Making replacement sail, is it "copying" or just repair?
Atomic Skull
I was wondering if making a replacement sail for a kite you already own is
considered copying, or repair? (I don't need a replacement for anything, I was
just wondering what with all the threads about how bad it is to copy commercial
designs)
--
-=Atomic Skull=-
------------------------------------------------
See my 3-D anime character page
http://www.members.tripod.com/atomic_skull/index.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
andy
axe, his father replaced the head and he replaced the handle :-)
I would say that IMHO it is fine to make this type replacement.
I wait to see other people point of view
Andy
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Todd Copeland
duplicating the kite. I imagine it would be easy to show that the sail was
duplicated, they are fairly unique, and this makes up the majority of the kite
itself. Bridles, rods, and stitching would be a different matter. They exist the
same in most kites.
Paul Schnoes
IMHO as long as you still have only 1 you are repairing. Making another
would be duplicating.
"Todd Copeland" <todd.c...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:390ABF0E...@mindspring.com...
Victor
kite for your own use is a problem, even if this means copying the
sail, rod lengths etc.
If your going to build this commercially, well that's a whole other
story.
To my opinion it the same as recording music tapes (or CD's now a
days) for your own use.
Greetings, Victor
On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 15:11:05 GMT, ask...@jps.net (Atomic Skull) wrote:
>
> I was wondering if making a replacement sail for a kite you already own is
>considered copying, or repair? (I don't need a replacement for anything, I was
>just wondering what with all the threads about how bad it is to copy commercial
>designs)
-----
Bezoek mijn kite site:
I hate the combination of sand, salt water and no wind.
But I sure love the beach at windforce 5.
Mark de Roussier
>
> I was wondering if making a replacement sail for a kite you already own is
>considered copying, or repair? (I don't need a replacement for anything, I was
>just wondering what with all the threads about how bad it is to copy commercial
>designs)
If you're actually replacing something that is damaged to the point where it don't
work any more, I'd say you were morally justified - I have no interest in purchasing
a legal opinion from a copyright lawyer :).
You're allowed to take backup copies of software that you own, presumably in case the
original copy is damaged. This seems like a similar principle, but theres a twist -
does this principle allow you to take a 'backup copy' of a kite that you own *before*
you trash it ?:)
I'd say probably not. The point about software is that unless every bit is correct,
there's no point making a copy. OTOH, a trashed kite probably still contains enough
information to allow you to recreate a passable copy.
MdeR.
---
PGP Key from ldap://certserver.pgp.com, http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371
Todd Copeland
I stand corrected. I agree.
Atomic Skull
says...
>
>This really sounds like a legal questions but I'd say it is not a "repair"
it's
>duplicating the kite. I imagine it would be easy to show that the sail was
>duplicated, they are fairly unique, and this makes up the majority of the kite
>itself. Bridles, rods, and stitching would be a different matter. They exist
the
>same in most kites.
what about replacing a damaged panel then, and at what point does it stop
being repair and start being copying?
WALTER PARK
Mark de Roussier <ma...@murder.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3n5ogsskijddnrbuh...@4ax.com...
> If you're actually replacing something that is damaged to the point where
it don't
> work any more, I'd say you were morally justified - I have no interest in
purchasing
> a legal opinion from a copyright lawyer :).
There are problems with this logic.
1) Kites can not be copyrighted.
2) Kites can not be patented. (parts of kites can, but the kite as a whole
can not)
3) Copying a kite is a moral issue rather than a legal one, because a kite
is not protected by law.
> You're allowed to take backup copies of software that you own, presumably
in case the
> original copy is damaged. This seems like a similar principle, but theres
a twist -
> does this principle allow you to take a 'backup copy' of a kite that you
own *before*
> you trash it ?:)
There is a problem in the logic here as well.
1) Software is sold by license, not media. I'm not sure about music, but
it's probably something similar. If you damage your media, you are usually
entitled to a free/very low cost replacement. If you sell your license but
keep the media, you are not entitled to anything. When you buy a kite, you
are buying an object, not the right to use an object, so your analogy of
copying doesnt work.
2) licenses are not meant to be consumable, while kites are. (I think Pizzaz
kites is the only lifetime warrentied/guarenteed company out there) It's
like saying that if you buy a meal at a restaurant, that you are entitled to
the recipe so that you can reproduce it before you consume it. Or see a
magic show and expect to get the secrets so that you can enjoy the trick
after you leave. It's just not part of the bargain. You get what you get,
and if you use it up, then you get it again. Kites are consumable, they wear
out, because you are using them. Since you are using them, you are getting
your money out of it and have nothing to complain about when you need to buy
a new one.
Walt
Peace and Good Winds.
Craig Brozefsky
> I was wondering if making a replacement sail for a kite you
> already own is considered copying, or repair? (I don't need a
> replacement for anything, I was just wondering what with all the
> threads about how bad it is to copy commercial designs)
From an ethical standpoint, I don't think it's bad at all. I don't
care if it's a kite shop like Revolution[1], or a giant like IBM.
Ideas are meant to be shared and the idea that there is any ethical
basis for "inventor rights" is ludicrous, at best a product of the
overemphasis of the Romantic notion of the inventor and artists and a
disregard for the entire history of human civilization's advancement.
From a legal standpoint, the relavant issue is wether the thing you
are copying is patented. I believe Revolution has some patents on
their kites, but I do not know if they apply to specific parts of the
sail or not. If the sail is patented, unless the manufacture of that
patented mechanism is for curiosity or philosophical inquiry, a very
narrow set of criteria from a legal perspective, you are infringing
the patent by making it. The reality of the situation is that you
will not get into any trouble, and I doubt that any respectable shop
like Revolution or other kite designers are going to get upset if a
kite enthusiast does such things for their own use and does not sell
their work. There is alot of legal friction that would stop anyone
from taking you to court or reproducing a patented mechanism for your
own use.
So in effect, personal use is allowed in general, while in legalese it
is not allowed except for a very limited set of cases.
Others in the thread have analogized this to music, but that is not
appropriate, since the relavant intellectual property regime applying
to recording music is copyright, where as we're dealing with patents
when talking about "mechanisms" like kites.
Sometimes people confuse the legal ideal for the ethical ideal. It's
important to remember the original of the intellectual property
regimes in the U.S.[2], as this clears up that sort of confusion. The
purpose of copyright and patent is not to protect any natural right an
inventor has to determine the use of their invention. There is no
such right recognized in the U.S., and we can go all the way back to
the Thomas Jefferson and see that he thought the idea of "inventor's
rights' was perposterous as well.
