Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[Syn7]

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/

Looks like it could be pretty funny. I can imagine the issues filmmakers go thru. Sample clearance can be a motherfukcer. Personally, I've slipped a few through, so far so good. When I was younger I was quite defiant and sold quite a bit of copyrighted material under the radar. Some we had to clear after the fact and some we cleared beforehand in order to avoid what we saw as inevitable. It really comes down to exposure. If you wanna sell CD's out the trunk with no bar code, don't bother clearing. Even if you do get hit with suit, you couldn't have sold that many LP's anyways. Just keep in mind, if you blow up you could face real sanctions. It's always a risk and it is stealing.

As far as legal advice is concerned, if you have serious questions that affect your life, by all means, talk to a real lawyer IN YOUR AREA.

If all you are is curious as to what cover bands need in order to play in public, like I said before, a simple google search will tell you more than enough to satisfy your curiosity.

It's usually on the venue. Even a jukebox technically needs clearance.

[Syn7]

.........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.

In my experience I find the latter is the most common. It's alot harder to avoid getting damaged than it is to inflict damage.

[Empty_Cup]

So here are the arguments as I understand it:

1) Lau Bun's lineage teaches the 5 Animal Form. Purportedly, the form was taught only to Lau Bun by his sifu's wife.

2) Doc Fai Wong, a student in the lineage of Lau Bun, was taught the form and published a book and publicly demonstrated the form while a recording was made.

3) In the book and during the public demonstration, "markers" were put into the form which caused it to be different from the original form.

4) Jake Mace/Rydberg learned the form (either via Shaolin Do, DFW's book, or both) and began teaching it as part of his school. Jake does not credit a source for the material as anything within the Lau Bun lineage.

5) By teaching the "marked" version of the form, Jake is stealing the material from the Lau Bun lineage.

If I've understood the above correctly, I have a couple questions from there:

- Is there any evidence other than 2nd/3rd-hand accounts of what the actual form looked like when originally passed from Lau Bun's sifu's wife to him? What about from Lau Bun to Doc Fai Wong? Were there no changes made during the transmission?

- When DFW published the book/made the recording, did he state that those who purchased the book could not re-perform the form? Is Jake's performance of the form exactly the same as DFW's form in the book or the recording? If not, then can it really be considered the same material?

[Syn7]

If I go on TV and play a really bad version of Let it be, does that mean I shouldn't have to pay?

Unfortunately most MA's are light years behind the law.

Also, we shouldn't confuse the differing positions in this thread with eachother. Some feel it's ok to do the forms and even sell the forms if you give credit where it's do. Others feel forms are IP and should be covered as such.

And yes, it's beyond pathetic that Sin The would take somebody to court for doing what he did himself. That is one major reason why he is a douchebag.

HSK already said he can't prove what the original form looked like.


HSK: you never answered my question. Was it DFW in the vid?

[bodhi warrior]

that summed it up for me right there.

now here is my response to the whole situation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00Pc912aP1A

(caution, i do start cussing towards the end)

I think Sin The' lives is California now. I don't have any contact info though. It would be cool if you could find him and discuss this one on one.

[Shaolin Wookie]

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.

How can anyone own the right to copy? Here's my point: IP cannot be rationally defended, because it requries a property right that inteferes with the property rights of third parties. In other words, IP requires the violation of property rights in principle.

Some musician sells me his CD or mp3 via a middle-man. That middle-man (Itunes, the recording studio, etc) tells me that I can't copy the thing that I buy. Only he or the musician can copy that material. If I do copy it and distribute it for profit, I violate a federal statute and copyright law. That's the law, as you said. Now, please explain to me how can anyone own the right to copy? In order to copyright mateiral, someone has to own (1) my copying materials, (2) the material copied, and (3) my freedom to copy material. I bought the computer that I copy material with, I own the CD / mp3 that I paid for, and (3) I am free to copy that material. The only thing that stops me is the government's IP goonsquads. What is the rational justification for this, except that some musician and recording studio wish to interfere with my freedom in order to maximize profits by shutting out competitors? It's crony capitalism, pat.

B/C there is no rational justification for IP, then no pro-IP arguments can depend upon rational argumentation for their support.

Hence, you don't have to defend your position on IP. The government does it for you, and you have no recourse to reason b/c IP makes no sense. It's just hte law.

[Syn7]

there is really nothing in existence to compare this shaolin form to. sure, the techniques within it are shared by other northern styles. but NOT the sequences of the form. nothing of the kind exists outside of this form.

And the sequence IS the art in MA. Like with music, you cannot own a guitar sound. But you can own the rights to an arrangement of sounds which would apply to all instruments. Just coz I wrote it for a guitar and you adapt it to piano doesn't mean it is different or yours. at the very least, from a moral standpoint, you should at least give credit where credit is due when you are taking other peoples ideas, whether you build on them or not.

[Syn7]

How can anyone own the right to copy? Here's my point: IP cannot be rationally defended, because it requries a property right that inteferes with the property rights of third parties. In other words, IP requires the violation of property rights in principle.

