Ownership, Plagerism and Work

[elvicash]

I see some people trying to bang on Dr Dave for his wanting to share videos that he has put together on his site and for the most part it appears he is giving away what he shares (I know you can buy DVD's from him). He posts links to those items and he has created videos to demonstrate shots, give his opinions on concepts and techniques and generally it would appear try to build up the knowledge of pool. Alot of these are based on ideas known along time ago some are brought up recently online at a variety of sites including AZ. I have not followed through reading that in detail but the detractors do not like that he takes ideas gathered from all over the net AZ in particular and does not credit via links his original sources for base ideas.

As I am writing this as I am considering coming out with a website to offer similar things demonstration videos etc and perhaps some original concepts. Do we need to always refer to originators of ideas when we come up with our own videos and writings. Do two competing teams trying to come up with a theory refer to each other in research one of them had to go first and the second team is following in there footsteps.

One of these ideas or techniques is CTE which seems to have alot of supporters and detractors. I see that this concept was first mentioned in a book per Bob Jewett in the 1800's at least I think I read that on this site recently. This is long before Hal Houle who is commonly referred to as the originator I had a phone conversation with Hal a few years back and he seemed to think that Greenleaf used this type of concept if so then Hal did not invent it.

Stan Shuffet has a version called Pro One, I learned CTE direct from Stan prior to his finalizing it into Pro One. He said he had permission to teach it from Hal. He has now made it his own with improvements. If someone come up with something similar and they make it their own can they teach this or are they infringing. If Dave covers the technique in detail is he infringing somehow what if he reviews it without calling it Pro One or talking about Stan is that better or worse. Can Dave talk about CTE if he does not agree with it as being a great aiming method.

If I buy a book or DVD and use that in teaching someone something at the pool room am I wrong. All I want to do is get better and get my fellow players better. If I do it for free does that make it OK, If I charge for my time and use there products (book, DVD, AZ idea) am I stealing from them. I thought that was why we posted our ideas to help each other play better.

What about well known authors such as Tim Miller the Monk he talks about the 4 strokes of pool and the diamond system a key drill of his is the 2-7-2 or something like that they are great ideas and I have read them all before in books wrote by Johnny Holiday. Is the Monk wrong for seeming to exactly plagerize Mr Holiday or since Holidays books are fairly old and out of print does that makes them fair game.

Who owns an idea, what is wrong with people putting in work work to demonstrate and validate, disprove or at least demo there theory about pool concepts. Is pool acedemia, if I show a great new technique should I complain if someone else runs with it and makes it better or shows it it is not worth the electrons it took to display it on a website.

I love this crazy game and would like to share some thoughts, but my thoughts are all based on multiple lessons from a myriad of instructors, books, videos and pool room knowledge I picked up on my own trial and effort, gambling, listening and reading this site AZ Billiards, Dr Daves Site and alot of other places. Is the knowledge in my head mine if it is can I write about it without fear of being attacked.

Is my knowledge mine ???


this is my real name
Dana Stephenson / Indianapolis
elvicash AZ Billiards

 

[Black-Balled]

That is a lotta words...

Is Tim Miller 'the monk'?

 

[Daithi]

I don't feel like playing with the hornet nest, so I think I'll leave it to others to answer your questions. However, I did want to point out that "eschew" means "avoiding an idea," but you used it as if the word meant "gather". I know that I'm going to come off sounding like the vocabulary police, but I just can't help myself -- sorry.

 

[elvicash]

That is a lotta words...

Is Tim Miller 'the monk'?

I think Tim Miller is the Monk. If he is not I am talking about the Monk.

I don't feel like playing with the hornet nest, so I think I'll leave it to others to answer your questions. However, I did want to point out that "eschew" means "avoiding an idea," but you used it as if the word meant "gather". I know that I'm going to come off sounding like the vocabulary police, but I just can't help myself -- sorry.

Thanks I fixed it per your pointing this out.

 

[pt109]

That is a lotta words...

Is Tim Miller 'the monk'?

I've always thought of Warren Constanzo as 'The Monk'.
He won a world 9-ball title and teaches.

 

[sfleinen]

Dana:

As always, your input on this and other topics is well-thought, well-written, and a strong debate.

As you yourself mentioned, you didn't read through the entire thread. I think if you did, you would see that your characterization of "banging on" Dr. Dave is at the very least an exaggeration.

