Annoyed with copyright

[Lovedtodeath]

That article was very informative! Thanks for posting it.

 

Two things that I thought might be new points for some: A work is copyrighted automatically from its conception without a copyright being applied for/assigned.

 

Sending a work to someone in the form of a file on your computer (uploading) is a violation of copyright. The author (or copyright holder) and only the author (or copyright holder) has the right to upload their files (send them by electronic means to someone else). I though this was a good point considering all of our talk of "mechanical means".

[asta]

Well, I will admit that I make copies of or write on paper with all our books except maybe a few rare occassions. I either use them with my other kids or I RESELL them. I couldn't afford to home school if I had to buy 4 copies of every book we planned to use. I also need to sell my books in order to buy the next year's curriculum. Now I don't buy books simply to copy and resell, which is different imho.

 

These two sentences strike me as contradictory.

 

 

a

[ezrabean2005]

These two sentences strike me as contradictory.

 

 

a

I think what the poster is saying is her intent is not to buy the book just to copy and resell it. It just happened that the way they used it left the book intact so she could resell it. At least that's how I read it.

[Pretty in Pink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by asta

These two sentences strike me as contradictory.

 

 

a

 

I think what the poster is saying is her intent is not to buy the book just to copy and resell it. It just happened that the way they used it left the book intact so she could resell it. At least that's how I read it.

 

 

I got the impression that she is essentially saying, "I need to copy these pages for my kids to write on so that the book stays clean. I need to sell this book at the end of the year to pay for next year's book."

 

I think the bottom line is if you are photocopying pages from a consumable book then you cannot [legally] sell it at a later date. Further, I have the understanding that you cannot photocopy pages from a consumable book just to save yourself the cost of purchasing a second or third copy of that book for your other children. At least, that is how I am understanding it.

 

FWIW I contacted the publisher of Winston Grammer to ask her feelings about this issue. I have been copying the pages out of that workbook so that I can do the assignments along w/ ds. Here is her response:

 

Elizabeth: Technically, it is a violation of the copyright law to copy the pages. However, it's very exciting to have a parent actually do the work along with their child to learn, so keep up the good work. If you have more than one child, I generally ask that you buy another workbook.

Have a good evening. Liz

 

So, I will purchase more copies of the workbooks to use with my other kids. I just hope the curriculum isn't revised before I get to that point.

[Quiver0f10]

double sorry

Edited June 18, 2009 by Quiver0f10

[Quiver0f10]

Well this thread has opened my eyes too. I guess I need to think carefully about future purchases and things we are using now. I really didn't think much of the copywrite involved. I have always seen many workbooks etc on the sale boards here and other sites that I assumed it was Ok to do so.

[Quiver0f10]

Ok, so what about rod & staff english? If we are doing the answers on paper is that a violation? What about something like IEW? If we don't copy it but do the excercises on paper is that a violation? Oh, what about TOG? We copy/print the student pages? Are they not resellable? :confused: I need to understand this better

[Pretty in Pink]

Ok, so what about rod & staff english? If we are doing the answers on paper is that a violation? What about something like IEW? If we don't copy it but do the excercises on paper is that a violation? Oh, what about TOG? We copy/print the student pages? Are they not resellable? :confused: I need to understand this better

 

All good questions and I am wondering the same thing regarding the TOG.

[Peek a Boo]

I do not consider any of my actions to be stealing...

 

And here's another point:

 

years ago people had a LEGAL RIGHT to own slaves. That was their PROPERTY. You would be stealing if you tried to help that slave run away.

 

There are quite a few people who don't believe intellectual property rights to be a 'right' at all: that information should be free. They don't copyright their own materials that they produce, so would not consider it stealing if the info was copied.

 

So again --whether the action IS legally stealing as well as unethical are still different concepts.

 

another biggie: workbooks that are kept in libraries.

 

But i really liked the licking-of-the-cookies analogy, LOL!!!

[Peek a Boo]

Ok, so what about rod & staff english? If we are doing the answers on paper is that a violation? What about something like IEW? If we don't copy it but do the excercises on paper is that a violation? Oh, what about TOG? We copy/print the student pages? Are they not resellable? :confused: I need to understand this better

 

It's my understanding that R&S has a pretty liberal copy policy. You can call them and ask tho.

