The hierarchical religion known as aiming systems
Personally, I would not have posted the total package of material somewhere. But, any and all learned information/data is public knowledge and can be shared with anyone. I am not saying it is right to share it, only that there probably isn't any legal recourse after someone does so.
I learned the "spot-on-the-wall" shot off of a DVD/videotape and I have since taught it to many persons. Have I commited a foul? I learn something, I pass the knowledge on to others that do not possess it. I do not feel as if I am wronging anyone.
This is a sticky subject to say the least.
I did not vote as I am on the fence with this one!!!
Maniac
I have to agree wholeheartedly here. While I no longer view or participate in aiming system threads (I try to avoid them like the plague, because they are hard-wired to dip their wing and do a death-spiral into the ground), I am on the fence about this situation, and therefore, will not vote.
A couple questions:
1. At what point does the "compensation for the privilege of information" end? Maniac's example of learning something (perhaps paid for the knowledge), and then his choice to share it with someone else, is entirely his own decision. He paid for the lesson, but now that he owns the knowledge, it's entirely his decision to share it as he sees fit, as long as he doesn't blatantly copy / photocopy any printed materials he received when he paid for the knowledge.
2. At what point does information stop being "proprietary" and more public domain? *Someone* came up with the "shaft aiming" system. *Someone* came up with the "pop-and-drop break" (we all know who that was [Shane], but now everyone is copying it). *Someone* came up with the stop shot, the carom nurse shot, the bending bank shot, etc. These are now all public domain, and anyone can learn these by just expending a tiny bit of R&D with books and Internet searches.
3. In the same vein as #2, at one point does information stop being
required to be attributed to someone, and instead can be mentioned / described / discussed on its own without "required mention / attribution" to its author? This one is more a question of ethics than profits, so folks usually err on the side of polite propriety. When I think of the aiming system that we today know as CTE/Pro-1, I will *ALWAYS* give attribution to Stan, because as an author of creative works myself, I know what it's like to put hours/weeks/months/years of your life into something, and just want a little acknowledgment and recognition of your contributions, even if they were long ago. Other people may not, but then again, that's just the nature of time -- it marches on, and only those with good memories and good ethics will dip their hands backwards into it and remind current people "who came up with what."
4. This is probably the most important one, and the one that is causing the most angst amongst the aiming system enthusiasts/supporters/advocates/zealots (in that order, and there's a very, VERY fine line between those distinctions -- as evidenced by the way aiming system threads dip their wing and do a death spiral into the ground). The one I'm talking about is the environment that Dr. Dave is from: the educational environment and industry. In this environment, it is believed that "information wants to be free." Open sharing of information. Yes, of course the argument is there that you have to *PAY* to
be in that environment (unless you do very well in your precursor institutions and earn a scholarship into that environment), but once you're in that environment, you're immersed in information. It's there for the taking. Information "gatherers" like Dr. Dave, in natural "information wants to be free" fashion, catalog and make it available to others. This is just the way of that institution/environment he's from. It's the lifeblood.
5. Dr. Dave paid for his copy of the DVD. This goes back to point #1. Nothing is stopping Dr. Dave from learning the system and passing the knowledge along to others, AS LONG AS HE DOESN'T VIOLATE COPYRIGHTS IN THE PROCESS. If Dr. Dave is simply cataloguing the steps to Pro/1 aiming to finish the work he started prior to the DVD coming out, I don't see a problem with that -- again, AS LONG AS HE DOESN'T VIOLATE ANY COPYRIGHTS. If he's taking screenshots from the DVD and literally transcribing Stan's words into HTML, now *that* I have a problem with. But paraphrasing in Cliff Notes style? Come on, people. If you have a problem with that, then you're the type who wants to sue those folks that make Cliff Notes for not forcing people to buy the original works.
6. Stan's info is definitely unique and worthy of historical attribution. Just like when people think of "CTE" they think of Hal Houle. This is as it should be. I don't think Dr. Dave is trying to steal attribution away from Stan -- not in the least. Certainly, Dr. Dave has "lifted" tons of my posts from these boards, but every one I've seen that was up on his site, was properly attributed to me.
So, with all those things in mind, I won't vote in this thread. After personally witnessing what goes on in aiming system threads, I personally think some of these aiming system "guardian angels" are *NUTS* for taking it this far, but that is my personal belief (read: an opinion). These aiming system enthusiasts/supporters/advocates/zealots took what was simply joyful exuberance for learning something that improves one's game, and they've turned into a veritable *hierarchical religion* -- complete with deity (Hal Houle), saints/prophets (Stan, Dave S., Ron V., et al.), guardian angels (JB, Neil, cookie, champ, et al.), and their army of ardent defend-the-faith followers. At least that's what the lower tiers seem to be doing, probably much to the chagrin of the higher-level guys.
It's a shame, because it's really needless.
-Sean
