Marketing Hype in Ballistics - Hornady 4DOF Solver

[DocUSMCRetired]

Is it reasonable to call using that which is freely given "stolen"?

Think of this like a college atmosphere if you will. If a student takes data from a book, an uses it in a study or a paper. At the end of the paper they are required to say where they got that data from right? Even in a learning environment where laws are a little more, but not completely, relaxed you find that its extremely important to note the source. This is in "educational" use.

This really comes down to two things. Fair Use breaks things down in to two categories. For Commercial Use and for Nonprofit Educational Purposes. Something I won't touch on, but is also considered is the potential market value. But looking at commercial vs nonprofit educational value. When you take the work of another company, and put this in to an app where you are making money be it promotionally, or customers are paying for the app. Then yes, you are stealing.

 

[Steve Blair]

Think of this like a college atmosphere if you will. If a student takes data from a book, an uses it in a study or a paper. At the end of the paper they are required to say where they got that data from right? Even in a learning environment where laws are a little more, but not completely, relaxed you find that its extremely important to note the source. This is in "educational" use.

This really comes down to two things. Fair Use breaks things down in to two categories. For Commercial Use and for Nonprofit Educational Purposes. Something I won't touch on, but is also considered is the potential market value. But looking at commercial vs nonprofit educational value. When you take the work of another company, and put this in to an app where you are making money be it promotionally, or customers are paying for the app. Then yes, you are stealing.

Your analogies are specious. Books are generally copyrighted and academic conventions require attribution, neither of which applies. Fair Use also only applies to copyrighted material. When material is freely published, it is then considered public domain. Copyright your material if you think it is that valuable and clearly state the conditions under which it may or may not be used. Obviously, you may choose, as in this case, to keep the material confidential to deter unauthorized use. That is your prerogative. But don't call legal use "stealing" or propose inapplicable justifications. That diminishes you.

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

Your analogies are specious. Books are generally copyrighted and academic conventions require attribution, neither of which applies. Fair Use also only applies to copyrighted material. When material is freely published, it is then considered public domain. Copyright your material if you think it is that valuable and clearly state the conditions under which it may or may not be used. Obviously, you may choose, as in this case, to keep the material confidential to deter unauthorized use. That is your prerogative. But don't call legal use "stealing" or propose inapplicable justifications. That diminishes you.

If a company takes the BCs out of our books, and products. Then puts it into their own product. How is that not stealing?

 

[Steve Blair]

If a company takes the BCs out of our books, and products. Then puts it into their own product. How is that not stealing?

If you think it is stealing, which fair use is not, sue them. You won't because you know that using published product data falls well within fair use. You may not like it but that is the price of making product information public. If a competitor were to quote large, unattributed passages from Bryan's books, you would have an action. Or, you could attempt copyright of all your published data (which I do not believe would succeed) and clearly state the terms under which it may be reused. The confidentiality strategy is viable because it forces your competitors to conduct their own testing, incurring expense and using resources perhaps better employed elsewhere, if they want to include Berger bullet ballistic data. That strategy does your customers little good unless they use a proprietary calculator supplied by Applied Ballistics or Berger. But your customers want to make direct comparisons of Berger bullets vs. various competitors. AB has been accommodating this customer desire by testing and publishing competitor's bullet data. AB is rightly respected for this service. What is not respected is making specious claims about public data. Berger bullets stand very well on their own and benefit from open comparison using accurate ballistic data. There is no need to fear competitors using your data. When you see them publishing inflated numbers for their own products, against your accurately derived data, call them on it and publish your own refuting tests. Just don't complain about "stealing".

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

If you think it is stealing, which fair use is not, sue them. You won't because you know that using published product data falls well within fair use. You may not like it but that is the price of making product information public. If a competitor were to quote large, unattributed passages from Bryan's books, you would have an action. Or, you could attempt copyright of all your published data (which I do not believe would succeed) and clearly state the terms under which it may be reused. The confidentiality strategy is viable because it forces your competitors to conduct their own testing, incurring expense and using resources perhaps better employed elsewhere, if they want to include Berger bullet ballistic data. That strategy does your customers little good unless they use a proprietary calculator supplied by Applied Ballistics or Berger. But your customers want to make direct comparisons of Berger bullets vs. various competitors. AB has been accommodating this customer desire by testing and publishing competitor's bullet data. AB is rightly respected for this service. What is not respected is making specious claims about public data. Berger bullets stand very well on their own and benefit from open comparison using accurate ballistic data. There is no need to fear competitors using your data. When you see them publishing inflated numbers for their own products, against your accurately derived data, call them on it and publish your own refuting tests. Just don't complain about "stealing".