Rather, the purpose of patents and copyright is to promote the arts
and sciences, by encouraging the sharing and publication of new ideas
and inventions. It does this by granting the inventor a temporary and
limited monopoly on the invention or work or art, giving them an
economic incentive to release their idea into the world.
Excerpt from Article 1, Section 8 of U.S. Constitution"
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;
For more information on this I suggest checking out the Findlaw page
discussing case law for Copyright and Patent [3]. Here is an excerpt
from that document:
Congress was not vested by this clause, however, with anything akin
to the royal prerogative in the creation and bestowal of
monopolistic privileges.1333 Its power is limited with regard both
to subject matter and to the purpose and duration of the rights
granted. Only the writings and discoveries of authors and inventors
may be protected, and then only to the end of promoting science and
the useful arts.1334
[1] My use of Revolution is not meant to imply anything about their
operation, it's just the only kite designer I know that has patents,
and I fly one myself and am interested in making repairs and replacing
the sail at some point.
[2] I don't intend to put off anyone outside of the U.S. by focusing
on the situation in the States.
[3] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/Constitution/article01/39.html
--
Craig Brozefsky <cr...@red-bean.com>
Free Scheme/Lisp Software http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
"Hiding like thieves in the night from life, illusions of
oasis making you look twice. -- Mos Def and Talib Kweli
Perry Farmer
-> news:3n5ogsskijddnrbuh...@4ax.com...
-> > If you're actually replacing something that is damaged to the point
-> >where it don't work any more, I'd say you were morally justified -
-> >I have no interest in purchasing
-> >> a legal opinion from a copyright lawyer :).
-> There are problems with this logic.
-> 1) Kites can not be copyrighted.
-> 2) Kites can not be patented. (parts of kites can, but the kite as a
-> whole can not)
-> 3) Copying a kite is a moral issue rather than a legal
-> one, because a kite is not protected by law.
You may want to check this out before making your copy of a Revolution
or even parts that borrow concepts from one.
-> Walt
-> Peace and Good Winds.
Perry
Perry Farmer
-> ask...@jps.net (Atomic Skull) writes:
-> > I was wondering if making a replacement sail for a kite you
-> > already own is considered copying, or repair? (I don't need a
-> > replacement for anything, I was just wondering what with all the
-> > threads about how bad it is to copy commercial designs)
-> From an ethical standpoint, I don't think it's bad at all. I don't
-> care if it's a kite shop like Revolution[1], or a giant like IBM.
-> Ideas are meant to be shared and the idea that there is any ethical
-> basis for "inventor rights" is ludicrous, at best a product of the
-> overemphasis of the Romantic notion of the inventor and artists and a
-> disregard for the entire history of human civilization's advancement.
The concept is to be able to profit from your ideas and inventions,
which may benefit all as long as those protected don't stifle the
competition from developing their own.
-> From a legal standpoint, the relavant issue is wether the thing you
-> are copying is patented. I believe Revolution has some patents on
-> their kites, but I do not know if they apply to specific parts of the
-> sail or not. If the sail is patented, unless the manufacture of that
-> patented mechanism is for curiosity or philosophical inquiry, a very
-> narrow set of criteria from a legal perspective, you are infringing
-> the patent by making it. The reality of the situation is that you
-> will not get into any trouble, and I doubt that any respectable shop
-> like Revolution or other kite designers are going to get upset if a
-> kite enthusiast does such things for their own use and does not sell
-> their work. There is alot of legal friction that would stop anyone
-> from taking you to court or reproducing a patented mechanism for your
-> own use.
In the case of Revolution, they did raise a stink a couple of years ago
in the case of a kite magazine that published plans on making a 4 line
elephant kite that had handles similar to theirs.
It matters little if it is for your own use or for selling, other than
compensation to the patent holder.
-> So in effect, personal use is allowed in general, while in legalese it
-> is not allowed except for a very limited set of cases.
That is a maybe.
-> Others in the thread have analogized this to music, but that is not
-> appropriate, since the relavant intellectual property regime applying
-> to recording music is copyright, where as we're dealing with patents
-> when talking about "mechanisms" like kites.
They are however similar.
-> Sometimes people confuse the legal ideal for the ethical ideal. It's
-> important to remember the original of the intellectual property
-> regimes in the U.S.[2], as this clears up that sort of confusion. The
-> purpose of copyright and patent is not to protect any natural right an
-> inventor has to determine the use of their invention. There is no
-> such right recognized in the U.S., and we can go all the way back to
-> the Thomas Jefferson and see that he thought the idea of "inventor's
-> rights' was perposterous as well.
-> Rather, the purpose of patents and copyright is to promote the arts
-> and sciences, by encouraging the sharing and publication of new ideas
-> and inventions. It does this by granting the inventor a temporary and
-> limited monopoly on the invention or work or art, giving them an
-> economic incentive to release their idea into the world.
Sort of hard to do if anyone can copy what you created, even if for
their own use.
-> Excerpt from Article 1, Section 8 of U.S. Constitution"
-> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
-> limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
-> respective Writings and Discoveries;
-> For more information on this I suggest checking out the Findlaw page
-> discussing case law for Copyright and Patent [3]. Here is an excerpt
-> from that document:
-> Congress was not vested by this clause, however, with anything akin
-> to the royal prerogative in the creation and bestowal of
-> monopolistic privileges.1333 Its power is limited with regard both
-> to subject matter and to the purpose and duration of the rights
-> granted. Only the writings and discoveries of authors and inventors
-> may be protected, and then only to the end of promoting science and
-> the useful arts.1334
-> [1] My use of Revolution is not meant to imply anything about their
-> operation, it's just the only kite designer I know that has patents,
-> and I fly one myself and am interested in making repairs and replacing
-> the sail at some point.
I say once you move to replacement then you move into the violation
zone.
I do think there is some sort of limit on what one should do and what
the patent holder should do and often times both step over the line of
common sense, such as the case of Revolution and their stink towards the
magazine article.
-> [2] I don't intend to put off anyone outside of the U.S. by focusing
-> on the situation in the States.
In the case of patents, it applies elsewhere as well.
-> --
-> Craig Brozefsky <cr...@red-bean.com>
Perry
Craig Brozefsky
> -> Rather, the purpose of patents and copyright is to promote the arts
> -> and sciences, by encouraging the sharing and publication of new ideas
> -> and inventions. It does this by granting the inventor a temporary and
> -> limited monopoly on the invention or work or art, giving them an
> -> economic incentive to release their idea into the world.
