Ownership, Plagerism and Work

[eezbank]

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.

Great post John. +1. When asked to remove it publicly on more than one occasion it was never removed.

When asked why he didn't contact Stan this was Dave's reply.

Sure. I honestly saw no reason to ask for permission based on what I posted. I made it clear that the brief summary was "my interpretation," and I clearly identified the source of the information (Stan's DVD). Stan has a right to be disappointed if he doesn't agree with my interpretation, and I would welcome any criticism he or others have concerning whether or not I have fairly and accurately captured the essence of his approach, but he or others should not think permission is required to mention, quote from, or interpret openly published works

 

[JB Cases]

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.

The main problem is that he takes some people's content verbatim and pastes it to his website, often in direct opposition to what the author's wishes are in that regard. (that's a debate for another thread)

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.

No. Ideas are free. Ideas are public domain. You can discuss the physics of pool with ZERO attribution to anyone. You can take Hal Houle's aiming systems and describe them and talk about them without mentioning Hal at all. Be aware that if you attempt to pass them off as your own however that SOMEONE else will call you on it.

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.

Bob said that the book mentioned pivoting. I don't think we have seen any evidence yet of that so we can't know the context.

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.

That is correct. Hal has often mentioned the influence of Greenleaf on him and the subsequent lifelong passion to discover various ways to aim.

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.

No one needs permission from someone else to teach something that they have been taught other than fields where it is mandatory to have a license to teach. Obviously I could not open a school to teach surgery. As much as I like and respect Stan it is not possible to patent a physical technique. That would be like Michael Jackson having tried to patent the moonwalk. Stan can call it ProOne and the name IS a trademark. So you can't open ProOne school. ( I don't think you could). But you could teach the set of movements Stan calls ProOne all day if you like. I am not totally sure how copyright and trademark law would cover it but I am very sure that the actual physical movements are not protected.

As to reviews, well a reviews of a product is allowed under the fair use provision of the copyright law. What is generally not allowed is the revelation of any trade secrets. So posting a diagram of the steps to implement ProOne is really revealing the meat of the video. However this is probably not against the law either, it's just not cool.

Kind of like if I were to buy the videos from Dr. Dave and post up my own videos and diagrams covering the things he didn't share publicly. Thus ripping out the meat of his videos that he had hoped to charge people for.

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.

No. You are using the tools available to you. Using books and videos as references in physical teaching environments is time honored and protected. We do post our ideas to help each other play better which is why it's particularly disgusting that so many have done their best to denigrate and slander those who have tried to teach various aiming systems.

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.

No, repackaging knowledge is fine as long as it's not plagiarized verbatim.

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.

No one owns an idea. The debate is about plagiarism and attribution, not demonstration and validation. So far NO ONE who spends so much time ridiculing aiming system proponents has made a single video showing that they have tried it and what their objections are. Not one, not ever, not once.

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.

Trust me. The ONLY reason Dave is being attacked at all on here is because of his ridicule and slander towards the instructors and others who are proponents of Hal's aiming methods. That's it.

Is my knowledge mine ???

No. Your knowledge is only yours as long as you keep it to yourself. You can sell your knoweldge or give it away but once it escapes your head it's no longer only yours. Don't confuse knowledge with creation. When you write a book then you have created something and no one else is allowed to take that book and put their name on it. However someone else could copy the essence of the book and put their name on it. That's how it works.

It all comes down to "just be cool". If you want to talk about any particular aiming system then learn it and then dissect it. That's all any of the aiming system people have asked for.

 

[book collector]

I think under the first amendment , we all have the right to say whether we think something works , doesn't work , is great ok or horrible.
We don't have the right to slander each other, so , if you post that someone is a cheat or uses marked cards or keeps dead bodies in the trunk of their car, you had better be ready to prove it.
Otherwise it is just opinion.
As for using your ideas, you can do what you want with them if they are yours.
If you want to know if you have a unique idea , copyright it, they will tell you if it has already been done.
If you choose not to copyright your idea , work or whatever, there is the risk that if it becomes popular , everyone will be doing the same thing. {That usually happens anyway}. Not all countries recognise copyright laws.
You can sue someone and win a settlement but collecting is a whole different matter.

 

[JoeyA]

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

Warren's nickname is "Monk", not "the Monk".
Tim Miller is "The Monk".

 

[hunger strike]

owning technique....

The main problem is that he takes some people's content verbatim and pastes it to his website, often in direct opposition to what the author's wishes are in that regard. (that's a debate for another thread)



No. Ideas are free. Ideas are public domain. You can discuss the physics of pool with ZERO attribution to anyone. You can take Hal Houle's aiming systems and describe them and talk about them without mentioning Hal at all. Be aware that if you attempt to pass them off as your own however that SOMEONE else will call you on it.


Bob said that the book mentioned pivoting. I don't think we have seen any evidence yet of that so we can't know the context.




That is correct. Hal has often mentioned the influence of Greenleaf on him and the subsequent lifelong passion to discover various ways to aim.



No one needs permission from someone else to teach something that they have been taught other than fields where it is mandatory to have a license to teach. Obviously I could not open a school to teach surgery. As much as I like and respect Stan it is not possible to patent a physical technique. That would be like Michael Jackson having tried to patent the moonwalk. Stan can call it ProOne and the name IS a trademark. So you can't open ProOne school. ( I don't think you could). But you could teach the set of movements Stan calls ProOne all day if you like. I am not totally sure how copyright and trademark law would cover it but I am very sure that the actual physical movements are not protected.

As to reviews, well a reviews of a product is allowed under the fair use provision of the copyright law. What is generally not allowed is the revelation of any trade secrets. So posting a diagram of the steps to implement ProOne is really revealing the meat of the video. However this is probably not against the law either, it's just not cool.

Kind of like if I were to buy the videos from Dr. Dave and post up my own videos and diagrams covering the things he didn't share publicly. Thus ripping out the meat of his videos that he had hoped to charge people for.



No. You are using the tools available to you. Using books and videos as references in physical teaching environments is time honored and protected. We do post our ideas to help each other play better which is why it's particularly disgusting that so many have done their best to denigrate and slander those who have tried to teach various aiming systems.



No, repackaging knowledge is fine as long as it's not plagiarized verbatim.




No one owns an idea. The debate is about plagiarism and attribution, not demonstration and validation. So far NO ONE who spends so much time ridiculing aiming system proponents has made a single video showing that they have tried it and what their objections are. Not one, not ever, not once.




Trust me. The ONLY reason Dave is being attacked at all on here is because of his ridicule and slander towards the instructors and others who are proponents of Hal's aiming methods. That's it.



No. Your knowledge is only yours as long as you keep it to yourself. You can sell your knoweldge or give it away but once it escapes your head it's no longer only yours. Don't confuse knowledge with creation. When you write a book then you have created something and no one else is allowed to take that book and put their name on it. However someone else could copy the essence of the book and put their name on it. That's how it works.

It all comes down to "just be cool". If you want to talk about any particular aiming system then learn it and then dissect it. That's all any of the aiming system people have asked for.

I once had an instructor ask me to sign a nondisclosure agreement, and just about all he taught me was to practice by shooting straight ins and keeping track of results. Maybe he should read your fine post. Otherwise, I guess I can never tell someone to shoot straight, or to track their practice results.