A question of ethics....

[Onepocket73]

I recently attempted to try an get a few people from here to exchange matches on tape with me.Them make copies of what they have for copies of what I have.
Anyway,it suddenly occurred to me that this was very unethical.Accu-Stats is a very respectable business and by making copies on the side it cuts into their income.This goes on enough and there will be no more Accu-Stats.They will go under from lack of income.I know that is the extreme,but I just felt that I wanted to share my thoughts with everyone else on this matter.
So,I just apologize to those I tempted and also to Pat Fleming and the rest of the Accu-Stats crew for my lack of consideration.I love Accu-Stats and have been a supporter of them in the past.
Sincerely,
John

 

[Bishop]

Don't worry Jesus still loves you.

 

[cueandcushion]

Just part of our changing economy. Pretty soon there will be spectators filming more and more matches and putting them on www.youtube.com for free. That is already occuring. An employee of Accu-Stats that shall remain nameless informed me that it is NOT a MINOR problem. Its the main reason they do not offer older matches on DVD. The costs involved in reformatting everything would go out the window if one person uploads it on a sharing site for everyone else to download for free. Untill they start copyrighting everything and ban cameras they will probably be bringing about their own demise.

 

[Bishop]

Untill they start copyrighting everything

If there isn't anything to protect the company from people copying the product than it really isn't a matter of ethics. You'd be perfectly within your legal rights to make copies and share.

Sounds like someone got into this guy pretty good about it. I'd tell them to sue me or stuff it. Now if this stuff is copyrighted then it'd be a different story.

 

[JPB]

Just part of our changing economy. Pretty soon there will be spectators filming more and more matches and putting them on www.youtube.com for free. That is already occuring. An employee of Accu-Stats that shall remain nameless informed me that it is NOT a MINOR problem. Its the main reason they do not offer older matches on DVD. The costs involved in reformatting everything would go out the window if one person uploads it on a sharing site for everyone else to download for free. Untill they start copyrighting everything and ban cameras they will probably be bringing about their own demise.

I am pretty sure everything accu-stats puts out is copyrighted. In my limited understanding once something is fixed in a tangible medium of expression it is copyrighted. To sue on a copyright you have to do more, but to acquire the right all you need to do is produce the work in a tangible medium. I am not a copyright expert or anything so this post is not legal advice, etc.... The irony is that I took a copyright class once and another guy in the class asked me if I would copy some commercial study materials for him.

That said guys, it takes WORK and money to produce something. Pay for it. Accu Stats is a good company. I like accu-stats tapes and dvds. I buy them. I want to keep buying them. Don't copy please. Cameras should be banned from the events IMO, except for accu-stats or other companies going about things the right way.

As for the OP, thanks for being willing to admit what you did was wrong, stopping, and encouraging others to stop.

 

[rhncue]

If there isn't anything to protect the company from people copying the product than it really isn't a matter of ethics. You'd be perfectly within your legal rights to make copies and share.

Sounds like someone got into this guy pretty good about it. I'd tell them to sue me or stuff it. Now if this stuff is copyrighted then it'd be a different story.

Anything that goes into print, tape or DVD is automatically copy righted. It's normally to expensive suing offenders unless they have deep pockets though.
Dick

 

[supergreenman]

I have a question for you. How many times (realistically) will you watch a match?

After about the 3rd or 4th viewing I find I have the match committed to memory. After that point why keep it? I think it would be benificial to have a barter board, a place where people could trade original copies (original being the key word) of matches they no longer watch. I'm not promoting copyright infringement with this idea.

I know there's a lot of collectors out there, but then there's people like me that could do with a little less clutter in thier lives. If you have something you don't need pass it on for the betterment of pool everywhere. Post it on the (non-existant board) for trade or even give - away + $ for shipping.

If there's a match you'd like to see, post it on the board and maybe someone will have a copy they don't want anymore.

I do think it should be restricted to original copies only with some sort of redress for people who break the rule.

I know, I know trust a Canadian to come up with a not for profit solution.

 

[despotic931]

Anything that goes into print, tape or DVD is automatically copy righted. It's normally to expensive suing offenders unless they have deep pockets though.
Dick

This is known only as a poor mans copyright and would not hold up in court

 

[Bishop]

Anything that goes into print, tape or DVD is automatically copy righted. It's normally to expensive suing offenders unless they have deep pockets though.
Dick

Thanks I was unaware of that.

