Scientific Dialog: Coggan Style

[MarkvW]

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/72145950520/coggan-takes-down-my-wko4-power-model-review

@Veloclinic (on Twitter) posted a criticism of Coggan's WKO4 power model on YouTube. This is Coggan's response.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Thats our Andy Coggins, always there for a scientific explanation when called upon.

 

[Netserk]

What a pathetic coward.

 

[acoggan]

Even scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals have to obey copyright (and other) laws - why should Michael be any different?

 

[python]

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/72145950520/coggan-takes-down-my-wko4-power-model-review

@Veloclinic (on Twitter) posted a criticism of Coggan's WKO4 power model on YouTube. This is Coggan's response.

obviously, there seemed something interesting to discuss but the material is withdrawn. not sure of others but i have not seen it.

if you want to make the thread you started lively, i am sure there are several scientist around who would care to chime in if you posted a summary or an overview of it was about. it is perfectly legal.

i certainly would contribute.

 

[acoggan]

obviously, there seemed something interesting to discuss but the material is withdrawn. not sure of others but i have not seen it.

All of my copyrighted slides are still freely available on the web:

http://www.slideshare.net/TrainingPeaks/the-new-power-duration-model-in-wko4-part-3

if you want to make the thread you started lively, i am sure there are several scientist around who would care to chime in if you posted a summary or an overview of it was about. it is perfectly legal.

i certainly would contribute.

By all means, have at it - just don't violate copyright in the process.

 

[MarkvW]

All of my copyrighted slides are still freely available on the web:

http://www.slideshare.net/TrainingPeaks/the-new-power-duration-model-in-wko4-part-3



By all means, have at it - just don't violate copyright in the process.

How do you criticize the content of a slide without presenting the slide? How is this a copyright violation? Why isn't it fair use?

 

[acoggan]

How do you criticize the content of a slide without presenting the slide? How is this a copyright violation? Why isn't it fair use?

You do what scientists like me have always done in such situations: you either simply direct people towards the original source, or you figure out a significantly/sufficiently different way of presenting the same information, such that copyright is preserved.

As for the fair use exemption, I don't believe that it applies in this case (and obviously youtube agreed).

 

[blutto]

...while I may not know everything ( unlike yourself ) I do have some small expertise in the legalities of intellectual property....and in my most humble opinion Dr Coggan's position in this matter is both legitimate and entirely reasonable ( even taking into account the idea of fair usage )...a real pity a mod wasn't around to give you a swift hard kick in the paraphernalia for your response....

....you may in the future heed the words of my dear father, who would, in situations such as this, say something along these lines....the easiest way to appear stupid is to talk something you know absolutely nothing about...

....you may also want to consider manning up ( though given your history in these here parts I'm not holding my breath about any sudden increase in maturity on your part ) and apologizing to Dr Coggan...because your comment was mighty cowardly and supremely pathetic....

Cheers

 

[acoggan]

All of my copyrighted slides are still freely available on the web:

http://www.slideshare.net/TrainingPeaks/the-new-power-duration-model-in-wko4-part-3

BTW, parts 1, 2, and 4 can be found at the links below (if anyone is interested):

http://www.slideshare.net/TrainingPeaks/the-new-power-duration-model-in-wko4

http://www.slideshare.net/TrainingPeaks/the-new-power-duration-model-in-wkoo4-part-2

http://www.slideshare.net/TrainingPeaks/the-new-power-duration-model-in-wko4-part-4

The talks are also up on youtube, but I don't have those links handy.

 

[Netserk]

...while I may not know everything ( unlike yourself ) I do have some small expertise in the legalities of intellectual property....and in my most humble opinion Dr Coggan's position in this matter is both legitimate and entirely reasonable ( even taking into account the idea of fair usage )...a real pity a mod wasn't around to give you a swift hard kick in the paraphernalia for your response....

....you may in the future heed the words of my dear father, who would, in situations such as this, say something along these lines....the easiest way to appear stupid is to talk something you know absolutely nothing about...

....you may also want to consider manning up ( though given your history in these here parts I'm not holding my breath about any sudden increase in maturity on your part ) and apologizing to Dr Coggan...because your comment was mighty cowardly and supremely pathetic....

Cheers

Lol, and also kick the *** of everyone who have ever said a bad word towards any other public person.

 

[MarkvW]

You do what scientists like me have always done in such situations: you either simply direct people towards the original source, or you figure out a significantly/sufficiently different way of presenting the same information, such that copyright is preserved.

As for the fair use exemption, I don't believe that it applies in this case (and obviously youtube agreed).

YouTube didn't "agree" with you. It's neutral (to avoid lawsuit). It applied it's policy because you asserted a copyright.

Think about fair use. Looks to me like you are trying to suppress a criticism you don't like.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

YouTube didn't "agree" with you. It's neutral (to avoid lawsuit). It applied it's policy because you asserted a copyright.

Think about fair use. Looks to me like you are trying to suppress a criticism you don't like.