[WishboneDawn]

That article was very informative! Thanks for posting it.

 

Two things that I thought might be new points for some: A work is copyrighted automatically from its conception without a copyright being applied for/assigned.

 

 

That's true. I have trouble with our current copyright laws however (I think they're too restrictive and deny people the right of using stuff that should be in the public domain) so, to keep myself from being hypocritical, I use a creative commons license on my blog to modify my copyright. People are free to use and modify what I write as long as they attribute me and make any use of material derived from me subject to the same CC license.

 

Actually, I think I removed the little badge from my blog. I'll have to put it back on.

[Mom-ninja.]

Yes, we proudly write in our worktexts and other consumables. I also highlight and make notes where needed in my non-consumable books. I DO NOT keep oldest dc's worktexts "pristine" so younger can use it.

 

I bought it, I'm going to use it. Dc are going to use it and, hopefully, enjoy the process of learning and doodling in the margins on occasion.

 

Again, thanks for explaining this issue so well!

 

Same here. When I first started this homeschool adventure I was told to copy things. I figured with cost of copying and paper it wasn't worth it anyway.

 

I simply buy a new workbook for my younger ds when he needs it.

 

I do, however, have workbooks that I have decided I do not want to use. May I sell those?

[Miss Peregrine]

Ok, so what about rod & staff english? If we are doing the answers on paper is that a violation?

 

The inside of the worksheets booklet states: "Note: These worksheets may be reproduced as needed in the teaching of this course."

[creekland]

And here's another point:

 

years ago people had a LEGAL RIGHT to own slaves. That was their PROPERTY. You would be stealing if you tried to help that slave run away.

 

There are quite a few people who don't believe intellectual property rights to be a 'right' at all: that information should be free. They don't copyright their own materials that they produce, so would not consider it stealing if the info was copied.

 

So again --whether the action IS legally stealing as well as unethical are still different concepts.

 

But i really liked the licking-of-the-cookies analogy, LOL!!!

 

I would have helped the slaves too... and yes, I'm not much of a subscriber to intellectual property rights, but I'm not 100% against it either. The same goes for patents on various things - but that's a whole 'nother issue.

 

To me, the food analogy is totally non-relevant. For clothes, I can either let my kids use them full out - wear and tear - spaghetti - you name it, or I can have them gently wear good things when needed, pass them down to their brothers, then sell them at the end - perhaps even having bought used to start with. I see homeschool books, etc, to be more like clothes than food. Doing the homework on paper is akin to taking off the good clothes when playing around the house. Workbooks to me would be closest to underwear... one could be careful and reuse I suppose - then even resell, but, um, not me. That's one item we buy new for everyone and chuck when we're done.

[Mommy2BeautifulGirls]

 

I do, however, have workbooks that I have decided I do not want to use. May I sell those?

 

Yes, as long as you have not copied it. It would be basically the same as you looking at it in the store and then putting it down. If you're not going to use it, sell it to someone who is. No sale is lost to the publisher in that case. What is important to remember is that it is the COPYING that is illegal, not the selling/giving away of something you are not going to use.

[Karenciavo]

Oh, what about TOG? We copy/print the student pages? Are they not resellable? :confused: I need to understand this better

 

You are able to copy the TOG SAPs and then sell your original copy of TOG when you are done with it, of course this applies to printed year plans only not DE. TOG is not consumable.

[WishboneDawn]

And here's another point:

 

years ago people had a LEGAL RIGHT to own slaves. That was their PROPERTY. You would be stealing if you tried to help that slave run away.

 

There are quite a few people who don't believe intellectual property rights to be a 'right' at all: that information should be free. They don't copyright their own materials that they produce, so would not consider it stealing if the info was copied.

 

So again --whether the action IS legally stealing as well as unethical are still different concepts.

 

another biggie: workbooks that are kept in libraries.

 

But i really liked the licking-of-the-cookies analogy, LOL!!!

 

I think this is a good distinction. I don't deny that if I violate copyright (and I do) that I'm doing something illeagal but I don't think it's unethical.

