Stealing information?

[nateobot]

i have to ask, since there are like 4 or 5 similiar posters who's posts are all the same:

are you like the FBI or something?
Jackie Chan from Rush Hour?

He's definitely not FBI.

 

[JusticeNJ]

He's definitely not FBI.

I knew it! It's Jackie Chan!

edit: now that I look at his post history.....dude looks cool.

Ever since the 25 post limit thing showed up, I started seeing a lot of fresh faces bubble to surface with similar posts. One guy's entire post history was "Very nice thank you." "nice thanks."

Combine that w/ Fatboy's thread about investigations and the eyebrow raiseth.

 

[sfleinen]

i have to ask, since there are like 4 or 5 similiar posters who's posts are all the same:

are you like the FBI or something?
Jackie Chan from Rush Hour?

Nope, this is the new mutated version of the "This is my 24th post and it sucks to have to do this just to gain access to the Action Room" post-count incrementing trick.

If you look at this poster's post count, you'll see a suspiciously familiar number: 25.

-Sean

 

[dr_dave]

I'm disappointed the OP titled his poll "stealing" and gave his endorsement to one of the two responses in the very first post. It would have been a better poll and a better discussion if he laid out the issue more dispassionately. But oh well. We can't change that.

I think the notion that knowledge obtained from a DVD offered for sale to the public must be kept secret is completely ludicrous.

This is neither the APA Equalizer Handicap formula (not offered to the public), nor is it the recipe for Mrs. Fields cookies (not offered to the public).

This is information offered to the public by design --on a subject that has been discussed --including claims made by the DVD's author--on a public forum for a long time. Once the first customer buys and watched the DVD, the knowledge he gains from it is his.

If I take my knowledge of, say, the double-the-distance aiming method, I have no idea whether I first learned that from a book or from a person or from a DVD. It makes no difference; it is MY knowledge.

Dave has an amazing website. He has probably contributed more to pool than anyone else on this forum, most of it for no remuneration at all.

His description of Stan's approach is there right along side of descriptions of every other approach that has gained any sort of notoriety. And this is true of nearly every aspect of pool I can think of: aiming, stroke, kicking, banking, technical issues... It's all right there for anyone to see--for free. It's like the spirit of this forum: working together we can pool our backgrounds and intellects to achieve new and better understandings of all sorts of aspects of the game that glues us together.

... in the end, my conclusions are

(1) Dave has been pretty fair and respectful to Stan

(2) Stan and Dave are two of the "good guys," and those who flame the coals here are doing disservice to all of us.

Mike,

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I appreciate your insight, and I agree with your conclusions.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

I generally don't like to defend myself in negative threads like this, but I felt a need to do so here, and Mike Page's recent post inspired me to do so.

I think the quotes below summarize my perspective fairly well, so I will just include them here. I hope people will read and think about them after looking at the brief summary of my interpretation of Stan's version of CTE.

I certainly do not think I have done anything inappropriate (or "illegal" or "wrong" or "line crossing") with any of the postings in the aiming systems section of my website. I have always done my best to try to see all sides of the "aiming systems" debates, and I have attempted to present both the realistic limitations and the potential benefits of align-and-pivot systems like CTE. I have also done my best to cite sources any time I quote, interpret, or paraphrase contributions of others.

Although, I can appreciate why emotions run so high with "aiming systems" threads. This topic has always inspired amazing claims, plenty of passion, and even hatred, and I am sure it will continue to do so. That's just the nature of the topic, IMO.

Regards,
Dave


from Rich93, from here:

Dr_Dave summarized Stan's method.

His summary might increase sales by getting people interested in learning it and seeing demonstrations of how top practitioners make it work on the table. For these people Dr_Dave has done a service both for them and for Stan.

On the other hand, the summary might decrease sales if some people conclude "If that's what this mysterious method is all about, I have no interest in learning it." For these people, Dave's summary has saved them both money and time and I assume they are grateful.

Or it might decrease sales if some people think "This is a great method, and now I don't have to buy the DVD." That seems to be the chief complaint here, however I doubt there are any such people. The threads on this subject are so technical, so confusing, so convoluted, that I think anyone prepared to invest the time and energy required to learn the method would not hesitate to buy the DVD.

