The MAAM vs RCS "Statement"

[Bob Scott 7,721]

What you're saying then, is that the world is black and white, and right and wrong are clear for all to see. The real world I live in doesn't work that way...sorry.MAAM presented strong evidence that some of RCS' panel graphics were derived from some of the same source images as theirs. It does not answer the legal questions of whether RCS is entitled to use those pictures, given that they were originally produced by a joint venture of which RCS was a part...and it also does not answer my questions of whether *MAAM* was entitled to use those jointly-produced source graphics, either. It also does not answer many other questions, like at what point a modified picture ceases to be the work or intellectual property of others. And so on and so on.Questions of law are decided by the courts...and I see significant questions of both fact and of law here. Rather than join a self-appointed lynch mob--a phenomenon which appears quite regularly across the history of so-called "truly civilized society"--I prefer to see the matter resolved within the institutions society has created precisely for the civil resolution of such questions. A duel at 20 paces with weapons of choice might have been the answer before the courts took their place in civil society."eko"...I seem to have missed your name. Seems to me a person with such strong opinions to offer wouldn't hide behind an alias.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V

[Guest IanP]

Hi Bob,The images were not derived from the same source images - the images created by Bill Rambow were taken, altered and published by Roy Chaffin, in spite of removal of authority to use them by their author.Bill Rambow also did not use Roy Chaffin's images to create his published work - he went back and rephotographed the aircraft to create new source images. Roy Chaffin has stated that he "may have" used MAAM materials and that he knowingly ignored the removal of authority to use them. Any close look at the images included with the RCS aircraft shows that "may have" to be a "definately has".With respect to your question of the law, should this case be filed and heard in Maryland, Pennsylvania, or the United Kingdom? It is notoriously expensive to prosecute cases over the internet, because of the number of jurisdictions involved. That, in itself, is far from black and white legally. Then we have the question of whether the 3rd party company hosting the RCS package can be prosecuted for distributing stolen material and which legal entity has jurisdiction in *that* case? The costs start spiralling out of all control very quickly and the recourse is unlikely to cover them whoever wins.I am far from unbiased in this case, because I have been involved in the DC3/R4D project since before either Roy Chaffin or MAAM were approached about it and I have personally communicated with all persons involved except Russ Strine. During that time I have had several occasions when I have had cause to question Roy Chaffin's integrity and none, so far, to question that of Bill Rambow or any of the MAAM staff. I question the way this has been handled by them, because I believe it could have been dealt with far better, but will continue to back their stance because both morally and legally I believe them to be in the right.Ian Pearson.

[Guest crashing_pilot]

well,as far as i'm concerned,the world IS black and white,and people who think it is grey should leave for mars(gives you a LOT of pic flying hours).MAAM presented strong evidence,which has now been backed up by all the correspondence between MAAM an Roy Chaffin.if and when that is reviewed,it is clear one party is wrong here,and the other is right.black and white eh?.example:quote"(...."eko"...I seem to have missed your name. Seems to me a person with such strong opinions to offer wouldn't hide behind an alias....)"unquote.this is exactly why people think the world is grey:something totally unimportant,that does not have anything to do with what's discussed here,is dragged in.if people were to read carefully,it would be clear the issue is:did x steal my bitmaps? and the answer would be:yes he did.but he says he did not?i say he does,and i back it up with evidence.finished.

[Bob Scott 7,721]

Ian; You clearly have resolved in your own mind, based on knowing some of the personalities involved, some of the issues of who did what to whom. Put yourself in my shoes, however...I know neither group personally...I only know and respect them both by their previous good works. I have neither the time nor the inclination to run every last piece of "evidence" to ground here...what I've seen leaves me with as many questions as answers. Matters of jurisdiction are a whole legal subspecialty, but I am most confident there are certainly one or more venues that could host an action if it comes to that. The matter of cost is present anytime two parties cannot resolve disputes between themselves...an omnipresent and compelling incentive for people to do whatever they can to avoid letting situations get to the point where litigation is needed in the first place. It's still better than losing the duel at 20 paces! :-) Finally, I still have a fundamental philosophical, if not legal, question of how far "ownership" of a bitmap or other image extends. The RCS bitmaps I've examined are non-trivially and significantly different than the MAAM ones supplied in the original posting. If I snap a picture of the Mona Lisa and take it home and draw in new clothes, new teeth, new hair etc etc...at what point does the derivative work cease being the intellectual property of the Louvre? I can't answer that, but it seems to me that there's a fuzzy line out there somewhere...something quite pertinent to the discussion at hand.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V

[Bob Scott 7,721]