 

I should note that when I violate copyright I don't fail to credit the original creator, represent their work as my own or attempt to profit. I use the same standards I expect someone to follow when using my work. By something with the intent of copying it and reselling it is a bit of a tough one for me. I have bought things and have copied them for my use but haven't sold any of it. I generally give it away originals if I don't hang onto them. But even if I sold it, would there be any profit? I'd still be running a loss.

 

Regardless, I think these kinds of discussion are important. I don't think most people understand what copyright was originally intended to do or why it was expressly limited to begin with. Or just how much public domain has been shredded and discarded in the service of "protecting copyright". It irks me to no end for instance that Disney could take a public domain story like Snow White and restrict the public's use of his interpretation for generations.

[Lovedtodeath]

Yes, as long as you have not copied it. It would be basically the same as you looking at it in the store and then putting it down. If you're not going to use it, sell it to someone who is. No sale is lost to the publisher in that case. What is important to remember is that it is the COPYING that is illegal, not the selling/giving away of something you are not going to use.

This is the way I feel about Winterpromise and their request. If I didn't use the program guide, or maybe started to use it and decided it wasn't for my family, then I have no ethical qualms about reselling. If I used it then it is different in my mind. Then there is the gray area of an out of date program guide. I am not sure how I feel about that.

 

quote=WishboneDawn: I should note that when I violate copyright I don't fail to credit the original creator, represent their work as my own or attempt to profit. I use the same standards I expect someone to follow when using my work. By something with the intent of copying it and reselling it is a bit of a tough one for me. I have bought things and have copied them for my use but haven't sold any of it. I generally give it away originals if I don't hang onto them. But even if I sold it, would there be any profit? I'd still be running a loss. In this last case, The point is the impact on the original creator. You'd be taking away from the proceeds of their work.

 

Regardless, I think these kinds of discussion are important. I don't think most people understand what copyright was originally intended to do or why it was expressly limited to begin with. Or just how much public domain has been shredded and discarded in the service of "protecting copyright". It irks me to no end for instance that Disney could take a public domain story like Snow White and restrict the public's use of his interpretation for generations. Yes, sometimes copyright doesn't work with the correct intentions.

[Mommy2BeautifulGirls]

I'm not sure about Winterpromise, but when you purchase from Calvert you are agreeing to the term of either destroying or keeping for records your TM when you are done with it. You are, in fact, signing a contract with the company that this is what you will do. If you resell it or give it away, you are ignoring that contract that you signed. This is blatantly wrong. If my memory serves me correctly, however, they do give you a period of time to review the materials to make sure you want to use them. This should, in theory, eliminate the need to resell/give away a TM that you are not using.

 

If you are not happy with signing this contract, purchase somewhere else. (I should add that I'm not the biggest fan of this policy, either, but I did know going in that I would NOT be able to resell the TM when I was done.)

Edited June 18, 2009 by Mommy2BeautifulGirls

[CookieMonster]

Ok, I have to say that the idea of copying a workbook and selling off the original is a no brainer: it's wrong.

 

But, I never imagined that selling a workbook that I bought but never used would be considered a copyright violation. I certainly never would have conceived that donating a completely unused piece of consumable material would be considered a copyright violation.

 

I guess it makes sense. But, at the same time, it just seems so wrong to throw away a perfectly good, unused workbook.

 

Off to contemplate the universe...

[Homeschooling6]

I recently bought an older used copy of the SOTW2 Activity Book along with the student pages. I couldn't understand why the student pages had not been used by the seller. It's possible she didn't use the curriculum at all. Now I wonder if the seller photocopied the student pages to use, saving the originals to resell later.

 

The used book market is helpful. But if homeschoolers are violating copyright to make/save a few bucks I think I'm better off rewarding the good ideas of authors/publishers by buying new books.

 

I sold one of my SOTW a year ago. I used this with 2 of my dc at the time. I purchased two extra sets of the student activity sheets from PHP. I didn't need to copy them. Since, I didn't copy the activity sheets I sold them along with Activity Book.

 

Maybe that is what the other person did too. IMHO I prefer to purchase the extra sheets because it gets expensive and time consuming to copy.

[katemary63]

Ok, I have to say that the idea of copying a workbook and selling off the original is a no brainer: it's wrong.

 

But, I never imagined that selling a workbook that I bought but never used would be considered a copyright violation. I certainly never would have conceived that donating a completely unused piece of consumable material would be considered a copyright violation.