Collection of, collating, organizing, and centralization of information is always a good thing. That's what research is, that's what theories are, that's what theses accomplish, that's how the educational system works, and that's how we as human beings better ourselves over the course of time. That's why technology is increasing at an ever-increasing rate -- to the point that Moore's Law is being broken(!).

The issue is not that Dr. Dave's website is based on the academia-based collection and centralization of knowledge. It's more based on *how* he was (notice past tense, to give Dr. Dave credit for realizing his mistake, and promising to correct it) doing it.

If Dr. Dave were merely taking the information from AZB and paraphrasing it or otherwise changing it so it's radically altered from its source, it's no big deal. Afterall, information posted in the public domain is essentially "release" of the information (certain disclaimers apply, but I won't get into the legal ramifications for the sake of brevity).

However, if you quote, word-for-word from a site, and dare I say -- if a large majority of your FAQ section is based on information lifted from one or two particular sites -- attribution to the source is in order. And when we say attribution to the source, the keyword "source" is the most important word -- the reader of the material should have an interrupted link back to the source, where it's a simple matter for the reader to find the source material, whether that's a book, an article in a certain magazine, or a post on an Internet forum.

Otherwise, your information, collection, and centralization site is nothing more than a SCREEN-SCRAPING site -- extremely frowned-upon in both academia and professional circles, and is considered a specious practice. I know Dr. Dave doesn't want his site known as "Dr. Dave's Spatula Site," so he's obviously taking measures to correct this. Those of us who have been working with information systems (and who've been on the ground floor of the Internet, as we know it today) know that the ship was righted, and this is a good thing.

As for your site/products, if you have access to one, the very best thing you can do is to bounce your concerns off of an attorney that specializes in copyright enforcement. (Although information released into the public domain is not copyrighted, there *are* best-practices to abide by to avoid trouble, and the copyright lawyer knows these like the back of his/her hand.)

I can tell you at the very least, do *NOT* copy information, word-for-word, off of any website or published medium, without having consulted a copyright attorney first. Erring on the side of safety is a lot better than having your product lambasted in the public for obvious plagiarism, Cease-and-Desisted, or worse, having a lawsuit served to you for copyright infringement.

It is true that pool-playing knowledge is like a structure -- it is built upon, layer by layer. A diamond system (notice I said "a" and not "the" -- there are different ones), playing fundamentals, aiming techniques, etc. are those bricks of knowledge.

But be careful from where you get your bricks (or worse, entire fabricated sections) of your structure. Stealing bricks from someone else's structure is a no-no. At least reformulate the words that make up that brick, so that the brick is not a word-for-word copy from that other structure. Make it your own, in other words.

I hope that helps. I welcome any suggestions, comments, rebuttals (respectful and civil, of course) that you may have. Information security (in an Information Technology context) is one of my main hats where I work.

-Sean Leinen

 

[thintowin]

it seems a simple notation of the site or book from which the material was plagerized or copied would demonstrate the author's intent: that being to educate and not "steal". after all, this is the essence of the problem: using others words as if they were your own and not giving credit where credit is due.

 

[elvicash]

I've always thought of Warren Constanzo as 'The Monk'.
He won a world 9-ball title and teaches.

If you go to this site http://www.themonk.com/contact.html where the Monl products are sold it appears that the monk goes by Tim Miller. I have never met, spoke or had a lesson from Mr Miller but I have read his books more than once and alot of my basic core pool thought came from his writing. I have since read the Holiday books and found a great deal of similiarity with no mention of Mr Holiday or his standard concepts the 4 strokes and the 2-7-2 drill.

 

[dr_dave]

If Dr. Dave were merely taking the information from AZB and paraphrasing it or otherwise changing it so it's radically altered from its source, it's no big deal. Afterall, information posted in the public domain is essentially "release" of the information (certain disclaimers apply, but I won't get into the legal ramifications for the sake of brevity).

I think it is also fair to directly quote (with credit) things "released" on a public Internet forum. And as you have suggested, links to the source pages should be provided in these cases, as a courtesy.

Also, Sean, you and others have implied that my educational website consists mostly of stuff quoted from AZB. For the record, this is a ridiculous characterization. Probably greater than 95% of the stuff on my website (articles, high-speed videos, narrated instructional videos, technical proofs, resource pages, illustrations, handouts, FAQ summaries, etc.) was created by me.

Now, the FAQ resource section of my website does have a fair amount of quotes from the BD CCB forum (from when it was still active) and the AZB Main Forum. And I do link to these forums and cite the contributing users (using the user-created screen names) on my website. And as we have discussed, I also plan to add links back to the source pages. Regardless, even the FAQ section of my website is mostly my stuff (summaries, videos, articles, illustrations, etc.).

