Scientific Dialog: Coggan Style

[acoggan]

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

Aye, but the onus would be on Michael to prove that he was entitled to the fair use exemption, i.e., it isn't automatically granted. Moreover, as I said before I don't believe that he is.

 

[MarkvW]

Aye, but the onus would be on Michael to prove that he was entitled to the fair use exemption, i.e., it isn't automatically granted. Moreover, as I said before I don't believe that he is.

You really believe that he's "ripping you off?" You can't believe that!

And if you don't believe that, why are you messing with him?

 

[acoggan]

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.

Well there you go (although my motivation is really just to have an outlet for some of my ideas, and to reach those who stand to benefit the most from them, rather than burying them in some academic journal read only by few other nerds like me).

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

If you view the slides (and especially the webinars), I think you'll better understand how having a truly robust mathematical description of the exercise intensity-duration relationship that is "steeped" in the underlying physiology opens up numerous additional opportunities (including calculation of theoretically-optimal pacing strategy for TTs).

 

[acoggan]

You really believe that he's "ripping you off?" You can't believe that!

And if you don't believe that, why are you messing with him?

As I said before, I've decided to henceforth draw a firm line in the sand with respect to my intellectual property rights. That he seemingly so unthinkingly chose to violate them is on him, not me.

 

[Clausfarre]

Okay, so I saw the slides. I figured someone then took them and presented them as their own work. But no. The video was a bloody review!

How on earth is it possible to shut one's critics up by using/abusing copyright infringement claims? Well, the answer is obviously YouTube who always - always - grant any claim to the detriment of uploaders. I know this from personal experience and have had several videos wrongly flagged for this and that.

From the title, this was clearly a review - not theft. It is quite franky infuriating and this ridiculous interpretation of copyright needs to be flushed once and for all.

 

[acoggan]

Okay, so I saw the slides. I figured someone then took them and presented them as their own work. But no. The video was a bloody review!

How on earth is it possible to shut one's critics up by using/abusing copyright infringement claims? Well, the answer is obviously YouTube who always - always - grant any claim to the detriment of uploaders. I know this from personal experience and have had several videos wrongly flagged for this and that.

From the title, this was clearly a review - not theft. It is quite franky infuriating and this ridiculous interpretation of copyright needs to be flushed once and for all.

You might start educating yourself by reading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

In particular, take note of section 1.5, and think about how scientific/academic "communities" typically operate.

 

[the sceptic]

You really believe that he's "ripping you off?" You can't believe that!

And if you don't believe that, why are you messing with him?

Speaking of ripping off. Remember when acoggan was doing self promotion for his power training plans in the clinic a while ago?

 

[meat puppet]

protecting the old guard, in cycling and in insane intellectual property rights alike, seems to be a peach. good thing that the internet will eventually slay both. adieu.

big up to michael.

 

[acoggan]

Speaking of ripping off. Remember when acoggan was doing self promotion for his power training plans in the clinic a while ago?

Revisionist history and non-sequtor: I don't offer training plans, and never have. Moreover, even if I did promoting them here (or anywhere else) would not be ripping anyone off.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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.

there's more thread but lol'd at this one. Someone "ripped you off" so when someone says

Here's Coggan's theory and why it's borked - you claim your action for having that criticism removed is the SAME as Grappe ripping you off.

Bahhahahahahahhahahaa.

Logic is missing from your argument.

 

[MarkvW]

As I said before, I've decided to henceforth draw a firm line in the sand with respect to my intellectual property rights. That he seemingly so unthinkingly chose to violate them is on him, not me.

I get it. You interpret your rights in a manner that precludes all copying of your work.

Enjoy your line in the sand. I suspect you'll need to either defend it or abandon it in the not-too-distant future.

 

[acoggan]

there's more thread but lol'd at this one. Someone "ripped you off" so when someone says

Here's Coggan's theory and why it's borked - you claim your action for having that criticism removed is the SAME as Grappe ripping you off.

Bahhahahahahahhahahaa.

Logic is missing from your argument.

Sorry, but I think the illogical one is you. I have not violated Michael's intellectual property rights in any way, shape, or form. OTOH, he clearly violoated mine, as did Grappe.

 

[acoggan]

I get it. You interpret your rights in a manner that precludes all copying of your work.

Enjoy your line in the sand. I suspect you'll need to either defend it or abandon it in the not-too-distant future.

Not just me: copyright is an exclusive right. There is a fair use exemption, but the onus is on those reproducing copyrighted material to prove that their actions aren't illegal, and not the other way around.

 

[Clausfarre]

You might start educating yourself by reading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

In particular, take note of section 1.5, and think about how scientific/academic "communities" typically operate.

The thing is, you might actually be able to justify what you are doing so you are not technically breaking any rules when shutting down criticism.

What I am saying is this: such use of copyright is completely and utterly ridiculous and I will repeat that we need to end this enforcement possibility once and for all.

 

[DirtyWorks]

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.

You are correct, but this is the New World Order of intellectual property and Coggan is playing according to the rules that overwhelmingly favor him.

Guys like Coggan use science-like artifice to dress up weak, unoriginal, ideas and then supress their critics with copyright regulation. Not new. Psychiatry, among a number of science fields, has lost decades of progress to this kind of process.

Coggan can keep this up for a good, long time unless Veloclinic wants to go through the trouble of pursuing the matter with a lawyer. That's how intellectual property works in the U.S. Obviously it's not worth it to Veloclinic.


