The complete book of self sufficiency AKA Convo on Copyright law

[Nomad64]

The problem with copyright law is it is quite vague, I often go onto YT to watch some of the old shows, Hogans Heroes, Lucy, Beverly Hillbillies to name a few, now I know films have strong copyrights on them, but should I be watching these shows for free,?

Seek and ye shall find.

A few clicks gets you a basic guide to UK copyright law - complicated but not vague although I suspect that you would have to pay handsomely for the services of an expert to advise on some of the more subtle points.

https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law

Utube’s own summary of the law as it relates to them is quite informative.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797466?hl=en

My guess is that a lot of videos on Utube are in breach of copyright. Utube is part of G00gle, one of the biggest corporations on the planet - I’m guessing that they have paid some expensive lawyers and IT wizards to advise them on what they need to do to avoid liability and have (very) deep pockets to pay compensation if they get caught out doing something wrong.

There seems to me to be a clear and obvious distinction between buying and selling a physical object like a book, car etc. and the copyright/intellectual property rights associated with it. If I own a physical copy of a book, record, CD etc. I can sell it to you but I can’t photocopy, scan, record it and then sell you a copy although it does appear to be OK to make copy for my own use.

A car will have loads of parts that are protected by patents etc. I can sell you the whole car or break it down into parts and sell the parts - I can’t make copies of the parts and sell them.

There was an interesting item on the BBC website showing how small designers were being affected by blatant copyright infringement by big companies.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stori...s-independent-designers-copied-by-high-street

Don’t worry too much, it is highly unlikely that the interweb police will raid Fadcode Towers but if they do and the most incriminating videos that you have watched involve Lucille Ball - you should be OK!

 

[C_Claycomb]

...
The problem with copyright law is it is quite vague, I often go onto YT to watch some of the old shows, Hogans Heroes, Lucy, Beverly Hillbillies to name a few, now I know films have strong copyrights on them, but should I be watching these shows for free,?

This is a question of moral principle rather than legal statute.

Copyright laws are aimed at people doing the copying, display or distribution, not the end user who downloads (without corresponding upload) or just watches. So watching content that someone else has posted on Youtube doesn't breach copyright laws, even if the person who put it up there is. However, if you post links to point other people to that content, then you could be said to be aiding distribution. Probably not a problem for you personally, but the platform owner where you do said distribution could be seen as complicit if they let you do so once they were aware.

For watching stuff without paying, that is up to your own moral code. If you feel bad that authors don't get money for second hand sales, surely you have some spark of guilt about watching old TV for free when you could probably buy it on DVD boxed set
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-l...r?ie=UTF8&condition=new&qid=1553244955&sr=8-1


I know I do...which is why I need to start shopping for another Ikea DVD storage unit

 

[Tony]

I changed the name of this thread...

 

[Fadcode]

Very interesting topic in my opinion, I must admit I have no guilt feelings about watching old films etc on utube, I balance it against the things I don't want to see like adverts, which is he reason they have these things on utube in the first place.

Copying things is another mine field, or are they, we see for instance many copies of the Woodlore, is this an infringement I doubt it, but if I was to nip down to my workshop and make a woodlore clone, then stamp somebodies name on it, then that would make it a problem, that would make it fake goods, merely by attaching a makers/company name to something and selling it as such, would make it unlawful.

The analogy of the car, you can sell it but you cant make parts for it and sell them, well I don't think that is quite right depending of course on the part, otherwise we would only be able to get parts for the car from main dealers, and lets not forget, cars are not really made they are assembled, cars have many parts made by many firms, who would own the rights to them, I would assume that they are made under licence from the designer, or the firm that designed it in the first place. But where a part for a car is no longer available,or very expensive, I am sure there is no law saying you cant make one yourself or have someone make it for you,or make a batch of them, and sell them on, the aftermarket non-oem parts for cars is big business.
.
As I look behind me at my bookcase, I realise that of all the books I have, I have never bought a new book, (did get some as presents) they are all second hand, even when at Uni all my Law books were second hand,just as well with the price they were new,
Another interesting point is that with books, the copyright is normally held by the publisher, the author merely retaining the right to be acknowledged, you can see the sense in this because if the book was written by a ghost writer, as many are, then the celeb who claimed to be the writer would be guilty of a copyright infringement him/herself.

 

[Janne]

I do not think it is illegal to remake a part or anything else, unless it is patented.

In the car resto world, we remake lots of parts, if wellcrafted they are exact copied of the original.

There is a program series on Swedish tv, about a self sufficient family called Mandelmanns Gård.
150 acres. Very, very interesting to watch. They must be one of the more selfsufficient families in Europe, without suffering or sacrifying anything.
Maybe subtitled in English?
A lot of work these people do. Lots. I think you need to be really dedicated and more importantly, physically very strong and healthy!