>
> Sort of hard to do if anyone can copy what you created, even if for
> their own use.
Not entirely. See copyright. In copyright the purpose is similiar to
patents, to grant a limited monopoly to the author of an original
work, yet at the same time Copyright comes with the notion of Fair
Use, which allows me to make copies for personal use, and backup among
other things. So copyright explicitely alows copying for personal
use, yet it still in many ways accomplishing the goals of promoting
the sciences and arts.
> I say once you move to replacement then you move into the violation
> zone.
I went to www.patents.ibm.com, which is an online patent database. A
quick search shows 603 kite related patents ranging from some complex
mechanisms for illuminating kites with replacable sail faces, to
patents on "two-string stunt kite" US5131609.
Looking at what I would guess is the Revolution patent in question
"US4892272: Kite-like flying device with dual handles and four point
control" it would seem that it does not cover just the sail, but the
entire kite, including the connection with the handles. I have not
been able to find anything covering the sail itself, or some mechanism
used in it's manuacture.
So it would seem that by replacing the sail you are not infringing
upon any patents, since you are not manufaturing any patented item,
just replacing a component of a patented mechanism. If someone does
know of a paten covering the sail specifically, please let us know
what it is.
By your logic, anyone who makes a screw which is used in the
manufacture of some patented mechanism would suddenly become a
violator of the patent when someone puts that's screw into the
patented mechanism. I think that is ridiculous.
> I do think there is some sort of limit on what one should do and what
> the patent holder should do and often times both step over the line of
> common sense, such as the case of Revolution and their stink towards the
> magazine article.
>
> -> [2] I don't intend to put off anyone outside of the U.S. by focusing
> -> on the situation in the States.
>
> In the case of patents, it applies elsewhere as well.
Many European countries start with the notion of "authorial rights"
and build their regime around that, which is quite different from the
U.S. Also, some don't recognize U.S. patents. So I guess someone in
Finland could make replacement Revolution sails for themselves and
others with impunity, tho some international treaties might complicate
matters.
Well, time to go fly my Rev 1.5 SLE. See yall later.
Carl D. Crowell
FYI -
Kites can be patented.
Kites can be copyrighted.
In general, you have the right to repair, but not replace.
And last, but not least, never get legal advice off of rec.kites.
-cc
_ _ _
Carl D. Crowell, Patent Attorney
www.nw-law.com
1313 Mill St SE #203
P.O. Box 923
Salem, OR 97308-0923
Tel: 503-581-1240 Fax: 503-581-1248
Perry Farmer
-> > -> Rather, the purpose of patents and copyright is to promote the arts
-> > -> and sciences, by encouraging the sharing and publication of new
-> > -> and inventions. It does this by granting the inventor a tempora
-> > -> limited monopoly on the invention or work or art, giving them an
-> > -> economic incentive to release their idea into the world.
-> >
-> > Sort of hard to do if anyone can copy what you created, even if for
-> > their own use.
-> Not entirely. See copyright. In copyright the purpose is similiar to
-> patents, to grant a limited monopoly to the author of an original
-> work, yet at the same time Copyright comes with the notion of Fair
-> Use, which allows me to make copies for personal use, and backup among
-> other things. So copyright explicitely alows copying for personal
-> use, yet it still in many ways accomplishing the goals of promoting
-> the sciences and arts.
While fair use is part of copyrights, fair use is limited and doesn't
necessarily give you the right to use it for whatever personal use you
desire. Copying an entire book at the library for your home library
would probably exceed fair use, while copying a couple of pages for
research probably doesn't.
-> > I say once you move to replacement then you move into the violation
-> > zone.
-> I went to www.patents.ibm.com, which is an online patent database. A
-> quick search shows 603 kite related patents ranging from some complex
-> mechanisms for illuminating kites with replacable sail faces, to
-> patents on "two-string stunt kite" US5131609.
-> Looking at what I would guess is the Revolution patent in question
-> "US4892272: Kite-like flying device with dual handles and four point
-> control" it would seem that it does not cover just the sail, but the
-> entire kite, including the connection with the handles. I have not
-> been able to find anything covering the sail itself, or some mechanism
-> used in it's manuacture.
In the case of the sail, my understanding of their patients is that a
good deal of the cases they addressed (Revolution addresses) pertains to
the leading edge construction.
-> So it would seem that by replacing the sail you are not infringing
-> upon any patents, since you are not manufaturing any patented item,
-> just replacing a component of a patented mechanism. If someone does
-> know of a paten covering the sail specifically, please let us know
-> what it is.
See above, don't have the patent number, this being by memory in I
believe either Kite Magazine, or American Kite.
-> By your logic, anyone who makes a screw which is used in the
-> manufacture of some patented mechanism would suddenly become a
-> violator of the patent when someone puts that's screw into the
-> patented mechanism. I think that is ridiculous.
No, by my logic you could not copy the exact configuration of the screw.
For example Phillips Square-Driv is covered by U.S. PATENT #5,120,173. I
can used this screw in the construction of my deck or build decks using
this screw, however I could not manufacture my own Phillips Square-Driv
screw for my own or others use without the permission of Phillips
Fastener Products.
-> > I do think there is some sort of limit on what one should do and what
-> > the patent holder should do and often times both step over the line of
-> > common sense, such as the case of Revolution and their stink toward
-> > magazine article.
-> >
-> > -> [2] I don't intend to put off anyone outside of the U.S. by focu
-> > -> on the situation in the States.
-> >
-> > In the case of patents, it applies elsewhere as well.
-> Many European countries start with the notion of "authorial rights"
-> and build their regime around that, which is quite different from the
-> U.S. Also, some don't recognize U.S. patents. So I guess someone in
-> Finland could make replacement Revolution sails for themselves and
-> others with impunity, tho some international treaties might complicate
-> matters.
While some don't honor patents, many in fact do directly, either
through honoring those in other countries or providing methods of
registering the patents in their own. Others protect authorial rights
via mechanisms such as the Berne Convention.
-> Well, time to go fly my Rev 1.5 SLE. See yall later.
windblown
informed opinion to temper the
discussion.
As an attorney you will be sensitive to evidence. The evidence
regarding this thread, as
expressed by the number of postings to it, suggests that legal
matters concerning kites and
kiting do have a place on rec.kites.
andy
>As an attorney you will be sensitive to evidence. The evidence
>regarding this thread, as
>expressed by the number of postings to it, suggests that legal
>matters concerning kites and
>kiting do have a place on rec.kites.
