 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.234.207.190
Geoff has taken my photo of the Clever Little Clock and posted it on his website (www.machinadynamica.com/) for commercial gain. At no time did he ask for permission, nor would I have ever granted it; I clearly posted two negative reviews of the CLC. Heck ... He didn't even give me photo credit.It makes me wonder what other unethical activity he's capable of (e.g. the glowing anonymous feedbacks come immediately to mind). Of course, this is coming from a man who loses no sleep selling $30 outlet covers, $65 thirty-second beeping phone calls, $160 rocks in a mason jar, and $230 low quality spring sets.
Geoff, if you're reading this, remove my intellectual property from your site ASAP and post a public apology. I'm sure Warner Bros doesn't appreciate your use of their Contact movie photo either. I also encourage you to read up on IP laws.
Follow Ups:
not good representation of his business. Or maybe it is.
...on his own website it would clear things up? Or not.
I am new here, relativrly, and was drawn in to this discussion for some hellish reason. I went to the machinadynamica site and i can't figure out if it's a joke or not. Surely it's not serious it what it claims its products accomplish in regards to sonic improvements. The Crazy Little Clock? The wall outlet plastic thingy? The pebbles in the mason jar? Huh? It's like the Onion of hi-fi, right?
Well?
The horse is dead, as is the goat and the cow. Please use the emergency exits. We apologize for any inconvenience.
I'll take some old goat on a spit.
That's what we're down to. ;~)
HUZZAH!
Be at my house pronto!
No apology or abything... obviously made of poor moral fibre.
Or do you just play the part on the Internet?
... and he doesn't seem to have the scruples to apologise or even admit it.
I'd really like to see your counter argument to the above. Please try and stick to the point.
Including the so-called 'main' point.
Wellfed, you have not done yourself any favors in this thread. Kait fucked up, period. Whether the stuff he peddles "works" or not, putting that pic on the MD site without permission was wrong. I've read your posts and can not find a post of yours which acknowledges that.
Jesus and judgement day?! Man, that's offensive, and surely does not belong on an audio forum.
BTW - my BOZO ALERT post was a parody of Clark's idiotic batch of STALKER ALERT posts.
nt
I'm sorry to see that you've adopted Clark's bluster tactics. Its not becoming.
...but due to the fact that I genuinely like you, and that despite YOUR own bluster, look at my response to Len_'s WWJD posting.
Providing a link is technically inconvenient for me right at the moment.
Write down the post number for god's sake, even with just one browser window it's not complex.
Btw: Tabbed browsers are less resource hoging- Firefox for example allows the use of tabs so you have multiple pages without the large resource increase of running 2 instances of your browser. They'd be on the 'file' menu or equivalent, and can be opened by right clicking as well.
...if you think I would manually write down a URL and then manually type it in again to show you and Rick W where I comment on Geoff's faux pas with Len_'s picture, er.., Intellectual Property.
As for Firefox, or anything else for that matter, I've already told you, I don't have Administrator priveleges where I'm visiting.
Just look at my response to Len_'s WWJD posting. It's not much, but I do think it enough to contradict charges of dodging. Little people accuse Geoff Kait of fraud all the time without substantiation, is that somehow more ethical than Geoff's use of Len_'s picture, er.., Intellectual Property?
It's difficult for me to post a link right now, but follow Len_'s 'WWJD?' thread to see where I state that I don't defend Geoff's action. I think that's the thread anyway. The computer I'm using has low resources and is unable to display two browser windows simultaneously with any reliability.
That's the only other reference to the inability to post a link that I can find, and it says nothing about not having admin priviledges. Asserting that 'I already said that' is nothing if you can't substantiate it. The expectation for you to 'do your homework' with some substantiation, however, is entirely reasonable- The attitude you've taken "I don't feel like putting the effort in" just doesn't cut it if you want to be heard.
...but I really don't understand why you wouldn't just take my word for it. I really don't understand why we're even talking about the issue unless you're just trying to waste our time. I don't understand why you would want to waste our time unless you are a badman like rlw or something?
What do you want from me anyway mister?
;-)
An expectation I extend to all those who call my ethics into question in a public forum. If you're going to make personal accusations, you better have some justification that you can point to, otherwise you're just namecalling.
Just kidding. ;-)
What sort of justification you looking for? I didn't know they pulled the Cable Asylum post I alluded to. Do you think folks calling Geoff Kait a fraud or a charlatan should be required to justify their comments? I demand a public apology from each and every one of them. It better be sincere too. ;-)
I mean, it's a universal instinct. Ya aint gunna make headway against human nature Baddy.
I think a good bout of name calling and a couple pecks of unsubstantiated accusations makes this whole endevor reek of humanity.
:-)
endeavor :)
Please send me the links where you've asked questions that weren't answered or where you requested links.
s
nt
Copied below is my response to your recent post of the same vein:
-------------------------------------------------
Clark,
Your paranoia and/or ego is showing. I haven't known you for years. I can only recall a couple of past threads I've participated where you were involved.