 

I guess it makes sense. But, at the same time, it just seems so wrong to throw away a perfectly good, unused workbook.

 

Off to contemplate the universe...

 

I think it's been made clear that this would not be a violation of copy write law.

[chaik76]

When we delved into copyright law back on the old board, I think it was pretty much established w/ links ad nauseum that publishers did have the right to set ludicrous policies about copying their work. But I don't think i saved those discussions....

 

And we come to the second part of the discussion: even if it is blatantly illegal to copy workbooks, how many would do it anyway as part of a civil disobedience type of thing? How far in each direction does ethics go?

I'd try to change the copyright law first, but if I thought it was necessary I'd resort to civil disobedience (I have for other issues). I use to be in the publishing business, and I have pretty strong beliefs on how long copyrights, etc. should last before they are passed into public domain (not as long as it is now) and whether one should be able to re-sell unused consumables (I think you should). I generally follow the "rules" for consumables just because of the way we homeschool, but I've definitely made copies of stuff for our co-op setting, and I have no problem with having done that, whatever the law says. I believe it was ethical...I'd rather have taught a drawing class using copies that some think I shouldn't have copied than not had a drawing class at all (which would have been the alternative).

[chaik76]

hat slave run away.

 

There are quite a few people who don't believe intellectual property rights to be a 'right' at all: that information should be free. They don't copyright their own materials that they produce, so would not consider it stealing if the info was copied.

 

So again --whether the action IS legally stealing as well as unethical are still different concepts.

 

another biggie: workbooks that are kept in libraries.

 

 

I do believe in intellectual rights, but I think that our world is taking them too far right now. I'm definitely a fan of open source, sharing resources etc. It's one of the reasons why, when my website was up, everything I ever created was available for free. I didn't care if you copied it, used it (I did want to be credited but I really didn't care if you didn't), or changed it and then re-posted the changes.

At the same time, I have no issues with some of copyright law, and I do think people should be credited with their work. I believe they should be able to sell it for profit...I don't think that anyone should be able to tell me what to do with it when I'm done with it.

 

 

Also (this doesn't directly address your post), I have an issue with the whole "leasing" of materials. This is quite a heated debate in some areas (whether it is legal, or should be legal). It's like "leasing" from computer companies...but you get to keep the leased product, and only pay one fee. Is that really a lease? Personally, I don't think it is. (Again for the record, I have NEVER taken a resource I bought as a pdf, html, or CD-Rom and copied, then sold the copies. I would however sell the CD-Rom I purchased.)

[WishboneDawn]

Ok, I have to say that the idea of copying a workbook and selling off the original is a no brainer: it's wrong.

 

But, I never imagined that selling a workbook that I bought but never used would be considered a copyright violation. I certainly never would have conceived that donating a completely unused piece of consumable material would be considered a copyright violation.

 

I guess it makes sense. But, at the same time, it just seems so wrong to throw away a perfectly good, unused workbook.

 

Off to contemplate the universe...

 

If you're refering to the post on Calvert, it ISN'T a copyright violation. It's a violation of the contract a person signs with Calvert and that's all. It might open someone up to the possibility of being sued by Calvert if they sold/gave away material but it wouldn't be illeagal.

[Manamana]

I sold one of my SOTW a year ago. I used this with 2 of my dc at the time. I purchased two extra sets of the student activity sheets from PHP. I didn't need to copy them. Since, I didn't copy the activity sheets I sold them along with Activity Book.

 

Maybe that is what the other person did too. IMHO I prefer to purchase the extra sheets because it gets expensive and time consuming to copy.

 

 

Thanks for clarifying with another scenario. This makes sense.

[CookieMonster]

I think it's been made clear that this would not be a violation of copy write law.

 

I'm so sorry! Somehow when I was reading through this thread the first time I skipped page 2. Since I have my preferences set to 50 posts per page, that means I missed the 50 highly helpful posts that fleshed out legalities.

 

My bad.

 

I think I understand pretty clearly now what is allowed and is ethical. I'm very thankful for this thread. I'm not afraid of being a goody-two-shoes.

