Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit

telinoz

Registered
and this damned thread still won't die... :ROFLMAO:
Lol, as Lou et al went down the same path with hiding and lying about table specs .. Maybe all these threads should be merged into one giant heap.

big-pile-of-shit-jurassic-park.gif
 

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
There are ways to prevent digital pyracy. It took me less then 10 minutes to research.

You could read on digital watermarking (wikipedia). Distribution of copyrighted material is obviously illegal and everyone buying the copy should agree to the terms and conditions (like only using the video for private use). With digital watermarking every copy of the run has an individual watermark, like an invisible serial number. Now if one copy ends up on youtube or some other sharing platform, you can easily check the watermark to see, which customer violated the user agreement and you sue him big time for all the missing revenue in the same time getting the video down from the sharing platform.

I am sure there are services, that do this work for you. Searching for your video to appear on the usual platform can be surely automated.
While intellectual property rights do exist, the owner of the property must have the resources to detect unauthorized use and invoke his rights.
 

realkingcobra

Well-known member
Silver Member
While intellectual property rights do exist, the owner of the property must have the resources to detect unauthorized use and invoke his rights.
You ever clicked on a pool video to watch and you hear the words "we do not own the rights to this music" yet the music keep on playing? It's still illegal, but it hasn't stopped anyone lately!
 

Icon of Sin

I can't fold, I need gold. I re-up and reload...
Silver Member
You ever clicked on a pool video to watch and you hear the words "we do not own the rights to this music" yet the music keep on playing? It's still illegal, but it hasn't stopped anyone lately!
On YouTube, when that happens they are not allowed to monetize the video. So either A) keep the music/sound on and de-monetize the video or, B)Mute the video so the music isn't playing and try to make a youtube nickel.
 

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
So, in conclusion to the title of this thread and the case made comparing it to the recent record and the circumstances around that. The answer is yes, sure if we are working at the same level which has been poor and vague at best. Balls potted on tables that are different, that cannot be verified to documented standards from the official body that ratifies equipment. Not a professional record, more of a nice achievement record which is still impressive nonetheless.

Any future level can be much higher without much effort.
As in, before the event kicks off you get a BCA rep who will ratify a record based on their published and freely available equipment specs which have upper and lower dimensions clearly defined.
Second point, feel free to stream it and be clear up front that if a record looks to be broken the stream will be cut. The final recording, will be sent for ratification and made public once done so.
The full video will then be sold on whatever platform the organisor wants, as is fair as its their IP. No harm in trying to make some money.
As would be paying the player, from any milestones set in a sponsorship agreement etc.

It is not a hard thing to do right. It really is not.
You can then claim, without dispute, a professional record has been set on standardised equipment.
Conditions that can be replicated so future attempts are on the same playing field.

This is why Snooker, professional Snooker does not have this silly and avoidable arguments vs. Pool.
All records since WPBSA started in the 70's have been based on standards. They have pocket templates and clearly defined measurements, which is ironic as BCA and WPA do as well.... But, people willingly choose to not follow that and dig themselves into a hole. That is just plain dumb.
You won't see people question Ronnie's fastest 147, or any century break made.. Any of the hundreds of records in Snooker... Most balls potted unanswered, for closet one to the 14.1 runs..

TLDR:
There are equipment standards, follow them to be legitimate.
Communicate up front how an event will run, don't deviate.
Have an IQ above a rock.
Agree about snooker.

But I disagree about the pool standards existing. What passes for "standards" are too loose, not as in easy but as in covering to large of a range of pocket difficulties. That includes pocket openings, angles and shelves. If you also include rail profiles, you'll understand why no two pool tables from different brands ever play alike. Most don't play anything alike. The difference between a Diamond and a GC is night and day in every respect, and these are the two most played on.

As it is, pool is kind of like the Wild West and anyone can set up shop at any time. It has both pros and cons. The pro is that there is hope for changing the standards. If someone were to start using these pocket templates and have success with it, they might get adopted by many if not most tournaments long before the BCA or WPA have even started debating it. They've had decades and done next to nothing about it, which shows that they're massively out of touch or too slow and ineffective to accomplish anything. So if they had in fact set a rigid standard, there would be no hope of ever changing it, no matter how the game developed over time. They would debate it for decades and then do nothing while people were rioting in the streets. I'm not 100% sure what came first, the chicken or the egg in this case. Did the ineffectiveness of the Governing bodies cause people to use wildly different standards against the wishes of said body, or did the body set up standards to encompass the existing range of pocket/table types? I think maybe the latter was the origin story of the current standards from what I've been able to piece together, but at this point the two conditions are both mutually reinforcing eachother. The con of having no set standard at any time (or none that is effectively enforced) should be obvious, though.

The massive problem with some of these record attempts, specifically, as opposed to pool in general, is using a specially set up table, which is then quickly disassembled and removed before it can be inspected. I believe that is what happened to Schmidts table. It raises all kinds of questions about the record. Much of the problem could be alleviated by using a standard (as in "stock condition" from an established manufacturer) table and then not vaporizing it before anyone gets to see it, because, you know, seems kind of shady....
 
Last edited:

realkingcobra

Well-known member
Silver Member
Here's the million dollar question. Who on the BCA or WPA board of directors is QUALIFIED to even determine the playability of the pocket specifications? The specifications that everyone likes to quote DIDN'T even originate from the BCA board of directors, so ASK yourself where they came from??? WHO supplied THAT information in the FIRST place???

All the BCA did was ADOPT the information provided to them!!!
 

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Here's the million dollar question. Who on the BCA or WPA board of directors is QUALIFIED to even determine the playability of the pocket specifications? The specifications that everyone likes to quote DIDN'T even originate from the BCA board of directors, so ASK yourself where they came from??? WHO supplied THAT information in the FIRST place???

All the BCA did was ADOPT the information provided to them!!!
Screenshot_20220125-181442.jpg
 

telinoz

Registered
I've not spoken with Ian Anderson for about 10 years after I had a break from cuesports to work on my businesses, but I can try some old emails and a mobile number.
That would be my first step if I wanted to start asking WPA about origins of equipment specs they publish.
Pretty sure they did inherit those from BCA originally as they are by far the oldest association around and in the formation of the WPA some established rules etc would have transitioned to the WPA.

Unless all this research has been done already, citations?
With written comments from known WPA and BCA board members?
 

realkingcobra

Well-known member
Silver Member
I've not spoken with Ian Anderson for about 10 years after I had a break from cuesports to work on my businesses, but I can try some old emails and a mobile number.
That would be my first step if I wanted to start asking WPA about origins of equipment specs they publish.
Pretty sure they did inherit those from BCA originally as they are by far the oldest association around and in the formation of the WPA some established rules etc would have transitioned to the WPA.

Unless all this research has been done already, citations?
With written comments from known WPA and BCA board members?
I KNOW who provided most of the specifications.
 
Last edited:

bounoun

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It is absolutely ridiculous that there is no way to watch the video.

"Yeah but somebody will rip it and upload it to youtubes". So what ?

How many dollars are now made ? 0.

Upload it to any VOD like streaming service, ask 20 dollars for it and atleast you make some money from it.
 

skip100

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
At this point it borders on bizarre that the video is still unavailable.

Just put the damn thing on YouTube and let the views and streaming revenue roll in. It may not be life-changing money but it's better than nothing, which is what he's getting now.
Now that 626 isn't even the record any more there is zero reason not for it to be available for streaming on YouTube.
 
Top