What happened to the MAAM announcement post?

[Guest jaapverduijn]

Greetings Tom!I am fully prepared and willing to accept email correponcence, its veracity not being contested by either party, as the exact evidence that we all need to decide whether the agreements pertained therein have been violated or not. Since Rambow and Strine have loaded it upon all our shoulders to decide whether the written agreements have been violated, these agreements (in whatever form they were made) should be made available to us. Let them put their evidence where their mouth is, or otherwise shut up. Right now we are being manipulated in taking "agreements" that are not shown to us for Gospel, and I for one refuse to let myself be made a fool of that way. Why, I have been known to be perfectly able to make a fool of myself, without anybody's help (wide and wicked grin)!Jaap Verduijn.

[gosta 0]

Hi Tom,in the transcripts of the e-mails that were exchanged between Mr. Chaffin and Mr Strine, there was an explicit reference to a pre-existing agreement:"Actually, Roy, any photographs you took are covered by our agreement and they cannot be used for any commercial purpose - which this is - without permission - which I have withheld in accordance with our agreement. You are correct - those photographs do belong to you for your personal use - however you must not use them without first obtaining my permission in any endeavor aside from your personal viewing. You know that is true too."It's immaterial, whether this agreement was in writing or not - as long as it's not a will or a deed (which have to be in prescribed form), it can safely be called a 'contract' - why do people always try to make out the law to be even more complicated than it already is?Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

[gosta 0]

Hi Jaap,in that sense, I'll have to agree with you :).Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

[Guest jaapverduijn]

Greetings Tom van der Elst!"(...) the images prove enough,and,even more,because he doesn't have to tell you anything,mr president (...)"Wrong on both counts.Firstly the images don't even remotely prove that an agreement has been violated, as long as we don't know what the contents of that agreement were. For all we know the agreement might allow the exact thing Roy did (using parts of the work done by Rambow before the split-up) and the exact same thing Bill did (using parts of the work Chaffin did before the split-up). BOTH parties used part of the other crowd's work, and the fact the Rambow used parts of Chaffin's work makes it highly unlikely that a written agreement exists to NOT to do so. Otherwise Rambow wouldn't have done it, would he? Secondly, if Bill Rambow wants me to share his opinion that Roy has violated an agreement, OF COURSE he has to tell me what that agreement is. How else can I have any reasonable basis for sharing or not sharing his opinion? "(...) i am beginning to hate the fact i was born in Holland (...)"Ah, we finally agree on something. I also hate the fact that you were born in Holland (wide and wicked grin)!Jaap Verduijn.

[Guest Feek]

quote:"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."The accusations I see are that Roy has published an aircraft that uses graphical representations based on photographs that were taken of Briefing Time.The proof I see is the pictures of the beta version of Briefing Time compared to pictures of the RCS B-25 which are absolutely identical in places.I also read an email from Russ Strine to Roy Chaffin saying: "I reserve all copyrights to all simulations, images, and other representations of its (MAAM's) aircraft and liveries to include its panels, interiors, furnishings, both interior and exterior, nose art, names, markings, serial numbers, logos and proprietary sound bytes as well as the trademarks and monikers Mid Atlantic Air Museum, MAAM, MUSEUM REVIEW, MAAM-SIM, and World War II Weekend.

[Guest jaapverduijn]