Clausfarre, you should probably check out one source of this regulatory nightmare, WIPO. http://www.wipo.int/portal/en/index.html Lots and lots and LOTS of money and political power in that group. Meanwhile, the EFF is just one of the hopelessly under-financed opposition to WIPO. https://www.eff.org/issues/eff-europe

In the U.S. Universities have mostly adopted WIPO's stance on intellectual property, so Coggan is not alone.

Stay classy Acoggan.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Sorry, but I think the illogical one is you. ... he clearly violoated mine, as did Grappe.

If Michael was creating a new theory and simply reused yours - as Grappe did, then yes, your pedantry may be useful.

However, he was only adding commentary. Showing YOUR (mentioned by name vs Grappe's total lack of mention) theory is borked. Where borked means wrong.

It would be like doing a book report, or taking apart a press release and showing how ridiculous it is.

As ridiculous as you taking the video down.

A scientist worth his salt would have wowed the crowd by refuting the arguments. One wonders why that was not a course of action you could follow. Very curious....
Instead, you make some denigrating remarks on this forum hinting at superiority with no actual substance. SOP, yes, but still...

 

[acoggan]

You are correct, but this is the New World Order of intellectual property and Coggan is playing according to the rules that overwhelmingly favor him.

There is absolutely nothing new about the right I am asserting, only the ease with which modern technology enables/encourages people to violate it.

 

[acoggan]

If Michael was creating a new theory and simply reused yours - as Grappe did, then yes, your pedantry may be useful.

However, he was only adding commentary. Showing YOUR (mentioned by name vs Grappe's total lack of mention) theory is borked. Where borked means wrong.

It would be like doing a book report, or taking apart a press release and showing how ridiculous it is.

As ridiculous as you taking the video down.

A scientist worth his salt would have wowed the crowd by refuting the arguments. One wonders why that was not a course of action you could follow. Very curious....
Instead, you make some denigrating remarks on this forum hinting at superiority with no actual substance. SOP, yes, but still...

Just because something is commentary does not automatically qualify it for the fair use exception. Again, I suggest you read the wikipedia article to which I linked and think about the ramifications.

As for refuting his misconceptions, I doubt that is possible, as he seems rather unteachable* (which is probably why he doesn't realize how often he has simply reinvented the wheel, despite me repeatedly encouraging him to go read the original literature).

*Well, that's not entirely true: he finally did accept that I was right in telling him that he needed to look at the residuals, and not at R^2, to judge how well a non-linear model fits, that he needed to use delta efficiency and not gross efficiency in some of his calculations, that VO2max doesn't leave a "signature" in the power-duration relationship, etc. Still, he's clearly not interested in any outside assistance, apparently preferring instead to blunder along on his own.

 

[Almeisan]

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

He is gonna get in trouble for flagging videos falsely. A lot of trouble.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Just because something is commentary does not automatically qualify it for the fair use exception. Again, I suggest you read the wikipedia article to which I linked and think about the ramifications.

I read it. Your SOP (sound superior with no substance) reigns supreme yet again and you expect people to read your mind to work out wtf you have a problem with. On balance, the wiki article says your current attitude is laughable.

*Well, that's not entirely true: he finally did accept that I was right in telling him that he needed to look at the residuals, and not at R^2, to judge how well a non-linear model fits,

Curious, coz he was looking at residuals some year ago with the climbing times with Scott. Curious that you now claim credit for it.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Blah Blah Blah. I curve fit some data and will goddamn sue anyone who critiques my curve fit. Or my trademarks. You're ridiculous. As suggested by the fact you can't publish your analysis. Good christ, man, post you're analysis online and be done with it. The commercial value is pretty low.

John Swanson

 

[DirtyWorks]

Blah Blah Blah. I curve fit some data and will goddamn sue anyone who critiques my curve fit. Or my trademarks. You're ridiculous. As suggested by the fact you can't publish your analysis. Good christ, man, post you're analysis online and be done with it. The commercial value is pretty low.

John Swanson

+100 Don't be so certain it won't be published. We've lost quite a bit of scientific rigor over the last decade.

And yes, Acoggan you are well within your rights. The regulations in the U.S. make copyright enforcement a method that limits criticism, discussion, pretty much sharing any ideas. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.


Keep it classy Acoggan.

 

[Ripper]

+100 Don't be so certain it won't be published. We've lost quite a bit of scientific rigor over the last decade.

And yes, Acoggan you are well within your rights. The regulations in the U.S. make copyright enforcement a method that limits criticism, discussion, pretty much sharing any ideas. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.


Keep it classy Acoggan.

Love that reference! Although it would be even funnier if it was "Stay classy Acoggan"

AC is always keepin' it classy

 

[acoggan]

I read it. Your SOP (sound superior with no substance) reigns supreme yet again and you expect people to read your mind to work out wtf you have a problem with. On balance, the wiki article says your current attitude is laughable.

On the contrary, obalance I believe that the wiki article support my stance, i.e., that Michael's use of my copyrighted material does not qualify as fair use (note in particular the sections on substitution, harm, and community norms).

Curious, coz he was looking at residuals some year ago with the climbing times with Scott. Curious that you now claim credit for it.

Different context: when he 1st started attempting to develop a non-linear model to extract power @ VO2max, he was relying on R^2 (which isn't a valid approach).

 

[DirtyWorks]

Love that reference! Although it would be even funnier if it was "Stay classy Acoggan"

AC is always keepin' it classy

Trademark infringement. Sounds too much like "epic." Sinyard at Specialized would sue.