The real issue is whether Dave's summary is accurate. Since he has revised it in response to comments and Stan is not complaining that it's wrong, I suspect it's accurate. I surely don't see the harm in publishing an accurate summary.

And off this subject for a bit, I simply cannot understand the animosity some people have toward Dr_Dave. His website is a tremendous resource for pool, and all for free. A lot has been learned through his research and high speed videos, and it's all there on his site for anyone to see. You don't even have to buy Billiard Digest - all his articles are there (same with Bob Jewett and his site). It's true he sells VEPS DVD's, but the knowledge that's on those DVD's is all available for free on his site. The VEPS is a convenience for those who'd rather watch than read, like me.​

from Celtic, from here:

Dr. Dave referenced Stan in his posting very clearly. From a scholarly point of view what he did was not only legit, but very, very common in academics. Scholars are all the time restating what other scholars have said with references, and then put in their own knowledge and study into the topic. Science is built on exactly that. That is what Dr. Dave did in a nutshell.​

from dr_dave, from here:

The brief description on my website summarizing Stan's version of CTE (which is the basis for Pro One), does not diminish the value of Stan's DVD. If anything, as I've pointed out before, I think it adds value. It provides a concise summary for people to use as a reference after they view the DVD. IMO, the DVD is not very "informational" ... it is more "demonstrational." In fact, it was very difficult for me to figure out the "information" from the DVD. I had to view it several times, taking notes and making drawings for all of the examples to figure out the pattern. That's why I think I have "added value" to the DVD.

IMO, the real value of the DVD is in the audio/visual explanations, illustrations, demonstrations, and examples.

I thought the purpose for this thread was to discuss and ask questions about CTE/Pro-One to develop a better understanding of the approach and how it is applied. How can this be done if people don't have a basic definition of the method? I think the brief summary on my website (and in this thread) does a reasonable job of explaining Stan's version of CTE, along with several other versions that have been proposed in the past. If somebody wants to learn more about Stan's version, see demonstrations by good shooters, see lots of examples, and learn how to set up these examples on their own table, they will want to purchase Stan's DVD.​

 

[eezbank]

Joe,

I think its pretty clear. We can cry "academic freedom" until the cows come home, but his "academic freedom" and his hollow respect (i'll call it what it is and make no apologies for it) ends when he infringes upon the rights of another.

It's that simple.

Tap Tap Tap!!

I tried to find your post from last night on this subject in the other thread. Sadly that thread is now locked. You made some valid points.

 

[eezbank]

Solid post Hu.

I voted foul for a lot of the same reasons you did. Professional courtesy was grossly neglected when posting Stans information so soon after the release of the DVD. That and the fact that he has openly mocked Hal Houle and other system users for years.

Sean,

As is almost always the case, we see things much the same. I don't claim that what Dave has done is legally actionable, lawyers make entire careers out of the quagmire of copyright law. What I do think is that it was a foul, wrong to post the article without consulting Stan, wrong to leave it up when Stan objects. That is why I compared it to research also. You can spend twenty years in research and not own something tangible. That still doesn't make it right for somebody else to take advantage of your twenty years of work although it happens all of the time, particularly in academia. A friend in his eighties held a patent for every year of his life. One thing he didn't hold was a PhD. After years of research he and his sponsor were ready to publish when the work was stolen. While I feel that what he learned was more of a discovery than an invention the fact remains he learned something novel and unique. He received neither financial benefit nor standing in the academic world for his work.

Something to bear in mind when dealing with people who have lived their lives in the academic setting, standing is vastly important. My thought has long been that this is Dave's reward, his profit for the work he puts into his site, standing in the billiard community. While I fully respect his own work he has published and the work of others that he has published with permission when you publish other's work without their permission you get into areas that while they may not be legally actionable definitely border on unethical and immoral. We all have to decide for ourselves where the line is crossed. As indicated in my earlier post, my ethics prohibit taking advantage of other people's work without paying them or being granted permission. I don't split hairs over if I can or not, only if I am taking unfair advantage of someone else's efforts.

