Stealing information?

Was there a foul?

  • Foul

    Votes: 54 52.9%

  • No Foul

    Votes: 48 47.1%
  • Total voters
    102
Status
Not open for further replies.
across the line in my opinion

While reviews are allowed to use a certain amount of information from the original publication a brief look at Dave's article certainly makes it appear he went far beyond that, basically putting Stan's information out there in a different format. To put it in scholarly perspective it is as if someone spent years on a research project and then someone else reviewed the information and released it in a different format. My opinion, and we all know about opinions, at the very least Dave should have sent his article to Stan and requested permission before publishing.

Addressing Stan and Hal Houle, they have a long standing relationship. Until I have some reason to believe otherwise I suspect that Stan did talk to Hal before releasing a DVD on a derivative of his work.

I have been on both sides of the equation, sort of. I have had a design stolen, the son of a b!tch actually beat me to market after I sent one of his friends in the industry a proto-type to test in confidence.

On the other hand when I worked in R&D I had just started working for a company after being out of work over a year following a back injury. I badly needed a job and this one paid exceptionally well. One of my first projects was drawing a fairly complex component, the reason given was documentation with our title block on it to supply the military.

Before the drawing was complete I got wind that the actual plan was to reverse engineer the component and make it ourselves. With my job very possibly on the line I went to the owner of the company who was the one that ordered the drawing and told him that I would design a similar component if he liked but I flatly refused to make drawings to steal other's work. As it happened I found a commercial component for a tiny fraction of producing the component from scratch and also provided my own design developed in my free time at work.

Dave has spent years compiling all of the information on his site. Would he find it objectionable if I did a slight rewrite of his entire site and published it under my name? None of the information is new or novel in itself. Having had work stolen myself I think the answer is obvious.

Hu
 
stan shuffett said:
OntheMF,


Thanks for the nice comments about my DVD.


So, you think my vote is funny and you think I am a hypocrit.

You are putting me in bad light without the facts!!!!

What you said about me without facts may be ok by your standards but I would never say things like that about you without the facts.

Have a nice day,

Stan
Click to expand...


Speaking of facts: what about your accusation that Dr. Dave called you a snake-oil salesman? Where are your facts on that one, or "do you just know," lol.

Lou Figueroa
 
ShootingArts said:
While reviews are allowed to use a certain amount of information from the original publication a brief look at Dave's article certainly makes it appear he went far beyond that, basically putting Stan's information out there in a different format. To put it in scholarly perspective it is as if someone spent years on a research project and then someone else reviewed the information and released it in a different format. My opinion, and we all know about opinions, at the very least Dave should have sent his article to Stan and requested permission before publishing.

Addressing Stan and Hal Houle, they have a long standing relationship. Until I have some reason to believe otherwise I suspect that Stan did talk to Hal before releasing a DVD on a derivative of his work.

I have been on both sides of the equation, sort of. I have had a design stolen, the son of a b!tch actually beat me to market after I sent one of his friends in the industry a proto-type to test in confidence.

On the other hand when I worked in R&D I had just started working for a company after being out of work over a year following a back injury. I badly needed a job and this one paid exceptionally well. One of my first projects was drawing a fairly complex component, the reason given was documentation with our title block on it to supply the military.

Before the drawing was complete I got wind that the actual plan was to reverse engineer the component and make it ourselves. With my job very possibly on the line I went to the owner of the company who was the one that ordered the drawing and told him that I would design a similar component if he liked but I flatly refused to make drawings to steal other's work. As it happened I found a commercial component for a tiny fraction of producing the component from scratch and also provided my own design developed in my free time at work.

Dave has spent years compiling all of the information on his site. Would he find it objectionable if I did a slight rewrite of his entire site and published it under my name? None of the information is new or novel in itself. Having had work stolen myself I think the answer is obvious.

Hu
Click to expand...

Hu:

Wonderful post. I've always liked your writing style; concise, lucid, colorful, and intelligent.

One thing that is missed here, though, is that we're talking about a methodology, not a product. The instances you cite of actual product theft or product idea theft, while personal to you (they obviously and understandably touch a nerve), are a different matter. Stan's product is actually a description of "how to do something" -- which is basically documentation of a *known* and preexisting methodology. The CTE/Pro-1 in Stan's product (the methodology) is not unique -- but his packaging of it is. The packaging is protected, but not the methodology.

