Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[Old Noob]

No. If you can figure out the formula for Coca Cola, you are free to sell the identical drink. Coke does not have a patent on the formula and cannot stop you from selling the product. They have a trade secret and they could only stop you if you illegally acquired the formula, for example by paying an employee to steal it. However, Coke does have a trademark on the words Coke and Coca Cola, so you cannot call your product Coke or Coca Cola, but you can sell the same product and call it whatever you want and you cannot be stopped.

The same is true of martial arts. There is no IP protection for ancient techniques. It is not theft or stealing to copy them. Sorry to those whose feelings are now hurt.

Right! Coke has a trademark but not a patent, meaning, as I understand it, that you could market an identical product but you can't call it Coke.

UTC - I have a question - what about cover bands? Are they okay because they're not claiming to be the original artist even though they are playing, to varying levels of faithfulness to the original, the same songs or is it a technial violation that simply flies under the radar? What about well-known tribute bands?

[UCT]

Sorry, there is no one right answer re cover bands. Case by case basis.

Right! Coke has a trademark but not a patent, meaning, as I understand it, that you could market an identical product but you can't call it Coke.

UTC - I have a question - what about cover bands? Are they okay because they're not claiming to be the original artist even though they are playing, to varying levels of faithfulness to the original, the same songs or is it a technial violation that simply flies under the radar? What about well-known tribute bands?

[Judge Pen]

True, perhaps, but only as far as you know---about the "stealing" of course.

Now, let's say that I am a remarkable MA with great talents in fighting. Now suppose that Jake Mace teaches me his Tiger-Crane form, flawed as it is, and I decide that I can re-tailor the form far better than he does the form. I now have a 3rd form, twice removed from DFW's lineage. Which is the best of the 3 forms that then exist?

Is the 1st form the best one because it was the first form? Does it retain its "best" status simply because it was the first? Is it the best because you hit the right "markers"? Body mechanics always matter, but what if I apply, say, tai chi concepts to your tiger-crane form and wind up with a devastating martial art? What is the standard that you apply? If you accept that there are certain standards that do apply, then what standards might also apply (which you currently do not apply b/c you follow your lineage)? It's a dead end argument, whichever way you try to turn it. Forms are forms--nothing more, and it doesn't matter who taught them or how. It matters what you can do with them.

I think you've just described how a new martial art evolves. People all learn how to do things there own way. Some people honor the past by preserving it but some people honor the past by improving on it (at least as it relates to that individual and his new environment).

I heard a story of a martial artist that came to California from China several decades ago. After having an opportunity to be forced to defend himself, he found that certain techniques, specifically certain open hand strikes, were not as effective against his assailants because they were bigger and stronger than he was used to. So he starting employing more closed handed strikes and replacing them in the techniques and forms he was previoulsy taught. Did he honor his teachers in doing so? Of course he did. If you can take a form and make it work, then good for you. Frank's point is that you should at least give proper credence and respect to where the material originally came from even if you changed it.

[Judge Pen]

I enjoyed the brief discussion about tiger claw.

Here's an alternate proposal: tiger claw is not tight/compact at all but is meant for striking with the fingertips (assuming proper conditioning of course). So to strike like this and get maximum strength/stability of the fingers, you would not hit with the heel of the hand but would have your fingers splayed out similar to doing a fingertip pushup.

Thoughts?

I've heard people discuss that concept. I just think it's easier to create an effective striking surface with the ball and heel of the hand then to condition the fingers to the point they would be that effective.

[Syn7]

No. If you can figure out the formula for Coca Cola, you are free to sell the identical drink. Coke does not have a patent on the formula and cannot stop you from selling the product. They have a trade secret and they could only stop you if you illegally acquired the formula, for example by paying an employee to steal it. However, Coke does have a trademark on the words Coke and Coca Cola, so you cannot call your product Coke or Coca Cola, but you can sell the same product and call it whatever you want and you cannot be stopped.

The same is true of martial arts. There is no IP protection for ancient techniques. It is not theft or stealing to copy them. Sorry to those whose feelings are now hurt.

The coke analogy isn't very apt. I think the music analogy is far more appropriate. With music you have a physical disc that has one set of rules with trademarked labeling and packaging and then you have the music recordings which fall under different rules and then you have the IP as far as whoever wrote the song owns the song. You can buy a CD and re-sell it, you can re-record public domain music and sell it in your own package but you can NOT re-record another persons song for commercial purposes without permission no matter how you package it.

Nothing stopping you from learning the song and playing it with your friends. But selling it is a no no.

I think MA's should have similar guidelines. The only trouble will be in the vetting process and figuring out what came from where and when. MA's are a clusterfukc of unprofessional chaos. It would be a monumental, probably impossible task to incorporate all MA`s into legal framework. A good first step would be to start with the newest and work backwards. Not everyone will be interested in legally protecting their heritage and/or art, but some will and should be able to do so.