I just wanted this to be clear for people who care about the recent "characterizations," which is probably a tiny number of people.

Regards,
Dave

 

[sfleinen]

I think it is also fair to directly quote (with credit) things "released" on a public Internet forum. And as you have suggested, links to the source pages should be provided in these cases, as a courtesy.

Also, Sean, you and others have implied that my educational website consists mostly of stuff quoted from AZB. For the record, this is a ridiculous characterization. Probably greater than 95% of the stuff on my website (articles, high-speed videos, narrated instructional videos, technical proofs, resource pages, illustrations, handouts, FAQ summaries, etc.) was created by me.

Now, the FAQ resource section of my website does have a fair amount of quotes from the BD CCB forum (from when it was still active) and the AZB Main Forum. And I do link to these forums and cite the contributing users (using the user-created screen names) on my website. And as we have discussed, I also plan to add links back to the source pages. Regardless, even the FAQ section of my website is mostly my stuff (summaries, videos, articles, illustrations, etc.).

I just wanted this to be clear for people who care about the recent "characterizations," which is probably a tiny number of people.

Regards,
Dave

Dr. Dave:

Please read my post again. You'll see that I was talking specifically about your FAQ section, related to lifting information.

If after re-reading it, do you agree?
-Sean

 

[tommyceilings]

That's what I thought also.

I've always thought of Warren Constanzo as 'The Monk'.
He won a world 9-ball title and teaches.

 

[JC]

All existing pool knowledge is neither new nor copyrighted. The words yes, the ideas no. If you understand concepts well enough to explain them in your own words then you're probably ok. If you need to copy others words to make it make sense then you should reconsider. Look at all the redundancy in different author's basic teachings. Getting an audience explaining known principles is the key. It's all in the delivery. Guys like Dr. Dave are very good at this.

 

[david(tx)]

I think it is also fair to directly quote (with credit) things "released" on a public Internet forum. And as you have suggested, links to the source pages should be provided in these cases, as a courtesy.

Also, Sean, you and others have implied that my educational website consists mostly of stuff quoted from AZB. For the record, this is a ridiculous characterization. Probably greater than 95% of the stuff on my website (articles, high-speed videos, narrated instructional videos, technical proofs, resource pages, illustrations, handouts, FAQ summaries, etc.) was created by me.

Now, the FAQ resource section of my website does have a fair amount of quotes from the BD CCB forum (from when it was still active) and the AZB Main Forum. And I do link to these forums and cite the contributing users (using the user-created screen names) on my website. And as we have discussed, I also plan to add links back to the source pages. Regardless, even the FAQ section of my website is mostly my stuff (summaries, videos, articles, illustrations, etc.).

I just wanted this to be clear for people who care about the recent "characterizations," which is probably a tiny number of people.

Regards,
Dave

Dr. Dave , don't let this stuff get you down , if the free videos you have available on the internet now , were available in the in years past many would be really appreciative. If the internet would have been available in the late 60's and early 70's , and the written and video material available it would given a lot of people a head start.

When i was 13 in about 1969 there was nothing available , and all i learned to do was follow and draw straight back . No 30 degree rule , peace sign , except on t-shirts , no angle in angle out , or the 45 degree rule on the short rails for middle of the table position.

There were no good pool players in my hometown of 17,000 and if there were what they knew wasn't free. The amount of free written material on the internet is unbelievable and would help any beginner on a good start until they wanted to move up another level.

Thanks for your free information , wish i was in my early to mid 20's when this information would have meant more . Thanks.

 

[dr_dave]

Dr. Dave , don't let this stuff get you down , if the free videos you have available on the internet now , were available in the in years past many would be really appreciative. If the internet would have been available in the late 60's and early 70's , and the written and video material available it would given a lot of people a head start.

When i was 13 in about 1969 there was nothing available , and all i learned to do was follow and draw straight back . No 30 degree rule , peace sign , except on t-shirts , no angle in angle out , or the 45 degree rule on the short rails for middle of the table position.

There were no good pool players in my hometown of 17,000 and if there were what they knew wasn't free. The amount of free written material on the internet is unbelievable and would help any beginner on a good start until they wanted to move up another level.

Thanks for your free information , wish i was in my early to mid 20's when this information would have meant more . Thanks.

You're welcome, and thank you for the kind and supportive words. It has been getting a little tiring lately having to defend my website and posting practices, but I know it comes with the "territory."