[Orthodox6]

Calvert does not send contracts to be signed. I never have returned my signature on a piece of paper to Calvert. There is NO contract, other than something in their heads. That came out smart-alecky, and not as I meant it. There just is nothing concrete about their request/expectation/requirement. Legally, I suppose it is some sort of spider-webby-flimsy "verbal contract." (except that never have I "affirmed" anything in response to the company!) . . . It just is a weird scenario !

 

If you're refering to the post on Calvert, it ISN'T a copyright violation. It's a violation of the contract a person signs with Calvert and that's all. It might open someone up to the possibility of being sued by Calvert if they sold/gave away material but it wouldn't be illeagal.

[Dobela]

Quotes from 2 different posts: Is it legal to resell workbook or reproducible books that you've bought, looked through, but never actually used?

 

But, I never imagined that selling a workbook that I bought but never used would be considered a copyright violation.

 

 

I can't believe that this is a copyright violation. If it were there would not be book companies like Follett set up. Follett buys unused, used, and left over texts from schools and universities then resells them to others (individuals, education instutions, etc). They are huge and well known in school circles. I would also think that college campuses would not be buying and reselling unused lab books, workbooks, and such for classes offered there if it were illegal.

 

Not too long ago I was looking for a teacher reproducible book that I once owned. It had been destroyed in a basement flood. When I contacted the publisher, Scholastic, I was told to check the resale market for the book because they no longer published it. For another book they still made but were out of, I was also encouraged to check the resale market by the same customer service person. Why would they suggest that I look to the resale market if it were illegal??

 

I also cannot be the judge of the intentions of the person I am buying the used texts from. If I am buying in good faith a reproducible book or a workbook that is being listed as like new, I assume that the seller has not made copies for self just to resell at a higher price. And even if they have, I will leave it up to courts and God to judge them if there is a problem. I have sold like new workbooks before as well as reproducible books. I sold many reproducibles when I stopped teaching public school. I have sold workbooks in like new condition because they just didn't work for my child.

 

I don't feel that I need to list on my for sale pages all the reasons why it is for sale just to prove that I am not copying to violate the copyright laws. I guess maybe I am either naive or just want to believe in innocence before guilt.

[WishboneDawn]

Calvert does not send contracts to be signed. I never have returned my signature on a piece of paper to Calvert. There is NO contract, other than something in their heads. That came out smart-alecky, and not as I meant it. There just is nothing concrete about their request/expectation/requirement. Legally, I suppose it is some sort of spider-webby-flimsy "verbal contract." (except that never have I "affirmed" anything in response to the company!) . . . It just is a weird scenario !

 

Thanks for the clarification! I was going on what I'd assumed from a previous post. :)

[Orthodox6]

Copied [ ooooooooh ! ] from the title page of a very old (1999) Calvert teacher manual:

 

"As set forth in the Enrollment Agreement, this lesson manual is the property of Calvert School and is leased for use only with the pupil enrolled."

"The registration number of this manual is ________"

"Copyright [symbol -- not on keyboards] 1995 by Calvert School, Inc. All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form."

 

My "enrollment agreement" always has consisted of my placing a telephone call to Calvert, telling them what I want to purchase, and providing them with my credit card information. Accurately speaking, I have not, thus, "agreed" to anything ! The restriction is on the written page, and is not even discussed by the sales agent during our telephone conversation.

 

 

 

Thanks for the clarification! I was going on what I'd assumed from a previous post. :)

[Lovedtodeath]

I also cannot be the judge of the intentions of the person I am buying the used texts from. If I am buying in good faith a reproducible book or a workbook that is being listed as like new, I assume that the seller has not made copies for self just to resell at a higher price. And even if they have, I will leave it up to courts and God to judge them if there is a problem. I have sold like new workbooks before as well as reproducible books. I sold many reproducibles when I stopped teaching public school. I have sold workbooks in like new condition because they just didn't work for my child.

 

I don't feel that I need to list on my for sale pages all the reasons why it is for sale just to prove that I am not copying to violate the copyright laws. I guess maybe I am either naive or just want to believe in innocence before guilt.

