What happened to the MAAM announcement post?

[gosta 0]

Hi there,first I'd like to say that, if copyright law was as all-encompassing as a lot of paricipants in flight-sim forums make it out to be, you wouldn't be able to take a dump without violating the toilet manufacturer's copyright.As to the Australian case (Gutnick v Dow Jones Co), the plaintiff claimed that defamatory material has been published in his place of residence (i.e. Australia). Upon finding that the material was published on the Internet, and that thus was available world-wide, including the complainant's place of residence (Australia), the Australian court assumed jurisdiction over the matter. It's a no-brainer, really - the only surprising thing was that US lawyers actually tried to challenge the ruling (Don't they have a rule blacklisting vexatious litigants and their attorneys?) Cheers,Gosta.P.S. I'm aware that there are various states/territories in Australia - the actual case was filed in Victoria. http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

[gosta 0]

Hi Matt,>I stand corrected; didn't know this was a possible course of action.:)Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

[Guest JDH]

>I have noticed within the Fsim community that talented Primma>Donnas frequently pack up their bags and walk off the stage>with promises never to return. I notice that too, but I also notice that such people frequently get a helping kick out of the door, regardless of the impact on other FS users.

[Guest jaapverduijn]

"(...) as long as you draw up a contract that's enforceable in both jurisdictions, your interests will be protected (...)"Gosta, that's my exact point! It really is THAT easy! But for some odd reason Strine/Rambow have decided to go public and mobilize a lynch mob, instead of producing the alleged contract they have with Roy Chaffin and showing it to a Court of Law while pointing out which parts of the contract have allegedly been violated by Chaffin. Even stronger: they raise a goldalmighty stink with their statements and commentaries here on AVSIM, repeatedly referring to an alleged contract that they accuse Chaffin of violating, but when asked to produce and publish that contract here (it's also been asked on "other sites"), the reaction is absolutely zilch, nada, niente, zero, nitschewo. Repeatedly Bill Rambow has instructed us here on this site that any decent and ethic human being should without hesitation remove the RCS B-25 from his hard disc, and take sides with MAAM against RCS. Why should we do this? Because Rambow says Roy Chaffin has violated the terms of an alleged contract. When asked to produce said contract, Bill Rambow keeps silent in all languages, including my native Dutch. What is in fact happening, is that prosecutor Bill Rambow asks us to act as the jury in a kangaroo court, in order to condemn and sentence Roy Chaffin on the base of alleged evidence that the prosecution (Bill Rambow) REFUSES TO PRODUCE!Russ Strine and Bill Rambow have chosen NOT to go to a court of law, they have choosen to let US (the community) judge, and they have chosen to withold from us the main and essential piece of evidence: the alleged contract that was allegedly violated. What they have shown us instead, is some quite good evidence that some of the RCS stuff is based on copyrighted MAAM material. In the same document they admit that "inadvertently" (sic!) some of the MAAM stuff is based on copyrighted RCS material. Purleeeese! Neither facts mean a damn thing by themselves... they can ONLY mean something in the context of the wording of the contract Strine and Rambow keep referring too, but keep refusing to produce. As far as we all know, that mystical and mythical contract might contain a clause that gives BOTH parties permission to use to a certain extend copyrighted parts from their previous cooperation! WE DO NOT KNOW!Strine/Rambow expect us to take a pro-MAAM stance on the base of a contract that they refuse to put before our scrutinous eyes. I have a simple philosopy when it comes to taking sides: "You want me to side with you? Then show me EXACTLY why I should. Oh, you refuse to show me? Then forget about me siding with you". It really is THAT simple.Jaap Verduijn.

[Guest jaapverduijn]

Greetings A321!No, I'm not Australian, although I used to live there in my early twenties, which is longer ago than I care to remember. I'm Dutch. In order to prevent all possible accusations of partiality, I hereby declare that I dislike the Pommies as much as I dislike the Yanks as much as I dislike the Aussies as much as I dislike the Dutch (grin)!I heartily dislike mankind in general, a species that I consider an out-of-hand plague that has done, and is continuing doing, incredible damage to the planet they share with a (on account of human actions) rapidly diminishing number of other species. That's why I prefer flightsimming over working: when flightsimming I do no harm, but when working (I'm a politician...) I do a LOT of harm.Jaap Verduijn.