Greetings Feek!The question whether, or even the simple fact that, Roy used one or more bitmaps that were, during the time of the late lamented cooperation, made by Bill Rambow based on photo's made by Roy Chaffin, IS NOT THE DEBATED ISSUE. The issue is whether, as Rambow and Strine claim, he did so in violation of an agreement made by him and MAAM after the split-up, and there's not a scrap of evidence either Russ Strine or Bill Rambow has produced to show us that he did.Sure, they keep hollering that Chaffin violated an agreement, but when asked to produce that agreement there's suddenly nobody home. The email that you quote from Russ Strine to Roy Chaffin cannot be regarded as the "written agreement" Strine and Rambow keep referring to. An agreement is by its very nature compiled by BOTH parties, and subsequently agreed upon by, again, BOTH parties. In the email I don't see any input or expressed agreement from Roy Chaffin; it's simply a one-sided "instruction" from Russ to Roy. Bill Rambow and Russ Strine keep referring to a "written agreement", which oddly enough they keep failing to produce. This makes me mighty suspicious, for such an alleged "written agreement" would be the ONLY piece of evidence that would beyond a shadow of a doubt prove whether all the accusations against Roy Chaffin are RIGHT or... WRONG. The failure to produce this essential piece of evidence begins to suggest to me that it either does not exist, or says something completely different from what Bill Rambow and Russ Strine want us to believe it says. As for Bill having used some of Roy's stuff: I'll look it up and if I am correct on the matter I will quote the relevant text for you, and if I turn out to be mistaken I will apologize for that.Jaap Verduijn.

[Guest WorkingStiff]

>>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.<

[Guest jaapverduijn]

Hi Feek!I quote Russ Strine in the last page of his statement: "There is a possibility that some of Roy's source photos could have been used in some of the final gauges". A person who makes such a godalmighty hullabaloo about another person allegedly having used some of YOUR stuff, might be expected to have taken extreme care to fully EXCLUDE "the possibility that some of Roy's source photos could have been used in some of the final gauges". Especially in a nasty case like this, you don't say "there's a possibility" that you did something, unless you seriously believe (or for a fact KNOW) that you DID something. What I would expect the upstanding and righteous MAAM crew to say is: "There is no way, NO WAY at all, that WE could have violated the written agreement". Instead they say that there is a possibility that they did the very same thing they are accusing Roy of.This whole case stinks from deep hell to high heaven. The constant failure of Russ and Bill to produce the "written agreement" which is the only piece of evidence that could prove them right and would satisfy ALL of us (including me) and would forever put an end to this nasty (but highly amusing!) soap, makes me pinch my nose in order not to constantly smell the big fat rat. Jaap Verduijn.(Edited in order to add the word "say" in a sentence where it was sorely lacking. J.V.)

[Guest IanP]

Jaap,We've been here before. I suspect we'll keep coming back here, because you aren't reading what was written.The photos are not at issue. The BITMAPS are at issue. Those are what is copyrighted to Bill Rambow and MAAM and those are what was used in the RCS Mitchell without MAAM, or Bill's, consent. Taking without consent is a - not the only - dictionary and legal definition of theft.Certainly in UK law, because as a system administrator I had to monitor it until recently, an e-mail is considered fully traceable and is a legally binding document. Therefore, if Roy Chaffin was told not to use any of the beta version bitmaps by Russ Strine in an e-mail, that is, in itself, a legally binding document. RCS - presumably Roy Chaffin himself as he claims full credit for the panel - ignored that legally binding document and used the bitmaps.I agree with your point that this matter could have been handled better, but claiming that RCS are in the right because of their silence is factually inaccurate. Personally, I suspect the lack of statements supporting Roy Chaffin's positon is because his he has no defending evidence, but that is for the whole community to decide. What is beyond doubt is that RCS have a right of reply and have chosen to keep their corporate head down rather than produce evidence proving MAAM's claims to be incorrect.MAAM-SIM have provided their evidence that their property was used without consent. Now let's hear the defence's case.Ian P.