To be fair they do have a place on rec.kites, but this does not
mean that all the posts are 100% correct :-)
Walter Park
> FYI -
>
> Kites can be patented.
US Code Title 35 Part II Chapter 10 Sec. 101. Inventions patentable
(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/101.html)
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may
obtain a patent
therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."
You are correct. A kite is patentable. I was too broad in my
generalization.
But in the scope of this thread, and the use of "kite" to relate to
common
types like delta, diamond, etc and variations to them, the kite is not
patentable
since they are not "new". Improvements that are patented are only for
the
improved bits. So for the most part, aside from radically different
designs, like
a skybow, rotor kite, flexifoil, etc that didn't exist until they came
to be, it is only
the bits of a kite that are protected.
Take a Rev for example. Why is the spirit a legal kite? because it does
its bits
differently than all the bits that Rev included in it's patent. I
believe that Rev
tried to stop the Spirit from being produced, but failed because it did
not violate
the patented bits.
As far as a dual line goes, what is patented: bits like shrink
stops,connector types,
use of venting, ram intakes, etc. As far as this discussion goes though,
what on a sail is protected? use of panels? seam types? sail material?
shape?
I don't think those can be patented.
> Kites can be copyrighted.
Copyright: (n) The legal right granted to an author, a composer,
a playwright, a publisher, or a distributor to exclusive publication,
production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or
artistic work.
--The American Heritage Dictionary (Webster etc are not significantly
different)
Once again, you are correct, and I was too broad. Kites that are
considered
artistic can be copyrighted, and infact according to todays laws as I
understand
it are protected as soon as they are created, without the need to file,
unless you
want to take it to court. But aside from art kites and pertaining to
flying machines,
this would not apply. I dont want to restart "what is art" discussion,
so for the sake
of this thread, let's assume we are talking about kites not being sold
as art kites
but as flying machines. They would not be protected by Copyright.
> And last, but not least, never get legal advice off of rec.kites
I wouldn't say never, more like, take everything with a grain of
salt. A statement is only as good as the material that backs it.
Source has nothing to do with it.
Besides I still think this thread is a morally based one rather
than a legally based one, since the vast majority of kites we would
be talking about are not protected by law. Please correct me if I am
still incorrect in saying that the reproduction of, for instance, a
North
Shore Radical sail is not an illegal thing to do. Whether it is a
morally
right thing to do is different.
Ken Staggs
Walter Park wrote:
<Snip> that didn't exist until they came to be, <Snip some more>
Can you name something that DID exist before it came to be ? ;o)
Sky Good, Ground Bad! KS
windblown
for a fact that kites can be patented
because I have seen kite patents. I also believe that certain
artistic aspects of kites, sail
graphics in particular, can be protected by copyright. IMO
however the whole thing is moot for the
individual kite owner.
I have never felt constrained in repairing, replacing parts of,
modifying, etc. any product that I
own, patented or not. That includes kites, and specifically
kites that are covered by patents. It
may or may not be a technical violation but who cares? I doubt
that any individual has ever been
sanctioned for this kind of activity, provided of course that it
is for personal use and not a
commercial enterprise.
Mark de Roussier
>Mark de Roussier <ma...@murder.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3n5ogsskijddnrbuh...@4ax.com...
>
>> If you're actually replacing something that is damaged to the point where
>it don't
>> work any more, I'd say you were morally justified - I have no interest in
>purchasing
>> a legal opinion from a copyright lawyer :).
>
>There are problems with this logic.
Since I was opining on a moral issue, there was no 'logic' being presented here in
the first place.
>1) Kites can not be copyrighted.
Why not ? Is this a legal opinion, or just an opinion ? Or are you saying that theres
a difference between the design per se and an implementation of the design ? If the
image of Mickey Mouse, howsoever its represented, can be legally protected, surely a
thing which is more tangible/definite such as a specific kite design should be
similarly protectable ? If kites can indeed not be copyrighted, what is the basis on
which Lynn et al have challenged ( succesfully AFAIK ) some clone makers ?
If I were to make a particular, unique, graphic design by working exclusively with
ripstop and other kitemaking materials, and from this process emerged a kite sail
which was the one and only implementation of that design, are you saying that if I
made it into a kite then I could not assert copyright in that design ? That seems
perverse, though I'll grant the law is no stranger to perversity.
>2) Kites can not be patented. (parts of kites can, but the kite as a whole
>can not)
>3) Copying a kite is a moral issue rather than a legal one, because a kite
>is not protected by law.
If I were to accept points one and two, this would indeed be logical.
>> You're allowed to take backup copies of software that you own, presumably
>in case the
>> original copy is damaged. This seems like a similar principle, but theres
>a twist -
>> does this principle allow you to take a 'backup copy' of a kite that you
>own *before*
>> you trash it ?:)
>
>There is a problem in the logic here as well.
Thats why I posed the question.
>1) Software is sold by license, not media. I'm not sure about music, but
>it's probably something similar. If you damage your media, you are usually
>entitled to a free/very low cost replacement.
Really ? So if my nephew was to clean my Springsteen CD's with a wire brush, I could
write to the record company and demand replacements ? As you imply, things in the
music world are often a law unto themselves, but I certainly wouldn't be holding my
breath. And I can't honestly see it working for software either, in practice. Thats
why you're allowed to make a backup copy - then the software company can turn round
and say 'Didn't make a backup ? Tough.', rather than having to deal with a constant
stream of people demanding replacement media because their pet Yak ran amok in their
CDROM collection.
>If you sell your license but keep the media, you are not entitled to anything. When
>you buy a kite, you are buying an object, not the right to use an object, so your
>analogy of copying doesnt work.
As you can see, I'm not so sure. I agree software *use* is permitted on a licence
basis, whereas the right to use a kite is implicit. But when you make backup copies,
you take a physical ( in some sense ) copy of the media, not a copy of the licence.
You are usually explicitly forbidden to use more instances of the software than you
have licences for. This would be analogous to forbidding the kiteflier from actually
*flying* more than one instance of the kite, not from having a backup ( but unused )
copy. This doesn't seem too tricky :). The licence system exists simply because of
the ease of making copies of software, but I don't think theres a fundamental
difference in the nature of the problem.
