Using writing from bloggers without permission in a commercial promotion? Not cool. I have a training certificate from Front Sight that I have no intention of using. A little more than a year ago they were offering them to bloggers in exchange for setting up some links, and I bit without doing any research. Since then I’ve uncovered a lot of very negative information about Front Sight, which is making me ponder returning the certificate, with a letter explaining that I no longer want to participate in this scam.
24 thoughts on “Front Sight Copyright Violations?”
Comments are closed.
Yeah, I got that certificate, too. So share. What have you been hearing?
http://www.dianahsieh.com/scientology/index.html
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=4085044
http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4487781
http://www.lermanet.com/scientologyscandals/fourthsecret.htm
To be fair, I’ve never heard anything bad about the training they offer there, but there’s something shady about the whole thing.
So,the plan is to throw Frontsight under the bus because of allegations of copyright violations(unproven at this point),some legal issues(show me a training facility/gun store that doesn’t have those-especially that close to California) and used car style questionable advertising?
So most training facilities have class action suits from members about questionable property deals? Most have accusations of connections to scientology? The whole air about it just leaves me with an uneasy feeling. I’m not crying out that Front Sight ought to be shut down, just that I have no plans of being a customer at this point.
I think it’s pretty clear that they did violate someone’s copyright by actively using the essay as a promotional tool. In fact, the recruitment language then centered around his writing.
Not to mention, there was that whole training the felon thing which I tend to oppose given laws against mixing felons and guns.
“Most have accusations of connections to scientology?” I am failing to see the connection to anything here-last I checked,there is still freedom of religion in the First Amendment.I wouldn’t buy land from Ignatius because I don’t need any there,nor would I pre-judge him before he received due process of law.I will however take training at the Frontsight facilities. It may not be for you,but that doesn’t mean its not for some people
Yes, but where am I calling for the state to come in and shut down Front Sight? I’m saying I find the accusations of a connection to scientology, a religious cult who’s likes to use lawsuits to silence critics, a little unnerving. If you want to take training there, knock yourself out. But it’s not for me, and I’m going to stand by Marko in regards to unauthorized commercial use of his work.
I don’t believe I made any reference to anything about shutting down Frontsight, I am questioning why Frontsight has been tried and found guilty of copyright violation when none has been proven yet.If Frontsight is proven to violate copy rights,by all means-sue them back to the 1960s.
Furthermore,I don’t know what kind of things were agreed to,implicitly or otherwise when bloggers accepted those free training certificates from Frontsight.Perhaps you could enlighten me on what those are and what they say.
I don’t know much about Scientology.Would a Mormon suing someone be more politically acceptable-or is that just religious bigotry and elitism?
I would assume that if Ignatius were some type of evil non-law abiding training school owner,the Brady people would have put him out of business long ago.
I’m confused as to what the first amendment issue is then? No one is arguing that Front Sight is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Marko has claimed he wrote the article that Front Sight used and misattributed, and I’ll take him at his word on that. Hopefully this kind of thing can get resolved without the need to resort to lawyers.
As for the terms for bloggers, Piazza asked that we put up a page with links and leave it up for three years. I have not taken it down. I will honor my end of the bargain, since he honored his and issued the certificate. But I have no intention of using it, based on further information uncovered after it was revealed to me. The link deal was basically a google bomb. An attempt to drive up the google ranking on positive stories, presumably to bury the negative ones.
I don’t believe in religious bigotry. People should feel free to disagree with religions, because many religions teach a lot of things I believe to be immoral, and I don’t see a reason why anyone shouldn’t speak out against that which they find immoral. But that’s not really material. I find scientology to be more offensive than most, and I would be wary of a person who associated it, but the accusations of Piazza’s association with it wouldn’t bother me if that was the only thing that seemed off about the whole thing.
But whether any of the accusations are factually true or not, I don’t need a court level burden of proof to feel uncomfortable enough to not patronize a business, nor to point out what is the strong possibility of a commercial usurpation of a blogger’s creative work. In that instance, Marko’s word that he is the creator of the work is good enough for me to raise awareness of the issue. Who’s liable legally is a matter for the court system, but I assert the right to speak about what looks like impropriety.
What’s to fucking prove?
Marko Kloos wrote that piece for his blog back in 3/07. I know. I talked to him on the phone that morning.