Let's take an example: a DVD on cabinet making put out by Home Depot. Even if the hired gun cabinet maker uses some very unique techniques in cutting the various joints -- probably new to the industry -- but using existing tools, none of that methodology is protected. However, if I then make my own cabinet making DVD, follow the same format and the same procedure (even if paraphrase or reinterpret the original material), using the same phraseology, use the same orange handle/grip tools, and just in general follow the same "orange box" format as Home Depot's DVD, that then is theft -- theft of copyright -- because the packaging and approach/preparation of the information was stolen.

If Dr. Dave exactly followed the sequence of Stan's DVD when writing his article (assuming no edits have taken place recently), then some question of ethics is rightfully asked. If he included screenshots from the DVD and wrote Stan's instructional text word-for-word (or very nearly word-for-word -- enough to cause confusion in the industry as to who the original author of the material is), then copyright laws have been broken. But I don't believe any copyright laws have been broken, because the idea being discussed is a methodology using existing tools, not new tools themselves. If Stan had come up with an idea for a new cue, new tip, new billiard ball material, etc., then that's protected information (as long as Stan went through the patent and copyright process, that is).

By the way, since I'd posted earlier, I'd received feedback in the form of reps and PMs that, according to the people writing the reps/PMs, claimed Dr. Dave indeed had copied their material onto his books and DVDs without attribution or recognition of any kind. One person is a respected author that posts here on AZB, with a well-known avatar and screenname, who I deeply respect. So when this person makes a claim like this, I listen.

Dr. Dave, if you're reading this, I humbly offer the following: if you're digesting information from other sources (especially copyrighted ones), including it in your products, but without attribution or citation to the original author (presumably under your guise of "it's only information, and not a tangible product"), shame on you. If you're writing articles that create a blur, ambiguity, or confusion as to who the original inventor / creator / author is, then if I were you, I'd really consider re-writing said articles to either A.) give citation and attribution in the appropriate parts where you got the information from, or B.) completely rewrite the article from the ground up to obfuscate any known phraseology or steps that are copyrighted or clues in to the source of the info. Obviously, approach "A" is PREFERRED.

-Sean
 
lfigueroa said:
Speaking of facts: what about your accusation that Dr. Dave called you a snake-oil salesman? Where are your facts on that one, or "do you just know," lol.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

Matter of fact he did!! I'm not about to go search for it, but I was online that day!! And you can take that to the bank!!
 
Last edited:
pablocruz said:
Matter of fact he did!! He was talking to Dave Segal when he mentioned it!! I'm not about to go search for it, but I was online that day!! Take that to the bank!!
Click to expand...

Now see? This is the kind of stuff that takes a thread, like, say, aiming systems, and causes that thread to dip its wing and spiral into the ground. "So-and-so did such-and-such. I'm not about to go search for it, but I was online that day." And my favorite part: "Take that to the bank!" Why, because you said so? In light of the fact you admitted you're not about to go search for it? Your word is golden?

But alas, that's the color of AZB -- all walks of life.

-Sean
 
sfleinen said:
Now see? This is the kind of stuff that takes a thread, like, say, aiming systems, and causes that thread to dip its wing and spiral into the ground. "So-and-so did such-and-such. I'm not about to go search for it, but I was online that day." And my favorite part: "Take that to the bank!" Why, because you said so? In light of the fact you admitted you're not about to go search for it? Your word is golden?

But alas, that's the color of AZB -- all walks of life.

-Sean
Click to expand...

Take it for what it's worth Sean!!
 
There is no "foul" here. Perhaps the law should be read.

"The copyright owner's exclusive rights are subject to a number of exceptions and limitations that give others the right to make limited use of a copyrighted work. Major exceptions and limitations are outlined in this section.
Ideas
Copyright protects only against the unauthorized taking of a protected work's "expression." It does not extend to the work's ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries.
Facts
A work's facts are not protected by copyright, even if the author spent large amounts of time, effort, and money discovering those facts. Copyright protects originality, not effort or "sweat of the brow."

see http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241476.html
 
JoeW said:
There is no "foul" here. Perhaps the law should be read.