>2) licenses are not meant to be consumable, while kites are. (I think Pizzaz
>kites is the only lifetime warrentied/guarenteed company out there)
Well, this is true as far as it goes, BUT - when software is embodied in physical
media, are those physical media intended to be eternal ? No - you can make backups
for precisely this reason. Plus ( to argue against myself temporarily :) ), are you
forbidden to repair a damaged kite ? I would hope not. This implies that it is
reasonable to expect your kite to last for as long as you can be bothered to repair
it. Software cannot be repaired by the licence owner - there are often clauses in the
licence which explicitly deny you the right to take the steps that would be required
to do this. Repair in the kite world is an imperfect process, and these imperfections
will accumulate - but is it reasonable to insist that someone should be forced to use
an imperfect process to preserve their 'object' when a potentially better one (
taking backups ) is available ?
Aiken
Well, maybe - but who makes the body panels? Ok, after several years
your local pattern builders will be allowed to make them, but during the
course of the 'patent' you'll find the only panels you can get will come
from the original makers. As for the tyres, they are bought in anyway.
No loss of revenue to the car company.
Aik
Aiken
>
> Walter Park wrote:
> <Snip> that didn't exist until they came to be, <Snip some more>
>
> Can you name something that DID exist before it came to be ? ;o)
Yes, this dabbed buddy code id by dose... sniff.
Aik. (Ahhhh....choooo) :O)
Andy Wardley
>can not)
>3) Copying a kite is a moral issue rather than a legal one, because a kite
>is not protected by law.
I agree with your commentary that followed, but I don't agree with these
3 points. My take is this:
1) Any work of art can be copyrighted, including kites.
2) Kites can also be patented. Flexifoil, being the archetypal example
for the last 18 years. To the best of my knowledge, this is probably
the only valid kite patent of recent years. Most, if not all others
since then, have been largely bogus. For example, there's a French kite
company which holds patents on using bungy cord to tension the wing-tips,
but they'd never have any success in defending it.
3) Because of the above, I would argue that copying a kite *is* a legal
issue. When you buy a Gemini, for example, you don't get the legal
right to copy it. It's still a work of art for which I hold the
copyright. In this case, only Tim Benson has the copyright holder's
permission to copy the Gemini.
>> You're allowed to take backup copies of software that you own,
Only if the license permits it. In this case, the license is giving
you express permission to copy the software once for backup purposes.
You still don't own the copyright, and thus you can't legally copy it,
other than in this special case.
Having said that this is a legal issue by technical definition, I think
I should add that the law is, by and large, an ass in this area. People
generally don't get put in prison for copying a CD, CD-ROM, or a kite, even
though it's technically "illegal". Thus, the over-riding concern should be,
as Walt says, the moral issue rather than the legal one.
A
--
Andy Wardley <a...@kfs.org> Signature regenerating. Please remain seated.
<a...@cre.canon.co.uk> For a good time: http://www.kfs.org/~abw/
Peter Bowen
design that can't be easily thought of, and not already be in use by
others or published. Unfortunately that means that unless you can
figure out a completely novel idea... It's a design... and probably
subject to copyright.
That being said, Subway has copyrighted logos etc, but if I wanted to
take the time I could create an almost identical sandwich. Did I copy
it.... Sure. Can I sell it... Sure. Is it morally wrong.... ??? It's a
sandwich. On the other hand is Subway everywhere? Is there still a
barrier to prevent me from making a million dollars by making my own
sandwich and selling it for less than Subway. You betcha!
Now a kite is a different story... It is fully exposed and so you could
probably create an almost exact copy. Is making a copy of your favorite
show to watch later wrong? Now if you were to start building kites
that were an exact copy, or were representing your copy as an original,
I would argue that there's an issue there. However the whole kite hobby
is based on BUILDING the kites. I would also argue that just as
fishermen learn to fish by fishing, kite builer hobbyists learn by
doing. Imitation is the highest form of flattery. I would also argue
that the great kite designers are looking at each other's designs and
incorporate cool stuff that other designers are using into their own
designs.
The magician/meal analagy is flawed because just as there are books on
kite building there are books on magic, and books on cooking food. It's
pretty easy to make a steak, but that's not why we go out to eat. As an
amatuer magician I can follow even the great magicians, and so I
apprciate a good trick/show. The same thing happens with kites. I've
made my share of duds and flying garbage can lids, but I've learned from
each one, and I can really appreciate a well designed kite.
So to make a long post longer. It's your deal, but if you are learning
to make better kites then kudos to you. If you're messing with
someone's livelyhood by copying the design to sell (which you're not
right :), that's a different story.
-Peter
> There are problems with this logic.
> 1) Kites can not be copyrighted.
> 2) Kites can not be patented. (parts of kites can, but the kite as a whole
> can not)
> 3) Copying a kite is a moral issue rather than a legal one, because a kite
> is not protected by law.
> There is a problem in the logic here as well.
> 1) Software is sold by license, not media. I'm not sure about music, but
> it's probably something similar. If you damage your media, you are usually
> entitled to a free/very low cost replacement. If you sell your license but
> keep the media, you are not entitled to anything. When you buy a kite, you
> are buying an object, not the right to use an object, so your analogy of
> copying doesnt work.
> 2) licenses are not meant to be consumable, while kites are. (I think Pizzaz
> kites is the only lifetime warrentied/guarenteed company out there) It's
> like saying that if you buy a meal at a restaurant, that you are entitled to
> the recipe so that you can reproduce it before you consume it. Or see a
> magic show and expect to get the secrets so that you can enjoy the trick
> after you leave. It's just not part of the bargain. You get what you get,
> and if you use it up, then you get it again. Kites are consumable, they wear
> out, because you are using them. Since you are using them, you are getting
> your money out of it and have nothing to complain about when you need to buy
> a new one.
>
Crowell
developments in the napster.com & MP3.com legal cases. (For those unfamiliar
with “big sky” theory, it goes along the lines of: No one is gonna notice
little ‘ole me, I can do what ever I want, also similar to “small fish don’t
get caught”.)
Recently Metallica, of Load and ReLoad fame, has individually named over
300,000 persons who have illegally copied their music on the Internet.
While it may not seem likely that some attorney will start suing little
Johnny who has “Ain’t My Bitch” on his hard drive, the law is making such
suits more and more likely.
Lets say you can prove that the song was illegally copied and there is a law
that allows you to recover statutory damages and attorney fees for such a
suit. Facts may be that the band Metallica only lost $0.20 of revenue due
to little Johnny’s failed efforts to become a pirate music mogul. Everyone
would agree that little Johnny is safe from suit because no one would sue
for $0.20. I can’t send a demand letter for that, much less file suit.