Show me one thing we have that does not say copyright on it. We provide the data for the public, and for personal use. As we have always done. But it is not meant for other companies to steal and put in to their own apps. Its one thing for a shooter to use the data as it was intended. Which we love seeing. It is completely different for another company to take that data, and use it for their own gain/selling point. Which some do.

 

[Steve Blair]

Copyright does not confer 100% control. Fair use is a well established doctrine. Frankly, unless you are willing to educate yourself a little about US copyright law, this discussion is pointless. Again, if you think they are stealing sue them. Good luck with that.

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

Copyright does not confer 100% control. Fair use is a well established doctrine. Frankly, unless you are willing to educate yourself a little about US copyright law, this discussion is pointless. Again, if you think they are stealing sue them. Good luck with that.

This pretty much sums it up "Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., the Supreme Court had stated that "every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively . . . unfair." Seems pretty simple to me, our opinions maybe different. But I would hope that someone wouldn't think it is ok to take the works of others, and use them for commercial purposes without asking. Stealing can involve works, and ideas as well.

It is one thing for a shooter to use the numbers, talk about them, share them. I love seeing that. Personally I really do. But its another if you going to use someone elses hard work for your own gains.

 

[Steve Blair]

From the horse's mouth, not Wikipedia articles about irrelevant cases. Copyright protects only the expression and not facts. The derived B.C. is an unprotected fact, regardless how expensive or laborious it was to produce. As stated previously; if it is that valuable, keep it confidential. Your customers will not like it but apparently you will feel better.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

From the horse's mouth, not Wikipedia articles about irrelevant cases. Copyright protects only the expression and not facts. The derived B.C. is an unprotected fact, regardless how expensive or laborious it was to produce. As stated previously; if it is that valuable, keep it confidential. Your customers will not like it but apparently you will feel better.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

While copyrights are not that simple, their are cases where compiled data is protected. You can find thousands of cases, which makes it even more complicated. You did ignore my comment, on theft. I would hope that someone does not feel it is ok, or sees it as morally right, to take the hard work from someone else and use it in their own product for gain. Then you have to weigh does it hurt the public to make it "harder" to get. As I have said before we enjoy seeing shooters success with this data, I enjoy seeing the discussions it brings up personally. We all enjoy teaching, and learning.

Because of the complexity of it all, this is why its good to protect the CDM data. To keep others from stealing all that hard work. Would it be simple to do the same thing with the G7 data that is stolen? Probably. But it wouldn't benefit the shooter. Which is always our end goal. Making long range shooting something that is attainable at all levels. This doesn't change the fact that some will steal that data, and use it for their own benefit. That is just the nature of theft, dishonest people trying to make money off the backs of hard working people.

 

[sparker]

This pretty much sums it up "Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., the Supreme Court had stated that "every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively . . . unfair." Seems pretty simple to me, our opinions maybe different. But I would hope that someone wouldn't think it is ok to take the works of others, and use them for commercial purposes without asking. Stealing can involve works, and ideas as well.

It is one thing for a shooter to use the numbers, talk about them, share them. I love seeing that. Personally I really do. But its another if you going to use someone elses hard work for your own gains.

One thing that may be a bit confusing here is the close relationship between Berger Bullets and Applied Ballistics. In that regard, the first of Litz's volumes came out in which across the board, Berger bullets enjoyed a BC advantage in virtually every bullet used in competition over the Sierra and Lapua options in the same weight class. Recently, many of those BC values have been dialed back. While correcting the record is always admirable and welcome, the damage had already been done.

Supplying drag tables after the fact may not be the most comfortable thing to do on a number of fronts.

Furthermore, this has started a BC race that is quite silly. I like efficient bullets. I think all shooters do. I'm afraid we are on the path of seeing a 125 grain 6mm bullet requiring a 1 in 5" twist. Enough is enough. Optimize a bullet that will function perfectly in a 1 in 8" twist, not 1 in 7" or 7.5".

Scott Parker

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

One thing that may be a bit confusing here is the close relationship between Berger Bullets and Applied Ballistics. In that regard, the first of Litz's volumes came out in which across the board, Berger bullets enjoyed a BC advantage in virtually every bullet used in competition over the Sierra and Lapua options in the same weight class. Recently, many of those BC values have been dialed back. While correcting the record is always admirable and welcome, the damage had already been done.

Supplying drag tables after the fact may not be the most comfortable thing to do on a number of fronts.

