Two Knitting-Related Questions -- Seeking Opinions

[gnomi]

1. Mostly for those who knit with natural fibers exclusively, but open to everyone: Do "regenerated" yarns such as those made of corn silk or soy or whatever qualify as "natural" in your mind? Why or why not?

2. If I have a pattern that was originally available free online but is no longer due to the designer removing it from his/her site, is it ethical of me to share my copy of that pattern? Why or why not?

Comments

In My Opinion

[cbpotts.livejournal.com]

It depends on what you mean by share: if you're sharing it with one other person, like you would lend a book, that is fine. But to post it on your own blog for the world to see, I think that would not be fine.

[caryabend.livejournal.com]

1. Personally, I have not yet decided about the "naturalness" of soy. Soy-derived products may be over the line, and tofu is an abomination. On a related note, the eggplant - while natural - is not terrestrial, and will soon complete Phase 2 of its alien plan to take over the Earth.

2. Would it be ethical to share if you didn't know the author had pulled it?

2a. Clarification: "originally available free online but is no longer due to the designer removing it." Does "no longer" modify "available" or "free?" Library analogy: Pulled from the shelves, or from circulation?

[gnomi.livejournal.com]

"No longer" modifies "available." Meaning, the designer pulled the pattern from the site altogether. In some cases, this means that one can e-mail the designer for a copy of the pattern (which will then be sent for free); in other cases, it means that access to the pattern has been cut off altogether.

[crwilley.livejournal.com]

1) There's really a spectrum of "natural" - superwash wool is still a natural fiber, but it's been chemically treated, for example. I'd say "less natural than superwash wool or mercerized cotton, more natural than acrylic" - and I would have gone with "natural" until I realized that rayon fell into this category. I wonder why my brain classified rayon as synthetic and bamboo as natural when they're made using essentially the same process. Given that, it might also depend on the individual fiber and how much what comes out of the vat resembles what went in.

Those interested in sustainable yarn may be interested to know that soy silk is made from a waste product of tofu manufacture...I don't know how much it's processed from there.

2) For the clearest answer, contact the designer and see what (s)he thinks; copyright still resides with the designer, even if the pattern is in an electronic state equivalent to out-of-print. I'm a big fan of respecting the wishes of designers regarding copying patterns and making items to sell, with the caveat that if a designer seems to be batshit crazy on the issue I won't buy or use their patterns in the first place.

Failing that, you're in more or less the same situation as having an out-of-print book of patterns and asking "Can I copy this one bit out of it for a friend?" If you're talking about quietly making a printout of your dearest friend's favorite pattern in the history of time, you're technically violating copyright law, but I fail to see how it harms anyone*. On the other hand, putting the pattern on the Web for mass consumption without permission, even with full credit given, is over the line.

* unless the pattern is no longer available free because someone is charging money for it; in that case, it is unethical, but someone charging money for a formerly free pattern should not be surprised that they're not selling many copies, and the free edition circulates in the wild.

[tober.livejournal.com]

With respect to "natural fibers", there are some fibers that occupy a middle ground between "synthetic" and "natural." The oldest (or at least oldest which is well known) of these is in fact rayon (which is made from wood or other plant matter) which is a cellulose-based polymer. Soy fiber is analogous, except it's made from amino acids from soy, not cellulose. I would consider fibers of this type to be more "natural" than e.g. Ingeo - which is made of polylactic acid, normally derived from corn or sugar cane but which could be made from (almost) anything you can ferment, and it's about as synthetic as anything synthetic (I say this because in order to make it you're breaking down the corn or other feedstock into an extremely simple substance and then using that to make a fiber). I think that it's really only fair to consider a fiber to be natural if you can make the fiber from its naturally occurring feedstock by use of only essentially mechanical means, not chemical ones. I don't think that natural fibers are inherently superior to synthetic ones (and indeed synthetic fibers have some advantages) but that is not what you asked.

[cellio]

1. Beats me -- or, "blah blah blah knitting blah blah blah", if I recall your characterization correctly. :-)

2. A few considerations:

Does it matter why the designer pulled it? Consider a spectrum from "can't afford to have a web site" to "stole it, got caught, and the judge made me take it down". If your reaction changes based on that, this suggests a need to find out.

Legally there might not be much difference between copying it for a friend and publishing it, but I find the former genearlly acceptable (modulo the previous paragraph) and the latter not (even with full credit). The former is analogus to the out-of-print book you legitimately own and want to share with specific people; the latter is broadcast.

Now, on the other side: it is (or should be) common knowledge by now that the Internet is forever, so you can't really get rid of something once you've put it out there. The idea of "taking it down" is thus a little different from removing all copies of a book from libraries.

I try to approach moral quandries with a two-pronged approach. Just as we are expected to judge others favorably while avoiding marit ayin (giving othere the impression that we're doing something bad, even if we're not), we can put some space between the consumer and publisher in this case. If as consumer I assume I must ask and as publisher I assume I can't stop it, I think I minimize the ill will in my vicinity. (I don't know if I'm explaining this well.)

[xavcat.livejournal.com]

1. I tend to go with what feels best and that's typically wool, silk, etc. The crazy silk yarns, etc, are natural because they're not made from the same material as the stuff lining my garbage can and that's pretty cool as far as I'm concerned. I'm going to be casting on for a tank in a wool-hemp-"soysilk" blend soon. Don't know how much I'm going to like it, but I'm going to do it. :)

2. I'm inclined to say it's okay to share that copy. It was once in the public domain and if a friend had sought out the pattern when it was in the public domain it would have been fine. Now, it could just be a bandwidth thing or something.

[introverte.livejournal.com]

I don't so much classify yarns as natural v. artificial, rather: stretchy and non-stretchy. I can't tolerate knitting with non-stretchy materials, so that lets out such natural fibers as cotton. I like wool, really.

[lordavon.livejournal.com]

1. Heck, I don't care. Yarn is yarn is yarn, let me stash it!

2. I think it is okay unless the author posts a big sign "Now for sale only"

[autotruezone.livejournal.com]

If you use regenerated yarn, which regeneration do you go with? My vote would be Tom Baker, both because he is my favorite, and also because with that long scarf you'll have plenty of yarn.