But go back to the bit about statutory damages. Lets say the law says you
have to pay $500.00 for every violation. All of the sudden you have some
money here, not a lot, but some. Add onto it the provision that you get
attorney fees in the suit and then you have to ask, why not sue? Attorney’s
in this area bill out sometimes over $350/hr. It may seem like nothing, but
at that kind of rate a suit for $0.20 actual damages, $500.00 statutory
damages has an attorney fee bill that walks in the door at $4000.00, you
have a real case. And if little Johnny lives with his parents who own their
own home, shazam, easy money.
What are you going to do? Have a trial and watch that attorney fee bill
climb to $50,000 by the time the jury sits down?
The issue is whether there was an illegal act. If there was and people don’
t care because the penalty is not significant or very rare, the consequence
is to raise the penalty until people do care. I see people all the time that
don’t seem to care. I also see the law responding by giving attorneys more
tools to make them care.
A curious twist added to kiting: What do you do when someone has a bootleg
kite at an event, and the people of the event either knowingly don’t do
anything, or have a long standing policy of not caring? Can you then also
tie in the organizers, judges, sanctioning bodies? Maybe. Depends.
*Note – we’re talking hypothetically here. This ain’t legal advice and is
probably worth what it cost you.
-carl
ccro...@nw-law.com
James Hodson
>3) Because of the above, I would argue that copying a kite *is* a legal
> issue. When you buy a Gemini, for example, you don't get the legal
> right to copy it. It's still a work of art for which I hold the
> copyright. In this case, only Tim Benson has the copyright holder's
> permission to copy the Gemini.
>
Hi Andy
OK. But what if I were to do some major damage to a Gemini's sail (assuming
I actually owned one). Would you allow me to replace any torn panels myself
(assuming I was able) and, if so, how many? At what stage would you, as the
copyright holder, decide that I'd made a replacement sail rather than just
made a repair?
Regards
James
"Watch the kite not where you're going!"
(RB 29/8/98)
Andy Wardley
>OK. But what if I were to do some major damage to a Gemini's sail (assuming
>I actually owned one). Would you allow me to replace any torn panels myself
>(assuming I was able) and, if so, how many? At what stage would you, as the
>copyright holder, decide that I'd made a replacement sail rather than just
>made a repair?
I wouldn't make that judgement. Despite the *legal* perspective, the
reality of the situation is far more pragmatic. If you've bought a
Gemini then you're a customer and we want to make sure you can enjoy
your kite for as long as possible. If you trash the sail then by all
means repair it or send it back to Tim for repair. If you want to try
a different frame then go ahead and experiment. If, in 10 years time,
you have a Gemini that contains none of the original pieces, then so
much the better. I believe you've still got the right to own and fly
that kite.
But if you copy a Gemini and sell it to a friend, or borrow one off a
friend and copy it for yourself, then you're clearly ending up with more
kites that you started with. That is certainly more questionable
behaviour on a moral basis, irrespecive of the fact that it may be "illegal"
by technical definition.
Mark de Roussier
>If, in 10 years time, you have a Gemini that contains none of the original pieces,
>then so much the better. I believe you've still got the right to own and fly
>that kite.
Ah ! You used the 'R' word :). This jist of this position seems to be that you are
adopting a very 'software licence'-like approach to the matter. Even though the kite
James is flying in 10 years time is not physically the kite he bought, he's still
allowed to fly it asif it was. In effect, you've granted him a licence to fly one
'Gemini' style kite.
This being so, why does it matter how many he has, so long as only he flys them (
except that he can sell on the original so long as he includes any copies ), and no
more than one is ever being flown at a time ?
James Hodson
>James is flying in 10 years time is not physically the kite he bought, he's still
>allowed to fly it asif it was.
Hang on Mark. I haven't got any Geminis yet :-)
Andy said pretty much what I'd expected him to say - it's the logical,
reasonable and "moral" approach. As long as you buy a Gemini in the first
place you can do pretty much what you want to that particular kite. What
you cannot do, as far as I see it, is to buy the kite and copy it, ie make
a backup using the original as a template. Two kites for the price of one
ain't allowed.
David Haworth
> Only if the license permits it. In this case, the license is giving
> you express permission to copy the software once for backup purposes.
> You still don't own the copyright, and thus you can't legally copy it,
> other than in this special case.
okay, so perhaps this is getting a little OT, but hey, we're all intelligent
people here and I at least think it's interesting :)
I wasn't aware that this is the case in the uk. I have always been under the
impression that you have a legal right to back personal back ups of computer
software and music, specifically because you haven't so much as bought the
media, but bought the right to listen to the music. however, you are only
allowed to use one copy at once (ie, you can backup quake3 but you can't use
both copies simultaneously). also if you sell the original then you must
detroy the backups. this brings up two issues. say I buy the latest steps
album (steps! whoohoo :) and make my legal backup to store somewhere. if my
original gets destroyed then I can use my legal backup. however, what if I
then want to sell the album? same with quake 3 for example. the licence
(notably none of which have been tested in court afaik, I suspect the
software industry wants to keep it that way) tells you that you have bought
the right to use the software, so if I can prove that I have the right to
listen to the music (or play the game) then I should be able to sell it on
any media surely? as long as I don't keep any copies myself..
bugger, whats the other issue? ahh yes. I own paul simon's graceland lp (ie,
on vinyl) if I have primarily bought the right to listen to the music rather
than the media, then why should I have to pay top dollar (top pound?) for it
on cd? afaik, there is nothing extra on the cd that isn't on the lp (one
could argue that there is less) so could I be prosecuted for copying the cd?
could I be prosecuted for downloading the mp3's? Morally I'd say no. I would
say that the record company has no responsibility to provide me with a cd of
it though, that would be my responsibility. however, if I snapped my REM
album, I would say that the record company has an obligation to me to let me
have a replacement cd for the cost of production and p&p (as I already own
the playing rights) as long as I return the broken one (ie, proof that it's
broken). I would definately say that this applies to software companies (esp
games companies) as they usually do their damndest to prevent you copying it
(without the correct hardware anyways, I've not come across a cd I couldn't
backup yet, but I did my research). as they have prevented you from taking
suitable precautions to protect it they ought to do the right thing and
replace it.
another example. my dad owns a top gear driving cd compilation because he
likes 'breakfast at tiffanies' by the deep blue somethings. now that is one
track of one cd. there are two cd's. now he has every right to lend me the
second cd (he wouldn't miss it, he never listens to it). however, if I copy
it while I have it and give it him back am I breaking the law? the two
copies of the music will never ever be played at the same time (because he
never plays it). surely it could be argued that he is lending me his right
to listen to those tunes? I would say this is a lot closer to the line then
the arguement above, but is it still illegal? alas were any of these things
to get to court I suspect that the morally right individual would get
cleaned out of money by the legal process before they were proven so.
justice eh?
to get somewhat back on topic. andy, would you say therefore that one buys a
gemini shape as well as the individual components? as long as there is only
one shape per purchase being used at once it doesn't matter what materials
fill the shape? if so, does that mean I could buy a gemini, copy it as a
vented version and as long as I didn't use both at the same time, things
would be dandy?
