Kim Hargreaves

This reminds me of the discussion we were having elsewhere about copyright. The simple way of looking at it seems like this. If you think what you write is worthless and you might as well give it to somebody else, or not concern yourself with who takes it and does what with it, by all means! But surely if you think your work is of value and you wish to own its copyright, so be it.

I have a friend who wanted me to give her a pattern from this book. When I said I couldn't, it was copyright and she had to buy a copy, she said 'but people take my work and don't respect copyright, so why should I?' She writes about history. Hardly the point is it? People take my stuff, to which I own the copyright without permission and do things to it without my approval. The idea that this means I should do the same to others beggars belief.

Kim Hargreaves is an artist. She puts out wonderful work which exists if and only if we are willing to pay for it. My friend went on to say there was only one pattern in the book she'd want. So pay $30 for it. Why not? You are going to spend $100 on the yarn. You are going to spend 40 hours working on it. What's another $30?

If you download one of her patterns - and she does have some downloadable patterns on her site - http://www.kimhargreaves.co.uk/splash-winter-patterns.htm - it points out as much.

This is not rocket science. It is wrong not to pay. It is wrong not to respect copyright.

The best summnation of it I've seen is by Stewart Lee here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YE9Kthyaco

Watch it. It's hilarious and it has a good message.… (mere)

This reminds me of the discussion we were having elsewhere about copyright. The simple way of looking at it seems like this. If you think what you write is worthless and you might as well give it to somebody else, or not concern yourself with who takes it and does what with it, by all means! But surely if you think your work is of value and you wish to own its copyright, so be it.

I have a friend who wanted me to give her a pattern from this book. When I said I couldn't, it was copyright and she had to buy a copy, she said 'but people take my work and don't respect copyright, so why should I?' She writes about history. Hardly the point is it? People take my stuff, to which I own the copyright without permission and do things to it without my approval. The idea that this means I should do the same to others beggars belief.

Kim Hargreaves is an artist. She puts out wonderful work which exists if and only if we are willing to pay for it. My friend went on to say there was only one pattern in the book she'd want. So pay $30 for it. Why not? You are going to spend $100 on the yarn. You are going to spend 40 hours working on it. What's another $30?

If you download one of her patterns - and she does have some downloadable patterns on her site - http://www.kimhargreaves.co.uk/splash-winter-patterns.htm - it points out as much.

This is not rocket science. It is wrong not to pay. It is wrong not to respect copyright.

The best summnation of it I've seen is by Stewart Lee here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YE9Kthyaco

Watch it. It's hilarious and it has a good message.… (mere)