Portal:MT

LOL our first edit war

OK you two, knock it off :-) -Scott

Fair comment Scott

I thought that the information was written by yourself and I altered what I saw as an error that needed correcting. Obviously I was wrong about some of it, for which I apologise, but my reasons are clear.

Firstly I thought that Bill was wrong to claim copyright for the words 'Maschinen Tractate' because they appeared in my book published in 1997, 'Perpetual motion: An Ancient Mystery Solved?' as a direct reference to the work in question. That is why altered those words.

Secondly I have routinely used the abbreviation 'MT' both here and elsewhere as a reference to 'Maschinen Tractate'for most of that time, so he cannot claim copright for that either, since both words have appeared in my published works. That is why I altered those words.

Thirdly I did not know that he was about to go public with his digital images, which he had already declined me permission to use in our own joint version of MT and since my own version was about to tbe published, I assumed that the reference to his version was out of date. That is why I substituted a reference to my own publication.

Fourthly and most curiously, I obtained specific and sole permission from the author of the translation to use his words in my own forthcoming book, 'Maschinen Tracatate', and yet, only today, I see that Bill has published them on the internet, without any acknowledgement of their true ownership. This would seem to be in direct conflict with the laws of copyright. Obviously if Bill has in fact obtained permission from the author then an acknowledgement of who is the copyright holder would be the least he should do. I'm sure that Bill would be very indignant if his digital images were to appear elsewhere woithout his ownership acknowledged.

John Collins

...and Bill's Response:

John, the presentation of Maschinen Tractate here on BW wiki is Scott's work. I have granted Scott permission to use my MT images - that's been my total input here. In response to your points...

Firstly: I can't see where copyright was mentioned or claimed on Scott's BW wiki page for the title "Maschinen Tractate". Certainly I use that title and have done so in reference to my work since it was first made freely available at orffyre.com a few years ago.

Secondly: I can't see where copyright was mentioned or claimed on Scott's BW wiki page for the title "MT". Certainly I use that title in my illustrations and in reference to "Maschinen Tractate" and, as you know, I have done so since my work was made freely available at orffyre.com a few years ago.

Thirdly: I have long since "gone public" with my MT images - they have always been freely available to anyone who wishes to visit orffyre.com. I never declined you permission to use any of my illustrations during the period of our joint venture - that would be silly considering the venture began as a joint effort to publish my illustrations. Our joint venture was terminated by yourself after you requested, and was granted, permission from the library to publish a limited edition publication of their original document - you no longer needed my illustrations. While it was dissappointing, I don't have a problem with it.

Fourthly: I must reiterate - my total input for Scott's BW wiki presentation of MT is in granting Scott permission to use my illustrations - period. Any ownership issues and authorship questions you might have with the presented text translation can, therefore, not be effectively addressed by myself.

As an additional point I would like to respectfully add that I didn't, and I still don't, think it appropriate for you to use Scott's BW wiki presentation of my MT illustrations as a marketing/advertising platform for your own work. That is why I removed your comments from Scott's MT background text. In an effort to avoid potential ownership and copyright issues, and misunderstandings in general, I have modified Scott's original background text. I'm sure it will be modified yet further as additional relevant input is added by other respected members including, hopefully, myself.

The spirit of my own efforts with MT always was, and still is, to make the work freely and immediately available to all fellow researchers in an effort to help solve Bessler's wheel. I think I have sufficiently demonstrated that I consider personal and/or commercial avenues secondary to that aim.

..John's reply

I realise that now that Scott wrote the piece and not you Bill, and I'm sorry for making that mistake. Reference your first two points, I wrote my comment after reading the version of Scott's piece which mentions quite clearly that you coined the words 'Maschinen Tractate' and the abbreviation 'MT', and since I thought that you wrote the piece I was prompted to correct it. I think it was about December the 20th?

Sorry Bill, you say you never refused me permission to use your illustrations in our version of MT, well why do you think I decided to go it alone? I have an email from you dated 13th January 2006 in which you say 'I can't see any good reason to include my version in a publication of Bessler's original work, can you? IMO, we should be looking at a careful reproduction of Bessler's original document along with notes, translations and any commentary deemed necessary.' Now you may say that that was not your intention, but I read it as saying that you did not wish your illustrations to be included in our joint effort to produce MT. This was the reason why I dissolved our partnership in the publication, as I could not see any input from you. Are you now saying that you would be happy to include them? No wonder you were surprised when I told you I would publish it on my own!

Your final point that I used Scott's wiki MT entry as a marketing platform is indeed offensive to me, however I understand why you made it and it is again due to a misunderstanding. In the original text produced by Scott, you will see that it says that it says that your copy will be for sale. I wrote my alteration because, as I said earlier, I thought that you had written the piece some time back and that Scott had published it as it was. I thought that I wasjust correcting an innaccuracy. I was certainly not attempting to market my book here.