You and Wellfed are perfectly complimentary creatures. Both of you resort to name calling, motive accusations, and empty one-liners (whose attempt at wit usually misses the mark) without actually talking about anything of merit. Lest you think I'm out on a limb, I'm not the only one that has posted this observation. "No ammo in his tube?" I hardly think you're one to talk.
What names did I call you? Or for that matter, that person (There's a name! "Mom, he called me a person!") who's been stalking me for years, with whose exertions you're apparently unacquainted.
Stalking is an activity practiced by someone who first targets his quarry, then steps into a discussion in which he has not otherwise participated, or very little, in order to insult another. You'll find, should you care to check, that I have several such, ah... admirers. And that their, ah... contributions have frequently been excised by the moderators. That's not "paranoia", that's fact. My own plea, often expressed, is that the posts be left -- as examples of stalker fury. And fury is exactly why I said there's no ammo in his tube, it's only pure spite.
So: Is it still "a vast majority"? (Not!...)
And are you proud of the fact that in your efforts to denigrate the provider of an item that didn't happen to work for you, you took a small what-should-have-been-private issue to the boards?
And are you surprised that many saw right through the charade?
Just wonderin'...
clark
to accuse you of being a "reviewer".
Your *underwoods* are refreshingly more than de rigeur bullet-pointed postulates on dingy items offered up from the audio-industial-complex.
They are, perhaps, peculiar ramblings coursing in always humane rivulets and pinballing between the technical and spiritual, from a *Clarksonian* unsuspended and often unproven reality (I don't mind) to the freedom of a pure literature. Keep it up, dammit.
Steve
7 out of those 10 posts on Shady or Outside, you might lack a bit of history regarding what Clark laughably terms "stalking". Seems to me that if anyone "bubbled up from the ether" its you.
Bubble up I shall.
There is some problem with your history tracker. I have posted WELL over a hundred times all over the place,just not in the last few years..
I used to be Brinkmann until the importer of Brinkmann Electronics asked me to change my nick. Maybe you can look there.
And i was just futzing about if ya cant tell... trying to pay Clark a sincere compliment. I value entertainment and a good twistyplot.
Steve
w
You guys have really dragged this discussion WAY off course.
You've accused me of being stalker, called me a "scamp," questioned my motives, et al. These are all ad hominems and logical fallacy. But I'm resigning myself to the conclusion that neither you or Wellfed care for the conventions of logic and are hell-bent on steering the discussion to fit your agendas.
I haven't followed your online activities and don't know (or care to know) who you are. But if it makes you feel more self-important to think of me as a stalker, so be it. Your declaration of having other "admirers" really is truly telling of your ego. Whatever floats your boat.
"And are you surprised that many saw right through the charade?"
Who are these "many" you refer to? I count you and Wellfed.
I don't care to support any majority claim as it's Bandwagon fallacy. But you're welcome to fixate on it if it suits you.
Geoff violated my intellectual property. How do you gloss over this and choose to attack me instead?
...my regular antagonist. Geez Luiz.
"If it makes you feel more self-important to think of me as a stalker, so be it." Again, missed by a long shot.
"Your declaration of having other 'admirers' really is truly telling of your ego." This remark shows you're immune to irony.
"Who are these 'many' you refer to? I count you and Wellfed." They were enumerated earlier.
"I don't care to support any majority claim as it's Bandwagon fallacy." Hoo boy! I might have this wrong, but weren't you the first (forget Hillary) to utter the phrase, "vast majority"? By golly, you were! This is just like when you accused me of "disctioary" "defining" and I had done no such thing, the word was all yours.
"Geoff violated my intellectual property." I see the "knowingly" has now been omitted; change noted.
"How do you gloss over this and choose to attack me instead?" Never glossed, simply called it a petty mistake for which you needn't have gone public and have *continued the discussion* once it became apparent there were geoff bashers clinging to you.
clark
My apologies if the stalker comment was not directed at me. You used ambiguous pronouns. In discussions where Wellfed was talking about me ("You'd think Geoff Kait gave len_ a snuggy or something"), you responded to his post with the following: "Naw, he's just a stalker. Been nipping and yapping at me for years. No ammo in his tube, tho. nt". I now understand you weren't referring to me, but hopefully you can see why I thought it was.
I did make the majority statement earlier and regret doing so. I am not perfect and definitely not immune from logical fallacy (especially when I'm debating with people who refuse to abide by the rules of logical engagement). The difference between you and I, however, is that I attempt my best to refrain from fallacies in order to perpetuate meaningful and reasonable discussion. You don't seem to care. That's fine. Rhetorical arguments (e.g. your pithy one-liners) can be fun. Not very useful, but fun. And maybe fun is all you're trying to get out of this.
I never used the word "knowingly" and "violated" in conjunction. I did say he knowingly took intellectual property (photo) that wasn't his. Can we get off this semantic merry-go-round?
I don't think what Geoff did was a petty mistake. It's your right to hold that opinion. I value intellectual property rights and ethics. Going public yielded results. It also makes people aware of this situation. What's wrong with letting people know what Geoff did?