Had the question been did Dave do something illegal my answer would have been almost certainly not. I could have stolen the component and only made a 10% change in the design and been 100% legal also. Wouldn't have made it right. When the question is did Dave cross a line he shouldn't have my opinion is that he did. I wouldn't argue that someone that takes another viewpoint is a bad person. I would be very sure before revealing anything unique to Dave that I had a noncompetition nondisclosure contract with him, signed and notarized.

Hu

 

[Murdoch7627]

I generally don't like to defend myself in negative threads like this, but I felt a need to do so here, and Mike Page's recent post inspired me to do so.

I think the quotes below summarize my perspective fairly well, so I will just include them here. I hope people will read and think about them after looking at the brief summary of my interpretation of Stan's version of CTE.

I certainly do not think I have done anything inappropriate (or "illegal" or "wrong" or "line crossing") with any of the postings in the aiming systems section of my website. I have always done my best to try to see all sides of the "aiming systems" debates, and I have attempted to present both the realistic limitations and the potential benefits of align-and-pivot systems like CTE. I have also done my best to cite sources any time I quote, interpret, or paraphrase contributions of others.

Although, I can appreciate why emotions run so high with "aiming systems" threads. This topic has always inspired amazing claims, plenty of passion, and even hatred, and I am sure it will continue to do so. That's just the nature of the topic, IMO.

Regards,
Dave


from Rich93, from here:

Dr_Dave summarized Stan's method.

His summary might increase sales by getting people interested in learning it and seeing demonstrations of how top practitioners make it work on the table. For these people Dr_Dave has done a service both for them and for Stan.

On the other hand, the summary might decrease sales if some people conclude "If that's what this mysterious method is all about, I have no interest in learning it." For these people, Dave's summary has saved them both money and time and I assume they are grateful.

Or it might decrease sales if some people think "This is a great method, and now I don't have to buy the DVD." That seems to be the chief complaint here, however I doubt there are any such people. The threads on this subject are so technical, so confusing, so convoluted, that I think anyone prepared to invest the time and energy required to learn the method would not hesitate to buy the DVD.

The real issue is whether Dave's summary is accurate. Since he has revised it in response to comments and Stan is not complaining that it's wrong, I suspect it's accurate. I surely don't see the harm in publishing an accurate summary.

And off this subject for a bit, I simply cannot understand the animosity some people have toward Dr_Dave. His website is a tremendous resource for pool, and all for free. A lot has been learned through his research and high speed videos, and it's all there on his site for anyone to see. You don't even have to buy Billiard Digest - all his articles are there (same with Bob Jewett and his site). It's true he sells VEPS DVD's, but the knowledge that's on those DVD's is all available for free on his site. The VEPS is a convenience for those who'd rather watch than read, like me.​

from Celtic, from here:

Dr. Dave referenced Stan in his posting very clearly. From a scholarly point of view what he did was not only legit, but very, very common in academics. Scholars are all the time restating what other scholars have said with references, and then put in their own knowledge and study into the topic. Science is built on exactly that. That is what Dr. Dave did in a nutshell.​

from dr_dave, from here:

The brief description on my website summarizing Stan's version of CTE (which is the basis for Pro One), does not diminish the value of Stan's DVD. If anything, as I've pointed out before, I think it adds value. It provides a concise summary for people to use as a reference after they view the DVD. IMO, the DVD is not very "informational" ... it is more "demonstrational." In fact, it was very difficult for me to figure out the "information" from the DVD. I had to view it several times, taking notes and making drawings for all of the examples to figure out the pattern. That's why I think I have "added value" to the DVD.

IMO, the real value of the DVD is in the audio/visual explanations, illustrations, demonstrations, and examples.

I thought the purpose for this thread was to discuss and ask questions about CTE/Pro-One to develop a better understanding of the approach and how it is applied. How can this be done if people don't have a basic definition of the method? I think the brief summary on my website (and in this thread) does a reasonable job of explaining Stan's version of CTE, along with several other versions that have been proposed in the past. If somebody wants to learn more about Stan's version, see demonstrations by good shooters, see lots of examples, and learn how to set up these examples on their own table, they will want to purchase Stan's DVD.​

How about just a comment or two on why you never contacted Stan in any way?