:iagree:

[Peek a Boo]

Calvert does not send contracts to be signed. I never have returned my signature on a piece of paper to Calvert. There is NO contract, other than something in their heads. That came out smart-alecky, and not as I meant it. There just is nothing concrete about their request/expectation/requirement. Legally, I suppose it is some sort of spider-webby-flimsy "verbal contract." (except that never have I "affirmed" anything in response to the company!) . . . It just is a weird scenario !

 

well.....THAT is an interesting and helpful tidbit of info!

[KristenS]

I would think, with Calvert, that the mere act of buying constitutes agreement ... kind of like installing software and you always have to click those Agree buttons for long-winded stuff no one ever reads.

 

Just my unprofressional two cents. Is this agreement mentioned in their catalog or on their website? If so, they may not feel the need to reiterate when selling on the phone. Though it would be nice if they did.

[Orthodox6]

You offer a good analogy. Better than my "verbal agreement without any bilaterally verbal agreement" !

 

I really don't lose sleep over Calvert; nor do I use them much (their full-grade curricula aren't good enough to suit). The peculiar policy just happens to interest me ! I still have all TMs we have acquired. Eventually they shall go into the recycle bin. I doubt that somebody from Baltimore shall scavenge my bin in Texas !

 

I would think, with Calvert, that the mere act of buying constitutes agreement ... kind of like installing software and you always have to click those Agree buttons for long-winded stuff no one ever reads.

 

Just my unprofressional two cents. Is this agreement mentioned in their catalog or on their website? If so, they may not feel the need to reiterate when selling on the phone. Though it would be nice if they did.

[johnandtinagilbert]

Ok, I'm pretty much totally on the other side of this one...

 

Personally, I feel once you have bought something, it's yours and you can do with it as you please.

 

I buy many books with the intent that all three of my boys will use them - it's good economics. I tend to buy used if I can find good non-written in varieties. If not, then I will buy new - esp if I know all three boys can use the materials. I resell when we are done with them. Mine do their work on a separate sheet of paper (homework) and then we make copies of the tests for them to do. When a workbook is involved (like Wordly-Wise), then they get to write in them and they get tossed at the end, but that's about it. Personally, I would never copy a workbook as I feel it would cost more in paper and ink... Economics + green issues (what's good for the planet) drives much of what I do.

 

I see absolutely no difference between used books and buying/selling second hand clothes at the thrift shop or handing them down between my boys. I suspect that clothes were designed and sold with one wearer in mind too - and one can make the argument that not buying new for my boys withholds profit from the manufacturer as well...

 

My kids also do not have their own car - we share vehicles. When they go to college and do get one, it will probably be used - even though it denies a car manufacturer more $$.

 

I reuse bags from the grocery store and feed store instead of buying trash bags. I reuse boxes for shipping.

 

I buy MANY things from yard sales or auctions - from small to large.

 

We've shared magazines and newspapers with our neighbors at times - or the dentist's office (we donate magazines there).

 

We use our public library to borrow reading material - even for school reading material.

 

We watch TV for educational shows, movies, and other fun stuff and always use our DVR to skip the commercials.

 

Perhaps some people can afford new all the time - that's their choice. We, however, stretch our budget to the hilt to allow extra for other things we enjoy. I suppose you can blame it on my grandparents (both sides) that taught thrift - combined with growing up in a lower economic demographic.

 

I would have no qualms buying - or selling - a book that some person said one "can't" resell. I find tossing it incredibly wasteful - more of a "sin" than reselling (or giving it away). I am just SO not into a disposable/landfill society... with any types of materials - not just perfectly good books. My Rosetta Stone will be resold once we are done with it - and I would buy a used "Level 3" if I could find it...

 

About the only thing I can think of that I wouldn't want to be part of is Chinese knock off types... copying other folks' stuff in mass to resell as original in new condition.

 

I won't make knock offs, but I will share or give away, and I have no problem buying or selling used. In fact, this school year, if 2 friends and I didn't share, we wouldn't have everything we need to educate our families. The three of us sat down, compared what we needed and for the things we all need, we're sharing. We will use Material X in the fall, and swap so they can use it in the spring. She will use Material Z this year, and I will use Material Z next year. We split costs equally. I recognize that may be considered "taking away a future sale," but the truth is, it was still giving a sale in the first place. Without sharing the cost, none of us would have bought it in the first place.