Furthermore, this has started a BC race that is quite silly. I like efficient bullets. I think all shooters do. I'm afraid we are on the path of seeing a 125 grain 6mm bullet requiring a 1 in 5" twist. Enough is enough. Optimize a bullet that will function perfectly in a 1 in 8" twist, not 1 in 7" or 7.5".

Scott Parker

All bullets in the library are revisited. Not just Berger but many others. Thier data is updated as necessary. This includes the CDMs on the backend. Bullets can and do vary from lot to lot by all manufacturers.

I don't see the 105 Hybrid or 130 Hybrid going anywhere anytime soon. Both exceptional bullets. But that is outside my realm, so I cant make any promises to that as its not my place. Its just an assumption.

 

[Steve Blair]

While copyrights are not that simple, their are cases where compiled data is protected. You can find thousands of cases, which makes it even more complicated. You did ignore my comment, on theft. I would hope that someone does not feel it is ok, or sees it as morally right, to take the hard work from someone else and use it in their own product for gain. Then you have to weigh does it hurt the public to make it "harder" to get. As I have said before we enjoy seeing shooters success with this data, I enjoy seeing the discussions it brings up personally. We all enjoy teaching, and learning.

Because of the complexity of it all, this is why its good to protect the CDM data. To keep others from stealing all that hard work. Would it be simple to do the same thing with the G7 data that is stolen? Probably. But it wouldn't benefit the shooter. Which is always our end goal. Making long range shooting something that is attainable at all levels. This doesn't change the fact that some will steal that data, and use it for their own benefit. That is just the nature of theft, dishonest people trying to make money off the backs of hard working people.

Your language revisionism is fundamentally no different than statists claiming that "the right of the people" in Amendment 2 confers a collective and not individual right. You can call whatever you want "theft" or "stealing", but that does not make it true. If it is theft, sue. It is not, and you will not, because it would be dismissed in less time than it would take to file. It is also interesting that you confer upon yourself arbiter of that which is legal or illegal, moral or immoral, and honest or dishonest. These are tactics I would expect from the opposition.

No, you are consistently incorrect. A published product description, such as a derived B.C., is not protected. Other companies using your published B.C. numbers in whatever context they wish are on very safe ground. That use does not make them thieves, dishonest or immoral. They are simply following United States law as it currently exists. Berger's competitors, although small companies by modern standards, are sufficiently large that they have legal counsel, perhaps on staff. If there was any doubt regarding that data usage, they would not risk it.

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

Your language revisionism is fundamentally no different than statists claiming that "the right of the people" in Amendment 2 confers a collective and not individual right. You can call whatever you want "theft" or "stealing", but that does not make it true. If it is theft, sue. It is not, and you will not, because it would be dismissed in less time than it would take to file. It is also interesting that you confer upon yourself arbiter of that which is legal or illegal, moral or immoral, and honest or dishonest. These are tactics I would expect from the opposition.

No, you are consistently incorrect. A published product description, such as a derived B.C., is not protected. Other companies using your published B.C. numbers in whatever context they wish are on very safe ground. That use does not make them thieves, dishonest or immoral. They are simply following United States law as it currently exists. Berger's competitors, although small companies by modern standards, are sufficiently large that they have legal counsel, perhaps on staff. If there was any doubt regarding that data usage, they would not risk it.

Not really sure why this is so hard for you to answer, but I will ask it again. Do you think it is ok to steal the hard work of others, to put in to your own product for personal gain?

For clarity the definition of stealing: "an idea taken from another work."

 

[Doug Beach]

Not really sure why this is so hard for you to answer, but I will ask it again. Do you think it is ok to steal the hard work of others, to put in to your own product for personal gain?

For clarity the definition of stealing: "an idea taken from another work."

Is Newton's estate being compensated for the continuous use of "his" laws?
Recording a fact does not create any ownership of that fact, as nothing was created. What you do with those facts, is a different story.

 

[JRS]

Is Newton's estate being compensated for the continuous use of "his" laws?
Recording a fact does not create any ownership of that fact, as nothing was created. What you do with those facts, is a different story.

+1

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

And if what someone does with those facts, is the same thing the originator of the works does, to make a profit off someone else's hard work?

Is Newton's estate being compensated for the continuous use of "his" laws?
Recording a fact does not create any ownership of that fact, as nothing was created. What you do with those facts, is a different story.

I think it is clear what the intended purpose of those facts are and how they are used. To be clear, I don't expect an answer to the question. I know integrity and morality don't come easy for some. The definition is easy to understand, and so is the language. What if the result of theft was to make the data no longer freely visible on the free solver? Then the shooter suffers, because of dishonest people stealing off the backs of hardworking people. We are taught, at least I was, from a young age to give credit where credit is due, and not to take from others who worked hard for what they have. But that is just me, my opinion, and everyone is different.