That any "bashers" latched on to the conversation is not my responsibility. Neither is it my burden that "fanboys" latched on. You guys are all mature, sentient beings (or at least you should be). Shoulder your own accountability, please.
...denied he used the "bandwagon" argument (although you had), mistook a thread section topped by stalker Rick W for his own, dropped the word "knowingly" after being chided about it (but that's OK) etc. etc. and then has the nerve to write, "The difference between you and I, however, is that I attempt my best to refrain from fallacies."
Whew!
And then, "What's wrong with letting people know what Geoff did?" Nothing! But the proper and polite form, sir, is to inform him of your concern privately; *then* if he doesn't respond, you air the laundry.
Your one correct statement is, "That any 'bashers' latched on to the conversation is not my responsibility." But you can see surely how you enabled them.
clark
"But the proper and polite form, sir, is to inform him of your concern privately; *then* if he doesn't respond, you air the laundry."
I won't lie. I have no motivation to be polite with Geoff. This is a man who infringed on my IP. This is a man who unashamedly took my photo from my negative review of his product, making a smug comment about the photo quality and then secretly put it on his commercial website. This is a man who publicly called me a liar not too long ago when I said something negative about his merchandise, openly declaring I actually never owned his products and that I was fabricating my remarks. This is a sophomoric man inclined to belittle customers who speak poorly of his products.
This is the man you defend and ask I be polite with. Not that the truth isn't impolite ....
nt
You're selective indignation over unethical behavior strikes me as adolescent and hypocritical. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points.
It is a personal opinion. It's apparently one you disagree with. Normally, people don't throw a tantrum over these types of disagreements.
nt
I don't know. The whole time, you've been calling me names, making disparaging remarks about my character, and brow-beating a dead horse. I suppose one man's complaint is another man's tantrum/whine. For certain, you've made it perfectly clear you think my complaint has been a whine from post #1.
It served as a tirade against MD. Had you done the proper thing and notified MD via e-mail, this might never have arisen. But, no: you had to go public first.
Had Geoff not responded, *then* this would have been the next step.
clark
I have no problem with your opinion that my complaint was petty. I disagree. Geoff took my intellectual property without permission (some would define this as stealing) and used it for his own gain. I made this public knowledge as I think people should be aware of this. He took my photo from my negative review of his product and spun the situation to his advantage, leading me to reiterate how poor I think his products are.
Call me petty. To date, you've not reprimanded Geoff. Some could construe this as tacit approval of Geoff's actions.
I was quick to jump in and pretty much say that his use of your picture may well reveal deeper shady business practices on the part of GF. So clearly I'm no GF fanboy... but, Clark makes a lot of sense in his point about contacting GF privately and then going public if there's no satisfactory response. It also appears that in saying so, he was agreeing that it was wrong for GF to take and use the photo and supported the idea of a public outing if the situation weren't remedied.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
I did send an email.
I'm not sure who benefits (except Geoff) if we never knew about this situation. I've already admitted on a few previous occasions that my purpose wasn't just to right the wrong, but also to inform people about it.
FWIW, this is not the first time someone has infringed on my intellectual property. Historical experience did factor in my decision on how to respond in these scenarios. Fortunately, I did not have to resort to more severe measures such as contacting ISPs.
Is yer postition?
Mom was right again!
Len tried to right a wrong wrongly.
So we have one right and two wrongs. Now, logically, if two wrongs make a right, then we have
(right + (wrong+wrong)) = (right + right).
Now suppose two rights make a wrong as any right thinking person might well suppose. So then
(right + right) = wrong.
Now we have arrived happily at your position with both oars in the water! Len is definitely wrong. But ONLY IF two wrongs make a right.
Et Voila.
But your very first constant is wrong, so I declare your beautiful formula invalid!
d
...but why wasn't everyone so lucky?
m
You're a really big crybaby Len_. This thread really SHOULD have gone to Whiner's Woad.
... I thought I read all your posts in this thread. Nowhere do I see you addressing the main point directly. Could you post the URL to your post where you explicitly address the main point of this thread?
Or perhaps we can take a differeth tack. Please respond categorically with a "Yes" or "No" answer only...
Do you agree that GK committed Intellectual Property Theft?
I'm more interested in Len_'s own tomfoolery as you can presumably tell.
Well? :)
But in all sincerity, I don't know why you have so much vested interest in MD discussions. You can't possibly be defending Geoff's action (or perhaps I'm mistaken).
From what I can surmise, you think others are nuts for thinking you're nuts.
I don't defend Geoff's action, but if you're really concerned with righting wrongs, you certainly could have started long ago and not terribly far away. Are you really an upstanding crusader for justice, or merely a sensitive little man? I believe I know the answer based on your activity today.
As for what others think of me, please, I'm 50 years old. That concern left me the day I turned 49. ;-)
As for what others think of me, please, I'm 50 years old. That concern left me the day I turned 49. ;-)
Late bloomer, eh? :)
se
...of facetiousness. Romulans embrace it like there's no tomorrow. Not that I care what you think. ;-) ;-)
And give the money you would send MD to charity? Bet you would have a better chance at improving system than the MD tweaks...And sure you would feel better inside than this endless defending of MD products.
