright violations. The difference between this case and books are that in this case you are reproducing something tangible where as in a book you are simply reading it.

Re:not quite correct.

[Kierthos]

Yeah, but that all falls under certain common sense assumptions. If I go into a Barnes and Nobles and buy a book there, the assumption is that the book is a legal copy of the book. If it isn't, it's Barnes and Nobles' fault, not mine. If I go into a software store and buy a copy of Photoshop, the assumption is that it's a legal copy. If it isn't, it's the software stores' fault, not mine.

Now, if I buy Photoshop off of a guy on a street corner, the manual was printed at Kinko's and the CD is obviously a burned version... well, that's where the copyright holder can be upset at me.

Re:hmmmm, a way to make money?

[russ1337]

If I understand this correctly, the people who came up with some embroided designs are concerned their images are being coppied? OK, thanks, just clarifying it for myself.

There has to be PLENTY of people into embroidery that have the skills to design their own patterns right? Now someone just needs to introduce these people to Creative Commons. Get all the oldies (and a few young'ins) with artistic talent to draw up a few designs and start sharing. The 'Emproidery Protection Racket' will just plain be left out in the cold.

All us grandkids have to do is remind the oldies that they should only use the patterns with the "CC" label that come with them.

I'm torn

[n9uxu8]

This is clearly a case of a coalition getting together to become the next RIAA. However, my mother makes her living making embroidery machine instructional videos and custom designs (http://littlebrownjugdesigns.com/ for those interested...I didn't code the page, it's not my fault). Anyway, the granny-embroidery crowd can be viscious and there is an embedded culture of one person buying a design and giving a copy to everyone they know. This isn't really a big deal, however. The big deal is when an embroidery supply store buys one copy of a training dvd or design pack and just burns a copy to sell whenever a customer expresses an interest. For a one-person-show, it's impossible to track down all the stores operating this way, so some sort of industry coalition makes sense, but it should target infringing merchants not the Grandma who just wanted to stitch Faye Valentine on her grandson's backpack.

Dave

Pity it's hard to legally prohibit excessive greed

[TheLink]

Because this is excessive greed.

As for prohibitions against copying, one should consider the scalability.

If everyone was prohibited from using each others ideas without permission, it won't scale well if you have many billions or even trillions of people. Unless you assume that it is typical that only a very few of the billions are creative enough to have new ideas.

If I came up with a unique thought first, others should not be prohibited from thinking it, they shouldn't falsely claim they are first or the only ones because that would be lying.

I would have thought that civilized nations would have plenty of ways of keeping inventive people alive and reasonably contented even if they don't get to have monopolies over everything. And the "expanding markets and thousands of new types of jobs" would be good enough.

In fact I think it may actually be all the excessive greed that's causing it to not be good enough.

It's like the starving in Africa - not due to there not being enough food, but evil and greedy leaders. There are more overweight and obese people in the world than starving people - so there's more than enough food to go around.

But maybe they're right...

[davmoo]

Even though this goes against the principles of Slashdot, I did in fact RTFA. While I don't agree that its a good idea from a PR standpoint to go after grannies, I also don't see anything in the article, or at the organization's web site, that is factually incorrect. They are merely exercising their rights under US law. Don't like it? Then don't buy their product. Don't want to get in trouble? Then besides not buying their product, don't *cough* acquire *cough* their product either.

It works the same way with the RIAA. I think the RIAA sucks. Suing teenagers is usually not a good idea from a PR standpoint. That's why I don't buy their product. I also don't *cough* acquire *cough* their product either. But regardless, most of what the RIAA says (and noticed I didn't say "all of what they say") is in fact correct under US law.

Its also quite obvious in reading most of the replies here, that none of you have ever made or marketed a product that has a very limited pool of customers. Just like most of you have never created music, artwork, or software for sale. If you did, and someone started passing your creation around and cut in to your sales, I bet a lot of you would be changing your responses (and hiring lawyers). If you want to create something and give it away for free, that's your right to do so. But its equally someone else's right to create something and offer it only in exchange for money. You only have two choices in this debate...to pay and use, or to keep your money and not use. You never have the right to steal their product because you don't like their policies or prices.

This is great!

[grapeape]

The more copyright and patent issues encroach into the lives of the less geeky the better. Bring on the lawsuits for quilt patterns, sewing patterns and wood working designs (im going to lay claim to the spindle). The more insane the lawsuits get the more likely it is that the sheepish masses will finally wake up and see just how jacked up the current laws are.

Re:hmmmm, a way to make money?

[schon]

Paying of the artists

What makes you think that any of the RIAA money goes to the artists?

It goes to pay the record labels, who don't give one red cent to the artists (after all, it's not in their contracts.)

Re:hmmmm, a way to make money?

[cliffski]

of course. thats why maddona and elton john are penniless.
They get a bad deal, but they dont get NO deal. Pretending its ok to pirate because the artists gets NOTHING. is just silly.

Re:hmmmm, a way to make money?

[xtracto]

What makes you think that any of the RIAA money goes to the artists?

Yeah, thats completely true, what the original poster should have wrote is "paying to the copyright owners".

Unfortunately for the artists, they conceded all the rights of their creations to the recording industries when they signed those contracts, so, the recording corporations are in their right to protect THEIR intellectual property.

I wonder how long would it take until artists wake up and see how hard are music corporations screwing them...


It goes to pay the record labels, who don't give one red cent to the artists (after all, it's not in their contracts.)

You hit the nail, it is that way and it must be that way, artists SIGN AWAY their rights when they enter into a contract wiht the recording house. They just care about creating a specific number of albums to fulfill the contract.

Everything that happens after that is the music corporation problem, of course these corporations sell them the image that they will "fight" for their (artists) rights, but the truth other.