"The copyright owner's exclusive rights are subject to a number of exceptions and limitations that give others the right to make limited use of a copyrighted work. Major exceptions and limitations are outlined in this section.
Ideas
Copyright protects only against the unauthorized taking of a protected work's "expression." It does not extend to the work's ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries.
Facts
A work's facts are not protected by copyright, even if the author spent large amounts of time, effort, and money discovering those facts. Copyright protects originality, not effort or "sweat of the brow."

see http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241476.html
Click to expand...

Finally, something other than opinion/hearsay. Thanks Joe!!!

Maniac
 
lfigueroa said:
Speaking of facts: what about your accusation that Dr. Dave called you a snake-oil salesman? Where are your facts on that one, or "do you just know," lol.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

Dr. Dave did not call Stan Shuffett, directly, a snake oil salesman but the inference was clearly there. Dr. Dave knows that. He should have taken that inference down once he knew I did not approve of it.

Dr. Dave lumped me in with the ones that teach CTE as snake oil salesman and it was clear. I do not visit his site any longer so I do not know if he removed it or not.
 
ShootingArts, what a great post. You certainly have a way with words.

I'm sure no laws were broken by posting the information. I just feel there was a total lack of respect by posting that information so soon after the release of the dvd.

Hopefully dr_dave will look at the poll results and at the very least make contact with Stan and remove some if not all of the material pertaining to pro-one.

ShootingArts said:
While reviews are allowed to use a certain amount of information from the original publication a brief look at Dave's article certainly makes it appear he went far beyond that, basically putting Stan's information out there in a different format. To put it in scholarly perspective it is as if someone spent years on a research project and then someone else reviewed the information and released it in a different format. My opinion, and we all know about opinions, at the very least Dave should have sent his article to Stan and requested permission before publishing.

Addressing Stan and Hal Houle, they have a long standing relationship. Until I have some reason to believe otherwise I suspect that Stan did talk to Hal before releasing a DVD on a derivative of his work.

I have been on both sides of the equation, sort of. I have had a design stolen, the son of a b!tch actually beat me to market after I sent one of his friends in the industry a proto-type to test in confidence.

On the other hand when I worked in R&D I had just started working for a company after being out of work over a year following a back injury. I badly needed a job and this one paid exceptionally well. One of my first projects was drawing a fairly complex component, the reason given was documentation with our title block on it to supply the military.

Before the drawing was complete I got wind that the actual plan was to reverse engineer the component and make it ourselves. With my job very possibly on the line I went to the owner of the company who was the one that ordered the drawing and told him that I would design a similar component if he liked but I flatly refused to make drawings to steal other's work. As it happened I found a commercial component for a tiny fraction of producing the component from scratch and also provided my own design developed in my free time at work.

Dave has spent years compiling all of the information on his site. Would he find it objectionable if I did a slight rewrite of his entire site and published it under my name? None of the information is new or novel in itself. Having had work stolen myself I think the answer is obvious.

Hu
Click to expand...
 
How does one own an idea, especially after spilling it out of his mind?

I don't see how an idea told can then be claimed as personal property.

Jeff Livingston
 
stan shuffett said:
Dr. Dave did not call Stan Shuffett, directly, a snake oil salesman but the inference was clearly there. Dr. Dave knows that. He should have taken that inference down once he knew I did not approve of it.

Dr. Dave lumped me in with the ones that teach CTE as snake oil salesman and it was clear. I do not visit his site any longer so I do not know if he removed it or not.
Click to expand...

Curiosity struck me, so as I had a few minutes this morning, I did a search. It led me to the infamous "Why CTE Is Silly" thread, started by... well, I'm not gonna invoke his name as he hasn't been around in some time. :p

It was a huge thread. I got through the first 70 pages, skimming for Dr_Daves posts. (I did get distracted by some of the other posts... that really was a train-wreck of a thread!) I did find, in post 482, where Dr_Dave referred to Hal Houle as someone who would be a great snake oil salesman.

That's all I could find. And pretty much all I could stand. :D Perhaps someone can operate the search function better than I, or has more free time on their hands.
 
chefjeff said:
How does one own an idea, especially after spilling it out of his mind?