Tom Wrote: >MAAM presented strong evidence,which has now been backed up by all >the correspondence between MAAM an Roy Chaffin. >if and when that is reviewed,it is clear one party is wrong >here,and the other is right.So this correspondence that neither you nor I have read proves, sight unseen, that one of the parties is right and one is wrong? The identity of a correspondent is quite important to me. Suppose Peter Tishma were posting his take on this as a piracy issue...his identity and track record would weigh heavily in how much credence I gave his arguments. An anonymous pundit bears no responsibility to be held accountable for the things he/she says, so his/her words are taken by many--myself included--somewhat lightly. >well,as far as i'm concerned,the world IS black and white,and people >who think it is grey should leave for marsMy experience is that generally, those who truly subscribe to black and white, right and wrong, etc as discrete all-or-nothing positions have their warm bubbles burst in the most unkindly ways by life's complex challenges. The religious zealot whose cherished son comes home with a "partner" named Charles...the euthanasia opponent watching his spouse writhe in pain with end-stage cancer...the pacifist watching foreign tanks roll through his capital virtually unopposed...etc etc. Live long anough and you'll be swimming in grey.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL GUlfstream II-III-IV-V

[Guest IanP]

Bob,I would agree that the world is firmly coloured in shades of grey.The problem here is that Roy Chaffin is claiming credit for things that aren't - and never have been - his and that he is deliberately attacking another organisation under cover of those claims. If he was so worried about not abandoning projects which "so much work has been put into", how do you explain his unilateral decision to cancel the GMAX R4D? That was complete, finished, ready to go. I have it installed at the moment and thoroughly enjoy flying it.The problem was - and remains - that it does not work with the then current Microsoft Home operating system, Windows ME, or it's more common predecessor Windows 98. This is because Roy had grossly overloaded the panel with security code an not because of any quality issue. Apart from the O/S crashing problem I cannot find a single bug in the product.It's fine to accept that both shades are grey, but one is most definately darker than the other.Ian Pearson.

[Guest crashing_pilot]

Bob wrote:>>So this correspondence that neither you nor I have read>proves, sight unseen, that one of the parties is right and one>is wrong?the correspondence kindly provided by Mr Rambow which i have READ,clearly shows one party at fault. >>The identity of a correspondent is quite important to me. >Suppose Peter Tishma were posting his take on this as a piracy>issue...his identity and track record would weigh heavily in>how much credence I gave his arguments. An anonymous pundit>bears no responsibility to be held accountable for the things>he/she says, so his/her words are taken by many--myself>included--somewhat lightly.first:it is not the messenger we're after,it's the message.once again:that message is clear.second:if the identity of a correspondent means that much to you,you would surely already know who to believe and who to discard.>My experience is that generally, those who truly subscribe to>black and white, right and wrong, etc as discrete>all-or-nothing positions have their warm bubbles burst in the>most unkindly ways by life's complex challenges. The>religious zealot whose cherished son comes home with a>"partner" named Charles...the euthanasia opponent watching his>spouse writhe in pain with end-stage cancer...the pacifist>watching foreign tanks roll through his capital virtually>unopposed...etc etc. Live long anough and you'll be swimming>in grey.>>Regards>>Bob Scott>ATP IMEL GUlfstream II-III-IV-Vso all kind of havoc is bound to break loose just because i see the world black and white?this "argument" is highly amusing,but only that,amusing. i've taken my decisions the B and W way,and i do not regret them.now i've had some complex challenges in my life,still have infact,but to say "my warm bubbles burst in the most unkindly ways by life's complex challenges" ? ...nah...i just decide what's good and what's bad...works great,you should try it.makes life simple,and that much easier to understand.also,there is no need to hide,twist or re-arrange certain things,because you've kept it simple.RegardsTom van der Elst

[Guest IanP]