I'll stay with the project, Lord willing of course.And why not simply have your customers give their money to charity instead of purchasing your speakers if you're THAT concerned?
Thats a great idea? We already give a % to autism charitys, if folks want to donate full purchase price of any of my loudspeakers to charity wonderful;)I will give them a free tee shirt.Fight the good fight
Why not just pray for their current speakers to get the job done and give ALL the money to charity. What's good for the goose you know.
Bet this will be a new MD tweak, charge folks $125 and MD will pray for your systems sonic improvement.Lasts 4 months then just resend funds for a recharge.
nt
You really have placed your flagpole on high ground.
PS I am Brinkamnn of yesterday. A variety of errors on my part and on the site's part caused this. Thanks Clark for resolving the issue :-)
More ad hominems. It's good to see that at least you're consistent.
I never claimed to be a crusader of anything. Geoff did something unethical. I wanted it addressed and I also wanted everyone to know about it. This has been my stance from post one. I have never said anything to suggest otherwise.
I'm not sure what you mean by "started long ago." My photo was inappropriately posted onto his website a couple days ago. Not sure what you mean by "terribly far away" either.
...and that MD springs are of inferior quality. Where you get these ideas, and why you chose to bring them up is beyond me.
If I had to guess, I'd say it's due to some serious issue involving hatred and angst. You have all the appearance of someone looking for offense.
WWJD? He'd tell you, if you are free of sin, cast the first stone.
...an unknowing misappropriation of a web-mounted pic?
Who says yes!?
clark
I drank the MD cool-aid.
I have the clocks the outlet covers, the brilliant pebbles, THE PROMETHEAN SPRINGS, and done the phone tapping- ALL HAVE BEEN WELL WORTHWHILE. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you can't appreciate what it does for you. IE WOMEN
Geoff knowingly took intellectual property that wasn't his. There is still intellectual property on his website that he shouldn't be using. He only removed my photo because I caught him in the act.I did not post any willful misrepresentation of MD products. First of all, you would have to prove motive (an ability which you and Wellfed seem to stake authority). Second, the only possible misrepresentation I made was with the material composition of the wall cover. I still don't know for sure that it isn't some plastic polymer. However, I gave Wellfed the benefit of the doubt and promptly edited my allegedly incorrect "plastic" assertion because Wellfed claims the outlet is not made of plastic (though he failed to correct me on what it is made of).
Edit:
For the sake of accurate representation, I did a little research into the MD outlet covers. Here's a thread of someone who reviewed the product: http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=tweaks&n=137157&highlight=tru&r=&session=
It's apparently made of ceramic and produced in China by a New Jersey company named Amertac. These products are distributed Home Depot, Walmart, Lowes, Target, et al.
And you know it was *knowingly* a violation, how, exactly? "First of all, you would have to prove motive" (I quote).
Then: "It's apparently made of ceramic and produced in China by a New Jersey company named Amertac. These products are distributed Home Depot, Walmart, Lowes, Target, et al." Note the fudge word "apparently". Note too the pronoun shift from "it" (the MD plate) to "these", the general products of that apparent company. Was that willful? Knowing? Hmmm?
clark
I didn't say it was knowingly a violation. I said Geoff knowingly took a photo that he knew was not his.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with your grammar nitpicking. "It" to "these" suggests nothing insidious to me, but maybe you're reading something into it that I'm not (and surely did not intend). I'm also not sure why you consider "apparently" a "fudge word." Having seen the back engraved logo of the Tru-Tone photos provided in the linked review, it is apparent who manufactured Tru-Tone.
This conversation is getting too crazy for me.
And one
More ad hominems and pejorative characterizations. Absolutely zero substantial argument. It's like shadow boxing.
"He'd tell you, if you are free of sin, cast the first stone." That's a easy (though not terribly inventive) way of excusing yourself of bad behavior.
P.S. Does any of my disparaging comments (limited to one short paragraph in this 100+ post thread) about MD products matter? You continue to dodge the real issue here, and that is Geoff behaved unethically. And yet, all you've done is try to reprimand me ... and never Geoff. Go figure. Do we really want to play the "I know what your motive is" farce of a game?
You have proven quite the master of dodging the salient issue by attempting (rather unsuccessfully) to poison the well.
Now I know you have a problem.
Will you look at that? Another ad hominem with absolutely no rational argument of relevance.
My image has been removed from MD's website (minutes ago, it appears). However, I have also found out Geoff used my image in one of his Audiogon ads, and I'll ask he cancel or edit that ad as well.
I guess I don't have to bother his ISP any more ;)
FWIW, I think Shady Lane is a pretty fitting place for this thread. General would've been better, of course ;)
N/T
"I always play jazz records backwards, they sound better that way"
-Thomas Edison
.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
nt
...I wonder, do they post their own reviews of their products as well?