I would like to end this post my stating that I'm a libra and therefore an
argumentative little bugger and the above comes from that and no particular
intent to do anything really. I nearly bought a gem the other week (and that
baby gem might be mine yet) but I have no intentions to vent one (like I
knew how, ha! :)
thoughts anyone?
cheers
dave
Kitefisherperson
bu...@pavilion.co.uk (James Hodson) wrote:
>Now, Scorpio is a totally different matter entirely.
Oh, Pink Elephants!!!
KFP
Scorpio (duh?)
Mark de Roussier
>>Even though the kite
>>James is flying in 10 years time is not physically the kite he bought, he's still
>>allowed to fly it asif it was.
>
>Hang on Mark. I haven't got any Geminis yet :-)
That problem only needs money to solve, not Deep Thought :). I assume you're not
proposing to borrow mine and make a copy :).
>Andy said pretty much what I'd expected him to say - it's the logical,
>reasonable and "moral" approach. As long as you buy a Gemini in the first
>place you can do pretty much what you want to that particular kite.
Ah, but my point is that in the suggested scenario you do *not* have 'that particular
kite', but a different kite with a similar design.
>What you cannot do, as far as I see it, is to buy the kite and copy it, ie make
>a backup using the original as a template. Two kites for the price of one
>ain't allowed.
Morally, the question as I see it is 'who loses what ?'. Certainly if you make a
bunch of copies and sell them, or even give them away, then you can argue ( and this
is the moral basis for copyright as far as I can see ) that the original designer /
manufacturer 'loses'. There are counter-arguments to this, but I'll accept this now
for the sake of argument. But it's hard for me to see that anyone has lost anything
if you have an original and a backup, of which you only ever fly one at a time. What
is the backup, if not "a Gemini that contains none of the original pieces" ?
Mark de Roussier
>I would like to end this post my stating that I'm a libra and therefore an
>argumentative little bugger and the above comes from that and no particular
>intent to do anything really.
Well I'm a libra too, and I think that's completely irrelevant. Wanna make something
of it ???
MdeR:)
James Hodson
>of it ???
>
David Wade
tale ok ;-}
Pussy cat compared to me grrrrrrowllll!
CYA soon mate
Dave
"Feel the difference" " Fly like you mean it" HeHe (copyright Laserpro
Gold) All copyrights reserved.
DWK
On Sun, 07 May 2000 03:02:52 GMT, bu...@pavilion.co.uk (James Hodson)
wrote:
>>Well I'm a libra too, and I think that's completely irrelevant. Wanna make something
Dave
DWK
and for the spam bots:
root@localhost
admin@localhost
postmaster@localhost
ro...@mailloop.com
Eat that, spammers! (Copy this and paste it to your sig card.)
Ken Staggs
James Hodson wrote:
> >Well I'm a libra too, and I think that's completely irrelevant. Wanna make something
> >of it ???
> >
> A feeble star sign, as are ten more of 'em come to think about it.
>
> Now, Scorpio is a totally different matter entirely.
Of course, to those of us born under the sign of Leo the rest are just lunch ! ;o)
Sky Good, Ground Bad ! KS
James Hodson
>Well I'm a Taurean...
>
Ah, that explains the bull.
Yup. And you told me today (OK, yesterday, to be pedantic) that your
birthday's coming up soon.
For your 73rd (close enough) birthday present I shall teach you how to do a
"thingummywhatdyoumacallitspinningunrolltrick" (copyrighted, patented etc.
as of this moment)
>... I seem to be able to handle that sting in the tale ok ;-}
>
Hah!
>Pussy cat compared to me grrrrrrowllll!
>
I'll set my "guard cat" on you. Meeoow.
Damn Dogz. Break *their* spines, I say.
WT
Please post what a "thingummywhatdyoumacallitspinningunrolltrick" is so I
can start be the first one on my block to try it.
What ever it is, it sounds realllly koooll
WT
"James Hodson" <bu...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3916228d...@news.pavilion.co.uk...
Chris Matheson
> For your 73rd (close enough) birthday present I shall teach you how to do
a
> "thingummywhatdyoumacallitspinningunrolltrick" (copyrighted, patented etc.
> as of this moment)
Now that I like ;O)
Chris.
James Hodson
>> as of this moment)
>
>Now that I like ;O)
>
Snappy name, eh? It just rolls off the tongue <dribble>.
James Hodson
>Please post what a "thingummywhatdyoumacallitspinningunrolltrick" is so I
>can start be the first one on my block to try it.
>
>What ever it is, it sounds realllly koooll
>
It's just a nice little combination that's nice and simple to do. It's a
bit like the end section of the (in)famous Fruit Roll-Up (Jam Rolly Polly?
Swiss Roll?)
1) Fade
2) Half backspin (or 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 backspins - whatever)
3) Pop into turtle when nose is towards you
4) Half a lazy suzan
5) Pull (unwrap) slowly into a fade -the slower the better
6) GOTO 2 or half backspin into two tip landing
It looks better the slower it's done and the nearer to the ground, IMHO.
Also, it looks neater, IMHO again, if you pull the kite through the final
transition into the fade rather than popping it.
I got sick of not being able to backspin my Illy so just pulled a few lines
at random without thinking about it. The
"thingummywhatdyoumacallitspinningunrolltrick" was the result.
Oxford English Dictionary (3000 edition)
"thingummywhatdyoumacallitspinningunrolltrick" n. kite manoeuvre of
incredible beauty. [See kite, manoeuvre (trick), incredible, beauty]
Regards
mJohn
it?
mJohn AKA John Eaton
kin...@skysculpture.fsnet.co.uk
James Hodson <bu...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3917fccf...@news.pavilion.co.uk...
> Hi WT
>
> >Please post what a "thingummywhatdyoumacallitspinningunrolltrick" is so I
> >can start be the first one on my block to try it.
> >
> >What ever it is, it sounds realllly koooll
> >
>
> It's just a nice little combination that's nice and simple to do. It's a
> bit like the end section of the (in)famous Fruit Roll-Up (Jam Rolly Polly?
