[RiderOfGiraffes]

Not to wade in to the entire debate, and recognising that your stance probably has some validity (although I regret your method of expression) some of these designs are copyright and published in magazines. they are now being scanned and distributed without the designer's permission.

That doesn't necessarily invalidate your entire argument, but it does seem to be something you haven't addressed.

[akadruid]

I think the debate is about the digital representation of the design. Obviously the art form has existed for far longer than copyright, let alone the internet. The design which is discussed in the linked article is called "Summer Blackwork" - Blackwork is a style popular in the 1500s and was described by Chaucer. Ironically, designs from the 1500s have largely not survived, due to the corrosive effect of the iron-based dye, and designs from today will will not survive 500 years either, due to the corrosive effect of modern laws.

These designs are unusually easy to copy. Unlike, say, a watercolour, it is simple to create an exactly identical copy (lossless copying) with Roman-era technology and limited skill. The "intellectual property" can be represented by an 80x80 bitmap (in the case of the design which is discussed in the linked article), with perhaps a few additional bits to provide some hints on different stitches or sequence.

Only in the past few years have people begun selling simple frozen data representations of these designs (without any physical product) long after the internet, mass production, modern copyright law and discussion - in fact largely after people begun freely sharing other commercial digital representations such as music and film. How someone can invest such a business while being totally oblivious to the fundamentals of it is beyond me. It would be like starting a taxi company before discovering there were private cars on the road or something. In fact, the major of these shops were started by hobbyists, who were previously artists who would create, evolve and freely share their designs - and were probably much happier that way. The creation of this artifical industry by modern copyright law simply adds inefficiency to the system - there is demonstrably no shortage prior to the laws, and with modern technology, there is a greater supply of both copyrighted and free design than at any time in history. The argument for copyright at all seems weak and the argument for our current infinite copyright system weaker still. Ditch the lot, have the artists go back to designing and sewing instead of spending their time scouring the web looking for their "intellectual property", and everyone will be happier and more creative.

[RiderOfGiraffes]

You say:

  > Ditch the lot, have the artists go back to designing ...

But then how do the designers make money? There is a huge gulf between really, really good designs, and the stuff that hacks produce, just as there is a huge gulf between well-designed web sites and the stuff my uncle's friend's son does (say). There is virtually no market for design to commission, so how does an excellent designer make money?

Currently designs are produced, then the work is stitched, photographed, and a kit made up. Sometimes the chart is sold alone (fronted by the photo of the finished work) and sometimes with the material and thread included. There is a market for these designs, thin though the margins be.

But now people buy a design, scan both the design and the photo, and make them freely available. People then download them with no compensation to the original designer.

I know this is how the world currently is. I know this is what happens. I know it's not going to change.

But I lament the loss of the craftsperson who can no longer make a living.

If there were no copying then I could go to a shop and purchase a high-quality design at a reasonable price, with the designer making money on volume. But there is copying, and many of the best designers are now turning to other means of making money, often completely unrelated, and less beloved of themselves and others. I can't afford to commission work, so now I have no high-quality designs at all.

Tell me how this is a good thing. Tell me how gifted and skilled designers can make money in the face of wholesale copying. Tell me how I can benefit at a reasonable cost from the hard-won skills of these talented people.

I don't think I can, and now that's my loss.

(In truth, this isn't my thing, but I know someone who is hurting badly because of the situation, and I speak for them as best I can.)

[akadruid]

The "intellectual property" of art is a blip. For thousands of years, people have made art. Currently, we are in the odd situation where the is value in the idea alone, and the artists are not selling art, but selling instructions. It seems we're heading back towards the artists selling actual art again.

Frankly, I'm kind of on the fence about this. It seems like a nice idea, that one can build a business on selling ideas on the internet, and kind of callous that people no longer sufficently value it.

But then I suppose no-one worries how a verbal storyteller is to make a living in this age of cheap newspapers, or war painters in the age of digital photography. Sewing instruction salesmen seem destined to go the same way.