...in the morning will this thread be
- on Whiners
- in Isolation
.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
so the general population can be made aware of such practices and consider for themselves how they might seep into other aspects of how GF/MD does business.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
You know: the garish and brazen part about all this is that Geoff knew that the posted photo accompanied a negative review. It almost seems like a "see what happens when you write something bad about my product" type of response. :P
Which I think he kinda was doin'. Playin' cat and mouse. Flirting with the boundaries. Prollem is his game is taking place within a seemingly serious commercial and legal entity with all the responsibilities that entails.
He shoulda kept the play to the playpen.
s
s
That the normal MD shrills turned it into a circus, discussing everything *except* the question of I.P., should not be reason to move to post.
That said many of the off topic responses could certainly be moved!
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
someone opened the looney bin on this one and all the crazies got out!!
...what's innings pitched got to do with audio?
Oh....never mind.
Although I think it should stand for India Pale.
I'm hoping neither ;) I suppose it can be regarded as a whine, but I've never regarded IP violation as trivial or childish (which is how I differentiate a complaint from a whine). This thread doesn't really have anything to do with tweaks, so it shouldn't go to Iso.
it will be in Isolation.
a
Maybe I should hedge my bets. How many yo-yos do you want to play for?
s
Good! I was having second thoughts about that bet. We've injected too much fun into this now, so it will probably stay.
(nt)
Man, that's pretty sad when a manufacturer has to swipe someone else's photograph of their own product to put on their website.
But given that horribly blurry photo of his own he's got on the CLC page, I can understand why he'd want to swipe yours.
se
N/T
"I always play jazz records backwards, they sound better that way"
-Thomas Edison
Apart from the specific legal issue of the use of the image, is there any other issue such as misrepresentation? Their site shows a picture of the clock, with a caption under the picture which strongly suggests that it is a picture of the clock in a $500k system, with a quotation from someone (strongly implication that it is the owner of the system) raving about how the clock improved that system. The caption to the picture is as follows:
"Well, Machina Dynamica's Li'l Clock performs as described --
and this is in a $500K + system!! Even the sound through my Stax
Speakerphones is improved! The ultimate audio accessory!!"
Is the quotation and context of the picture also suspect?
The caption is not mine, although now that people have mentioned it, it does seem like that caption relates to MY photo. I can see why that is also construed as misrepresentation.
But my beef is with the infringement of my copyrighted material.
. nt
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
listen to the local yokel yodel.
(nothing beats live!)
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
s
I was amused for a while, but it is getting rather depressing :P
I suggest someone start reading these documents:
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/copyright/basics.htm
I am studying business law and specifically internet copyright issues. Intellectual property (IP) created by someone and posted on the internet belongs to the owner or originator, plain and simple. Permission must be sought to post IP to other sites. There are some ways people can post IP legally, however, I am not going to cover that here. School is out tonight.
V/r
Audioquest4life
When a site requires registration to post, it is clearly spelled out.
Cheers, John
I don't know of any online community that requires you to surrender your copyrights as a condition for posting. Some will require you to agree to specific uses (such as using your material to promote their website only on their website). Blanket forfeiture of your copyright is unreasonable and unheard of.
IMPORTANT: All posts made in the Audioholics Forums become and remain the property of Audioholics (previously copyrighted works notwithstanding - which are illegal to post in the forums). Membership is optional and we reserve the right to keep, delete, modify or otherwise manipulate and/or publish any photos, text or data submitted to these forums. If you want something kept private, don't publish it in a public forum!
Did you copyright the material in question??
John
John,Any material that you originally create is automatically copyrighted per the Berne Copyright Convention. You don't need to file with the US (or any government for that matter) copyright office in order to copyright a material. FYI: this post of mine was copyrighted the nanosecond I wrote it. So was your's.
Audioholics rules are unreasonable and legally ambiguous. I would hesitate to post content I wish protected on a discussion forum with such an irrational and unclear set of rules. I visited their website to read their FAQs. It's clear - by the content and colloquial lexicon - whoever wrote it has little legal knowledge. They really should get a professional to review their rules. It would open a can of worms should they get sued.
I'm glad I followed this thread down the lane..
Cheers, John
This site's rules license other inmates to use a post, but only on this site. In other words, if you post a review of the "Supersonic" amplifier here, as a condition for posting, you license other inmates to use any or all of that review, but only in their posts here. So, if the manufacturer of the Supersonic amplifier wants to quote your review here in its promotional materials, it has to get permission.
"... if the manufacturer of the Supersonic amplifier wants to quote your review here in its promotional materials, it has to get permission."
From whom? ... permission from the AA, or permssion from the member, or both?
(I realize not directly related to the issue at hand, just curious.)
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
x
And a writer, no less.
nt
s
on his A'gon ad?
Unless there's specific written permission from the Yale grad/20mil per movie actress, I'm pretty sure that's illegal, 'Fair Use' or not.
Fair use exist. What Geoff did would not qualify for this exception.
What's fair about stealing a picture? If that's fair I'd LOVE to come to your house to browse some of the delicious lp's you have. There's some things I could use. Fair enough?