I don't see how an idea told can then be claimed as personal property.

Jeff Livingston
Click to expand...

Jeff:

Exactly, and this is the core of the issue. If I come out with a DVD on how to swing a hammer using a pivoting motion prior to delivery downward, I can't trademark that or patent it, no matter how much blood/sweat/tears I expended in discovering and learning this information. I can't patent, trademark, or claim as personal property: visualization lines, perception methodologies, motions of the human body, or alternate ways to use an existing tool (e.g. hammer, pool cue). I *can* copyright the DVD, since my packaging of the information is inherently my creative work, and I *can* go after people or entities that copy the framework / look & feel of my DVD. But not the information itself.

I think that's where people are getting confused here. And, to end any confusion about my stance on whether I support Stan or not, let me make it clear: I 100% support Stan's efforts in doing what he does. I want to see him get all the recognition he can for his innovations. But on an even keel, of course -- trademark and copyright laws are what they are, and there's no misinterpretation. They are clear-cut, so as to prevent people from abusing those laws.

-Sean
 
sfleinen said:
Jeff:

Exactly, and this is the core of the issue. If I come out with a DVD on how to swing a hammer using a pivoting motion prior to delivery downward, I can't trademark that or patent it, no matter how much blood/sweat/tears I expended in discovering and learning this information. I can't patent, trademark, or claim as personal property: visualization lines, perception methodologies, motions of the human body, or alternate ways to use an existing tool (e.g. hammer, pool cue). I *can* copyright the DVD, since my packaging of the information is inherently my creative work, and I *can* go after people or entities that copy the framework / look & feel of my DVD. But not the information itself.

I think that's where people are getting confused here. And, to end any confusion about my stance on whether I support Stan or not, let me make it clear: I 100% support Stan's efforts in doing what he does. I want to see him get all the recognition he can for his innovations. But on an even keel, of course -- trademark and copyright laws are what they are, and there's no misinterpretation. They are clear-cut, so as to prevent people from abusing those laws.

-Sean
Click to expand...

For more on the intellectual arguments about the IP "property" issue, go here:

http://academy.mises.org/courses/ip...ty-austrian-economics-and-libertarian-theory/

That course is still available to study. There is a 1/2 hour video where the author explains his position. Also, do a search on that site for "Kinsella ip" for a list of articles about this issue.

I'd suggest all inventors and writers here study this carefully.

Jeff Livingston
 
Last edited:
I'm not a fan of CTE but I feel your pain. Im crying foul too!! I spent 20 years refining a aiming system and was just about to release it. I was going to be a millionaire!!!
Then I came across this on here!! :cool: My research,,20 years down the drain!! I can't believe someone stole my ideas!!:grin:

http://youtu.be/_q4jEPmHFa8


But I just seen some new state of the art aiming system that will allow anyone to make every ball ,,every time!! Its called BPP!!! (something about a ball point pen system);):p:D
 
I voted no foul.
First, MOST of that info has been available for years to those who lack the ability to aim or an elementary understanding of geometry.
Secondly, the information is not an advancement of the pocketing of a ball. By that I mean it's just another way of doing the same thing.
I can make a how-to video showing people how I painted my garage while standing on my head. Did the garage get painted? Yes it did. Is the paint job any better this way than all the standard painted garages? Nope. It's just another way of doing a common task but looking silly doing it. This is just my opinion and I have my right to it. That's what polls are supposed to do -get people's opinions. I personally believe all aiming systems are crutches to help beginners improve their abaility to pocket balls. However, I also believe 99% of the improvement comes from forcing the new player to develope a habitual psr.
 
JoeW said:
There is no "foul" here. Perhaps the law should be read.

"The copyright owner's exclusive rights are subject to a number of exceptions and limitations that give others the right to make limited use of a copyrighted work. Major exceptions and limitations are outlined in this section.
Ideas
Copyright protects only against the unauthorized taking of a protected work's "expression." It does not extend to the work's ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries.
Facts
A work's facts are not protected by copyright, even if the author spent large amounts of time, effort, and money discovering those facts. Copyright protects originality, not effort or "sweat of the brow."

see http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241476.html
Click to expand...

Joe,

What if somebody clearly interfere's with the author's ability to profit from their copyrighted work?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top