Regards,
Dave

 

[champ2107]

let face it, dr daves motive on posting these free clips on AZ is that hes hoping he can get people onto his site and sell his instructional dvd's. i think he should keep his nose out of other instructional threads unless he stays unbias and stop reviewing and posting information from other instructors far more advanced in the teachings of pool than he is on his site. Most of his dvd info can be found free on the net posted by users. Sorry but i had to post the truth only because the lack of integrity i have seen on here.

 

[elvicash]

let face it, dr daves motive on posting these free clips on AZ is that hes hoping he can get people onto his site and sell his instructional dvd's. i think he should keep his nose out of other instructional threads unless he stays unbias and stop reviewing and posting information from other instructors far more advanced in the teachings of pool than he is on his site. Most of his dvd info can be found free on the net posted by users. Sorry but i had to post the truth only because the lack of integrity i have seen on here.

I am not sure but I believe he had the site and shared his thoughts before he had DVD's to sell. I expect that being a many of many talents that if his primary desire was to make money he would find a better conduit than creating easily copy-able DVD's for the not so popular sport of pocket billiards. However I think he just loves pool and has some technical skills and equipment he is wanting to share knowledge and give back to the pool community. I would have to think that he is not making a great deal of cash/hour of effort but is loving the fact that he gets alot out of giving back.

You can find alot of things he has posted in other places but he has his content categorized and view-able for free. It is not quite commercial quality production but it is definitely well done and the content is well described and verbalized. I like Dr. Daves site and it attracts me to look at the content and if I wanted to run it locally I would buy a DVD but I do not feel obligated to do so and I appreciate what he has offered to the public for free. As to the text and copying it direct I believe he has addressed that and will be liberal with his back links in the future.

Next you talk his reviewing advanced concepts or teachings as you mention. I think he reviews items from the scientific point of view and some of pool is beyond that in that it reaches a faith thing and people sometimes think a certain way and it helps them be successful. Other people need to know that square pegs only fit square holes and that this peg has this much clearance. Dr Dave seems to come off as more of the peg fits and has this tolerance. Many a champion will claim to be doers more than understander's of what they execute. Dave wants to be an understander and is probably not going to be a world champion but he can break down scientifically things and if you do not want what you believe in broken down then you should not read his posts. I do not think he would tell you that you are wrong for believing something he would just say that mathematically it is not a general solution to aiming when talking about CTE. Meaning the distance of the bridge to the base of the CB in conjunction with the pivot has got to be manipulated consistently so everything lines up. I like CTE and it opened my eyes but it is not perfect mathematical system but it works good for some players really good for others and non believers cannot do much with it.

Just to let you know where I stand - I like Dr. Dave and hope he keeps making videos and expanding his site. I currently do not have his DVD's or the Tom Ross CD's either. (Stockbrokers make such statements these days on MSNBC thought I would do the same.) I would like to be a doer but currently I am more of an understander.

 

[lfigueroa]

Is the knowledge in my head mine if it is can I write about it without fear of being attacked.

You may write about it without fear of being attacked up to the point of refusing to drink the CTE Kool-Aid.

Then, all bets are off and you're on your own

Lou Figueroa
let's see how many
pile out of
The AZ Clown Car
this time

 

[champ2107]

I am not sure but I believe he had the site and shared his thoughts before he had DVD's to sell. I expect that being a many of many talents that if his primary desire was to make money he would find a better conduit than creating easily copy-able DVD's for the not so popular sport of pocket billiards. However I think he just loves pool and has some technical skills and equipment he is wanting to share knowledge and give back to the pool community. I would have to think that he is not making a great deal of cash/hour of effort but is loving the fact that he gets alot out of giving back.

You can find alot of things he has posted in other places but he has his content categorized and view-able for free. It is not quite commercial quality production but it is definitely well done and the content is well described and verbalized. I like Dr. Daves site and it attracts me to look at the content and if I wanted to run it locally I would buy a DVD but I do not feel obligated to do so and I appreciate what he has offered to the public for free. As to the text and copying it direct I believe he has addressed that and will be liberal with his back links in the future.