If I create a curriculum with new ideas I should be able to protect those ideas.


As far as open source is concerned, I love the concept. But it should be a choice. Forcing it defeats the whole purpose of open source co-operation. Open source cancer research is a perfect example. Clearly we would be better off if the majors would share too, but it needs to be done willingly. It`s an evolution that should not be sped up with forced legalities.

[UCT]

I think MA's should have similar guidelines. The only trouble will be in the vetting process and figuring out what came from where and when. MA's are a clusterfukc of unprofessional chaos. It would be a monumental, probably impossible task to incorporate all MA`s into legal framework. A good first step would be to start with the newest and work backwards. Not everyone will be interested in legally protecting their heritage and/or art, but some will and should be able to do so.
.

As I said before, you can't protect any martial art technique publicly performed before 1978. Copyright law did not apply to choreography (the method The attempted to use to protect "his" forms) before that date and all choreography displayed before that date is in the public domain. It is highly debatable whether it is protectable even if it was developed after that date as anything with a function cannot be copyrighted. Unless you claim that the forms are purely for entertainment purposes, but of course that seems to be a concession the form is not really martial arts.

[Syn7]

UTC - I have a question - what about cover bands? Are they okay because they're not claiming to be the original artist even though they are playing, to varying levels of faithfulness to the original, the same songs or is it a technial violation that simply flies under the radar? What about well-known tribute bands?

Sorry, there is no one right answer re cover bands. Case by case basis.

Ummm, no...

If you want to play other peoples songs and sell it, you have to pay. many don't, they take their chances. Illegal, either way.

As far as a cover band or a DJ playing records, Clubs pay a "blanket" fee. Or at least they are supposed to. Like in the US you could go through the Harry Fox Agency.

If you are more interested in learning about ASCAP BMI SOCAN etc etc, a kung fu site isn't the place for it. LOL.
But if you have more questions about music rights I would be happy to answer. I actually know about this thru life experience. I am a SOCAN and ASCAP member and I am collecting royalties. This UCT cat is not as knowledgeable as he wants you to think he is when it comes to music rights. His answer about cover bands was plain wrong. Not that a judge cant overrule or pervert the law. But the rules are pretty clear in this respect, whether you agree or not.

[Syn7]

As I said before, you can't protect any martial art technique publicly performed before 1978. Copyright law did not apply to choreography (the method The attempted to use to protect "his" forms) before that date and all choreography displayed before that date is in the public domain. It is highly debatable whether it is protectable even if it was developed after that date as anything with a function cannot be copyrighted. Unless you claim that the forms are purely for entertainment purposes, but of course that seems to be a concession the form is not really martial arts.

I was writing about what I would like to see. Not what is. What we have now is insane. Surely you can understand the difference between what I would like to see and what is, no?

[UCT]

Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. Some songs are not copyrighted. Therefore not illegal to play without payment. No competent lawyer is going to give an absolute opinion on a hypothetical question like was posed, where the outcome isn't certain.

Ummm, no...

If you want to play other peoples songs and sell it, you have to pay. many don't, they take their chances. Illegal, either way.

As far as a cover band or a DJ playing records, Clubs pay a "blanket" fee. Or at least they are supposed to. Like in the US you could go through the Harry Fox Agency.

If you are more interested in learning about ASCAP BMI SOCAN etc etc, a kung fu site isn't the place for it. LOL.
But if you have more questions about music rights I would be happy to answer. I actually know about this thru life experience. I am a SOCAN and ASCAP member and I am collecting royalties. This UCT cat is not as knowledgeable as he wants you to think he is when it comes to music rights. His answer about cover bands was plain wrong. Not that a judge cant overrule or pervert the law. But the rules are pretty clear in this respect, whether you agree or not.

[stoic]

A legal discussion on the Kung Fu Forum?

Read this and then consult a real lawyer in your jurisdiction for actual IP questions and advice:

http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/

[One student]

Your youtube video comparing Jake Mace and your Grandmaster is interesting. I always like to find out where material is coming from, and how it was learned.

There are some problems, of course, with your argument.

#1 In a free market, we don't care if your Grandmaster Salvatero or whatever pulled the form out of his ass and called it a grandchild. What kind of "permission" does one need to pretend to be a tiger/crane? The form is hardly "strictly combat" and contains a lot of showy movements. Are you saying that your Grandmaster owns something that you learn--something that you put into your head? ?Your grandmaster owns your mind and its contents? If I memorize a poem by John Milton, does John Milton (who is dead 400 years) own the info in my head. If so, how? I do lots of one-legged squats, but I don't know the form. So must I ask permission of Grandmaster Salvatero if I do one-legged squats and pretend I'm a crane? Just silly.

