Intellectual Property - IP

There was a discussion in the Aimpoint thread about what is "morally" acceptable vs. not when dealing with "Intellectual Property".  (<--- my summary of the situation)

The basic argument started when it was suggested that a group send an "envoy" to a course, have him learn the technique and then come back and teach it to the rest of the guys.  The poster was chastised for his comments, but soon rebutted that it is no different than lending your CD to your friend, or lending a book or movie after you have read or watched it, or even giving someone a full review of a class that you attended in college and that the people who are doing the chastising were no better than he was.

I don't want to get into what was said after that, between the different back and fourths and different opinions on the matter.  I'll leave it up to everyone that wants to discuss to mention their view points here.

CD's are a good example, because most people have dealt with them.

A lot of CD's will actually say that "lending" is not allowed, but let us not worry about that now.  You are technically allowed that you have purchased a CD to do what ever it is you want with it in terms of making a copy for your self so that you always have a backup if you lost it for example, or make digital copies on your computer and convert to MP3 or put it on your iphone or what ever you want to do.  However, what you cant do is give in anyway or form a copy of any song on that CD to anyone else (so that they have their own copy) while you keep yours.  So, let us put it this way.  If you have ever made a CD mix for anyone you have overstepped the intellectual property of the artist, if you have ever gave a CD as a gift after you have downloaded it on your computer, but didn't actually erase it from your computer after you gave the CD away.. yes, you guessed it you are overstepping the intellectual property of the artist.

I think the above is very simple to understand, and you guessed it no one cares about this copy right infringement, people do it anyway.  If you ever accept a CD mix from someone (in any form) and you didn't make sure that they don't have copies of the songs that they gave you (unless they paid for it twice) then you are doing a morally questionable act.  Those artists spent years honing their skills and (probably got lucky while they were at it) worked hard to get noticed and then you either give or get a free unpaid copy??  not good!  :)

Aimpoint instructors obviously have an interest that people don't share information, but it will be a long uphill battle for them.  They will be able to keep it under wraps for a while, but not for long.  One of the perks now in actually going to an instructor is that you get to join a Facebook group where you can interact with Mark and others and they discuss things that might never get discussed in the training, or where they share new ideas and run new things by people.  This is one way to get people to want to take the class.  However, they nor anyone else can't have a reasonable expectation that their methods will not be shared and passed down to friends and family.  I mentioned I would share it with my son when he got older, just like I'm going to pass down how to grip a club, to me both of those things are one and the same as I paid to learn both.

I'm sure people have different views and thoughts, and maybe even different examples.  Intellectual Property is rather new terminology, and it is probably still evolving, so the morals of sharing information that you pay for aren't really set in stone yet IMO.

What are your thoughts?

I think you have the basic idea down pretty well. I was kicking these ideas around the other day going in to work reading that thread because it struck a nerve of it being an interesting hypothetical. My IP law is fuzzy, but I feel like the rights holders could contract around all of these things if they cared enough. Don't want anyone else to watch the video besides the original purchaser? Put a shrinkwrap contract on it or condition the sale on a clickthrough to that effect online. Don't want anyone sharing the information? Have the customers sign agreements when they attend the classes.

I dunno, from a legal perspective I kind of don't have an issue with what was proposed. The charts are very clearly copyrighted, but you can't copyright the underlying ideas. The specific method the charts use to organize the ideas, much grayer area. You can't just slap a new color scheme and font on them, but there has to be a level of obvious abstraction that would make them generic enough to not be copyrightable any more.

As for the video, can you show it to a movie theater of people? I think that'd be an illegal performance. Can you show it to a couple of your friends in your living room? I have to think so. The entire home video market kind of assumes that kind of use.

So, yeah, I think what was proposed isn't illegal. You're paying for a copy of the DVD and you're paying for attendance at the lesson and copies of the materials. I don't view it as a license on the ideas / the method. I think the main part of the appeal of the lesson is having someone show it to you in person and teach you what the numbers feel like. Can someone who just learned it do it as well as the instructor? I think the Aimpoint guys are banking on the answer being no.

I think the interesting question I wind up at is could someone start charging for bootleg Aimpoint classes? Like, take away the issues of branding, the actual materials, etc., and just think of someone coming up with their own lesson plan that essentially teaches the same principles as Aimpoint. Would that be legal? That I have no idea how to answer, but I want to say it would be legal.

So yeah, I'm curious what legally smarter people have to say. I should add a few things: all I addressed was legality of the idea. Morality or social utility of the practice isn't something I'm particularly interested in thinking through right now. Also, I haven't taken Aimpoint, so everything I'm going off of is what I've heard / read about it and finding some Aimpoint charts online just now after googling.

[I could be wrong about basically everything I said, so don't take any of it as gospel; this ain't my area of expertise.]

I have attended the AimPoint Express clinic 3 times.  I am weird in the fact that I can memorize things very easily.  It would very easy for me to go back and teach it to all my students.  However, I have not done that.  I have given 5 minute summary classes to help spark the interest in taking the full class but never given enough that they could do it on their own.

It is an interesting read in this month's Golf Magazine.  Mark Sweeney basically says that Adam Scott's coach learned it and then taught it to Adam.  Mark says that later they met and discussed the finer points in more detail.  I think this could only increase the chances that someone will want to do same thing.

On other forum sites I see the DVD listed for sale used everyday.