Hello Bob,Your Mona Lisa comparison is very apt and the answer is that you actually infringed the copyright of the holder when you took the photograph of it, provided that the copyright had been claimed(*):http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga...en_3.htm#mdiv17That link is to UK law, but I strongly suspect that it is very similar in the U.S. - and France for that matter!Clause 6 of section 17 also applies in this case, as the copies are transient to some other use of the work - your edited version.(* - Russ Strine claimed copyright on all MAAM and Briefing Time images in his message to Roy Chaffin, as reproduced by MAAM in their statements and backed up by Roy's statement that he received this and chose to ignore it.)From my perspective as a flightsim and aircraft enthusiast, a legal case is going to do little or nothing to recover MAAM's lost income from RC's release of his version as freeware and will, in effect, only swell the bank balances of the lawyers involved. That doesn't keep BT and the R4D aloft or help other aircraft be restored and flown. On the other hand, if telling the flight simulation community what Roy Chaffin has done causes people not to download his aircraft and to purchase MAAM's instead, that damage will at least partially be offset.If this was done entirely behind closed doors in a court of law, very few people in this community would ever find out what had been done and fewer people still would care. It would all take so long to play out that the issue, to most people, would be moot. The law may come down on MAAM's side, but justice could not, because the damage has already have been done.What saddens me in particular here is that the Roy Chaffin is a very talented artist who does not NEED to resort to what he has done. I suspect, although as I have no access to the team do not know for sure, that only he is behind this. It further saddens me that a project RCS are intending to undertake which directly interests me, the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight, is going to be harmed by it. I can specifically state that it will because I, for one, will not be purchasing it. I will send my money directly to the BBMF as a direct contribution if they want it, but will send it with a letter explaining why I will not buy a product from a team containing Roy Chaffin however good the cause.I understand your position entirely, even though I do not agree with you, and thank you for bringing a more sensible level of debate to this issue here than has been the case elsewhere.Regards,Ian Pearson.

[Bob Scott 7,721]

Tom wrote:>first:it is not the messenger we're after,it's the message.>once again:that message is clear.>>second:if the identity of a correspondent means that much to>you,you would surely already know who to believe and who to>discard.>You once again oversimplify, Tom. Society does indeed place value on the identity of the messenger as well as the message...that's why universities bestow degrees on their graduates and why credible technical and academic leterature requires detailed cites, including the identity of the source. There are thousands of internet pundits generating a veritable cacophony which can drown out any message with their noise.Knowing the identity of the author is part (but not all) of the process by which we assess the credibility of the message. Some sources I believe outright...some I take with a grain of salt, and some I disregard summarily. And the source's credibility may vary with the topic. Anonymous postings are suspect to me from the outset.>so all kind of havoc is bound to break loose just because i>see the world black and white?>this "argument" is highly amusing,but only that,amusing. >i've taken my decisions the B and W way,and i do not regret>them.>now i've had some complex challenges in my life,still have>infact,but to say "my warm bubbles burst in the most unkindly>ways by life's complex challenges" ? ...nah...i just decide>what's good and what's bad...works great,you should try it.>makes life simple,and that much easier to understand.>also,there is no need to hide,twist or re-arrange certain>things,because you've kept it simple.No...all kinds of havoc is breaking out every day all over the world. People get killed, wars break out, there are typhoons and earthquakes, floods, and plagues etc etc. Eventually life presents most of us with situations that challenge our world views. I suppose that if a person is simple enough, he or she might be able to take black-and-white positions on just about anything. Most folks I know that operate this way I would categorize as either fanatics or dullards...either they don't understand that things happening around them don't fit into their world view, or they don't care about those inconsistencies and are intransigent to a fault. I offer this not so much as an "argument," but more as an observation.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfsream II-III-IV-V

[Guest crashing_pilot]