> Swiss Roll?)
>
> 1) Fade
> 2) Half backspin (or 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 backspins - whatever)
> 3) Pop into turtle when nose is towards you
> 4) Half a lazy suzan
> 5) Pull (unwrap) slowly into a fade -the slower the better
> 6) GOT 2 or half backspin into two tip landing
Ian Newham
<bu...@pavilion.co.uk> writes
>1) Fade
>2) Half backspin (or 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 backspins - whatever)
>3) Pop into turtle when nose is towards you
>4) Half a lazy suzan
>5) Pull (unwrap) slowly into a fade -the slower the better
Nice combo, very satisfying, I picked it up from the Level 7 video.
Isn't this, when repeated, what Andy Wardley calls a Jacob's Ladder?
--
Ian Newham
James Hodson
>Nice combo, very satisfying, I picked it up from the Level 7 video.
>Isn't this, when repeated, what Andy Wardley calls a Jacob's Ladder?
>
Sounds like the sort of thing a Level 7 might do - probably inadvertantly.
Dunno about the name though. Jacob's Ladder, eh? I doubt that that name
will catch on, especially as "thingummywhatdyoumacallitspinningunrolltrick"
is far easier to remember and much easier to spell.
Andy Wardley
>Isn't this, when repeated, what Andy Wardley calls a Jacob's Ladder?
It is indeed.
Chris Brent
> <bu...@pavilion.co.uk> writes
> >1) Fade
> >2) Half backspin (or 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 backspins - whatever)
> >3) Pop into turtle when nose is towards you
I'm confused (hey don't say it). How do you go from belly up nose
towards to a hlaf backspin to belly up nose away with a pop... or is my
definition of turtle wrong?
> >4) Half a lazy suzan
See aren't Lazy Susan's a spin from belly up nose away? What have I
been doing all this time if they're not!!!
Chris
Chris Brent
UNIX Systems Administrator
ORIX Australia Corporation Ltd
James Hodson
>> >1) Fade
>> >2) Half backspin (or 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 backspins - whatever)
>> >3) Pop into turtle when nose is towards you
>
>I'm confused (hey don't say it). How do you go from belly up nose
>towards to a half backspin to belly up nose away with a pop... or is my
>definition of turtle wrong?
>
>> >4) Half a lazy suzan
>
>See aren't Lazy Susan's a spin from belly up nose away? What have I
>been doing all this time if they're not!!!
>
My explanation of the combo was a bit short so I'll try to explain it in
more detail and give the orientation of the kite at important points. Sorry
if I repeat myself as I go along.
Are you sitting comfortably? Here I go...
Fade = belly up, nose towards, lines coming over leading edge, nose poing
up slightly
Backspin = 360 horizontal rotation from fade position BUT NOT FLAT
THROUGHOUT
Turtle = belly up, nose away, lines drooping over trailing edge, nose
pointing down a little
Lazy Susan = 360 horizontal rotation from turtle position, nose pointing
down a little, flat spin throughout
In both the Backspin and the Lazy Susan the kite spins as if it's stuck on
top of a pole sticking vertically out of the ground. However, with the
Backspin in particular, the kite doesn't sit horizontally throughout the
spin as if it was just sitting on the ground. Rather, it does a sort of
cartwheel motion.
Your definition of a Turtle is fine but that of the Backspin isn't quite
right. If you look carefully at a Backspin you'll notice that when the kite
is half way through the manoeuvre the nose is pointing downwards (and
slightly away from you) and that the back of the kite is facing you. So,
the kite doesn't spin in a horizontal plane at all; it does that cartwheel
motion I've already mentioned.
BTW, this cartwheel isn't the same as the cartwheel done as a ground
recovery. It just looks vaguely similar.
If you pop both lines quite strongly when the kite is in this position --
nose pointing downwards (and slightly away from you), back of the kite
facing you -- the nose will be thrown away from you into a Turtle. The
lines go from passing under the leading edges of the kite to hanging over
the trailing edge of the kite. (I say "passing under the leading edges"
rather than over the leading edges as the kite is in that nose down and
pointing slightly away with belly facing towards orientation.)
With the kite in a Turtle just start a Lazy Susan as normal by pulling on
one line. When the kite is half way through the Lazy Susan the nose will be
pointing towards (and slightly down), the belly of the kite will be facing
you slightly and the lines will go away from you, over the training edge
(which is pointing away from you) and back under the kite to your hands.
From this position, pull both lines strongly and smoothly. The kite will
rotate away from you through the Pancake position and into a regular Fade.
You need to give firm "pop" and a fair amount of slack when going from half
way through the Backpin into the Turtle. For the transition from half way
through the Lazy Susan back into the Fade you need to give smoother pull
and a lot of slack once the kite is actually rotating away from you. You
*can* try a hard "pop" when you're working out what to do but the trick
looks a lot nicer and is more controllable if you coax the kite through the
final transition.
The trick is, IMO, a lot easier to do and looks nice if does quite close to
the ground.
I suggest that you go to the Prism web site, Flight Training, Video Library
-- <http://www.prismkites.com/new-site/video-library.htm> -- and download
the second of the three movies of the backspin / rotofade --
<http://www.prismkites.com/new-site/backspin-good-mpv.avi> View it in
slo-mo or frame by frame to see what the kite actually does whilst
Backspinning. If it's not the second of the three Backspins... well, it's
the one with the close-up view of the kite that you want.
Sorry for waffling on - I tend to :-) -- and probably stating stuff that
you already know.
Still confused? :-)
Andy Wardley
>I'm confused (hey don't say it). How do you go from belly up nose
>definition of turtle wrong?
From a Fade, you do a 180 Backspin which leaves the nose pointing
away from you (like a Turtle), but with the lines over the leading
edge, running down being the kite. Pull both lines to flip the nose
towards you, and let the nose come up and roll over again so that
the kite is now in a proper turtle, with the lines running over the
trailing edge. Now do a 180 Lazy Susan which leaves the kite nose
towards you, like a Fade, but with the lines running over the
trailing edge. Again, you pull both lines to roll the kite over
through 360 degrees back into the regular Fade position, with lines
over the leading edge.
Then repeat.
Chris Brent
>
>
> Still confused? :-)
Nope got it now. I wasn't thinking about where the lines where running
which is why I couldn't get it. Sounds really cool... if i could just
get consistent backspins... and didn't keep going kite surfing when
there's wind.
Chris
--