Hee hee fair enough! It's Steve Osborn Clark. Long time no see. I shall never forgive you for getting me into this mess back in 1991.
I have browsed before and may yet browse again!
...you'd have to identify yourself, which apparently you don't care to do. So, no go.
clark
But you're not alone by any means.
old Randi using some photo of yours (without permission) underneath which appeared the following:
"Well, once again the Audio Mystics slinked away from a challenge
to demonstrate their fanciful claims."
You'd have no "issues" I take it?
LOL
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
...and that his website is of inferior quality?
Hey Wellfed,
When everyone (except perhaps Clark) is telling you you're behaving badly, it's probably not that everyone else has the problem with perception. Occam's razor would say it's probably you behaving badly.
But feel free to ignore the issue and deride me (and every one else who disagrees with you). It is the convenient thing to do.
Is that ad hominem enough for you?
it was far far worst!
What a spectacle!
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
Have you changed your diet or something?
Yeah! Serious photographio issues. I dont blame MD for borrowing pictures! Just look at the quality of the other pics on that sight. Can't a clever little clock or a brilliant pebble or some finely crafted springs do anything help a digicam?
by the products being photographed. Or something.
If thats true, and I am prepared to believe it, then the clock doesnt work. Or perhaps it's that Len's is broken and not representational of the working clock. In which case MD has posted a pic of a broken clock.
Isn't it obvious that you've addressed everything but the *main point* in the initial post of this thread? One thing is certain. Kait did, apparently without asking permission, post Len's pic on the MD site. Truthfully, I'm no expert on net law regarding issues like this. Maybe someone who *is* can chime in.But whether its lawful or not, IMO its at the least a tad unseemly, particularly since the photograph was taken and posted by someone who ain't exactly a booster of MD offerings. The caption Kait placed underneath the pic expresses pretty much the opposite of what the photographer feels about the "product". I can't imagine respected hifi companies doing something like that. Can you? If so, please give me an example.
It is against the law. I could bring a civil suit against MD, but we all know how impractical that is. There are, of course, other "corrective" measures that I am ready to take.
If you won, you'd probably be paid in CLC and magic rocks.
Rational human being, recovering audiophile 2007
Can you elaborate on your statement?
why did you clutter this board with it? A phone call would have been more manly.
Because I wanted to make this problem (and Geoff's modus operandi) public knowledge. I make no pretenses otherwise. I've also discovered from experience that resolutions to problems like this are often expedited when played out in the public.FWIW, an email to Geoff has already been dispatched.
Or anyway more than just once or twice. Perhaps you could point out some of the other instances?
"It makes me wonder what other unethical activity he's capable of (e.g. the glowing anonymous feedbacks)." And such feedbacks are "unethical" how, exactly?
And for the record, I happen to know the utterer of one of those, and he says it's rendered correctly. Where does that leave your own (unethical?) charges?
clark
The Warner Bros Contact photo. The phonons.gif is not his own, nor is jadeite-s.gif. I don't believe the graphical work for the Teleportation Tweak is Geoff's creation. There are other images on his website that are highly suspect too.My hunch is this all goes in one ear and out the other. You and Wellfed seem intent on defending not only all of Geoff's products but all of his actions and character as well.
I've only tried a couple of them. Three, come to think. And they all work wonderfully well. The others... I haven't discussed.
What I do do, is defend him (as I would, and have, anyone) against absurdities hurled by folks who generally haven't auditioned his products. And that's what this discussion is all about, isn't it? You come up with a really petty post with a grandiose claim of "intellectual property" infringement, to wit a pic, when you could simply have asked him to cease use.
But, no. As the discussion has unfurled, it's all about people's outrage over things they simply believe can not be .
clark
I've tried two of his products. Maybe I'm only 66.7% as qualified to comment as you are.This discussion isn't about his products. It's about intellectual property infringement (and Geoff's behavior), which is exactly what it is. I did ask him to cease. I have not received a response yet.
Have you not noticed that the vast majority of others commenting have commented on the central issue (IP violation)? It is you and Wellfed that argue about MD products.
On the one hand, under your post as first responses we have badman and dogscanskate and bjh and musetap and AAA discussing personalities and the usual "snake oil" stuff (that makes 5), with Larry I and Audioquest4life weighing in on the notional property issue.
So when you assert, "The vast majority of others commenting have commented on the central issue (IP violation)", your imagined "vast majority" sits on the opposite side of the aisle. And another person (Mike B) wondered why you were cluttering the board.
Well, well, well.
clark
Are you purposing omitting the input from RickW, Powermatic, bjh (his other posts), and Steve Eddy?Well, well, well indeed. This is but one reason why having a rational discussion with you is terribly challenging.
...although I consider those two not even worth the click... and Eddy weighed in a little later, let's be fair... you'd still not have a "vast majority". Heck, you wouldn't even have a majority!
This is but one reason why having a rational discussion with you is terribly challenging, as you would say. Only, you're looking in a mirror.
clark
nt
...by the way he's squeeling and carrying on. And you think Clark is the Bozo in this retarded little vignette?
x
Clark,
Your paranoia and/or ego is showing. I haven't known you for years. I can only recall a couple of past threads I've participated where you were involved.
