Sage

WOW Sage, you have really been digging and reading the older postings. Yours is the first reply since June 2004. I could have used that Deckster on my old Laguna Balboa, but opted to tow a dinghy instead. These are funny looking but I would enjoy playing with them. Thanks Haha, too true. I should probably have looked at the post date. I really like the idea of those folding dinghies.

There's also an 8' version sold at Wooden Widget. http://www.woodenwidget.com/

Have you looked at the Hobie Mirage drive? It looks pretty interesting. http://www.woodenwidget.com/hobie.htm

Thanks for all the great information, gentlemen. You've got me more interested in contract law that I've certainly ever wanted to be. I'm very glad there are forums such as these that allow builders and the designers to communicate directly.

I suppose it also depends on what defines a contract. When a person buys a set of plans online, they don't sign any agreements or have any witnesses. They simply put in their credit card number and receive a set of plans in the mail. There may be an agreement between parties but I doubt that qualifies as a legally binding contract. For instance, if I walk into a bagel shop and the owner tells me that she'll only sell me a bagel if I eat it inside the store. I agree and we finalize our transaction. I now have the bagel but I'm under no obligation to eat it inside the store. I may have broken our agreement, but I'm perfectly free to walk out the door with bagel in hand. Yes I'm now a jerk, but it's perfectly legal. If the shop owner claims that she's actually selling me a license to only eat the bagel inside her shop does that change anything? I'll admit the whole "selling a license to do something" has me a little confused. If I'm offending anyone please let me know, I'm not trying to undermine the rights of the designers at all. When I saw the "one build" restriction on my plans, it simply got me thinking. This being a philosophical thread on that very same subject, I had to chime in. And happy new years everyone!

Wow, that actually surprises me. But like I said, I'm no legal expert. I'm very glad the designers are able to collect for their designs. Were these suits involving people trying to build and sell the boats commercially? It makes me wonder though, there has to be a point where the specified restrictions on use are no longer legally defensible (this IS a philosophical thread after all). For example, the previous example of the designer requiring only yellow tools to be used.

No worries at all ChrisObee, though you are certainly right about it being a bit pointless. It was really more of an academic discussion for me. It was something that piqued my interest as soon as I saw it on the plans. There is so much confusion among the general public regarding copyright, trademarks, EULAs and consumer rights, that I find the discussions interesting.

I wonder though, if it can actually be considered a legally binding contract. If the designer specified on the plans that the boat could only be built with yellow colored tools, once the plans are in the buyer's possession, they're perfectly free to build it with any colored tools they choose. Just because it's on the plans or in the agreement, doesn't make it legally binding. I was simply surprised when I noticed the "single build restriction" on my plans. I'm not interested in building more than one and I'm certainly no legal expert...just curious.

I can clearly see where that is copyright infringement. You can't slightly modify a design and then try to pass it off as your own. I'm curious about the restriction on the number of builds. I just can't see how it would be legally enforceable. It makes me think of terms in many software EULAs. Just because it states that the buyer must use the product in a certain way doesn't mean that the user is legally compelled to. I'm certainly not advocating screwing the designer over, and the money I spent on plans was worth every penny.

Ethical considerations aside, I can't imagine that the restriction on the number of builds is legally enforceable. The plans are protected by copyright, which only prevents the buyer from copying and distributing the plans. The designer can specify restrictions (such as a single build or that only hand tools can be used), but copyright certainly doesn't protect these. The first-sale doctrine would also allow the purchaser to sell the plans, even after building the boat. I'm not sure that considering it a license to build a boat would really hold up in court. Has anyone ever heard of case where this was challenged. Perhaps a person buying a set of plans and then building and selling multiple boats? I'm only talking about the legal aspects, not what should be done.