This is why intellectual property is such a stupid idea. According to your rationale, I ought to be paying royalties (or homage) to the first half-man half-ape somewhere in the line of time who built a lean-to in some remote forest simply for the fact that I live under a roof today. Why not, according to your logic?

#2 Any competent martial artist could, in theory, learn a form from a book or a video. I don't consider it a good idea, simply for the fact that "forms" aren't that important when judged beside actual martial skills. But if I did know a tiger-crane form years ago, but forgot it when I....oh, I don't know...moved to Kentucky from Bandung, then would it be such a crime to fill in the blanks using a book or a video?

If this doesn't sound so outlandish, then the real question once again boils down to the problem of intellectual property and its legitimacy.

I'm going to suggest that the debate over who's forms they are and who can show/teach them misses that there are at least two ways to look at it. Depending on which you are applying, both have merit.

One, is a modern/commercial way. I show/publish a form, other people pay for and get it, is it now theirs, and can the publisher/teacher claim any right otherwise? This is where all the patenting and intellectual property issues come in. And many a person (on this forum and others) have critized GMT for trying to use litigation to prevent exactly what HSK is complaining about Jake doing with "his" School's material. Under this theory, those on this forum who have stated that once the material is published, taught, commercially distributed, it is difficult if not impossible to control its dissemination, or complain about it, are completely correct.

The other way is maybe a more traditional concept. At one time in history, was it not true that a martial artist would accept a student, and after a period of determing the degree of loyalty and dedication that student had, they may become a disciple. And there is, I always thought, then an implied agreement, an implied committment, that the gift of the instruction that teacher gave to that student/disciple, would not be abused, and would not be re-taught without the teacher's consent or permission. The student would ask for permission from his/her teacher, and when the teacher deemed it time, that consent would be given -- or not. No contracts, no courts. And if the student violated that implied understanding, such as by opening a competing school, the senior disciple of the school might pay a visit to the "renegade" and straighten things out.

In that "traditional" concept, the implied agreement and understanding is betrayed. Thus, the "renegade" is labeled as "stealing" the material and disseminating it behind the teacher's back. Under this theory, HSK is correct, and one should not, while still being honorable, disseminate what they have been given, or get some one's material and pass it off as their own, or at least pass it off as something it isn't or that it came from somewhere it didn't. It is a matter then of honor and respect, not "legality."

But there is, as far as I can tell, no modern legal basis to enforce such an implied understanding of honor and respect, or even if, in these modern times, the teacher actually expects it (which is hard to do from a book or video), or the student goes in with the reciprocal understanding: "Thank you for your instruction, I will respect your teaching by protecting and respecting what you have taught me." Or when its time to make their own buck, "FU, I'm going renegade." Can't very well, when putting it in a book or video, or even mass marketing by seminars open to almost anyone, then expect much of a guarantee it will not go out to others.

And as we all know, honor and respect for traditions has to be self-imposed. Kind of changes the "traditional" teacher-student relationship, doesn't it, if when the student walks in the door to ask for lessons, after paying the fee has to sign a contract agreeing that whatever they learn will not be taught to others without written permission? When I first started taking martial arts, it was unheard of, very rare, that a student would go out and open a competing school without permission, without serious consequences. I knew brothers who had falling-outs for just that reason.

Does it not come down to what someone else said, and I can't remember who to give credit to, that there is a difference between a mere customer, and a student. Which do you want to be?

[One student]

The great irony of patents and IP is that the Federal govt. calls "file sharing" a form of piracy. It's nothing of the sort. In fact, internet file sharing is identical to a Swap Meet. You give up certain things in exchange for others. There's no more piracy in file sharing than there is in trading baseball cards. You must pay for access to certain websites; you pay for access to file sharing by contributing your media as a form of payment. "Money" is a medium of exchange, and digital media serves as that medium in file sharing scenarios. The governmetn won't recognize this argument as legally valid, since the government has a monopoly on money in the United States, and it believes that it can can set the value ("definition") of money by fiat. It even creates money out of thin air and says that it must retain its value independent of an increase in the money supply. Inflation results, but the government doesn't call what it does "inflation" (it was last called "quanitative easing") and hence the legal system will not uphold any argument that criticizes the monopoly's definitions of money.

One of the earliest uses of "patents" was a temporary grant of government monopoly to ship captains, enabling them to loot and pillage the ships of rival countries.

There's nothing economic or rationally defendable about "patents" and IP. They're strictly govt. edicts, nothing more. Those who hold IP above our heads are the pirates. We're the prey.

If you think that we should just cope with laws as they exist in our flawed world, and not expect rationality in legal matters, then why not simply surrender ourselves up as slaves, selling our property in ourselves to irrational govt. edicts? The answer is simple: we respect property rights because they are the basis of freedom, and freedom is congereric with rationality.