 

Sometimes its hard being broke and home schooling. Most of the home schoolers I know live life with a much larger budget than we do. In 9.5 years of home schooling, only 3 of my friends are tight with money. It's the four of us who have helped each other through by giving and sharing our materials. Without the sharing and the library, I simply could not afford to provide the excellent education I do provide ~ because of money? I couldn't let lack of money be the reason to send them ps or poorly educate them. No way.

 

I don't begrudge sales to companies, big or small. I appreciate they need their livelihoods. I also understand Quiver. Sometimes, in order to pay for the upcoming years materials, you need to sell the ones your finished with. For example, after all these years of using Rod & Staff, I have made a switch to the Phonics Road. The only way I could afford to buy it for dd was to sell all the Rod & Staff I have kept through the years. While I understand the legal difference in the Consumable Workbooks (say Singapore Math Textbooks) and the Texts of R&S, my family used them in the exact same way. Book on the table, write on your own paper, pass them down. In most cases, I bought the text used b/c I could and had to purchase the Student workbooks (Singapore). I even spent about the same amount (on these 2 examples) I understand it's only a small amount each semester to buy the wb, but it costs more than the 5 cent spirals I use for most things. Yes, my budget is that tight.

 

I am also a person who'll buy the extra activity pages to keep the tm in tact so I can resale.

 

If I had the resources, I'm still not sure if I could spend the huge amounts of money, I never shop new unless I have devoured the used stuff sites first. Just makes money sense.

Edited June 19, 2009 by johnandtinagilbert
grammar errors!

[lionfamily1999]

Curious if SWB has an opinion.:bigear:

[Peek a Boo]

I would think, with Calvert, that the mere act of buying constitutes agreement ... kind of like installing software and you always have to click those Agree buttons for long-winded stuff no one ever reads.

 

Just my unprofressional two cents. Is this agreement mentioned in their catalog or on their website? If so, they may not feel the need to reiterate when selling on the phone. Though it would be nice if they did.

 

 

except you still have to click "I Agree."

 

I didn't see anything at their website.

http://www.calvertschool.org/engine/content.do?BT_CODE=CES1512

Maybe see if there's something on the order form in fine print agreeing to not only pay, but to abide by all Calvert rules?

[Lovedtodeath]

I won't make knock offs, but I will share or give away, and I have no problem buying or selling used. In fact, this school year, if 2 friends and I didn't share, we wouldn't have everything we need to educate our families. The three of us sat down, compared what we needed and for the things we all need, we're sharing. We will use Material X in the fall, and swap so they can use it in the spring. She will use Material Z this year, and I will use Material Z next year. We split costs equally. I recognize that may be considered "taking away a future sale," but the truth is, it was still giving a sale in the first place. Without sharing the cost, none of us would have bought it in the first place.

I personally have no ethical qualms about this. I think it is a fabulous idea.

[Lovedtodeath]

Curious if SWB has an opinion.:bigear:

As a vendor it can be scary to have an opinion on anything with the reactions one can arouse around here. I am thinking that she might be staying out of it so as not to cause any ill will.

[Peek a Boo]

Curious if SWB has an opinion.:bigear:

 

she already weighed in a few times earlier in the thread. Or do you mean about the Calvert thing?

[asta]

I'm so impressed with the civility of this thread. I was vilified when I brought up a similar concept.

 

(not copyright per se, but the overarching concept of buying w/ intent to sell)

 

 

a

[Lovedtodeath]

N/A

Edited June 19, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[ekarl2]

I'll pipe in with one other thing. Within the bounds of copyright law, a company can choose to be more or less lax about it. Calvert does its think with its manuals, many other (on the flip side) have it written down that a purchaser can make copies within use of the family. (In fact, we have two units we tell people that can do that with. The rest of our books we do not allow copying.

If you have a question about a specific product, e-mail or call and ask! I know I wouldn't have a problem with:

-selling a workbook you used two units of and decided against using (although I do wish people would get into the program more before making that decision, but I digress ...)

-reselling a teacher book when you're finished with it

-giving a book away you no longer want

-copying a few pages for a specific short-term reason

-if money's tight (and you want to take the time), save the workbook for the youngest and have the others write it on a separate sheet of paper. I do expect the original purchase to be used once, though. Otherwise you really are stealing, IMHO.