 

[Nomad64]

The analogy of the car, you can sell it but you cant make parts for it and sell them, well I don't think that is quite right depending of course on the part, otherwise we would only be able to get parts for the car from main dealers, and lets not forget, cars are not really made they are assembled, cars have many parts made by many firms, who would own the rights to them, I would assume that they are made under licence from the designer, or the firm that designed it in the first place. But where a part for a car is no longer available,or very expensive, I am sure there is no law saying you cant make one yourself or have someone make it for you,or make a batch of them, and sell them on, the aftermarket non-oem parts for cars is big business.

Car parts was probably the worst example I could have given - there is a whole raft of EU bumf relating to competition law which specifically covering aftermarket car parts.

http://www.bdl-ip.com/upload/Etudes...arts-used-for-repairing-a-complex-product.pdf

If you have still not lost the will to live after that lot then there is a comparison of how U.K. and US law works on protecting automotive designs and patents.

https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/...ng.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1518&context=ilr

TBH I’m more interested in the works of John Seymour (albeit without the anarcho-apocalyptic spin the OP added), not least because I have about two dozen fruit trees salvaged from a failed “forest garden” to replant and revive this weekend.

 

[slowworm]

TBH I’m more interested in the works of John Seymour (albeit without the anarcho-apocalyptic spin the OP added), not least because I have about two dozen fruit trees salvaged from a failed “forest garden” to replant and revive this weekend.

Tell me more, perhaps on another thread. I planted about that number in a woodland, not great results to be honest.

 

[Fadcode]

I don't think there is a lot of information regarding replanting trees in his books, most fruit trees need to be planted in the winter as at this time of the year they are in growing mode, "failed forest garden" check for diseased roots if the trees look weak and if you find any, burn the tree, unless you can identify the disease and know how it can be treated, I have several different fruit trees and they all have different characteristics and needs,.but I am happy to see them all now starting to bud.
I think items like this would make a good sticky as much information can be found by other peoples experiences.

 

[Robson Valley]

Fruit trees and fruit production are rarely ever shade tolerant. The "styles" of many forms of pruning are testament to that.
At the microscopic level, you will find proof of this in the anatomy of "sun leaves" as opposed to "shade leaves."

Artificial selection, as opposed to natural selection, makes fruit trees weak competitors with forest trees.
Sometimes, the issue is competition for soil water. Biological fact.

 

[Woody girl]

Have a look at Patrick Whitefield. How to plant a forest garden. I knew him in the 19 80s and 90s before he died. Knowledgeable man.

 

[Nomad64]

Fruit trees and fruit production are rarely ever shade tolerant. The "styles" of many forms of pruning are testament to that.
At the microscopic level, you will find proof of this in the anatomy of "sun leaves" as opposed to "shade leaves."

Artificial selection, as opposed to natural selection, makes fruit trees weak competitors with forest trees.
Sometimes, the issue is competition for soil water. Biological fact.

The name “forest garden”, at least as envisaged by Robert Hart is a bit misleading - the standard fruit trees are the upper canopy of the “forest”.

 

[Nomad64]

Tell me more, perhaps on another thread. I planted about that number in a woodland, not great results to be honest.

Not much to tell, the “forest garden” was a project we inherited from previous owners who planted hundreds of fruit and nut trees plus some alders in a field at 1200’ on a Welsh hillside then lost interest. It must have cost a fortune but not much apart from the native alders, hazels and limes not much has done well and most have died.

I’m going to graze sheep on it to manage it for wildflowers so apart from a quince which has done ok in the lee of some alders, a row of sweet chestnuts and a couple of apple trees which are a bit big to move and will be protected with stock netting, I’ve been digging up the survivors and sticking them in 30 litre pots while I work out what to do with them.

I’ve planted a medlar and Victoria plum in an orchard of trees from a cider farm at a similar elevation to us and also have a few sheltered spots where they should do alright but might keep some of the weaker ones in pots to see how they do over the summer.

I’ve also got some fruit trees salvaged from someone’s garden which is going to be built on.

 

[Robson Valley]

While the fruit trees are the canopy in an orchard, one branch above another will induce the formation of shade leaves.
Those as you know contribute diddly in terms of net production.

Any one in this parish a commercial orchard manager?

 

[Riven]

Bought a copy to see what the fuss is all about, 2002 edition. Second hand. Much prefer a book to something digital. Seems interesting although I expect my wife will borrow it as she grew up on a smallholding in Suffolk. It certainly covers a lot of topics so thanks for the heads up.