Stealing information?
- Thread starter brad21156
- Start date
- Status
Despite the stupid comment in the last post you seem to post in a intelligent insightful manner. That other guy, when asked for an example, replied something to the extent of "take it to the bank". Big difference.
I will add that you should go back and read what pablo was writing.
Thanks Joe for taking the time to provide this information. I appreciate your imput ---this has helped me make a decision.
By the way I have taken a lesson from Stan and bought Dr. Dave's tapes. To me they are both very respectable people.
Do you mean such as a movie critic?
Before someone else suggests it, this could be what Pool needs to get on TV again!
Let me offer half an apology Sharkster. I disagree with your time and post count comment, but looking back at the thread it's clear he'd be an idiot with 200 or 200,000 posts. My sincerest half apology to you sir.
Movie critics cite their opinions, they don't spoil the movie. If the website in question only cited opinions, this thread wouldn't exist.
It's called piracy, and it's been around longer than this site has.
You can find a ton of pool informational torrents everywhere.
Some is better than none, for that I say thanks for the half apology :thumbup:
I had a feeling I was going to catch some flak when I brought up the post count
Dr_Dave summarized Stan's method.
His summary might increase sales by getting people interested in learning it and seeing demonstrations of how top practitioners make it work on the table. For these people Dr_Dave has done a service both for them and for Stan.
On the other hand, the summary might decrease sales if some people conclude "If that's what this mysterious method is all about, I have no interest in learning it." For these people, Dave's summary has saved them both money and time and I assume they are grateful.
Or it might decrease sales if some people think "This is a great method, and now I don't have to buy the DVD." That seems to be the chief complaint here, however I doubt there are any such people. The threads on this subject are so technical, so confusing, so convoluted, that I think anyone prepared to invest the time and energy required to learn the method would not hesitate to buy the DVD.
The real issue is whether Dave's summary is accurate. Since he has revised it in response to comments and Stan is not complaining that it's wrong, I suspect it's accurate. I surely don't see the harm in publishing an accurate summary.
And off this subject for a bit, I simply cannot understand the animosity some people have toward Dr_Dave. His website is a tremendous resource for pool, and all for free. A lot has been learned through his research and high speed videos, and it's all there on his site for anyone to see. You don't even have to buy Billiard Digest - all his articles are there (same with Bob Jewett and his site). It's true he sells VEPS DVD's, but the knowledge that's on those DVD's is all available for free on his site. The VEPS is a convenience for those who'd rather watch than read, like me.
His summary might increase sales by getting people interested in learning it and seeing demonstrations of how top practitioners make it work on the table. For these people Dr_Dave has done a service both for them and for Stan.
On the other hand, the summary might decrease sales if some people conclude "If that's what this mysterious method is all about, I have no interest in learning it." For these people, Dave's summary has saved them both money and time and I assume they are grateful.
Or it might decrease sales if some people think "This is a great method, and now I don't have to buy the DVD." That seems to be the chief complaint here, however I doubt there are any such people. The threads on this subject are so technical, so confusing, so convoluted, that I think anyone prepared to invest the time and energy required to learn the method would not hesitate to buy the DVD.
The real issue is whether Dave's summary is accurate. Since he has revised it in response to comments and Stan is not complaining that it's wrong, I suspect it's accurate. I surely don't see the harm in publishing an accurate summary.
And off this subject for a bit, I simply cannot understand the animosity some people have toward Dr_Dave. His website is a tremendous resource for pool, and all for free. A lot has been learned through his research and high speed videos, and it's all there on his site for anyone to see. You don't even have to buy Billiard Digest - all his articles are there (same with Bob Jewett and his site). It's true he sells VEPS DVD's, but the knowledge that's on those DVD's is all available for free on his site. The VEPS is a convenience for those who'd rather watch than read, like me.
No. I don't believe that is the spirit in which Dr. Dave posted this information to his website. Dave is not a critic, he is a fellow instructor. He posted that page to his website to draw people there. Once there, people could obtain the ProOne information without having to buy Stan's DVD. As Dave's hit count increases, Stan's sales decrease. That is very injurious and unethical, and Dr. Dave knew that before he did it.
I buy a cue or case that I don't particularly like and review it on this site (without the permission of the cue/case maker) and give it my honest opinion whether it be a good or bad one, and I possibly hurt sales of this cue/case maker, have I done a disservice to the maker??? This goes on all the time on here. And SHOULD!!!
We should be able to hear any and all opinions of anyone wanting to give them on ANY subject concerning pool on this site.
If the DVD was presented verbatim on Dr. Dave's website/link without written consent from Stan, then yes, he is in the wrong. But the way it is presented, I can see little difference in someone reviewing a cue and showing pictures of flaws/bad workmanship.
Of course, we are getting the normal difference of opinions on this subject from the Yeasayers and the Naysayers of CTE/Pro1 that is starting to make this thread a typical AZB drama. Where's Grady when you need him :sorry:???
I remain neutral.
Maniac
I don't quite understand, so let me see if I have this straight: If I have a website, or blog, or Facebook page and I write something about you that you don't approve of -- I'm suppose to take it down if you tell me you don't approve of it?