 

The copyright laws are there to protect intellectual property. It needs protecting, otherwise many books may not get written. Why take the time if you're not going to be compensated or given credit? That being said, we as vendors can apply it to OUR products as we wish. Check with us!

[Peek a Boo]

I'm so impressed with the civility of this thread. I was vilified when I brought up a similar concept.

 

(not copyright per se, but the overarching concept of buying w/ intent to sell)

 

 

a

you were villified because you were villifying.

you weren't addressing copyright --you were snubbing your nose at people who legally resell curriculum, period, then acting all holier than thou about donating it instead of reselling it.

 

The OP of this thread actually addressed a specific legal issue, and left it open that she could be *gasp* wrong. Maybe the civility of this thread is a direct reflection of the style of the original posts.

 

or as melissel pointed out:

Really? Do you honestly not see how your words, clever use of italics for emphasis, and overall attitude are not wholly judgmental of most of the posters here? Unnecessarily? And apropos of nothing? I didn't sign on here today to be judged and insulted for my frugal tendencies, especially when I'm killing myself to put money in the bank so I can quit my job and stay home with my kids so I can keep HSing them rather than putting them in school. I'm very happy for you that you can afford to buy everything new and not pinch pennies. We are not all that lucky. If you post here to make judgments, you should probably be prepared to be on the receiving end as well.

 

you either deleted your clarification before i read it or decided to intentionally ignore the opportunity to clarify. Feel free to offer a clarification if you think you were unduly villified.

[Lovedtodeath]

N/A

Edited June 19, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Jean in Newcastle]

I'm so impressed with the civility of this thread. I was vilified when I brought up a similar concept.

 

(not copyright per se, but the overarching concept of buying w/ intent to sell)

 

 

a

 

Since this has been such a nice informative thread, why stir the pot and bring up negative stuff? (And why am I responding to it? I know. . . let's get back to the regularly scheduled programming).

[asta]

Since this has been such a nice informative thread, why stir the pot and bring up negative stuff? (And why am I responding to it? I know. . . let's get back to the regularly scheduled programming).

 

What is it with this board?

 

Why can no one use italics or bold without getting slammed? Or (gasp) donate something to someone w/o getting labelled a snob with money to burn?

 

And, for that matter, what is the difference between my original post (that I did not edit), asking about why people bought curriculum with the intent to sell it at the end of using it, and people discussing the fact that buying curriculum, using it, and then selling it is most often a violation of copyright law?

 

Curriculum. As in consumable workbooks, teacher's plans in binders, study guides, et al. I didn't realize that I needed to define the word curriculum. And I never said jack about the used book market. Or the used clothing market. Or used cars. Or licked cookies. But I wish I'd come up with the cookie analogy.

 

 

a

[Peek a Boo]

What is it with this board?

Why can no one use italics or bold without getting slammed?

 

Lots of people use formatting to make certain points. Yours just happened to point out how snotty YOU were about people making a buck off used curriculum.

 

Or (gasp) donate something to someone w/o getting labeled a snob with money to burn?

 

You're only a snob when you snub other people. You were making other people feel like crap because they were selling their used curriculum instead of donating it.

 

And, for that matter, what is the difference between my original post (that I did not edit), asking about why people bought curriculum with the intent to sell it at the end of using it, and people discussing the fact that buying curriculum, using it, and then selling it is most often a violation of copyright law?

 

Curriculum. As in consumable workbooks, teacher's plans in binders, study guides, et al. I didn't realize that I needed to define the word curriculum. And I never said jack about the used book market.

 

Your post was ABOUT the used book market.

 

You don't have to define curriculum.

You do have to realize that text books and workbooks are different types OF curriculum: one is consumable and one is NOT.

 

Selling used curriculum is not unethical or illegal.

Even selling a workbook that has been written in is not unethical or illegal.

Donating used curriculum is not unethical or illegal.

 

Making copies of stuff IS --BIG difference.

 

Are you telling us that you have no comprehension in the difference between selling a used teacher guide vs making copies of a consumable workbook??

[Peek a Boo]

What is it with this board?

 

 

This board isn't going to let you wiggle out of being a snot.

Since you were the one who brought up your other post, then this board is going to examine it fully.