Iggy used it, misattributed and without the author’s permission, on a piece of sales junk email in 4 of 08. Unless you can think up another definition of copyright violation, I’d say that meets it.
There’s no need to shove anyone under a bus when they dive there under their own accord.
“What’s to fucking prove?”
Indeed. We have search engines now, and proving copyright violations takes no more than a couple of mouse clicks.
“There’s no need to shove anyone under a bus when they dive there under their own accord.”
That is a classic.
Well, I cannot say as though that place gave me a warm and fuzzy at any time, however, I jumped onboard with the whole linky-for-free-certificaty thing a while back, and still have the certificate laying about somewhere.
Will I use it? Probably, if I get the chance to take some time off to do so. Even after this blatantly obvious bout of plagiarism? Probably so. After all, the certificate is free, and me taking the course would come as a cost to them. Will I leave the links I made to/for FrontSight up? Unfortunately, me being a man of my word and agreeing to leave them online for at least a year, yes, I will. If that year comes due, and appropriate restitutions have not been made to Mr. Marko, though, links come down, and something potentially not-so-friendly goes up in their place.
By all means then since you have your proof,slander Ignatius-a man that has actually done more for gun rights,gun training,safety and promotion of freedom than any twenty bloggers combined.
It was three years Linoge. I agree though, a deal’s a a deal, and I’ll keep the link active for that period of time. I can’t really bring myself to use the cert though. The thing about all this is, bloggers are pretty much not the kind of hard core copyright defenders who will demand royalties and be quick to lawyer up. A mistake was made; it happens. But I think Front Sight needs to make amends here.
“By all means then since you have your proof,slander Ignatius-a man that has actually done more for gun rights,gun training,safety and promotion of freedom than any twenty bloggers combined.”
Regardless of what he has done for gun rights doesn’t give him the right to take someone else’s work and misattribute it for commercial purposes. I have no doubt it was a mistake, but at the very least they should be contacting Marko and seeing how they can right this thing. I doubt Marko is an unreasonable guy who is going to demand scads of cash or else.
Your devotion to Dr. Piazza borders on scary, to be honest. A lot of people have done wonders for gun rights far and beyond what he has. You want to tell a blogger like Dave Hardy he hasn’t done as much? Dave Kopel? Clayton Cramer?
If I scare you,then feel free to kick me off your blog,its your blog after all.As far as Dr. Piazza goes,I don’t know the man personally.Nor do I know Marko-but I adore his essay.As far as this copy right thing goes-its between Marko and Dr. Piazza.
If you have no doubt it was a mistake,why keep harping on it? Why keep putting one man down for a mistake?
If someone makes a mistake,its generally considered good manners to forgive an individual unless he continues to repeat the mistake,I’ve seen no evidence of repeated mistakes.Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
I’m not going to kick you off for disagreeing with me. And as far as the mistake goes, until he contacts Marko and makes amends for it, then it’s not a matter that’s ripe for forgiveness. A key aspect of getting forgiveness is penance, which has not happened here. I will stand up for what I think is right, and the right thing to do here is not being done.
OK,I understand now,its a pride and ego pissing match between you and Dr. Piazza.I don’t know why I didn’t see that before.Good luck with that one!
Pride and ego? No, it’s basic ethics, a topic with which you’re apparently unfamiliar.
That doesn’t even make any sense based on the context.
Me? I am just a blond with a blog,what do I know anyhow?
I just got an email from Front Sight where Ignatius Piazza corrects his attribution of the article to Marko. Apparently he actually thought the guy who sent it to him actually wrote it — it appeared that way.
Shame Marko hasn’t actually tried talking directly with Ignatius Piazza about this — it’s amazing what you can resolve with direct communication.
Hell, if I were Marko I’d have jumped on Front Sight for some of those awesome 4-day training certificates out at the Front Sight facility.
But that’s just me, trying to get others to play nice and make the best of an obvious mistake.
Marko says he contacted the guy, he says it here.
Three years? Woof. I need to do a better job of reading the fine print sometimes.
However, if the attribution has been corrected and apologies made, than I have no problems leaving up the links. Errors happen all the time, but one would think that before the head of what is probably a multi-million-dollar company sent out an email to as many people as he could reach, he at least verified where the information came from…