[Guest jaapverduijn]

Ha die Jan!Jouw Engels is minstens zo goed als het mijne, dus ten behoeve van de andere forumbezoekers zal ik mijn reactie maar in 't Engels geven.(Your English is at least as good as mine, so on behalf of the other forum visitors I will give my reaction in English)I fully understand where you and Bill Rambow come from, and without taking any position about who's right and who's wrong, I also understand that Rambow is pee'd off and wants to take action.However, he kept hollering that "We will supply the community with PROOF that Roy Chaffin STOLE things", but instead of giving actual proof, Russ Strine produced a document that showed quite remarkable similaties (not to say identicalities) between parts of Roy's product and the beta-version of Bill's product. In the same document Russ admits that parts of the MAAM product are similar (or identical) to parts of Roy's product. Yes? And so what? Russ and Bill base their concept of "theft" on, and keep referring to, an alleged contract that forbids both sides to use each others work, but refuse to show us that contract. As far as all of us know, that alleged contract might contain the exact OPPOSITE, namely permission for both sides to actually USE (parts of) each other's work that dates back to the sadly snuffed cooperation. If (I say IF) such a contract exists, and if (I say IF) it indeed contains what Strine/Rambow maintain it contains, they have a sound legal case against Roy Chaffin. As Gosta explained here on this forum, it is neither difficult nor expensive to settle this matter in court. So why on earth don't they DO that? If you accuse a person of a crime (copyright theft is not a misdemeanor but a felony!), and you can prove he is a thief on base of a contract he signed... why on earth NOT go to court and NOT produce the alleged contract? Why damage yourself and your organisation (MAAM) by raising a stink on internet without providing the ONLY piece of REAL evidence: THE CONTRACT?Right now all the accusations are backed up by NOTHING. Sure: it certainly looks like Roy used some of Bill's work. And sure: by his own admission Bill certainly used some of Roy's work. But as I said before: neither fact means a bloody thing. They can only mean something in the context of the contract, and if (I say IF!) this contract states that neither party can under any circumstances use the work of the other party, only THEN might Roy Chaffin be considered a thief, and be convicted in court.The interesting thing is that then, and only THEN, the same sad fate befalls Bill Rambow who, by the same contract wording which makes Roy a thief of Bill's stuff, makes Bill a thief of Roy's stuff. So it's pretty simple. The Strine document states that both parties used some of each other's stuff. This prevents MAAM from going to court to accuse RCS, because IF the "theft clause" in the contract exists, BOTH parties are guilty of theft, so what the court finishes up with is a thief accusing a thief, which might contribute to some mighty interesting jurisprudence!If, on the other hand, the "theft clause" does NOT exist in the contract, this equally prevents MAAM from going to court to accuse RCS, because then they simply have no legal leg to stand on. You see, Jan: all hinges on the exact clauses and wording of the alleged contract, and as long as Bill/Russ keep refusing to show us that contract and refuse to go to court, I keep smelling a great, big, Mid-Atlantic, flightsimulating rat. Now for something completely different (grin)! Would it be possible to remove the yoke from the virtual cockpit of Briefing Time? Your virtual cockpit is the only one I like to use (my compliments, mate!), but in stereo 3D (eDimensional glasses) the yoke, which is in a third plane of focus (or rather UN-focus) turns out to be a headache producing unfocussed blob...Met vriendelijke groeten,Jaap Verduijn.