I want to answer the first part of your post regarding where I went wrong.. I never said anything about buying anything at a yard sale, obviously no one would expect someone to verify that the seller has rid himself of all copies electronic or otherwise of the cd being sold.. Have you ever given anyone a CD mix? If so, did you make sure that you rid your self of the songs that you have out? Or buy another copy so that you can give it, or even make sure that the other person has his own copy so that it can be ok to give that copy to them? Maybe you misunderstood the context of what I said. When I said no one cares about this copy infringement I was talking strictly about "people" and no the recording companies, artists ect. Think Napster and how it took a court order to shut it down and the millions of users who were clearly braking the copy infringe my laws.. Think about all the mix CDs that are given out every day to friends ect. So, yeah I stick by my assertion and think it is spot on.. You are an instructor so I understand why you think the person who passes on aimpoint is a dumb jerk.. Do you think the person who learns how to grip a club and then the next day goes and teaches his friend how to grip it a dumb jerk? Or if someone learned a putting method and he went and showed his friend a dumb jerk? All of these to me are very similar. I get the fact that he won't be able to pass the information correctly, but that isn't the discussion point. You have gone off in your post about people claiming to be experts at teaching after one class and passing it off as professional advice ect, and then you said it is morally off base. I don't have a problem with that, but if it is the intellectual property you are protecting here then I think you should feel the same way about the person who gives away CD mixes without paying for it. I'm not propagating that people do that, if I was then I wouldn't have convinced my uncle to pay 200$ to come with me to the lesson, what I'm saying is that I don't think it is as black and white as it is made out to be.. People chastised xxxx for saying his plan to share the information while paying for it once, but his point about double standards is also a good one because how many people have never given someone a CD mix or made someone a copy of a CD? Or even someone who was around back in the time of Napster said, no way I'm going to download this song because that's stealing intellectual property? Probably a very small percentage.

No, you are not spot on.

I'm a person and not a recording company or an artist.  I care about copyright infringement.  It's plan and simple stealing.  No amount of rationalization is going to change that.

Fine.. You are the exception though.. I can always say, almost everyone so that I exclude the exceptions, but I didn't think I had to. I'm happy that you care though, that is great. So, can I assume that you have never accepted nor ever given anyone a CD mix? If that is the case then you truly are an exception. Edit: or I can say it in another way, anyone who gives or receives a CD mix from a friend or loved one doesn't care about the intellectual property of the artist.

Sounds good.. I had no intention of turning the thread into who cares about intellectual property vs who don't. The facts support that People don't care about copy right infringement.. Just look at Napster, when people were given the opportunity they say there more than 80 million registered users at its peak... Never mind other services like Kaza ect.. intellectual property is just hard to protect.

We all have taken classes, lessons, seminars, etc..  Nothing wrong with sharing what your learned.   It happens and we have all done it, explicitly or unknowingly.   However, if the intent is to recreate what you learned to others as close to the lesson itself so that others can save money is (I am searching for the right word ... a few minutes later) improper .   There are people making a living off of teaching to others.   It's their livelihood and taking their "teaching" to replicate to others who otherwise would have taken the course amounts to cheating the system.  (  I almost said stealing.  )

But I understand Abu's point.  After reading the original post of the "scheme," my immediate reaction what "that's not a bad idea."   A minute later, I realize that is not the "right" thing to do.

I won't get into ripping DVDs, CDs, etc.. b/c I would have to take the 5th on those.

If materials were copied for use in the "stolen" sessions, there would be a legal case for copyright infringement.

We are talking about intellectual property are we not? CDs and music has been at the heart of the discussion way before aimpoint existed so I think it is relevant. In terms of aimpoint I realize that no one has said it is illegal, my contention is that if the person who passes what ever knowledge he has of aimpoint to others who haven't paid for it to save them money or for what ever reason should be looked at the same way as someone who gives his girlfriend a mix CD containing songs that he hadn't paid for a second copy of .. Both dumb jerks who don't appreciate the fact that the artist (song owner) / inventor (aimpoint) have worked hard to put this product out and to get paid for it.. Basically it's hard for me to see someone who cares about intellectual property when it is golf related, but not when it is music/art related. I am only using the CD example, but I am sure there are other examples as well.. How about a company sends two or 3 users to a technical training and then they come back and give that same tech training to 30 other employees? It happens all the time.. [quote name="rkim291968" url="/t/81570/intellectual-property-ip/10_10#post_1133821"] If materials were copied for use in the "stolen" sessions, there would be a legal case for copyright infringement.    [/quote] There would surely be a case if two major things were true. The first is that the idea had a patent, and the second they are financially benefiting from it.. (ie they set up their own aimpoint clinic).. There might be other instances, but I'm pretty sure the first thing that would be done is a cease and desist letter is sent out, and if there is no compliance it moves along in court.. That's my basic understanding, maybe something has changed.

Why not? In the end it is about protection of intellectual property.. Don't get me wrong, yours is a fine example as well as I am sure there is a lot of that going on. How about I buy a copy is the training material for an exam, then I pass the exam and my friend is going to take the exam.. He asks me for it, since I own it do I not have the option of selling it to him? If you say yes then I could technically sell it to him for .01 or just give it to him for free.. It doesn't really matter to me at that point I have already benefited from it and I'm not going to keep a copy of it either.. There are so many grey areas and I think that's what makes the topic so interesting to me..

@Abu3baid llowing your comments here, but let me understand this correctly, are you arguing that it is a softer crime because in your opinion it is comparable to another commonplace crime?