Are you saying if I make a video of myself shooting pool and make it available publically with out any paid protection in place I can sue anyone who shares it.

That doesn't totally make sense to me. There would be lawsuits out the wazzoo.

 

[seymore15074]

This is known only as a poor mans copyright and would not hold up in court

No? Then why does it exist? Does this copyright serve some other purpose?

But just to state my position, I'd say copy the hell out of it--just don't start threads telling people that you did...

 

[seymore15074]

Thanks I was unaware of that.

Are you saying if I make a video of myself shooting pool and make it available publically with out any paid protection in place I can sue anyone who shares it.

That doesn't totally make sense to me. There would be lawsuits out the wazzoo.

No, but it does mean if someone stole it and said they video taped it and sold it for millions, THEN you could sue...

 

[Russ Chewning]

This is known only as a poor mans copyright and would not hold up in court

Let me make my stance on what you just wrote VERY clear.

If you do not know what you are talking about.. Just be quiet. I know it makes you feel important to pretend to be an authority, but inevitably, someone like me is gonna come along and show everyone that you are just talking out your rearward facing nether region.

Wheewww! Sorry about that. Just had to get that off my chest. Now, on to why you are completely mistaken.

I am currently studying Business Law, BTW..

Works created after January 1, 1978 are automatically given statutory protection for the life of the author plus 70 years. For copyrights owned by publishing houses, the copyright expires 95 years from the date of publication, or 120 years from the date of creation, whichever is first.

And further down in my college text Copyright chapter...

Copyrights can be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office in Washington, D.C.. A copyright holder no longer needs to place a copyright symbol or Copr. or Copyright on the work, however, to have the work protected against infringement. Chances are, if someone created it, someone owns it.

Works that are copyrightable include books, records, films, etc. To obtain protection under the Copyright Act of 1976, the work must be original, and in the case of Accu-Stats, it falls into the creative category of the 1976 Act of both Films and other Audio-Visual works, and sound recordings.

Another quote from my text. Nail in your coffin, per se.

Protection is automatic. Registration is not required.

I'm all legal-talk'ed out. Now, explain your statement above. Please do tell what this "poor man's copyright" is. Sounds like a made up excuse to pirate Accu-Stats videos, to me...

Russ

 

[Bishop]

No, but it does mean if someone stole it and said they video taped it and sold it for millions, THEN you could sue...

Well he wasn't selling it for millions.

Anyway it looks as if our question had been answered by the previous poster.

 

[Russ Chewning]

No, but it does mean if someone stole it and said they video taped it and sold it for millions, THEN you could sue...

It might not matter even if they didn't make a dime off it. The grey area is where he said he made it publicly available. Not sure what the law is on this sort of situation. I think it really depends on what medium he shared his video with the world, and if it was a website, what user agreement was made with the consumer as to fair use.

If he made the video of himself shooting pool and threw it in the trash one day while in a drunken stupor lamenting on his inability to draw his ball, and someone picks it out of the trash and remasters the tape, distributes it, whether for profit or not.. The law is clear. That is copyright infringement. The fact that he threw the tape away has no bearing. A person who has a copyrightable work has every right to destroy the work without another soul ever laying eyes on it.

Lots of people try to get creative and think they can get around copyright laws. They only get away with it because it is expensive to sue. That does not mean the person violated has no rights to sue.

Russ

 

[despotic931]

Let me make my stance on what you just wrote VERY clear.

If you do not know what you are talking about.. Just be quiet. I know it makes you feel important to pretend to be an authority, but inevitably, someone like me is gonna come along and show everyone that you are just talking out your rearward facing nether region.

Wheewww! Sorry about that. Just had to get that off my chest. Now, on to why you are completely mistaken.

I am currently studying Business Law, BTW..

Works created after January 1, 1978 are automatically given statutory protection for the life of the author plus 70 years. For copyrights owned by publishing houses, the copyright expires 95 years from the date of publication, or 120 years from the date of creation, whichever is first.

And further down in my college text Copyright chapter...

Copyrights can be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office in Washington, D.C.. A copyright holder no longer needs to place a copyright symbol or Copr. or Copyright on the work, however, to have the work protected against infringement. Chances are, if someone created it, someone owns it.