Finally I think our aims are at least in parallel Bill, even if we choose to to do it in different ways. To get this technology out and freely available to all is our intention.

I offer my apologies to all concerned for my overhasty actions and must put it down to my somewhat irascible nature!

...Bill's follow-up

John, this is what Scott originally wrote in the background section of his wiki MT presentation, "Bessler created a book of illustrations that describes his search for perpetual motion. He referred to this book as his "great treatise on mechanics," which Bill McMurtry has named "Maschinen Tractate", or "MT" for short."

What you seem to take issue with is the fact that Scott reported that I have named my work "Maschinen Tractate" or "MT" for short. I don't understand why this is such a problem for you - particularly considering that it has been common knowledge for some years now? I find no mention where Scott wrote about me "coining" any terms or names, do you?

John, I never refused use of my work in our joint publication! We agreed that after the Library granted permission to use their original document then my illustrations seemed unnecessary. I then spent considerable time converting the original document illustrations and provided them all to you in corrected B&W print-ready format. I also provided you with a front cover artwork layout, which you seemed happy to accept. You never asked for more or hinted that you were unhappy in any way!

This is getting a little annoying mate. Our original joint venture was based upon me creating and providing my MT illustrations and any additional text and graphics as required - that was my contribution. Your contribution was to provide the notes translation and any additional text as required. As you remember, the owner of the text translation wanted a couple of thousand US dollars for its use in our joint publication and you were at the time unwilling to pay such a high price. I didn't have a problem with that and we agreed that we should wait and/or search for an alternative. I have all our emails on file.

In relation to our joint venture AFTER you received permission to publish the original illustrations, I'll follow your lead and let our email quotes speak for themselves:

January 13 2006

Hi John,

...edit...

Sorry mate, I need to ask and clarify - is this still a joint publication between you and I?

...edit...

Regards, Bill

...and your response:

January 13 2006

Hi Bill,

Yes I assumed that it was still a joint publication. I've been wondering whether it might be useful to include your images anyway. I don't think it would be necessary to have all the images digitised and including yours may help to clarify some of the originals.

...edit...

I assume that we would have our joint names as Editors and split the profits? Or have you got another suggestion? We could have each book numbered, then we'd both know how many had been sold.

Regards, John

...my response was:

January 14 2006

Hi John,

Great to hear you want to continue with the joint publication. Yes we could include some of my reproductions if you think that might prove useful. I have about the first 80 or so completed, bar a couple that I've missed because the originals are so faded they made me go cross-eyed trying to figure them out. There's also a couple that need slight corrections.

In regards to any 'touching up' of the originals, I think the printing method we use will determine the best way to enhance the original images. Certainly I have no problem taking care of that - I'm a graphic designer afterall :) ...edit...

Yes, I agree that the original handwritten notes should be included. I would suggest that we simply reproduce each page of MT in it's original entirety - images, notes, scribbles, marks, numbers, etc. That way the 'purists' can't accuse us of leaving out or changing anything.

I'm happy with joint publication names and a 50/50 split on any profits (I've ordered my Ferrari in red - LOL). If you think some form of book numbering might be useful then that's fine too - buyers might like to have a numbered copy. But I'd like you to know that I have no problem using a simple trust principle between the two of us when it comes to keeping count, sales, etc. - I'm happy with whatever you'd like to do. I think we will have to figure out how and where orders will be filled and payed for, but I guess we can cross that bridge a little further down the track.

...edit...

Here's to an excellent joint publication John!

Regards, Bill

...and at this point I feel too embarrassed and bored to continue with this aweful discussion. I accepted your termination of our joint venture on October 5 2006 for the reasons you outlined in your email - lack of profit and impatients to publish. Never any mention to me that the reason had to do with any withholding of my MT illustrations, which was clearly not the case! I don't know what's going on and, all things considered, I don't understand why you are the one having a problem with me. Do you really want to continue this discussion? I certainly do not.

John's follow up.

OK there were two reasons why I ended the partnership. One because, rightly or wrongly, I believed that you didn't want to include your illustrations in our joint venture and secondly time was passing by and here we are nearly a year later and no further on, so I decided to just publish. I don't have a problem with you Bill, just a misunderstanding. I removed my comments after a day or so, it was you that regurgitated them. So lets leave it at that.

Regards, John

Bill's final (hopefully) response:

John, how could you ever have reason to believe that my MT illustrations were not available to our joint venture? Did we not discuss these matters fully at the time? Am I re-reading the same emails between us??? This line just doesn't make sense to me at all. Nowhere in your emails to me did you ever mention ANYTHING about problems with me withholding my MT illustrations. Therefore, you're clearly wrong on this point.

As for your second reason - that it was taking too long to publish. Was I slowing things down? Sorry, but after the work I provided, that reason just doesn't make any sense to me at all and, quite frankly, I find the suggestion offensive.

Given the facts and the timing, it's obvious that you made a business decision - happens all the time in joint ventures. I know and accept how it is, John. Let's please move on.