Irrationality is a bane to freedom, and hence IP reigns in the US today, where irrationality seems to be the norm.

This is now more economics, and maybe politics, than it is martial arts, but isn't the theoretical point of patents and IP, is that Man is more likely to be more entreprenurial, inventive, and innovative, if they know they have a protected interest in what they invent, innovate, or create? A big criticism of non-capitalist countries, and the big support of captilism, is the "profit motive" is what fuels progress, and without it, technology and everything else stagnates.

Yes, it presupposes that human nature is lazy and greedy and not altruistic. But isn't that at least the theoretical basis for protecting IP by patent/copyrights?

Doesn't really seem to be a concept applicable to tradional martial arts, until you add in the "profit motive." Then it is a different animal (pardon the pun). Then it seems it should be just a protectable as any other creation, innovation, or invention: if that is what it is. I can republish a work that the copyright has expired, and even sell it (such as the Bible, Shakespeare, etc.), but I can't photocopy someone else's publication of it and resell it.

[One student]

Fair points and questions but don't mischaracterize what I said. I didn't say that my teacher was deadly or that I was. I said he was the best martial artist I saw in my search and one of the best that I've seen. I also said that I found that the techniques work, not that they're deadly - of course I've not seen anyone killed with them.

My clarifications notwithstanding, your questions are still fair. I'm the first person to admit that I'm not the most experienced martial artist. I've boxed some, wrestled for years, took longfist for about a year and a half from a very respected teacher in high school and then didn't do martial arts again, with the exception of Army combatives, until I got divorced over a decade later. That's when I took up SD; that was about 4 and a half years ago. I have not seen my teacher in anything approaching a real fight. I'll say this though. My opinion is based on me comparing him to other martial artists I've trained with and met in the past and the present. While my teacher doesn't mix it up much with other styles, I, like JP used to do, touch hands with folks from other styles when I'm given the opportunity. Despite the fact that I outweigh my sifu by more than 50 pounds, he gives me more trouble than anyone else I mix it up with; with the one exception being a western martial artist who's been training since he was 13 in one thing or another. That's how I arrive at my opinion of his quality as a practitioner and on the usefulness of the system as a fighting system. I'll continue to develop that opinion as my experiences broaden. I'm starting judo this month, which I know is 180 degrees from CMA (that's why I'm adding it). But we'll see if my opinion of my Sifu as a martial artist will change. I think its unlikely.

If I know anything, I think I know that I don't know how good a fighter I am, by forms or even by sparring, even professional fighting sports. One will only know how good (or bad) a fighter they are, when they get in a fight. On the street (or in the field of battle). When someone is trying to hurt you or someone else, and you have to fight back. Until then, you do not know. Even then, you might not know, as I also believe that any person can get a good lick in, can be lucky, and beat someone who is a better "fighter."

But we train so that if that happens, we are as prepared as we can be.

[One student]

I think you've just described how a new martial art evolves. People all learn how to do things there own way. Some people honor the past by preserving it but some people honor the past by improving on it (at least as it relates to that individual and his new environment).

I heard a story of a martial artist that came to California from China several decades ago. After having an opportunity to be forced to defend himself, he found that certain techniques, specifically certain open hand strikes, were not as effective against his assailants because they were bigger and stronger than he was used to. So he starting employing more closed handed strikes and replacing them in the techniques and forms he was previoulsy taught. Did he honor his teachers in doing so? Of course he did. If you can take a form and make it work, then good for you. Frank's point is that you should at least give proper credence and respect to where the material originally came from even if you changed it.

And he didn't know the weakness of his technique by many years of practice, only by having to do it. My uncle was advanced rank in traditional karate, used to tell me all the elders of his school were wise enought to know they could never fight each other, because they were afraid one of them would accidentally kill or seriously injure the other because they didn't know how good their offense was, or how bad their defense was.

[Syn7]

Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. Some songs are not copyrighted. Therefore not illegal to play without payment. No competent lawyer is going to give an absolute opinion on a hypothetical question like was posed, where the outcome isn't certain.

Well of course we're talking about copyrighted material. Don't be so obtuse. I don't think it was something that needed to be specified. There is no doubt as to what the question was. He wasn't asking for professional advice, it was a simple question about the legalities of playing covers in public. Stop backpedaling, son. The whole point of this argument is to talk about ownership or lack thereof. Why would he ask if he needs permission to play unheard of copyrighted material? Unless he's a moron, he did not need to specify as the context of the thread is more than enough. Besides, who wants to cover songs nobody has ever heard? Also, to be thorough, I did cover public domain in my post.

oldnoob,
You can take the info from somebody who has actually been involved for years, or an armchair lawyer out of his depth. Up to you. Infact, 30 seconds of google will tell you who is right and who is wrong. Check out the harry fox agency. Even a wikisearch should be enough to make some confirmations.