Works that are copyrightable include books, records, films, etc. To obtain protection under the Copyright Act of 1976, the work must be original, and in the case of Accu-Stats, it falls into the creative category of the 1976 Act of both Films and other Audio-Visual works, and sound recordings.

Another quote from my text. Nail in your coffin, per se.

Protection is automatic. Registration is not required.

I'm all legal-talk'ed out. Now, explain your statement above. Please do tell what this "poor man's copyright" is. Sounds like a made up excuse to pirate Accu-Stats videos, to me...

Russ

I'm really not looking for a debate, I'll just say that I am a musician above all things, and I use "poor mans copyright" as a layman's term. I do not believe in pirating, whether or not the works are registered, and was under the assumption that Accu-Stats videos were registered. Anyways, I have a degree in Music and Recording Arts and did take classes on music business, in which several examples were cited in which, for lack of a better word, the "poor mans copyright" did not hold up in court. One of my fellow musicians also had this actually happen to him, why didn't the law come through for him as he sat and listened to his music being played on the Top 40 charts? So, you've nailed me in my coffin, and I am completely content to stay there and thank you for the education. I just wanted to stick up for myself before you start throwing the dirt over me, and say that I am not a pirate, and that I speak more from experience, than actual first had knowledge of the law itself. If I ever run into a copyright problem I guess I will know who to contact, but the fact is you are just a student, and have never had to deal with proving copyright ownership of an unregistered copyright in a court of law.

 

[Russ Chewning]

I'm really not looking for a debate, I'll just say that I am a musician above all things, and I use "poor mans copyright" as a layman's term. I do not believe in pirating, whether or not the works are registered, and was under the assumption that Accu-Stats videos were registered. Anyways, I have a degree in Music and Recording Arts and did take classes on music business, in which several examples were cited in which, for lack of a better word, the "poor mans copyright" did not hold up in court. One of my fellow musicians also had this actually happen to him, why didn't the law come through for him as he sat and listened to his music being played on the Top 40 charts? So, you've nailed me in my coffin, and I am completely content to stay there and thank you for the education. I just wanted to stick up for myself before you start throwing the dirt over me, and say that I am not a pirate, and that I speak more from experience, than actual first had knowledge of the law itself. If I ever run into a copyright problem I guess I will know who to contact, but the fact is you are just a student, and have never had to deal with proving copyright ownership of an unregistered copyright in a court of law.

Nice of you to change the situation to one totally dissimilar to the Accu-Stats discussion. With Accu-Stats, there is no, and there never could be, any argument on whether Accu-Stats was the original author of the work. It's name is all over the videos, the announcer's talk about Accu-Stats the company all the time, the company name is announced before, during, and after the actual play. Not to mention you cannot mask the source of video in the same way you can change the key in which a musical sequence of notes is played. It would be nearly impossible for anyone to steal video or audio from an Accu-Stats video, and be able to hide it well enough that it would be provable in court.

You and I both know that unless a musician has some proof that a musical sequence was A. Written before the pop song now supposedly "stealing" the notes and B. It is obvious that the notes were based on the aforementioned previous work, that there's not much of a chance of success in court.

And it can be made to stick, BTW. Vanilla Ice got caught stealing a few notes from I believe it was "Under Pressure" by Queen. He ended up paying royalties for that song, I believe. Queen must have had a much better case to support their lawsuit than your friend. Besides, courts know that music is evolutionary in nature. Infringement in music has to be blatant, which in the case of Vanilla Ice/Queen, it WAS.

Noone could ever edit Accu-Stats video and include it in their product without getting caught. The minute the second party puts out a video of Strickland-Archer U.S Open '07, Pat is gonna say to himself, "Hey, there were no other camera crews at that match.. What the Hell?"

He's gonna look at the film, and see someone stole his footage. He would definitely win in court. Not at all the same as your musical example.



Russ

 

[wahcheck]

testimonial for Accu-Stats

I am pretty sure everything accu-stats puts out is copyrighted. In my limited understanding once something is fixed in a tangible medium of expression it is copyrighted. To sue on a copyright you have to do more, but to acquire the right all you need to do is produce the work in a tangible medium. I am not a copyright expert or anything so this post is not legal advice, etc.... The irony is that I took a copyright class once and another guy in the class asked me if I would copy some commercial study materials for him.