>>first:it is not the messenger we're after,it's the message.>>once again:that message is clear.>>>>second:if the identity of a correspondent means that much to>>you,you would surely already know who to believe and who to>>discard.>>>>You once again oversimplify, Tom. Society does indeed place>value on the identity of the messenger as well as the>message...that's why universities bestow degrees on their>graduates and why credible technical and academic leterature>requires detailed cites, including the identity of the source.> There are thousands of internet pundits generating a>veritable cacophony which can drown out any message with their>noise.if society(plainly stating:YOU) DOES place value on the identity of "messengers" as well as their message,i just don't understand why you are not satisfied with the evidence and call it a night;as we all know the messenger(s) are reliable,their arguments are reliable,i'd say you would say(by your own arguments,see below also) it's true then eh?so it is Black and White.>>Knowing the identity of the author is part (but not all) of>the process by which we assess the credibility of the message.> Some sources I believe outright...some I take with a grain of>salt, and some I disregard summarily. And the source's>credibility may vary with the topic. Anonymous postings are>suspect to me from the outset.to me they are not,until they prove to be suspicious.now i'm not that freaked as to people knowing my name and/or tracing me down,others might be,their choice,i respect that.....either way,i'll first look at their message.i've more than once valued someone by his/her looks,only to find out they were totally different.....that is why i think you have to see the message,and not base your understanding of the message on the looks of the messenger....that will hurt them,but also you.people can look like some kind of idiot,whilst really they are a phd in whatever.now if YOU would not know them,you would classify them as idiots,and maybe miss the most rewarding experience of your life.not simple...that is plain stupid.>>>so all kind of havoc is bound to break loose just because i>>see the world black and white?>>this "argument" is highly amusing,but only that,amusing. >>i've taken my decisions the B and W way,and i do not regret>>them.>>now i've had some complex challenges in my life,still have>>infact,but to say "my warm bubbles burst in the most>unkindly>>ways by life's complex challenges" ? ...nah...i just decide>>what's good and what's bad...works great,you should try it.>>makes life simple,and that much easier to understand.>>also,there is no need to hide,twist or re-arrange certain>>things,because you've kept it simple.>>No...all kinds of havoc is breaking out every day all over the>world. People get killed, wars break out, there are typhoons>and earthquakes, floods, and plagues etc etc. Eventually life>presents most of us with situations that challenge our world>views. I suppose that if a person is simple enough, he or she>might be able to take black-and-white positions on just about>anything. Most folks I know that operate this way I would>categorize as either fanatics or dullards...either they don't>understand that things happening around them don't fit into>their world view, or they don't care about those>inconsistencies and are intransigent to a fault. >>I offer this not so much as an "argument," but more as an>observation.>>Regards>>Bob Scott>ATP IMEL Gulfsream II-III-IV-Vi think you make life a bit to complicated there Bob.my world views do not change because of a war or a typhoon,be it in my backyard or 10000 miles away.i will still be able to say what's right and what's wrong,IMHO!!i'm not simple,i only have a simple philosophy about life.people who are simple would not go into this debate,as they would be too simple to understand what it is you are talking about.i do care about inconsistencies,and i do feel for people that are in big trouble,but i'm "simple" enough to know i'm not able to change anything by myself.so i say my prayer,and move on.kind regards,

[Bob Scott 7,721]

Tom wrote:>if society(plainly stating:YOU) DOES place value on the>identity of "messengers" as well as their message,i just don't>understand why you are not satisfied with the evidence and>call it a night;as we all know the messenger(s) are>reliable,their arguments are reliable,i'd say you would say(by>your own arguments,see below also) it's true then eh?>so it is Black and White.Why no, it's not at all black and white. Roy Chaffin has a counter-argument to MAAM's claim, and, as I've said from the beginning, I have neither the ability nor the inclination to try and resolve the competing claims against each other from afar. The parties themselves, or the courts are the proper venue to assess whose "evidence" is credible and/or complete and whose claims have the greater veracity. The "court of popular opinion" in the form of the news media--and to a greater degree the internet--lacks the controls and counterbalances to ensure a fair hearing of all the pertinent facts.>to me they are not,until they prove to be suspicious.>now i'm not that freaked as to people knowing my name and/or>tracing me down,others might be,their choice,i respect>that.....either way,i'll first look at their message.>i've more than once valued someone by his/her looks,only to>find out they were totally different.....that is why i think>you have to see the message,and not base your understanding of>the message on the looks of the messenger....that will hurt>them,but also you.>people can look like some kind of idiot,whilst really they are>a phd in whatever.now if YOU would not know them,you would>classify them as idiots,and maybe miss the most rewarding>experience of your life.>not simple...that is plain stupid.Knowing the identity of the author is not, repeat NOT, the same as prejudging them based on their looks. It is not unfair to weigh a person's words based on what you *know* about them and their history. If I know, for example, that a reporter had been cashiered by a prior employer for placing falsified information into his news reporting, I will take no detail in any of his future reporting for granted. That's not judging him by his looks, but by his prior deeds. And if I know a person has a history of getting onto a forum and abusively flaming others, I know to take his rantings for what they are. Without establishing an identity, the recalcitrant flamer can spew vitriol in anonymity without fear of getting himself recognized for what he is and what he does. Hence, to me and many others that I know, establishing an author's identity does indeed matter, especially when there are competing versions of the almighty "truth.".Second, there is a body of facts required as the basis for nearly all persuasive communication. On the internet, one can find all manner of things held up to all who would read them as "fact." There are "facts" cited about the flat geometry of the world, about underarm deodorant causing breast cancer, about aspartame/Nutrasweet as a carcinogen, about every kind of snake oil imaginable curing AIDS, cancer, etc etc. Without knowing the identity of the source, the "facts" these incredible works of misinformation rely upon cannot be examined and assessed. Again, knowing the source of the information is a necessary component for anyone interested in the validity of an argument or claim.So, bottom line, I firmly believe that asking the identity of someone I am debating in a public forum does not divert attention from the discussion...for me it adds another dimension to consider when reading/listening to their side. It helps lend perspective on where the other guy is coming from...and can make his/her argument either more or less persuasive.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V