Lou Figueroa
talk about
bossy pants
Dr. Dave referenced Stan in his posting very clearly. From a scholarly point of view what he did was not only legit, but very, very common in academics. Scholars are all the time restating what other scholars have said with references, and then put in their own knowledge and study into the topic. Science is built on exactly that. That is what Dr. Dave did in a nutshell.
why I compared it to research
Sean,
As is almost always the case, we see things much the same. I don't claim that what Dave has done is legally actionable, lawyers make entire careers out of the quagmire of copyright law. What I do think is that it was a foul, wrong to post the article without consulting Stan, wrong to leave it up when Stan objects. That is why I compared it to research also. You can spend twenty years in research and not own something tangible. That still doesn't make it right for somebody else to take advantage of your twenty years of work although it happens all of the time, particularly in academia. A friend in his eighties held a patent for every year of his life. One thing he didn't hold was a PhD. After years of research he and his sponsor were ready to publish when the work was stolen. While I feel that what he learned was more of a discovery than an invention the fact remains he learned something novel and unique. He received neither financial benefit nor standing in the academic world for his work.
Something to bear in mind when dealing with people who have lived their lives in the academic setting, standing is vastly important. My thought has long been that this is Dave's reward, his profit for the work he puts into his site, standing in the billiard community. While I fully respect his own work he has published and the work of others that he has published with permission when you publish other's work without their permission you get into areas that while they may not be legally actionable definitely border on unethical and immoral. We all have to decide for ourselves where the line is crossed. As indicated in my earlier post, my ethics prohibit taking advantage of other people's work without paying them or being granted permission. I don't split hairs over if I can or not, only if I am taking unfair advantage of someone else's efforts.
Had the question been did Dave do something illegal my answer would have been almost certainly not. I could have stolen the component and only made a 10% change in the design and been 100% legal also. Wouldn't have made it right. When the question is did Dave cross a line he shouldn't have my opinion is that he did. I wouldn't argue that someone that takes another viewpoint is a bad person. I would be very sure before revealing anything unique to Dave that I had a noncompetition nondisclosure contract with him, signed and notarized.
Hu
Sean,
As is almost always the case, we see things much the same. I don't claim that what Dave has done is legally actionable, lawyers make entire careers out of the quagmire of copyright law. What I do think is that it was a foul, wrong to post the article without consulting Stan, wrong to leave it up when Stan objects. That is why I compared it to research also. You can spend twenty years in research and not own something tangible. That still doesn't make it right for somebody else to take advantage of your twenty years of work although it happens all of the time, particularly in academia. A friend in his eighties held a patent for every year of his life. One thing he didn't hold was a PhD. After years of research he and his sponsor were ready to publish when the work was stolen. While I feel that what he learned was more of a discovery than an invention the fact remains he learned something novel and unique. He received neither financial benefit nor standing in the academic world for his work.
Something to bear in mind when dealing with people who have lived their lives in the academic setting, standing is vastly important. My thought has long been that this is Dave's reward, his profit for the work he puts into his site, standing in the billiard community. While I fully respect his own work he has published and the work of others that he has published with permission when you publish other's work without their permission you get into areas that while they may not be legally actionable definitely border on unethical and immoral. We all have to decide for ourselves where the line is crossed. As indicated in my earlier post, my ethics prohibit taking advantage of other people's work without paying them or being granted permission. I don't split hairs over if I can or not, only if I am taking unfair advantage of someone else's efforts.
Had the question been did Dave do something illegal my answer would have been almost certainly not. I could have stolen the component and only made a 10% change in the design and been 100% legal also. Wouldn't have made it right. When the question is did Dave cross a line he shouldn't have my opinion is that he did. I wouldn't argue that someone that takes another viewpoint is a bad person. I would be very sure before revealing anything unique to Dave that I had a noncompetition nondisclosure contract with him, signed and notarized.
Hu
I agree with this.
I'm disappointed the OP titled his poll "stealing" and gave his endorsement to one of the two responses in the very first post. It would have been a better poll and a better discussion if he laid out the issue more dispassionately. But oh well. We can't change that.
I think the notion that knowledge obtained from a DVD offered for sale to the public must be kept secret is completely ludicrous.
This is neither the APA Equalizer Handicap formula (not offered to the public), nor is it the recipe for Mrs. Fields cookies (not offered to the public).
This is information offered to the public by design --on a subject that has been discussed --including claims made by the DVD's author--on a public forum for a long time. Once the first customer buys and watched the DVD, the knowledge he gains from it is his.
If I take my knowledge of, say, the double-the-distance aiming method, I have no idea whether I first learned that from a book or from a person or from a DVD. It makes no difference; it is MY knowledge.
Dave has an amazing website. He has probably contributed more to pool than anyone else on this forum, most of it for no remuneration at all.
His description of Stan's approach is there right along side of descriptions of every other approach that has gained any sort of notoriety. And this is true of nearly every aspect of pool I can think of: aiming, stroke, kicking, banking, technical issues... It's all right there for anyone to see--for free. It's like the spirit of this forum: working together we can pool our backgrounds and intellects to achieve new and better understandings of all sorts of aspects of the game that glues us together.
Stan is clearly emotional about this, and he no doubt has some histrionic
cohorts peeing in his ear. But in the end, my conclusions are
(1) Dave has been pretty fair and respectful to Stan
(2) Stan and Dave are two of the "good guys," and those who flame the coals here are doing disservice to all of us.
i have to ask, since there are like 4 or 5 similiar posters who's posts are all the same:
are you like the FBI or something?
Jackie Chan from Rush Hour?
Did this person knowingly, and intentionally distribute this information to the public with the knowledge that it would be disseminated and discussed?
I selected this as just one example of many I've seen in this thread (arbitrarily), and obviously that question is rhetorical. The problem with many of these examples, though, is that they could be said to be 'stolen' in some sense that has a very difficult time applying in this particular case.
That's one of the issues seen in these instances is that the language doesn't represent what is actually occurring. The word implies both property by a property holder and an impropriety by another in acquiring that property. The very fact the word 'stealing' appears in the title dictates to the reader that implies, leading the reader to certain conclusions.
- Status