[Guest IanP]

Can I suggest moving this to another, more suitable forum? It is no longer specifically FS2002 related and I think a few of the natives who aren't involved are getting fed up of it! :-hahIan P.:-halo

[Guest jaapverduijn]

Oh good lord, IanP, I constantly refer to Bill Rambow's BITMAPS that he made on the base of Roy Chaffin's photos. I really don't know how I can make that any clearer. NOBODY cares about the photos, it's the BITMAPS! We have no way to know what was taken without consent, without knowing the contents of the alleged "written agreement" pertaining to what could be taken and what could not. As for Russ Strine instructing Roy Chaffin not to use various stuff in his RCS add-on: that is, by itself, not a legally binding document or agreement that Roy would have to adhere to. It can ONLY be binding to Roy if it is in complience with the alleged "written agreement" Russ and Bill keep referring to, but that they so cleverly refuse to show to us. I'm not falling for the trick, mate. I am utterly willing to agree with Russ and Bill that the "agreement" says what they (Russ and Bill) say it says... as soon as they SHOW that agreement to me and i can SATISFY myself that it indeed says what Russ and Bill say it says.Until now Russ and Bill have failed to produce the only piece of evidence that would satisfy all of us, including me.If a messy matter like this can be settled SO EXTREMELY EASILY by the allegedly wronged party, yet this party continuously refuses to do so, I smell a rat. All they have to do is produce their alleged "written agreement". Really, nothing else is needed to settle this matter for once and for all. Don't YOU wonder why they keep appealing to, and asking our sympathy on base of, a document that they apparently cannot or will not show us? Don't you wonder what is REALLY in that document? Jaap Verduijn.(Edited twice for silly mistakes. J.V.)

[Guest WorkingStiff]

Jaap Verduijn,In msg #108684 you wrote the following; "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!"Then again in msg #108690 you also wrote, "In the same document. Russ admits that parts of the MAAM product are similar (or identical) to parts of Roy's product." You also said; ."And sure: by his own admission Bill certainly used some of Roy's work."I requested you to provide proof of such an admission and you replied in msg #108758 with "I quote Russ Strine in the last page of his statement: "There is a possibility that some of Roy's source photos could have been used in some of the final gauges".It is obvious to anyone reading that statement (except you apparently) that it is NOT an admission that material was inappropriately used, but rather that Russ Strine does not rule out the possibility that some material may have been used inadvertently.Finally, in msg #108755 you wrote; "As for Bill having used some of Roy's stuff: I'll look it up and if I am correct on the matter I will quote the relevant text for you, and if I turn out to be mistaken I will apologize for that."Well, you are mistaken so you do owe an apology. You asserted several times that MAAM used RCS' work but you have been unable to show proof. Isn't that the same thing you're asking of MAAM?

[Guest WorkingStiff]

>Not consuming, but amusing. I find it rather entertaining>(although sad...) to see how people whom I once respected put>so much energy into digging their own grave.>>As for my "agenda": that is having the Strine statement>removed from AVSIM, in order to prevent it from being further>instrumental in stirring up things, and backfiring against>MAAM. >>Jaap Verduijn.Since initially reading this thread yesterday I did not come back to the forums so I missed this response to my earlier comment.Based on your subsequent comments, I am led to believe that your "agenda" is certainly not what you stated. You aren't interested in things not "backfiring against MAAM." Rather, you seem to have been volunteered to mount a vigorous defense of RCS. If not, why so much time spent posting in this thread?

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

I concur... and am moving it to the Legal Experts, Pseudo Experts and Crusader's Forum (er the Hangar Forum) right now.

[Guest IanP]

"As for Russ Strine instructing Roy Chaffin not to use various stuff in his RCS add-on: that is, by itself, not a legally binding document or agreement that Roy would have to adhere to."Yes it is. The owner of the copyright says don't use it. That is not an agreement, that is a legal instruction. It doesn't matter whether the recipient of the instruction wants to accept it or not, he has to. Plain, simple, straight forward. If a written agreement exists, it backs that instruction up, but the instruction was given and is legally valid. RCS had no right, at all, to use MAAM's copyrighted material the moment authorisation to use it was removed.Roy Chaffin now has the burden of proof on him to show that he is not in breach of the instruction.Incidentally, before challenging what people know, find out who they are, first. That goes a couple of times for your posts on this thread.Ian P.