Next you talk his reviewing advanced concepts or teachings as you mention. I think he reviews items from the scientific point of view and some of pool is beyond that in that it reaches a faith thing and people sometimes think a certain way and it helps them be successful. Other people need to know that square pegs only fit square holes and that this peg has this much clearance. Dr Dave seems to come off as more of the peg fits and has this tolerance. Many a champion will claim to be doers more than understander's of what they execute. Dave wants to be an understander and is probably not going to be a world champion but he can break down scientifically things and if you do not want what you believe in broken down then you should not read his posts. I do not think he would tell you that you are wrong for believing something he would just say that mathematically it is not a general solution to aiming when talking about CTE. Meaning the distance of the bridge to the base of the CB in conjunction with the pivot has got to be manipulated consistently so everything lines up. I like CTE and it opened my eyes but it is not perfect mathematical system but it works good for some players really good for others and non believers cannot do much with it.

Just to let you know where I stand - I like Dr. Dave and hope he keeps making videos and expanding his site. I currently do not have his DVD's or the Tom Ross CD's either. (Stockbrokers make such statements these days on MSNBC thought I would do the same.) I would like to be a doer but currently I am more of an understander.

i believe maybe he was after fame and now is after fame and fortune and doesn't care who he hurts to get it. How do you explain how he comments on others instructional DVDs and finds faults or leaves you with unanswered questions on his site and then pushes his product as the greatest thing since sliced bread, we all know and can see his instructional dvd is more geared towards the beginner player. I dont see other instructors on here reviewing his drills on his dvd. His work is so basic you cant say anything about it or review it.

Im ok with him pushing his product on here but i think how he goes about it is sneaky and low. I also think he knows this and he has learned to handle most members on this board and get away with his manipulation because most on here think he is the worlds most knowledgeable pool authority. I just get annoyed reading his post on how he twists things and how he cant just drop cte topic (anytime he cuts up or jokes about cte i think of Stan) it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth and leaves me to believe he has no integrity.

 

[champ2107]

You may write about it without fear of being attacked up to the point of refusing to drink the CTE Kool-Aid.

Then, all bets are off and you're on your own

Lou Figueroa
let's see how many
pile out of
The AZ Clown Car
this time

I seen those two vids of you shooting lol :thumbup: and wow i thought you were ln your early twenties by how you post and now i see your in your fifties

 

[JB Cases]

Well, let's see what would happen if I make a new website in support of the CueSight training ball and I fill that website with a lot of content scraped from AZB's members along with cut and pasted content from any and all "instruction" websites out there.

Then any time any discussion comes up where I have anything on my site that fits the topic I will link to that page. And on those pages I will NOT link back to the source no matter what.

Eventually I will have a pretty strong presence in Google's index due to the amount of content and the amount of links BACK to my website. Thus I will get a lot of hits and take visitors away from the original sources.

Hopefully having such a helpful site that was built from content I took from others will spur people to buy the training ball. The good thing about this is that I don't have to actually create content. I can just add a little text attribution (not a link) to the source.

Would that be ok? I mean AZB is an endless source of good content when it comes to how to play the game. I can rip-off whole discussions and repackage them if I like.

To answer the original question though, you are certainly allowed to write a book, create a video or whatever you want based on your interpretation of knowledge. Stan Shuffet cannot patent or otherwise protect a way to aim. No one can any more than you can patent a way to jump in the air or run down the street.

So you can get his video and study the technique and make your own video if you like. What you cannot legally do is copy the script, you can't copy the layout, can't copy the graphics, and so on. You can do it your way, not the way they did it. If your work is substantially similar to the work of someone else's copyrighted work then it's likely to be deemed an infringement.

I can't make a book that is filled with content scraped from Dr. Dave's website with just little one line contributions of my own in between passages. Nor can I make a website using his videos where I charge for the viewing. I am not sure how he would feel about a non-profit instructional website that embedded all his videos and surrounded them with their own original content but I can't imagine that he would like it.

Nor would I think that he would like it if I wrote a book called Pool Principles and used his videos to support the content of my book.

The WHOLE thing with Dave is that he has TAKEN content from others and put it on his site without asking for permission which is I guess on some level fair use but when asked to take it down he refuses to comply and so makes himself into a sort of person that is unfriendly to other instructors needlessly.

So the net result is that some other instructors have stopped creating content for the web. They simply refuse to talk about certain subjects openly, they refuse to create illustrations and videos.

THIS is the problem as I see it.

Sure, Dave's body of work so far is tremendously helpful and interesting. The conflict comes where he refuses to play well with others and uses his website as a bit of a bully pulpit from which to ridicule the efforts of others on the aiming system debates.

Were he to try to cooperate instead of ridicule then I think he would not have a single detractor on any pool forum anywhere.

In my opinion.