 

[Steve Blair]

Not really sure why this is so hard for you to answer, but I will ask it again. Do you think it is ok to steal the hard work of others, to put in to your own product for personal gain?

For clarity the definition of stealing: "an idea taken from another work."

1. There is no "stealing" or you would have an action. You do not.
2. The data in question is not an idea but a fact, specifically a product description.
3. The amount of work involved is irrelevant.
4. The end purpose to which the published facts are put is also irrelevant.

So, you continue to propose straw man arguments that do not represent your complaint. Since your question does not, in any way, represent the instant discussion, it does not deserve an answer. It is the same as asking "When did you stop beating your wife?" That particular logical fallacy is a "loaded question" and no more valid than your faulty interpretation of copyright law.

There are many circumstances in which the "hard work" of others may be freely used. Here are a few.

1. When product descriptions are published that contain facts, the facts may be used but not the expression.
2. When a copyright expires, the entire work may be freely used as it is now public domain.
3. When a patent expires, the ideas or embodiment patented may be freely used as it is now public domain.
4. If the work does not fall under the aegis of patent, trademark or copyright law or the originator fails to seek protection before public disclosure and applicable time periods expire.

Apparently, the present system of United States intellectual property law is not structured as you think it should be. Some alternatives are: work within it, continue to rail against it with specious arguments and faulty reasoning, work to change it in a way that is acceptable to you, or decline participation. Given the lavish display of fallacious arguments you have tendered, my money is on the second alternative.

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

1. There is no "stealing" or you would have an action. You do not.
2. The data in question is not an idea but a fact, specifically a product description.
3. The amount of work involved is irrelevant.
4. The end purpose to which the published facts are put is also irrelevant.

So, you continue to propose straw man arguments that do not represent your complaint. Since your question does not, in any way, represent the instant discussion, it does not deserve an answer. It is the same as asking "When did you stop beating your wife?" That particular logical fallacy is a "loaded question" and no more valid than your faulty interpretation of copyright law.

There are many circumstances in which the "hard work" of others may be freely used. Here are a few.

1. When product descriptions are published that contain facts, the facts may be used but not the expression.
2. When a copyright expires, the entire work may be freely used as it is now public domain.
3. When a patent expires, the ideas or embodiment patented may be freely used as it is now public domain.
4. If the work does not fall under the aegis of patent, trademark or copyright law or the originator fails to seek protection before public disclosure and applicable time periods expire.

Apparently, the present system of United States intellectual property law is not structured as you think it should be. Some alternatives are: work within it, continue to rail against it with specious arguments and faulty reasoning, work to change it in a way that is acceptable to you, or decline participation. Given the lavish display of fallacious arguments you have tendered, my money is on the second alternative.

I had this big drawn up reply, with links, quotes, case law with highlights, methods etc. But I just deleted it, because it doesn't benefit the reader. I need to get back on track, to what my purpose and goal here is. I am here to support, and help the shooter in anyway I can. Arguing over case law, which can go either way, and can be proven to support either side just doesn't do that. I am at fault for getting sucked down a rabbit hole. So here I go to shorten things up.

Their is an old saying in the Corps, it only takes one to ruin it for everyone. Could more robust precautions be taken, absolutely. Could things be changed to help push things to be more clear and in line, yes. But to what avail? It doesn't help the shooter. Which is my over all objective. So I will just leave it at, I really hope the lack of integrity, and theft by some, don't hurt the shooter in the long run. You can easily read about tons of cases, and ways to protect data. To say its impossible is a fallacy.

Getting back to the relative "term" in question, to openly say its not theft, or "stealing" is just not true. Hopefully the reader sees through the tactic of "it does not deserve an answer". Because the answer is simple. Does it fit the definition? That answer is yes. For reference: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/steal "An idea taken from another work:". And this is my original point. Where I live we have a term for this, we call them scroungers. But my personal opinion is just one of many opinions here. I am going to get back to, and try to stay on course with my main objective. Which is to support and help shooters where ever possible. This ended up being longer than I had hoped, but after deleting about 8 paragraphs, it is important to me. To get back on track.

 

[sparker]

I had this big drawn up reply, with links, quotes, case law with highlights, methods etc. But I just deleted it, because it doesn't benefit the reader. I need to get back on track, to what my purpose and goal here is. I am here to support, and help the shooter in anyway I can. Arguing over case law, which can go either way, and can be proven to support either side just doesn't do that. I am at fault for getting sucked down a rabbit hole. So here I go to shorten things up.