You and Wellfed are perfectly complimentary creatures. Both of you resort to name calling, motive accusations, and empty one-liners (whose attempt at wit usually misses the mark) without actually talking about anything of merit. Lest you think I'm out on a limb, I'm not the only one that has posted this observation. "No ammo in his tube?" I hardly think you're one to talk.
Are you purposing omitting the input from RickW, Powermatic, bjh, and Steve Eddy?
Well to be fair, Clark's post came just one minute after mine, and he may well not have seen it. Some folks will just hit the Back button which doesn't refresh the page.
Don't let Clark ruffle your feathers. :)
se
It's always more fun when you're around to nitpick :)
It's always more fun when you're around to nitpick :)
Yeah, well I don't indulge so much these days. Trying to get back my girlish figure.
se
Well...
Unless you like your feathers ruffled. I dont mind a good hearty hullabaloo no no no.
Remember in the end there is the acid test. If you drown, yer a witch!
Steve
Unless you like your feathers ruffled.
True enough.
I dont mind a good hearty hullabaloo no no no.
I confess, I don't mind a hearty hullabaloo myself from time to time. Try it with a nice dollop of tangy brouhaha sometime. Mmmmm! Good stuff, Maynard!
Remember in the end there is the acid test. If you drown, yer a witch!
Hmmm. It thought it was if you float you're a witch? Or am I thinking of the Monty Python version?
se
> Remember in the end there is the acid test. If you drown, yer a witch!
> > Hmmm. It thought it was if you float you're a witch? Or am I thinking of the Monty Python version?
If you drown you're a sad excuse for a witch... should'a taken up crochet instead.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
Wow you are a nitpicker dammit. Yes yes it's the other way around but it's nice to think the witch drowns in the end. It's the American Way for the good guy to win...at least since John Wayne and Clint Eastwood.
Wow you are a nitpicker dammit.
Well of course. Jeff wouldn't go around just makin' shit up about me. He's a friend.
Yes yes it's the other way around but it's nice to think the witch drowns in the end. It's the American Way for the good guy to win...at least since John Wayne and Clint Eastwood.
Not to mention... Randolph Scott ( chorus Randolf Scott!).
se
d
What's up with that? Which brings us back to the agenda thing, what is it about MD products that makes you stoop to such tactics?
Would you like me to?
Let's begin with detailing what "some SERIOUS issues" refers to.
r
Len,
You're still advertising for Machina Dynamica? Hey, nothing wrong there, last time I saw the picture you posted of the CLC, my system all of a sudden started sounding better :)!
Can't wait to see how your mods are coming along in converting the CLC to vacuum tube drivers/nixie tube outputs!
Keep me posted, I'm a sucker for them there tweaks ;)!
Hey dogs, paypal me $50 and I'll give your system a cyber hug. I promise you you'll feel better and your system will sound better :)
Sure thing Len :)... You get 50$ if and only if you sing me a song that'll make my system sing along. Then I can tape it and post it on kuma's website and you can sue me ;)!
Seeing as MD is used to getting something for nothing (Teleportation tweak) and people go along with this, obviously ones property is not ones own, and accordingly, the use of this image is not infringement. MD has full rights to the wallet of those who buy the 'products', and full rights to anything in the public domain.
Stop hassling the guy!
nt
Shame to drag this further off topic... but since you brought it up, I don't remember it and didn't find anything with the search engine.
And misdirection doesn't make an argument.
Neither do unsubstantiated attacks on Len's character.
Or bringing up someone else's character, if I did get 'chastised' and was wrong about something. That 'we' chastised me doesn't imply guilt on my part, but I don't remember the event if it took place so won't say more until I see what you're referring to.
I await your response, though perhaps you'd do us ALL a favor and respond to this with bullet points, not more string-along rhetoric like this :
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/48/487776.html
The "Issues" you have yet to elaborate on despite being asked repeatedly to do so.
Here's your answer to such an inquiry:
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/48/487788.html
What is the point of an answer like that? You're about to give him such an intellectual lashing as to need to give him chances to escape, is that your premise? Or just more delay tactics because you have nothing of substance to reference?
...for hearing from God IIRC. The Cable Asylum thread was probably deleted, I can't find it either.
Len_ grossly misrepresented Machina Dynamica products in the opening post, definitely an ethical lapse on his part, wouldn't you agree?
My apologies for the late response, I have a really crapped out computer where I'm staying, and no administrator rights.
...for hearing from God IIRC. The Cable Asylum thread was probably deleted, I can't find it either.
Well, okay, now I remember, but said thread has been deleted. I hold my position, that soldering magnets in series with the conductor, as was claimed in another disappearing act thread (this time on audiogon), is dangerous and irresponsible, whether inspired by god or not.
Len_ grossly misrepresented Machina Dynamica products in the opening post, definitely an ethical lapse on his part, wouldn't you agree?