I don't normally agree with you on anything, and here it may or may not be a legitimate claim of copyright infringement, but the reason, for anyone who has had to endure the wind from the bag that is acoggan, knows he is taking a legal route because someone showed him up in public, and his ego can't take it.

acoggan "you can look at my slides on my website."

...uh yea, but we can't look at the criticism of those slides because you whined to youtube...

 

[Master50]

What is this thread about? Maybe close it if the foundation argument was deleted.

 

[blutto]

Lol, and also kick the *** of everyone who have ever said a bad word towards any other public person.

....I try to do my best, but there are just so many worthy targets and precious little time...so for the sake of being as elegantly efficient as possible I have reserved my finite supply of bile for the targets that stray directly into my sights...

...and judging from your response the idea of you showing some intestinal fortitude, manning up and apologizing is off the table....and I have to say that is frankly disappointing as I had hoped for better from you....petulance, by definition, does not come in any flattering shades no matter how you spin it...

Cheers

 

[acoggan]

I don't normally agree with you on anything, and here it may or may not be a legitimate claim of copyright infringement, but the reason, for anyone who has had to endure the wind from the bag that is acoggan, knows he is taking a legal route because someone showed him up in public, and his ego can't take it.

acoggan "you can look at my slides on my website."

...uh yea, but we can't look at the criticism of those slides because you whined to youtube...

Michael is still free to criticize my idea. It might be a bit more work for him to do so w/o violating my copyrights, but he might very well learn something as a result (e.g., by trying to apply his incorrect reverse-engineered approach to data he has at his disposal).

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Michael is still free to criticize my idea. It might be a bit more work for him to do so w/o violating my copyrights, but he might very well learn something as a result (e.g., by trying to apply his incorrect reverse-engineered approach to data he has at his disposal).

He already learned it apparently. You are the one who couldn't take the criticism...tells me he might have been close to the mark with his observations.

I smell a coward.

 

[acoggan]

He already learned it apparently. You are the one who couldn't take the criticism...tells me he might have been close to the mark with his observations.

I smell a coward.

Think what you want - just don't violate my legal rights.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Think what you want - just don't violate my legal rights.

Contrary to what your ego tells you, I don't need your permission to think what I want.

 

[acoggan]

YouTube didn't "agree" with you. It's neutral (to avoid lawsuit). It applied it's policy because you asserted a copyright.

Think about fair use. Looks to me like you are trying to suppress a criticism you don't like.

No, it is just that after ~20 y of freely sharing my ideas on the web I've grown tired of people (e.g., Grappe) ripping them off w/o giving proper credit. I've therefore simply decided that it is high time to draw a firm line in the sand and insist that my intellectual property rights be respected. I don't think that is too much to ask, especially since I am under no obligation whatsoever to share my thoughts and insights in the 1st place.

 

[MarkvW]

No, it is just that after ~20 y of freely sharing my ideas on the web I've grown tired of people (e.g., Grappe) ripping them off w/o giving proper credit. I've therefore simply decided that it is high time to draw a firm line in the sand and insist that my intellectual property rights be respected. I don't think that is too much to ask, especially since I am under no obligation whatsoever to share my thoughts and insights in the 1st place.

You're sincerely arguing that @veloclinic was "ripping ... off" your ideas on the web? That's total BS. He was criticizing them.

Your copyright doesn't give you the right to stifle criticism.

 

[acoggan]

You're sincerely arguing that @veloclinic was "ripping ... off" your ideas on the web? That's total BS. He was criticizing them.

Your copyright doesn't give you the right to stifle criticism.

He reproduced my copyrighted material w/o my permission, which is illegal. That is why I requested youtube to take down the video, not because he criticized my new mathematical model (given how far off base he is on the algorithm, he should be thanking me for saving him further embarrassment).

 

[acoggan]

What is this thread about? Maybe close it if the foundation argument was deleted.

Or just delete it, since it has never had anything to do with this forum or even the subject line in the 1st place.

 

[MarkvW]

He reproduced my copyrighted material w/o my permission, which is illegal. That is why I requested youtube to take down the video, not because he criticized my new mathematical model (given how far off base he is on the algorithm, he should be thanking me for saving him further embarrassment).

It is legal to reproduce copyrighted material without permission for purposes of fair comment.

You're the one who's off-base, I think.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

What I don't get is why you trade-marked a bunch of technical terms... I've *never* heard of a scientist doing that. Corporations occasionally do it (i.e., Sony Trinitron, etc), so I guess you did it for commercial reasons? I guess that's understandable. You want to sell your analysis techniques and that's fair.

The thing that really puzzles me is why people model this at all. With the data at hand, you can just put a smooth (hand-drawn?) curve through the data and use it as a look-up table. It might be a bit more work, but you could easily do it in software. Heck, someone like Garmin could let you upload a rider's profile to their GPS units and you could get real-time pacing suggestions.

Or, as usual, I'm probably missing some nuance.

John Swanson