Some musician sells me his CD or mp3 via a middle-man. That middle-man (Itunes, the recording studio, etc) tells me that I can't copy the thing that I buy. Only he or the musician can copy that material. If I do copy it and distribute it for profit, I violate a federal statute and copyright law. That's the law, as you said. Now, please explain to me how can anyone own the right to copy? In order to copyright mateiral, someone has to own (1) my copying materials, (2) the material copied, and (3) my freedom to copy material. I bought the computer that I copy material with, I own the CD / mp3 that I paid for, and (3) I am free to copy that material. The only thing that stops me is the government's IP goonsquads. What is the rational justification for this, except that some musician and recording studio wish to interfere with my freedom in order to maximize profits by shutting out competitors? It's crony capitalism, pat.

B/C there is no rational justification for IP, then no pro-IP arguments can depend upon rational argumentation for their support.

Hence, you don't have to defend your position on IP. The government does it for you, and you have no recourse to reason b/c IP makes no sense. It's just hte law.

Look, I'll keep this short and simple. If you don't agree with IP as a concept, fine. Let's not get confused here, I am having multiple conversations at one time and you people take one response from one thing and assume it is something else. I'll make this clear.

For those who do agree with IP as a concept for anything, you have to apply it to everything. You can't say "he can own this idea but not that one." Either all is equal under the law or it's wrong. There are a ton of laws I disagree with. That's not what was being discussed. Me saying that something is the law does not mean I agree, and me saying what I want to become law should not be confused with what I am saying is law.

For those who do not agree with IP as a concept, this is a different conversation all together. I am not a capitalist at heart. But we live in a capitalist world, and a capitalist world without IP is giving too much power to those with the most money. We are flawed and we sell our ideas too cheap and for peanuts to those who seek to control, this is a fact of life for us. But that isn't a legal issue, it's a social one. Again, a whole different conversation. Legal framework is designed to guide the culture, but should never be considered a cure for social ills. If we wern't d1ckheads to eachother most laws would be useless.

And if you want to talk about what should, or could be, that is a different conversation as well.

It's silly to quote a response that is specifically directed towards a convo you weren't a part of to further a point that wasn't part of the conversation.

I get it, you don't agree with IP, who you trying to convince here? Repeating it over and over won't change its reception.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Look, I'll keep this short and simple. If you don't agree with IP as a concept, fine.

Okay. Cool, I'll drop the subject. I just think it's a very interesting and relevant one, considering someone accused an SD guy of "theft" for choreography, and "theft" is a property rights issue.

I am not a capitalist at heart. But we live in a capitalist world, and a capitalist world without IP is giving too much power to those with the most money.

Had to address this issue in passing. There is no such thing BUT capitalism. Either private individuals own the means of production, or else the State (public) owns the means of production (be it the "people" of a democratic State or a totalitarian dictator). There is no third option. There is private property and then there is public property. There is free capitalism (private property), and then there is State capitalism (which is socialism, and this is public property). You can either vote for representatives who will violate private property on your behalf, or else you can have a guy dictate the terms of expropriation. I prefer not having anyone violate property rights.

To say that you're not capitalist at heart means that you prefer government ownership at heart. As a musician (a private creator), I would think you'd prefer private ownership. IP just happens to be socialist at heart--the creator of music claims ownership in another person's property. Like I said--this last kind of ownership is the denotation of piracy, and it only holds up in court because the government says so--and for no other reason. And the government tends to think that everything belongs to the State--just look at the recent DNC flub this week: "Government is the only thing we all belong to." LOL (though, the RNC said the same thing with different rhetoric, swaddled in patriotism).

Sorry. I just find the subject fascinating.

[Shaolin Wookie]

LEt's change the name of the thread:


Is Shaolin-Do criminally liable?

[wenshu]

Libertarian ideology; reasoning itself into an oversimplified, completely divorced from reality fantasy world in defense of fraudulent martial arts since page 938.

[Empty_Cup]

If this thread makes it to 1,000 pages now, it's because we have FRANK TO THANK!

How can we leave out folks like mkriii and The Willow Sword?

[Syn7]

Interesting vid that IMO is all about IP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ6Q3...layer_embedded


sorry, havent read ur response yet, i will tho.... im still stuck in the youtubeverse.

Defense Distributed... the scary side of freedom or a simple step in our evolution to be free.

Personally, I believe we should all have guns. ALL of us. But if anyone wants to really go there, start aN IP thread in off topic.

[bodhi warrior]

that summed it up for me right there.

now here is my response to the whole situation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00Pc912aP1A

(caution, i do start cussing towards the end)

I have a question about marking the 5 animal form. Doc fai Wong offers a distance learning program which the 5 animal form is a part of. My question is, why would he teach his distance students with this marked DVD if it isn't the way it is taught in person?

[bodhi warrior]

'

if you were not a direct student of mine and its possible i will never see you again, or if you never come to me for corrections, i would give these types of people a VERSION of the original too. how do we know after we give you something we consider to be a treasure you're not going to do what JAKE THE SNAKE or SIN THE did? these are called "PRECAUTIONS" and comes with just GIVING stuff away to people who are not in front of you.

if its still unclear, if i taught you something then you turned around and claimed you created it, take all the credit for it, or even alter its historical value that would be FUKKED UP right? so why would i take this chance with someone i may never see in my life?

Cool. I was just curious. I liked your video blog by the way.