[gosta 0]

Hi Jaap,it does not necessarily require a written document to have a valid contract - legally binding agreements can be verbal. I am not going to offer my opinion as to the strength of MAAM's case, as my position prohibits me from doing so. However, as far as presenting legal arguments goes, it may be worthwile to take a look at the following example - it's an appeal against sentence before the Court of Appeal in London. It's a criminal matter, but as such easier to understand for the layman than civil matters. I've argued quite a few cases before that court, but this particular judgment makes me chuckle, as the judges threw the case back in the faces of everyone involved...http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfi...v_whitehead.htmCheers,Gosta. http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

[Guest jaapverduijn]

Gosta, that case is a BEAUTY! Especially paragraph 21, where the fun begins! In a way it reminds me of the Florence Maybrick case back in the 1880's, where the court decided that there was not a single thread of proof that Florence poisoned her husband James, but since in the Victorian optics of the wigged worthies she was a "bad" woman, she must have done it anyway, and was duly convicted.Yes, I know that a verbal contract is as binding as a written one but (aside from the fact that the contents of verbal contracts are so damn hard to prove), I think (but I would have to look it up) that the Rambow/Strine documents mention the actual SIGNING of a contract, which would confine the possibilities to the existence of a WRITTEN one. Be well!Jaap Verduijn.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

I have news for you Jaap, when you volunteer to do something, the organization that you are volunteering to / for doesn't usually stick a contract under your nose and say "here, sign that". Volunteering is usually a matter of a commitment and a hand shake. I am pretty sure that no museum would demand a written contract of a volunteer, or at least at the level we are speaking of here. The contract lies in the verbal commitment and the trust between the two parties. Your argument; "show me the contract" tries to diminish the importance of character, trust and commitment. Three things that do, despite your apparent cynacism to the contrary, exist in the world and are the foundation of many partnerships, organizations and effort. Character, trust, commitment...

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

"Even stronger: they raise a goldalmighty stink with their statements and commentaries here on AVSIM, repeatedly referring to an alleged contract that they accuse Chaffin of violating, but when asked to produce and publish that contract here (it's also been asked on "other sites"), the reaction is absolutely zilch, nada, niente, zero, nitschewo"I could be wrong, but please point to me where you saw Rambow or Strine make reference to a written contract? I haven't seen that. Please provide a quote or link... And please see my message above.

[gosta 0]

Hi Jaap,>In a way it reminds me of the Florence Maybrick case back in the 1880's, where the court decided that there was not a single thread of proof that Florence poisoned her husband James, but since in the Victorian optics of the wigged worthies she was a "bad" woman, she must have done it anyway, and was duly convicted.:)Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg EDIT: BAD spelling mistake...

[Guest jaapverduijn]

Greetings Tom!"(...) We will present facts to prove that this add-on package has violated written agreements between the museum and RCS (...)" You can find this quote somewhere in the first dozen or so lines of Russ Strine's statement, right here on AVSIM.These "written agreements" have not been made availabe to us, so whatever facts Bill Rambow and Russ Strine present to us, we have no way to know whether they contribute to the violating of said agreements. By now I begin to have the feeling that these "written agreements" either don't exist at all, or have completely different contents from what Rambow/Strine want us to believe they have. Yet the whole issue could be so VERY easily solved by backing op the accusations with the contents of the alleged written agreements.Right now the only thing I see is a couple of people I once respected, making very unpleasant fools of themselves.Jaap Verduijn.

[Guest jaapverduijn]

Hi Gosta!Yes, of course you are correct: nowadays these things have far less chance to happen, thank God!The parallels I saw, and why I mentioned Florence Maybrick, is because both cases convey the (in the modern case very amusing!) impression that even if you're right, you're wrong (wide and wicked grin)!Jaap Verduijn.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Ah, I do believe those "written agreements" refer to email correspondance between the parties at the time of the break up. I think Strine or Rambow allude to that later on in the same document. Could be wrong, but that's how I interpret that reference.

[Guest crashing_pilot]

quoteunquotebecause the images prove enough,and,even more,because he doesn't have to tell you anything,mr president.imho the arguments brought forward are indeed enough.i take it you do not have paint shop pro,or mspaint for that matter,or maybe you did not wear your glasses.but ofcourse,there are not much decent and ethic human beings left here in holland. quoteunquotethis is the exact reason i am beginning to hate the fact i was born in Holland.and also the reason why our country is going to h###.i mean,if even our politicians are preferring flightsimming over practicing politics,and doing something usefull,i can see why our country is quickly becoming the laugh of the world. ofcourse,this is just my opinion.Tom.