That said guys, it takes WORK and money to produce something. Pay for it. Accu Stats is a good company. I like accu-stats tapes and dvds. I buy them. I want to keep buying them. Don't copy please. Cameras should be banned from the events IMO, except for accu-stats or other companies going about things the right way.

As for the OP, thanks for being willing to admit what you did was wrong, stopping, and encouraging others to stop.

I just want to say that I have been a customer of Accu-Stats for quite a number of years, and I have always been happy with the way Pat Fleming does his business; very nice man and that goes for his brother as well....May he continue to thrive and be in business for a long time to come.....

 

[despotic931]

Nice of you to change the situation to one totally dissimilar to the Accu-Stats discussion. With Accu-Stats, there is no, and there never could be, any argument on whether Accu-Stats was the original author of the work. It's name is all over the videos, the announcer's talk about Accu-Stats the company all the time, the company name is announced before, during, and after the actual play. Not to mention you cannot mask the source of video in the same way you can change the key in which a musical sequence of notes is played. It would be nearly impossible for anyone to steal video or audio from an Accu-Stats video, and be able to hide it well enough that it would be provable in court.

You and I both know that unless a musician has some proof that a musical sequence was A. Written before the pop song now supposedly "stealing" the notes and B. It is obvious that the notes were based on the aforementioned previous work, that there's not much of a chance of success in court.

And it can be made to stick, BTW. Vanilla Ice got caught stealing a few notes from I believe it was "Under Pressure" by Queen. He ended up paying royalties for that song, I believe. Queen must have had a much better case to support their lawsuit than your friend. Besides, courts know that music is evolutionary in nature. Infringement in music has to be blatant, which in the case of Vanilla Ice/Queen, it WAS.

Noone could ever edit Accu-Stats video and include it in their product without getting caught. The minute the second party puts out a video of Strickland-Archer U.S Open '07, Pat is gonna say to himself, "Hey, there were no other camera crews at that match.. What the Hell?"

He's gonna look at the film, and see someone stole his footage. He would definitely win in court. Not at all the same as your musical example.



Russ

rhncue simply said this:

Anything that goes into print, tape or DVD is automatically copy righted. It's normally to expensive suing offenders unless they have deep pockets though.
Dick

to which I replied this:

This is known only as a poor mans copyright and would not hold up in court

All it was meant to say was that just simply putting something into print or copying it onto a tape or DVD would not always protect it. The original comment made by rhncue says nothing about Accu-Stats, so I never changed the subject. I am sorry you felt the need to directly attack me, you have shown me both your true character and maturity level. I feel as though it is not me who it makes "feel important to pretend to be an authority", it may just be a certain "business law" student who just so happens to have a superiority complex.

 

[Onepocket73]

I don't fully understand all of the copyright laws.But my post is not really about the laws.As a matter of fact,I am pretty sure that just sharing videos and dubbing copies for friends for FREE without any profit is by no means breaking the law.Again,that is not what this post is about.I just want to clear that up.
It is the same thing as passing laws about narcotics in a lot of ways.Just because laws are made doesn't mean people will follow them.That's pretty obvious,given the state that the world is in!
No,my post is about ethics and doing the right thing.The right thing which is in people's hearts,not by some written law!

 

[Onepocket73]

I have a question for you. How many times (realistically) will you watch a match?

After about the 3rd or 4th viewing I find I have the match committed to memory. After that point why keep it? I think it would be benificial to have a barter board, a place where people could trade original copies (original being the key word) of matches they no longer watch. I'm not promoting copyright infringement with this idea.

I know there's a lot of collectors out there, but then there's people like me that could do with a little less clutter in thier lives. If you have something you don't need pass it on for the betterment of pool everywhere. Post it on the (non-existant board) for trade or even give - away + $ for shipping.

If there's a match you'd like to see, post it on the board and maybe someone will have a copy they don't want anymore.

I do think it should be restricted to original copies only with some sort of redress for people who break the rule.

I know, I know trust a Canadian to come up with a not for profit solution.

I agree with what you are talking about.But it is an entirely different thing.Giving away copies of matches that you own is way different than making copies of what you have and are going to keep.
__________________