Their is an old saying in the Corps, it only takes one to ruin it for everyone. Could more robust precautions be taken, absolutely. Could things be changed to help push things to be more clear and in line, yes. But to what avail? It doesn't help the shooter. Which is my over all objective. So I will just leave it at, I really hope the lack of integrity, and theft by some, don't hurt the shooter in the long run. You can easily read about tons of cases, and ways to protect data. To say its impossible is a fallacy.

Getting back to the relative "term" in question, to openly say its not theft, or "stealing" is just not true. Hopefully the reader sees through the tactic of "it does not deserve an answer". Because the answer is simple. Does it fit the definition? That answer is yes. For reference: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/steal "An idea taken from another work:". And this is my original point. Where I live we have a term for this, we call them scroungers. But my personal opinion is just one of many opinions here. I am going to get back to, and try to stay on course with my main objective. Which is to support and help shooters where ever possible. This ended up being longer than I had hoped, but after deleting about 8 paragraphs, it is important to me. To get back on track.

I'm sure that Hornady doesn't sell bullets with the expectation that bullets will be used to generate data for a book to be sold for profit by anyone other than Hornady. If facts can indeed be regarded as intellectual property, a physical manifestation of ideas can certainly be considered that way as well. Therefore, any ballistic information generated from Hornady bullets rightfully belongs to Hornady.

I hope for the sake of all involved that the argument that I have put forth highlights the ridiculousness of the position. My comments here are not intended to inflame. I have immense respect for Berger Bullets as I do for Hornady. The relationship between Berger Bullets and AB muddies the water greatly. I find it perfectly acceptable for Berger to have its own testing arm that tests Berger bullets. I also have no issues with a completely independent firm with no affiliation with any bullet maker to independently test and report for profit its findings. The issue here is that neither is the case. Thus, Hornady is seen as a competitor rather than a collaborator.

Scott Parker

 

[Steve Blair]

I had this big drawn up reply, with links, quotes, case law with highlights, methods etc. But I just deleted it, because it doesn't benefit the reader. I need to get back on track, to what my purpose and goal here is. I am here to support, and help the shooter in anyway I can. Arguing over case law, which can go either way, and can be proven to support either side just doesn't do that. I am at fault for getting sucked down a rabbit hole. So here I go to shorten things up.

Their is an old saying in the Corps, it only takes one to ruin it for everyone. Could more robust precautions be taken, absolutely. Could things be changed to help push things to be more clear and in line, yes. But to what avail? It doesn't help the shooter. Which is my over all objective. So I will just leave it at, I really hope the lack of integrity, and theft by some, don't hurt the shooter in the long run. You can easily read about tons of cases, and ways to protect data. To say its impossible is a fallacy.

Getting back to the relative "term" in question, to openly say its not theft, or "stealing" is just not true. Hopefully the reader sees through the tactic of "it does not deserve an answer". Because the answer is simple. Does it fit the definition? That answer is yes. For reference: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/steal "An idea taken from another work:". And this is my original point. Where I live we have a term for this, we call them scroungers. But my personal opinion is just one of many opinions here. I am going to get back to, and try to stay on course with my main objective. Which is to support and help shooters where ever possible. This ended up being longer than I had hoped, but after deleting about 8 paragraphs, it is important to me. To get back on track.

You wanted to make the argument that this is a morality question, with you defining the terms and what is moral. That is simply not how the world works. If you want to provide information that your customers can freely use, there are consequences. One of those consequences is that others may use that information in ways that you do not approve. Therein lies your choice. I think the correct choice was made. The only anomaly is your complaining about the consequences. I might not use that information in a commercial context but that is solely my choice. If others decide to do so, they are on solid legal ground and there is not a damn thing you can do about it, regardless the logical absurdities and legal distortions you attempt.

As for your quote from Oxford: Again, we are not discussing an "idea", which in any case not protected under copyright, but a fact, also not protected. "Ideas" may be patented, not copyrighted. You repeatedly state that you have examples, case law, etc., but never cite any except one inapplicable Wikipedia article, the Betamax decision. When the United States Copyright Office says, "Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed.", why do you think they are wrong?

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

BTW, we had a lot of old sayings in the Navy about Marines, but that is as irrelevant to the discussion as your citation. My home range is 103 at Camp Pendleton and I've shot with many fine Marines at Camp Pendleton ranges 103 and 117, Twentynine Palms and Quantico. USMC is an outstanding institution for many reasons, but it is just not relevant here.