Well, from what I know, the covers are ceramic and I don't know anything about the quality of the springs, so yes, he was inaccurate here. However, the important issue which you keep attempting to sidestep (below here is another example) is that of intellectual property theft. You continue to answer direct questions with vagaries because you have no answers:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/shady/messages/3020.html
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/shady/messages/3029.html
Instead of pointing out where you addressed any of the real issues, you continue to behave as though you made statements which don't exist. It's not hard to link a post.
Perhaps if you spent a little time trying to correlate your words to something based in reality (like referencing where things you claim were posted were, indeed, posted) you might gain a little credibility. Likewise if you fessed up that MD had no right to use the photograph that is the TOPIC OF THIS THREAD. Your love of MD products is not helped by your lack of factual basis for many of your postings. If you were less apt to make things up in posting, people might give you more credit on your opinion of such tweaks.
Also, your rabid defense of these products sure brings thoughts of 'he doth protest too much'...... Spending less time on the forum searching to validate your opinions by swamping the threads of dissenters might help this....
If you're talking about Len_ being a crybaby, that was merely a figure of speech.
If Len_ weren't a MD basher I'd perhaps have more grace for his 'inaccuracies', he's proven himself to be a little twit in this whole matter so I personally don't accept his actions as being anything less than willfull.
It's difficult for me to post a link right now, but follow Len_'s 'WWJD?' thread to see where I state that I don't defend Geoff's action. I think that's the thread anyway. The computer I'm using has low resources and is unable to display two browser windows simultaneously with any reliability.
What defines me as a MD basher? I've tried two of their products and they both failed to do anything. So having voiced in three or four different threads that these products do not work defines me as a basher?
Not that this matters. Geoff used my intellectual property without permission. My personal opinion (or your's) on MD products does not change this fact. Or can you not get past this logical fallacy?
I made one inaccurate statement. I've retracted it quickly upon your correction, and recently posted a follow-up clarification about my error. And yet you continue to carry on and on (or in your words, "whine/cry") about this singular mistake I've already admitted fault and appropriately addressed.
- Lil' Twit
Logical fallacy, not to mention immaterial to this discussion.
nt
Please identify where I have substantially misrepresented any of MD's products.And pretty please, do not try to invalidate my personal opinions. I find it silly having to ask this, but your posting history makes this plea obligatory.
It is important to note: This thread has to do with MD's unethical violation of my intellectual property rights, not MD's products.
Never, ever would anyone here dare to disagree with you; we would just get instructed not to!
clark
Feel free to disagree with my opinion. Just don't try to invalidate them. You have your opinion. I have mine. Neither are facts.
It seems I'm often correcting flawed pattern of reasonings. You and Wellfed are mired in logical fallacy ... so much so that having a rational conversation with either of you is challenging. Perhaps reading up on fallacy will help you two formulate better arguments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
"Just don't try to invalidate [my opinions]." Very well, in the future I shall try never do anything to abate, annul, counteract, counterbalance, discredit, disqualify, impair, negate, neutralize, nullify, offset, overrule, refute, undermine, undo, or weaken your opinions. Heaven forbid one should want to do anything like that! Because your opinions are virtually writ in gold script, no denying that.
clark, with the aid of a thesaurus for "invalidate"
More insturctional stuff:
When defining a word, one employs a dictionary, not a thesaurus. To invalidate means to make invalid (being without foundation or force in fact, truth, or law ).
I'm sorry if being bound by reason and definition hampers your style.
...it was you! You scamp.
Good try, no cigar.
clark
For startersYou obviously haven't any first-hand experience with MD TruTone outlet covers because they are definitely not plastic
You obviously haven't any first-hand experience with MD Promethean platforms, because if you did, you'd note the high quality of the spring sets if you were honest
You obviously haven't any first-hand experience with Brilliant Pebbles because if you did...
Just kidding, it's obvious to me you don't have a thorough enough experience with Brilliant Pebbles to comment insightfully on their performance
Do you think your agenda shows through here? Why you, and others like you, have such an agenda really would require a mental health professional to answer. Or maybe you can just tell us point blank?
I have used both the BLP and the CLC. I have not owned or used the Promethean platforms or the outlet covers. If I am mistaken about the material composition of outlet covers, I apologize (and have edited my post to make a correction).
My agenda for this thread is to let people in this community know about how Geoff conducts himself. I find it peculiar that you have not once commented on Geoff's IP violation - which clearly is the main theme of my thread.
P.S. Your ad hominems and "poisoning the well" tactics are not appreciated.
...you'd have a point. But you didn't, so you don't.
More logical fallacy (and dodging the central issue). I'll retire from this line of discussion.
...but first, don't you want declare yourself the winner? ;-)
I'm sure many folks aren't gonna grasp your brand of humor, Mr. Poth :-P
In any case, posting intellectual property for the public to see does not make said intellectual property public domain.
Len! Kewl yer jets! You KNOW you love the CLC enough to APPROPRIATE it from a fiendish friend!
:-)
Farm
I post something too!
is this guy for real? He seems to be selling well!
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