 

[dr_dave]

I generally don't like to defend myself in negative threads like this, but I felt a need to do so here, and Mike Page's recent post inspired me to do so.

I think the quotes below summarize my perspective fairly well, so I will just include them here. I hope people will read and think about them after looking at the brief summary of my interpretation of Stan's version of CTE.

I certainly do not think I have done anything inappropriate (or "illegal" or "wrong" or "line crossing") with any of the postings in the aiming systems section of my website. I have always done my best to try to see all sides of the "aiming systems" debates, and I have attempted to present both the realistic limitations and the potential benefits of align-and-pivot systems like CTE. I have also done my best to cite sources any time I quote, interpret, or paraphrase contributions of others.

Although, I can appreciate why emotions run so high with "aiming systems" threads. This topic has always inspired amazing claims, plenty of passion, and even hatred, and I am sure it will continue to do so. That's just the nature of the topic, IMO.

Regards,
Dave


from Rich93, from here:

Dr_Dave summarized Stan's method.

His summary might increase sales by getting people interested in learning it and seeing demonstrations of how top practitioners make it work on the table. For these people Dr_Dave has done a service both for them and for Stan.

On the other hand, the summary might decrease sales if some people conclude "If that's what this mysterious method is all about, I have no interest in learning it." For these people, Dave's summary has saved them both money and time and I assume they are grateful.

Or it might decrease sales if some people think "This is a great method, and now I don't have to buy the DVD." That seems to be the chief complaint here, however I doubt there are any such people. The threads on this subject are so technical, so confusing, so convoluted, that I think anyone prepared to invest the time and energy required to learn the method would not hesitate to buy the DVD.

The real issue is whether Dave's summary is accurate. Since he has revised it in response to comments and Stan is not complaining that it's wrong, I suspect it's accurate. I surely don't see the harm in publishing an accurate summary.

And off this subject for a bit, I simply cannot understand the animosity some people have toward Dr_Dave. His website is a tremendous resource for pool, and all for free. A lot has been learned through his research and high speed videos, and it's all there on his site for anyone to see. You don't even have to buy Billiard Digest - all his articles are there (same with Bob Jewett and his site). It's true he sells VEPS DVD's, but the knowledge that's on those DVD's is all available for free on his site. The VEPS is a convenience for those who'd rather watch than read, like me.​

from Celtic, from here:

Dr. Dave referenced Stan in his posting very clearly. From a scholarly point of view what he did was not only legit, but very, very common in academics. Scholars are all the time restating what other scholars have said with references, and then put in their own knowledge and study into the topic. Science is built on exactly that. That is what Dr. Dave did in a nutshell.​

from dr_dave, from here:

The brief description on my website summarizing Stan's version of CTE (which is the basis for Pro One), does not diminish the value of Stan's DVD. If anything, as I've pointed out before, I think it adds value. It provides a concise summary for people to use as a reference after they view the DVD. IMO, the DVD is not very "informational" ... it is more "demonstrational." In fact, it was very difficult for me to figure out the "information" from the DVD. I had to view it several times, taking notes and making drawings for all of the examples to figure out the pattern. That's why I think I have "added value" to the DVD.

IMO, the real value of the DVD is in the audio/visual explanations, illustrations, demonstrations, and examples.

I thought the purpose for this thread was to discuss and ask questions about CTE/Pro-One to develop a better understanding of the approach and how it is applied. How can this be done if people don't have a basic definition of the method? I think the brief summary on my website (and in this thread) does a reasonable job of explaining Stan's version of CTE, along with several other versions that have been proposed in the past. If somebody wants to learn more about Stan's version, see demonstrations by good shooters, see lots of examples, and learn how to set up these examples on their own table, they will want to purchase Stan's DVD.​

How about just a comment or two on why you never contacted Stan in any way?

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. For more info, see the quotes above and Mike Page's post.

I get the sense that Stan would never want to talk to me again, based on his recent responses in these threads, but I hope we can communicate again in the future. From my phone and e-mail conversations with him in the past, and from his manner on the DVD, he seems like a good man and a very capable instructor.

Regards,
Dave